[00:00:07] >> I WOULD LIKE TO CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER THIS IS MONDAY JULY 20TH, 2026. THIS IS THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE COMMISSION MEETING. PLEASE STAND FOR THE OPENING PRAYER BY PASTOR TIM O'CARROLL OF THE DISCOVERY CHURCH AND REMAIN STANDING FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. >> PRAY WITH ME LORD I THANK YOU FOR THIS DAY FOR ALLOWING US TO SEE IT TO THIS POINT LORD, WE NEED YOUR HELP. LORD I THANK YOU THAT IN THE BEGINNING, YOU CREATED BEAUTIFUL CREATION, AND YOU HAVE ALLOWED US TO LIVE IN A BEAUTIFUL PLACE. LORD, WE GIVE YOU PRAISE. WE GIVE YOU GLORY. WE GIVE YOU HONOR. HELP US TO STEWARD IT WELL WE NEED YOUR WISDOM YOUR WORD SAYS, IF ANYONE ASKS TO ASK THAT YOU WILL POUR IT OUT FOR YOU WE'RE ASKING RIGHT NOW THAT YOU WOULD GRANT EACH ONE, EACH ONE WITH WT FOR US AND FOR THIS GENERATION, BUT, LORD, MAYBE WE CONSIDER THE FUTURE GENERATIONS THAT WILL LIVE RIGHT HERE IN THIS BEAUTIFUL CITY. MAY WE CONSIDER FUTURE GENERATIONS IN ALL THE DECISIONS THAT WE MAKE LORD, AGAIN WE ASK FOR YOUR HELP. IF YOU DON'T COME THROUGH, WE ARE IN TROUBLE. LORD, I PRAY THAT IF WE ARE NOT DEPENDING ON YOU, THAT EVEN NOW, WE WOULD DEPEND ON YOU FOR LORD, WE PRAY FOR YOUR PROTECTION OVER OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT AND ALL OF OUR FIRST RESPONDERS AND ALL MEDICAL PERSONNEL, LORD, WOULD YOU PROTECT EACH ONE, LORD, AS THEY SERVE US WELL. THANK YOU FOR EACH ONE. THANK YOU FOR THE ONES THAT YOU ARE BRINGING DEAR LORD, WE PRAY BLESSINGS OVER EACH ONE AND THEIR FAMILIES. LORD, THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR ALL THE BUSINESS THAT WILL BE DISCUSSED TONIGHT. AND AGAIN, LORD, WOULD YOU GUIDE US? WOULD YOU LEAD US? WOULD YOU GIVE US THE INSIGHT THE DISCERNMENT THAT WE NEED? WE PRAY FOR UNITY. LORD, UNITY AMONG THOSE THAT ARE MAKING DECISIONS AND UNITE US AS A CITY, LORD. UNITE US SPIRIT LORD, THANK YOU THAT YOU LOVE US AND THAT YOU LOVED US AND THAT YOU HAVE PURSUED US WITH YOUR LOVE. EVEN THOUGH WE WERE SINNERS, YOU SENT TO SAVE US. AND WE ACKNOWLEDGE. LORD, I ACKNOWLEDGE TONIGHT THE ONLY HOPE IS JESUS. FATHER, DO A GREATER WORK IN OUR CITY FOR THE GOOD OF OUR CITY AND FOR THE WELL-BEING OF OUR CITY AND FOR YOUR GLORY WE ASK ALL THIS IN THE NAME OF JESUS FOR YOUR GLORY. AMEN. >> I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO 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 OF THE ROLL, PLEASE. SPEAK MAYOR HUDSON. >> PRESENT. MICHAEL BRODERICK, COMMISSIONER CHRIS DZADOVSKY. COMMISSIONER ARNOLD GAINES. COMMISSIONER CURTIS JOHNSON. >> SO MR. JOHNSON LET US KNOW THAT HE WAS NOT GOING TO BE HERE PER COMMISSIONER JOHNSTON IS THERE A MOTION TO EXCUSE HIS ABSENCE? A MOTION A SECOND CALL OF ROLL PLEASE. >> COMMISSIONER MICHAEL BRODERICK, COMMISSIONER [5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES] CHRIS DZADOVSKY COMMISSIONER ARNOLD GAINES, MAYOR HUDSON. >> YES, MA'AM. >> FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS APPROVAL OF THE MINUTE FROM THE JULY 62026 REGULAR MEETING. >> MOVE FOR APPROVAL. >> THERE'S A MOTION IN A SECOND. CALL THE ROLL PLEASE. >> COMMISSIONER GAINES [A. Email from Debi Jensen commending Alica Rosenthal, Planning and Development Organizer, for her helpful, patient and above and beyond assistance in navigating the City's website for her planning project.  She also appreciated Alicia's suggestion that the City do a class for her Realtors Association to help others in her field learn about the new system.] MAYOR HUDSON. >> WE HAVE NO PROCLAMATIONS THIS EVENING BUT WE DID RECEIVE AN EMAIL FROM DEBBIE JENSEN COMMENDING ALICIA ROSENTHAL FOR THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZER FOR HER HELPFUL PATIENT AND ABOVE AND BEYOND ASSISTANCE IN NAVIGATING THE CITY'S WEBSITE FOR HER PLANNING PROJECT. SHE ALSO APPRECIATED ALICIA'S SUGGESTION THAT THE CITY DO A CLASS FOR HER REALTORS [8. ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS TO AGENDA AND APPROVAL OF AGENDA] ASSOCIATION TO HELP OTHERS IN HER FIELD LEARN ABOUT THE NEW SYSTEM. NEXT WE HAVE ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA AND APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AND MAYOR, WE HAVE A REQUEST OF MR. TONY OKARA TO WITHDRAW ITEMS 12E, F, J, AND H. THE ANNEXATIONS. DOES UNDERSTAND THAT THE WITHDRAWAL OF THESE APPLICATIONS MEANS, WOULD HAVE TO REFILE IF HE WOULD LIKE TO BRING THEM FORWARD AGAIN. >> IS THERE AN ADDITIONAL ITEM? >> YES, I DO HAVE THE ADDITION OF ITEM 11G TO THE CONSENT AGENDA WHICH IS APPROVAL OF TRAVEL TO THE FLORIDA LEAGUE OF CITIES FOR COMMISSIONER CHRIS DZADOVSKY IN THE AMOUNT OF $1506.74 PER. >> OKAY. IF THERE ARE NO OTHER CHANGES. >> I HAVE ONE COMMENT. I JUST WANTED TO INTRODUCE OUR NEW EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR. [00:05:03] MR. CHRISTOPHER. HE'S IN THE CHAMBERS HERE. >> WONDERFUL. WELCOME. >> WELCOME ABOARD. HE DEFENDED OUR DEPARTMENT HEAD MEETING. HE WILL BE PARTICIPATING AND I'M QUITE SURE YOU WILL SEE HIM OFTEN FOR QUARTERLY UPDATES. >> THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. >> THANK YOU. >> ARE THERE ANY OTHER CHANGES TO THE AGENDA? IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE IT WITH THE CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN MENTIONED KRISTIE MARK. >> I MOVE APPROVE OF CHANGES. >> THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND. [11. CONSENT AGENDA] >> COMMISSIONER BRODERICK, COMMISSIONER DZADOVSKY, COMMISSIONER GAINES. MAYOR HUDSON WE HAD NO ONE TO SIGNED UP TO SPEAK FOR. >> IS THERE ANY ITEM THAT ANY COMMISSIONER WOULD LIKE TO PULL FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA? AND IF NOT I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR THE ITEMS. >> MADAM MAYOR, I WILL SPEAK ON IT. >> ANYTHING ELSE? COMMISSIONER, WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE AGENDA? >> MOTION TO APPROVE THE AGENDA MINUS C. >> IS THERE A SECOND? CALL THE ROLL PLEASE. [C. Approval for Commissioner Arnold Gaines to attend the 2026 Florida League of Cities Annual Conference in Hollywood, Florida from August 13 to August 16, 2026, at a cost of $1,695.10.] >> COMMISSIONER BRODERICK, COMMISSIONER DZADOVSKY, COMMISSIONER GAINES, MAYOR HUDSON. ITEM 11C APPROVAL FOR COMMISSIONER ARNOLD GAINES TO ATTEND THE 2026 FLORIDA LEAGUE OF CITIES ANNUAL CONFERENCE IN HOLLYWOOD, FLORIDA, FROM AUGUST 13-16 AT A COST OF $1695.10. >> COMMISSIONER GAINES. >> I APPROVE THIS AGAIN LIKE ALWAYS. PEOPLE SEE THE CONSENT AGENDA AND SEE THESE TRIPS THEY THINK THAT, I GUESS, THEY COULD THINK THAT WE ARE GOING TO PARTY AND DO EVERYTHING. IT IS NOT THAT TYPE OF TRIP. WHAT IT IS, IS WE GO IN AND PUT OUR BOOTS ON, AND WE WORK. WE HEAR FROM OTHER PEOPLE IN OTHER CITIES AND OTHER COMMISSIONER CITIES AND GET IDEAS. AND WE TRY TO AS THE FLORIDA LEAGUE OF CITIES TRIES TO COME TOGETHER AS A VOICE FOR CITIES AND FOR THE RESIDENTS. I JUST WANT EVERYBODY TO UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S NOT JUST LANDING AT THE BEACH AND LANDING AT THE POOL WE ARE IN CONFERENCES AND WE ARE FIGHTING FOR THE RESIDENTS OF FORT PIERCE WHEN WE ARE UP HERE. I DON'T KNOW IF COMMISSIONER DZADOVSKY IS ON A COMMITTEE YET BUT I KNOW ALL OF US ARE ON COMMITTEES AND WE ARE VERY ACTIVE IN THOSE COMMITTEES. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT WE ARE NOT HERE, BUT WE ARE WORKING FOR THE RESIDENTS OF FORT PIERCE. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> MADAM MAYOR I MOVE TO ACCEPT 11C. >> IS THERE A SECOND? CALL THE ROLL PLEASE. [A. Public Hearing and Resolution 26-R43 accepting Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Annual Action Plan 2026 – 2027.] >> COMMISSIONER BRODERICK, COMMISSIONER DZADOVSKY, COMMISSIONER GAINES. MAYOR HUDSON. WE MOVE ON TO OUR PUBLIC HEARINGS. AND WE HAVE RESOLUTION 26-R43 PICK RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE FLORIDA RECEIVING AND ADOPTING THE PROGRAM YEAR 2026 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN FOR THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION OF THE PLAN TO THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORIZING IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ACTIVITIES DESCRIBED THEREIN AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YOU HAVE THE LEAD IN. >> THE MANAGER IS GOING TO GIVE A BRIEF UPDATE ON THE ACTION PLAN. >> OKAY. >> SHE IS SMILING. GOOD NEWS. I HOPE IT IS GOING TO BE BRIEF. >> I THINK THAT WAS A HINT. [LAUGHTER] >> GOOD EVENING. MAYOR COMMISSIONER FOR THE RECORD MY NAME IS CLERK, THE BRANCH MANAGER PICKED THIS EVENING, I WILL BE PRESENTING FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION, THREE REQUIRED PLANNING ORDER FOR THE 2026 AND 2030 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND THE CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN. >> CAN YOU MOVE YOUR MICROPHONE CLOSER, PLEASE? WE CAN'T HEAR YOU. >> AND THE PROGRAM YEAR 2026 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN FOR TOGETHER, THESE DOCUMENTS ESTABLISH THE CITY'S 5-YEAR STRATEGY FOR ADDRESSING HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NEEDS, IDENTIFY THE APPROPRIATE USE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT GRANT FUNDING FOR PROGRAM YEAR 2026 AND OUTLINING THE PROCESS BY WHICH RESIDENTS AND STAKEHOLDERS PARTICIPATE IN THE CITY'S PLANNING AND DECISION MAKING PROCESS. >> MISS CLARK, CAN I INTERRUPT YOU A QUESTION ARE YOU PRESENTING A B.C. IN ONE [00:10:02] PRESENTATION? THANK YOU. >> THREE SEPARATE PUBLIC HEARINGS. >> I WILL DO THAT I WANT TO MAKE SURE SHE'S GOING TO MAKE ONE PRESENTATION FOR. >> THIS EVENING I WOULD LIKE TO PROVIDE A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF EACH DOCUMENT AND DISCUSS HOW THEY WERE DEVELOPED, SUMMARIZED, THE PRIORITIES, IDENTIFIED THROUGH RESEARCH AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND CONCLUDE THAT THE RECOMMENDED ACTION FOR CONSIDERATION. THE PURPOSE OF TONIGHT'S PRESENTATION IS TO REQUEST THE COMMISSION'S REVIEW AND ADOPTION OF THREE INTERCONNECTED PLANNING DOCUMENTS REQUIRED BY THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT. THE FIRST IS THE 2026-2030 CONSOLIDATED PLAN -- WHICH ESTABLISHES THE CITY'S 5-YEAR STRATEGIC VISION FOR ADDRESSING HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NEEDS. THE SECOND IS THE PROGRAM YEAR 2026 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN WHICH SERVES AS THE FIRST YEAR OF IMPLEMENTATION BY IDENTIFYING THE PROPOSED USE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANTS FUNDING DURING THE UPCOMING PROGRAM YEAR. THE THIRD IS THE CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN -- WHICH ACCOMPANIES THE 2026-2030 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND ESTABLISHES THE CITY'S PROCESS FOR ENSURING TRANSPARENCY, ACCESSIBILITY, AND MEANINGFUL PUBLIC PARTICIPATION THROUGH THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THESE PROGRAMS. TOGETHER THESE DOCUMENTS POSITION THE CITY TO MAINTAIN ELIGIBILITY FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDING WHILE PROVIDING A STRATEGIC DATA DRIVEN FRAMEWORK FOR INVESTING FEDERAL RESOURCES IN WAYS THAT IMPROVE NEIGHBORHOODS, SUPPORT RESIDENTS, AND ADDRESS THE COMMUNITY'S HIGHEST PRIORITY SPIRIG THE NEXT FEW SLIDES WILL PROVIDE AN OVERVIEW OF HOW THESE PLANS WERE DEVELOPED. ENGAGEMENT THAT INFORMED THEM, THE PRIORITIES IDENTIFIED THROUGH THAT PROCESS, AND HOW THOSE PRIORITIES WILL GUIDE THE CITY'S INVESTMENTS OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS. THE CONSOLIDATED PLAN IS A H.U.D. REQUIRED 5-YEAR STRATEGIC DOCUMENT THAT SERVES AS THE CITY'S ROAD MAP FOR INVESTING CDBG FUNDS. PAUL IT IS REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN OUR ELIGIBILITY FOR FEDERAL FUNDING, IT IS MUCH MORE THAN A COMPLIANCE DOCUMENT. IT PROVIDES THE FRAMEWORK FOR IDENTIFYING OUR COMMUNITY'S GREATEST HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NEEDS AND ESTABLISHES THE PRIORITIES THAT WILL GUIDE FUTURE INVESTMENTS DECISIONS. DEVELOPMENT OF THE PLAN INVOLVES A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF HOUSING, DEMOGRAPHIC, ECONOMIC, AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TRENDS AFFECTING FORT PIERCE. RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS WERE CONDUCTED USING MULTIPLE FEDERAL STATE, REGIONAL, AND LOCAL SOURCES TO GATHER THE DATA. INCLUDING THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT'S INTEGRATED DISBURSEMENT AND INFORMATION SYSTEM, I'D I S FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING AFFORDABILITY STRATEGY. AND THE U.S. CENSUS BUREAU. THE COMMUNITY SURVEY POINT, THE AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY POINT IN TIME HOMELESS COUNT DATA. HOUSING INVENTORY ACCOUNT DATA. AND THE HOMELESS SERVICES COUNCIL. AND OTER LOCAL PLANNING RESOURCES. IN ADDITION TO ANALYZING CURRENT CONDITIONS, WE REVIEWED HISTORICAL TRENDS AND BENCHMARKED OUR PLANNING APPROACH AGAINST SIMILARLY SITUATED H.U.D. ENTITLEMENT COMMUNITIES OF COMPARABLE SIZE AND CHARACTERISTICS. THIS RESEARCH HELPED IDENTIFY PROVEN STRATEGIES AND BEST PRACTICES THAT MAXIMIZE THE IMPACT OF LIMITED FEDERAL RESOURCES WHILE ENSURING THE CITY'S PRIORITIES REMAIN RESPONSIVE TO LOCAL NEEDS. THE RESULT IS A DATA DRIVEN COMMUNITY INFORMED STRATEGIC PLAN THAT POSITIONS FORT PIERCE TO MAKE THOUGHTFUL, AND EFFECTIVE INVESTMENTS OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS WHILE MAINTAINING REQUIREMENTS WITH HUD REQUIREMENTS AND REMAINING RESPONSIVE TO EVOLVING NEEDS OF THE RESIDETS. WHAT IS THE CONSOLIDATED PLAN? [00:15:10] IT IS A COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT IS ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT COMPONENTS OF THE CONSOLIDATED PLANNING PROCESS. WHILE DATA AND RESEARCH HELP IDENTIFY TRENDS, IT IS THE INPUT FROM OUR RESIDENTS, COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS, STAKEHOLDERS, AND PARTNER AGENCIES THAT ENSURES THOSE FINDINGS REFLECT THE REAL NEEDS OF PRIORITIES OF OUR COMMUNITY. TO ENCOURAGE BROAD PARTICIPATION, THE CITY UTILIZED MULTIPLE OUTREACH METHODS THROUGHOUT THE PLANNING PROCESS WE CONDUCTED A COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT SURVEY FROM MARCH NINTH THROUGH MAY 30TH, 2026. HELD THREE IN-PERSON COMMUNITY OUTREACH MEETINGS. CONSULTED WITH LOCAL AGENCIES AND COMMUNITY PARTNERS AND PROVIDED OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT PRIOR TO ADOPTION. THIS PLANNING CYCLE ALSO PROVIDED THE OPPORTUNITY TO COMPREHENSIVELY UPDATE THE CITY'S CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN. WHILE THE CORE PURPOSE OF THE PLAN REMAINS THE SAME -- AND THAT'S TO ENCOURAGE TRANSPARENCY AND MEANINGFUL PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT. WE RECOGNIZE THAT THE WAY RESIDENTS RECEIVE INFORMATION HAS CHANGED SIGNIFICANTLY OVER THE YEARS. AS PART OF THE UPDATE, THE CITY MODERNIZED ITS PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT STRATEGY BY EXPANDING DIGITAL OUTREACH EFFORTS INCLUDING GREATER USE OF THE CITY'S WEBSITE AND SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS TO COMMUNICATE IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENTS, PUBLIC MEETINGS, COMMENT PERIODS, AND PLANNING ACTIVITIES. WHILE WE CONTINUE TO COMPLY TO ALL APPLICABLE HUD PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS, THESE UPDATES ALLOW US TO BETTER MEET RESIDENTS WHERE THEY ARE AND IMPROVE AWARENESS AND PARTICIPATION IN THE PLANNING PROCESS. OUR GOAL IS TO MAKE PARTICIPATION MORE ACCESSIBLE, INCREASED TRANSPARENCY, ENSURE THAT COMMUNITY INPUT CONTINUES TO PLAY A MEANINGFUL ROLE IN SHAPING HOW FEDERAL RESOURCES ARE INVESTED THROUGHOUT FORT PIERCE. WE TOOK OUR HIGHEST AMOUNT OF DATA FROM OUR SURVEYMONKEY WHERE WE RECEIVED 165 RESPONSES FROM RESIDENTS, BUSINESSES, AND NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS GIVING US DIRECT FEEDBACK FOR THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE, WORK, AND SERVE OUR COMMUNITY. THE FIVE STRATEGIC GOALS REPRESENT THE CITY'S LONG TERM APPROACH TO ADDRESSING THE NEEDS IDENTIFIED THROUGH OUR RESEARCH, DATA ANALYSIS AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT EFFORTS. THESE GOALS ESTABLISH THE FRAMEWORK THAT WOULD GUIDE CDBG INVESTMENTS OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS AND ENSURE THAT FEDERAL RESOURCES ARE DIRECTED TOWARD PROJECTS THAT PROVIDE THE GREATEST BENEFIT TO OUR COMMUNITY. THE FIRST STRATEGIC GOAL FOCUSES ON IMPROVING PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE AND PUBLIC FACILITIES. INVESTMENT IN STREETS, SIDEWALKS, DRAINAGE, PARKS, ACCESSIBILITY IMPROVEMENTS, AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES HELP CREATE SAFER NEIGHBORHOODS, IMPROVE QUALITY OF LIFE, AND SUPPORT LONG TERM COMMUNITY RESILIENCE. THE SECOND GOAL IS TO PRESERVE AND EXPAND AFFORDABLE HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES. THIS INCLUDES HOUSING REHABILITATION, PRESERVATION OF EXISTING AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AND INITIATIVES THAT IMPROVE ACCESS TO SAFE, DECENT AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR LOW AND MODERATE INCOME RESIDENTS. THE THIRD GOAL FOCUSING ON ENHANCING PUBLIC SERVICES THAT SUPPORT OUR RESIDENTS. THESE INVESTMENTS MAY INCLUDE PROGRAMS BENEFITING SENIORS, YOUTH, VETERANS, PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES, INDIVIDUALS EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS, AND OTHER VULNERABLE POPULATIONS WHOSE NEEDS WERE CONSISTENTLY IDENTIFIED THROUGHOUT THE [00:20:04] PLANNING PROCESS. THE FOURTH GOAL PROMOTES ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BY SUPPORTING WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND SMALL BUSINESS ASSISTANCE, STRENGTHENING LOCAL ECONOMY CREATES OPPORTUNITIES FOR RESIDENTS TO ENCOURAGES INVESTMENTS AND CONTRIBUTES TO THE OVERALL VITALITY OF THE COMMUNITY. THESE STRATEGIC GOALS ARE INTENTIONALLY BROAD AND PROVIDE THE POLICY FRAMEWORK FOR THE CONSOLIDATED PLAN. EACH YEAR, THE CITY WILL DEVELOP AN ANNUAL ACTION PLAN THAT IDENTIFIES THE SPECIFIC PROJECTS ACTIVITIES, AND FUNDING ALLOCATIONS THAT ADVANCE THESE GOALS BASED ON AVAILABLE CDBG RESOURCES. THE COMMUNITY NEEDS AND COMMISSION PRIORITIES. TOGETHER THESE GOALS ENSURE THE CITY'S INVESTMENTS REMAIN DATA DRIVEN, COMMUNITY INFORMED, AND ALIGNED WITH HUD'S NATIONAL OBJECTIVES WHILE PROVIDING THE FLEXIBILITY NEEDED TO RESPOND TO CHANGING LOCAL CONDITIONS OVER A 5-YEAR PERIOD. THE PROGRAM YEAR 2026 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN REPRESENTS THE FIRST YEAR OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CONSOLIDATED PLAN. AND IDENTIFIES THE CITY OF'S ESTIMATED 2026 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK ALLOCATION OF $575,020. FOR PROGRAM YEAR 2026, THE CITY IS PROPOSING TO ALLOCATE APPROXIMATELY $460,020 TOWARDS ELIGIBLE PUBLIC FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS. THESE IMPROVEMENTS WILL FOCUS ON IMPROVING PUBLIC FACILITIES, PARKS, PLAYGROUNDS, AND OTHER COMMUNITY AMENITIES THAT PRIMARILY BENEFIT LOW AND MODERATE INCOME RESIDENTS. THESE IMPROVEMENTS SUPPORT THE STRATEGIC PRIORITIES IDENTIFIED THROUGH THE CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND ARE IDENTIFIED AND ARE INTENDED TO ENHANCE QUALITY OF LIFE, IMPROVE ACCESSIBILITY, AND STRENGTHEN NEIGHBORHOOD INFRASTRUCTURE. THE REMAINING $115,000 WHICH REPRESENTS A MAXIMUM 20% PERMITTED UNDER HUD REGULATIONS IS PROPOSED FOR PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION. THESE FUNDS SUPPORT THE MANAGEMENT COORDINATION, ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWS, FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT, COMPLIANCE MONITORING, REPORTING, AND DAY-TO-DAY ADMINISTRATION NECESSARY TO SUCCESSFULLY IMPLEMENT THE CITY'S CDBG PROGRAM AND ENSURE CONTINUED COMPLIANCE WITH ALL FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS. ALTHOUGH THIS ANNUAL ACTION PLAN FOCUSES ON THESE PROPOSED INVESTMENTS FOR PROGRAM YEAR 2026, IT REPRESENTS ONLY THE FIRST YEAR OF THE CITY'S 5-YEAR STRATEGIC STRATEGY EACH YEAR THE CITY WILL EVALUATE COMMUNITY NEEDS, AVAILABLE FUNDING, AND PROJECT READINESS TO DEVELOP FUTURE ANNUAL ACTION PLANS THAT CONTINUE ADVANCING THE GOALS IN THE CONSOLIDATED PLAN. FOLLOWING COMMISSION APPROVAL, THE ANNUAL ACTION PLAN WILL BE SUBMITTED TO HUD AS THE CITY'S OFFICIAL SPENDING PLAN FOR YEAR 2026. THE CITIZEN PETITION PLAN IS A REQUIRED COMPANION DOCUMENT TO THE CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND THE ANNUAL ACTION PLAN. HUD REQUIRES LOCAL ENTITLEMENT COMMUNITIES TO ADOPT A CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN THAT ESTABLISHES THE PROCESS BY WHICH RESIDENTS, STAKEHOLDERS AND COMMUNITY PARTNERS ARE INFORMED AND ENCOURAGED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM. THE PURPOSE OF THE CITIZEN PETITION PLAN IS TO PROMOTE TRANSPARENCY, ACCESSIBILITY, AND MEANINGFUL PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT THROUGHOUT THE CITY'S COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT PROCESS. IT ENSURES THAT RESIDENTS HAVE OPPORTUNITIES TO PROVIDE INPUT NOT ONLY DURING DEVELOPMENT OF THE 5-YEAR CONSOLIDATED PLAN BUT ALSO DURING THE FUTURE ANNUAL ACTION PLAN SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENTS AND CONSOLIDATED ANNUAL PERFORMANCE AND EVALUATION REPORTS. AS PART OF THE 5-YEAR PLANNING CYCLE, THE CITY COMPLETED A COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE OF THE CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN TO BETTER REFLECT HOW RESIDENTS ACCESS INFORMATION TODAY. THE REVISED PLAN INCORPORATES HUD PERMITTED DIGITAL [00:25:04] COMMUNICATION METHODS BY EXPANDING THE USE OF THE CITY'S SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS TO ANNOUNCE MEETINGS, PUBLIC COMMENTS, AND OTHER IMPORTANT PLANNING ACTIVITIES. THESE ENHANCEMENTS COMPLEMENT TRADITIONAL PUBLIC NOTICE METHODS AND BROADEN THE CITY'S ABILITY TO REACH AND ENGAGE RESIDENTS POWE WHILE REMAINING Y COMPLIANT WITH HUD'S REQUIREMENTS. THE UPDATED PLAN ALSO MAINTAINS A 30-DAY PUBLIC COMMITMENT PERIOD FOR KEY PLANNING DOCUMENTS. CONTINUES TO PROVIDE OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS SUCH AS THIS BEFORE THE CITY COMMISSION ENSURES REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES AND PERSONS WITH LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY. AND EXPANDS ACCESS TO PLANNING DOCUMENTS THROUGH PHYSICAL AND DIGITAL LOCATIONS. ULTIMATELY, THE PLANNING DOCUMENTS ARE ABOUT IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR THE RESIDENTS OF FORT PIERCE. THE CONSOLIDATED PLAN ESTABLISHES A LONG TERM STRATEGY FOR INVESTING FEDERAL RESOURCES WHERE THEY ARE NEEDED MOST. WHILE THE ANNUAL ACTION PLAN IDENTIFIES HOW THOSE INVESTMENTS WILL BEGIN DURING THE UPCOMING PROGRAM YEAR. TOGETHER THESE DOCUMENTS PROVIDE A THOUGHTFUL DATA DRIVEN FRAMEWORK FOR ADDRESSING COMMUNITY NEEDS AND ENSURING FEDERAL FUNDING IS INVESTED RESPONSIBLY AND EFFECTIVELY. IMPLEMENTATION OF THESE PLANS WILL SUPPORT IMPROVEMENTS TO PUBLIC FACILITIES EXPAND OPPORTUNITIES FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING, STRENGTHEN PUBLIC SERVICES, PROMOTE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, AND ENHANCE NEIGHBORHOOD QUALITY OF LIFE. JUST AS IMPORTANTLY, THEY PROVIDE THE FLEXIBILITY TO RESPOND TO CHANGING COMMUNITY NEEDS WHILE MAINTAINING A CONSISTENT AND LONG TERM VISION FOR THE CITY. WITH THAT, I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THANK YOU FOR LISTENING AND PROVIDING ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE WITH YOU OUR PLANS. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? >> I DO HAVE A QUESTION. WE ARE PAST THE MIDDLE OF 2026. BUT THIS GOES 2026-2030. SO WHY DIDN'T WE DO THIS LAST YEAR? >> THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HUD PROVIDES US THE DATES IN WHICH WE ROLL OUT THESE PROGRAMS. SO OUR FISCAL YEAR STARTS ON OCTOBER 1ST AND RUNS UNTIL SEPTEMBER 30TH NEXT YEAR. SO THESE PLANS START AT THIS TIME OF THE YEAR. THEY ARE LOOKING FORWARD. SO IT WILL TECHNICALLY RUN THROUGH -- >> YOU COULDN'T HAVE STARTED OCTOBER 1 TRUSTEE MARK. >> NO, NOT LAST YEAR. IT HAD TO START THIS YEAR. >> OCTOBER 1 OF 2025? >> WE COULD NOT HAVE STARTED THEN. >> OKAY. >> ACCORDING -- >> IT IS THE WAY HUD WORKS IS WHAT YOU ARE TELLING ME. OKAY, I WON'T QUESTION THAT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? >> JUST FOR CLARIFICATION MAYBE I DIDN'T SEE IT OR I DON'T KNOW IF IT IS THERE. WHEN YOU GO BACK FOR OUR PLANS, AND THIS IS PARKS AND PUBLIC AREAS AND SOMETHING ELSE IT SAID ON YOUR SCREEN. DO WE HAVE A LIST? WHEN WILL WE KNOW WHERE THAT MONEY IS BEING SPENT IN WHICH PARKS? DO WE HAVE AN IDEA OR DID I MISS IT? I'M SORRY. >> NO, SIR. WE DO HAVE A LIST OF PARKS WE DISCUSSED FOR THE UPCOMING YEAR. AS I SAID, THE ANNUAL ACTION PLAN IS A FLEXIBLE DOCUMENT FOR THE PLANS THAT WE HAVE FOR THIS YEAR WHERE DREAMLAND PARK, THE ARTHUR LEE BOATWRIGHT PARK, AND THE. >> CALLER: PARK ARE SOME UPCOMING ACTIVITIES THAT WE PLAN TO UNDERTAKE DURING THE 2026 FISCAL YEAR. STARTING OCTOBER 1ST. >> LET ME THINK REAL QUICK MADAM MAYOR, WHERE ARE THOSE PARKS? ARE THOSE PLAQUES AT DREAMLAND? >> THOSE PLAQUES ARE AT PIONEER PARK. HAVE YOU GOT THAT ON YOUR LIST IN THE FIVE YEARS? >> PLEASE PUT THAT ON YOUR LIST SO WE CAN PUT THESE PLAQUES UP. >> WE DON'T HAVE TO DO ALL OF THEM. WE CAN DO THEM A LITTLE BIT AT A TIME, BUT WE NEED TO START. >> TWO WILL BE FINE. >> THE CDBG GRANT IS TO TACKLE LARGE SCALE PROJECTS THAT BENEFIT THE COMMUNITY. >> THANK YOU. [00:30:04] >> ARE WAITING FOR SOME REVISED PRICING ON THOSE. >> I AM GLAD MADAM MAYOR ASKED THE QUESTION. WAIT A MINUTE. WE ARE IN THE MIDDLE. BUT NOW I GET IT. LIKE HER, I'M NOT GOING TO QUESTION HUD. I DON'T NEED THOSE HEADACHES AND EMAILS RIGHT NOW. SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT ONCE WE START SPENDING THIS MONEY, ESPECIALLY FACING WHAT WE ARE FACING OR COULD BE FACING COMING THAT WE MAKE A BIG DEAL OF WHERE THIS MONEY IS GOING SO WE CAN SHOW IT. SO WHEN ALL OF US GET EMAILS, I CAN TAKE PICTURES AND SHOW THEM, THIS IS WHAT WE ARE DOING AND WE ARE ENHANCING THIS AREA. >> THAT IS THE GOAL. >> OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF? >> MADAM, I DO HAVE A COMMENT RELATED TO THE RESOLUTION THAT WAS UPLOADED. IT APPEARS THAT WE MAY HAVE TO MAKE A CORRECTION TO THE RESOLUTION. WE ARE LOOKING AT IT PER THE QUESTION I HAVE, WHEN IS THIS DOCUMENT DUE TO HUD? >> IT IS ACTUALLY DUE ON AUGUST 14TH. WE ARE TRYING TO BE AHEAD OF THE CURVE AND MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE SUBMITTING IT AS EARLY AS POSSIBLE. >> I WANTED TO SPEAK WITH THE CITY CLERK AND SEE IF WE COULD MAKE A CORRECTION TO THE RESOLUTION AND BRING IT BACK FOR APPROVAL WE LIKE TO DO THAT. WHAT IS UPLOADED IS NOT COMPLETE TO WHAT WE NEED. >> IT IS NOT COMPLETE. >> I THINK WE CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH THE PUBLIC HEARINGS THE PUBLIC HEARINGS WERE ADVERTISED I THINK IT'S BEST IF WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ALL THREE ITEMS. WE WILL COME BACK AT OUR NEXT MEETING WITH THE PROPER RESOLUTIONS AND DO THE FORMAL ADOPTION. >> WE CAN'T VOTE TONIGHT. >> NO FORMAL RECEIPT AND ACCEPTANCE OF EACH OF THE PLANS AT THE NEXT MEETING. >> OKAY. ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BEFORE I OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING? THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING FOR ANYONE WISHING TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE, PLEASE COME FORWARD HERE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT 12A. >> WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE ANNUAL ACTION PLAN. >> ANNUAL ACTION PLAN. [B. Public Hearing and Resolution 26-R44 accepting the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Citizen Participation Plan 2026 – 2030.] SEEING NO MOVEMENT, I COME BACK TO THE COMMISSION. WE ARE NOT GOING TO VOTE TONIGHT. WE ARE NOW ON 12B. AND THIS IS ON THE CITIZEN [C. Public Hearing and Resolution 26-R45 accepting Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Consolidated Plan 2026 – 2030.] PARTICIPATION PLAN. ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WANT TO ADDRESS THAT PLEASE COME FORWARD. SEEING NO MOVEMENT, WE WILL COME BACK TO THE COMMISSION. NOW CONSIDER 12 C. -- WHICH IS THE CONSOLIDATED PLAN 2026-2030. AND ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THIS PLEASE COME FORWARD. OKAY. CLOSE OF PUBLIC HEARING. WE ARE NOT VOTING TONIGHT. WE ARE VOTING AT THE NEXT COMMISSION MEETING IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES, MA'AM. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> THANK YOU. [D. Legislative Hearing – Ordinance 26-004 Repealing and Replacing Chapter 2, Article VI (Purchasing) of the Code of Ordinances and Creating a New Procurement Code.  SECOND READING] >> LET'S SEE. WE WILL MOVE ON TO THE SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE 26-004. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF COMMISSION OF FORT PIERCE FLORIDA REPEALING AND REPLACING CHAPTER TWO TRENT ADMINISTRATION, ARTICLE VI PURCHASING OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE WITH A NEWLY CREATED CHAPTER TWO ADMINISTRATION ARTICLE 6. THE CODE REGARDING THE CITY PROCUREMENT MAKING RELATED FINDINGS REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES OR PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH PROVIDING FOR A SEPARATE ABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THIS IS THE SECOND READING. >> THIS IS THE SECOND READING. ARE YOU HERE TO MAKE A PRESENTATION OR ANSWER QUESTIONS? >> A BRIEF UPDATE. GOOD EVENING. DEPUTY CITY MANAGER CAMILLE WALLACE. MADAM MAYOR, COMMISSIONERS. JUST WITH THIS SLIDE, I PLAN TO MAKE A BRIEF UPDATE BASED ON YOUR FEEDBACK DURING THE FIRST READING. SO THESE ARE THE REVISIONS THAT WE MADE. WE REVISED SECTION 2-459 PROTEST TO ALLOW THE PROTESTER UP TO SEVEN DAYS TO FILE A PROTEST -- WHICH THEY CAN DO EITHER MANUALLY OR ELECTRONICALLY. >> CALENDAR DAYS. THAT IS WHAT YOU HAVE ON THE SLIDE. SEVEN CALENDAR DAYS GOT CORRECT? >> I WILL GET TO THAT. >> THANK YOU. >> BY AUTHORIZING ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION, WE DID DELETE THE LANGUAGE FILING A PROTEST BY TEXT OR EMAIL AND ADDED A REQUIREMENT THAT THE PROTEST BE SIGNED BY THE PROTESTER IN ADDITION TO THEIR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE. SECTION 2-438 SUBSECTION E APPLICATION, COUNTING TIME IS A NEW PROVISION THAT IS ADDED TO EXPLAIN THAT REFERENCES TO DAYS FOR COMPLETING PROCUREMENT ACTIVITY MEANS CALENDAR DAYS AND HOW TO CALCULATE THOSE CALENDAR DAYS. FINALLY IN RESPONSE TO THE PRESENTATION DURING THE FIRST READING, HR RECOMMENDED REVISING SECTION 2-455 UNAUTHORIZED [00:35:01] PURCHASES, CONDUCT AND SANCTIONS TO DELETE THE SUBSECTION D. -- WHICH SUGGESTS FORFEITURE OF -- TO AVOID CONFLICT WITH OUR CITY'S PERSONNEL HANDBOOK AND UNION AGREEMENTS AND BY DELETING THAT SUBSECTION, THE CITY MANAGER STILL HAS AUTHORITY PURSUANT TO OUR CITY'S PERSONNEL HANDBOOK TO SANCTION AN EMPLOYEE FOR AN ETHICAL VIOLATION. SO THOSE ARE REVISIONS. >> SO ON THE PROTEST MANUALLY OR ELECTRONICALLY. SO WHAT WE DID IS WE SAID WE WOULD ACCEPT IT ELECTRONICALLY, CORRECT? >> INITIALLY, YES. THAT WAS THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE. >> ARE WE GOING TO HAVE IT ELECTRONIC PLUS PAPER? >> THE PROTESTER HAS THE OPTION OF MANUAL. OR THEY CAN ELECTRONICALLY SUBMIT. WE STILL NEED -- WE STILL NEED TO DECIDE HOW THAT ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION WILL TAKE PLACE. BUT THAT CAN BE DONE DURING THE TIME OF AN ACTUAL RFP OR PROCUREMENT WHEN THAT SOLICITATION IS PUT OUT. WE CAN MAKE CERTAIN THAT THE SOLICITATION DOCUMENT ACTUALLY REFLECTS HOW THE ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION CAN OCCUR. >> WHAT I WAS THINKING OF IS WHAT WAS SAID EARLIER. AT THE LAST MEETING. SOMETIMES AN EMAIL CAME FROM THE WRONG -- YOU CAN'T AUTHENTICATE AN EMAIL AS MUCH AS YOU CAN A SNAIL MAIL. I THOUGHT WE WERE GOING TO DO BOTH. IS THAT RIGHT? >> WE ARE GOING TO DO BOTH. THEY ARE ALLOWED TO DO BOTH. WE ARE GIVING THEM THE OPTION TO SUBMIT IT SNAIL MAIL OR COME TO THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE OR MANUALLY SUBMIT IT OR GIVE THEM THE OPTION TO ELECTRONICALLY SUBMIT. THEY WILL HAVE THE OPTION OF DOING EITHER OR. >> THEY WILL HAVE THE OPTION BUT THEY DON'T HAVE TO DO BOTH. YOU WILL HAVE TO AUTHENTICATE THAT IT'S REALLY THEM. THAT WAS THE PROBLEM WITH AN EMAIL. >> WE HAVE SPOKEN TO MR. JOHNSON, DEPUTY CITY MANAGER FOR DURING THE SPECIFICATION, WE WILL GIVE CLEAR DIRECTION OF HOW TO SUBMIT IT ELECTRONICALLY. >> YOU KNOW IT COMES TO THE RIGHT PERSON. THAT IS THE IMPORTANT THING. OTHER QUESTIONS OF MISS WALLACE. >> MADAM MAYOR. REALLY AN IMPORTANT MATTER THAT WE ARE DEALING WITH, WITH THE PROCUREMENT CODE. SEVERAL THINGS THAT WERE BROUGHT UP HERE CAN YOU HEAR ME? SEVERAL THINGS WERE BROUGHT UP BY THE ATTORNEY. STILL PREVALENT THE PROCUREMENT MANUAL DESIGNATION AND PROCUREMENT OFFICIAL. RESOLUTION GOVERNING LEGAL. THE PROTEST BOND RESOLUTION THAT I DON'T KNOW HAS BEEN REALLY VETTED OUT AS MUCH AS IT SHOULD. AND THE FEED MANAGER FOR UNSOLICITED PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP PROPOSALS. WE HAVE ONE ON THE TABLE RIGHT NOW WITH KING'S LANDING -- WHICH IS A CHALLENGE. >> SO THE CODE DOES REFLECT AS FAR AS THE UNSOLICITED PROPOSAL. IT MIRRORS WHAT IS IN THE STATUTE. BUT SIMPLY, OUR CODE WILL ALLOW FOR THE CITY MANAGER OR THE COMMISSION RATHER TO ESTABLISH A FEE IF WE WANT TO START TO ACCEPT AND SOLICIT PROPOSALS. AS TO THE BOND ISSUE, I BELIEVE THAT OUR CODE PUTS THAT BEFORE THE COMMISSION TO APPROVE IF, IN FACT, WE ARE GOING TO ACCEPT A BOND IN RELATIONSHIP I BELIEVE TO THE PROTEST. SO THERE ARE STEPS INVOLVED THAT WE STILL WOULD PROBABLY HAVE TO TAKE ON AS FAR AS THE APPROVAL OF THIS GOAL TONIGHT. >> THE EVALUATION COMMITTEE QUALIFICATIONS. HAS THAT BEEN ADDRESSED? I'M NOT SEEING IT. >> I AM NOT AWARE OF THAT. >> WE HAD TALKED ABOUT IT. I THINK ACTUALLY, ONE OF THE EMAILS THAT CAME TO ME, I SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW. AND FROM THE PUBLIC SUGGESTING THAT FOLKS THAT ARE REVIEWING THESE PROCUREMENT OPPORTUNITIES, IF IT IS AN ENGINEERING ISSUE OR IF IT IS A LEGAL ISSUE, THAT THE PEOPLE WHO ARE EVALUATING THE PROCESS ARE ACTUALLY QUALIFIED TO DO IT. SOMETIMES, IT'S A DEPARTMENT HEAD. THAT DEPARTMENT HEAD MAY NOT HAVE REAL ESTATE EXPERIENCE. AND IT'S A REAL ESTATE DEAL OR CONTRACTUAL ELEMENTS. THOSE TYPES OF THINGS. I THINK THERE SHOULD BE SOME PROVISIONS THAT PROVIDES FOR WHOEVER IS GOING TO DO THESE [00:40:04] REVIEWS HAS A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF BACKGROUND EDUCATION AND KNOWLEDGE ON SUBJECTS. >> I AGREE AND AGAIN, THIS IS THE CODE. AS PART OF THIS PROCESS, WE STILL NEED TO PUT TOGETHER A CITY MANUAL THAT ADDRESSES SOME OF THOSE INSIGHTS THAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. SO THE EVALUATION COMMITTEE SELECTION PROCESS CAN CERTAINLY BE ADDRESSED, I BELIEVE, IN THE MANUAL. I AGREE THAT DEFINITELY SHOULD REFLECT FOLKS WHO ARE SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS WHEN IT COMES TO THE SOLICITATION. >> I THINK IT IS REALLY WHERE THE NUTS AND BOLTS COME IN. IT IS GOING TO BE A PLACEHOLDER REALLY IN MY OPINION. ONE THING THAT I ALSO SAW THAT THE CITY GETS 30 DAYS TO REVIEW WHAT THE ENTITY THAT MAY CHALLENGE THE THING ACTUALLY GETS. WE WENT FROM FIVE DAYS TO SEVEN DAYS. IT SEEMS TO BE AN IMBALANCE AS TO ANYBODY THAT WANTS TO SAY, HEY, THERE'S A PROBLEM HERE. THEY ONLY HAVE SEVEN DAYS IN WHICH TO DO THAT. I KNOW WE HAD THE CONVERSATION AT THE LAST MEETING WHERE THERE WAS FIVE BUSINESS DAYS OR FIVE CALENDAR DAYS. WHICH IS THAT? IS IT THE CALENDAR DAYS? >> IF I MAY. THE CODE MENTIONED THAT THEY HAD THREE DAYS TO NOTIFY US ENDED SEVEN DAYS TO ACTUALLY FILE IT. SO IT IS TEN DAYS. IT'S NOT SEVEN. IT'S NOT SEVEN DAYS. IT IS TEN DAYS. >> WHAT IF THERE'S PUBLIC RECORDS THAT NEED TO BE PROCURED? THERE'S A PROCESS THERE. I KNOW THAT WE HAVE A PRETTY GOOD PROCESS AND EXPERTS IN THE FIELD. IF IT TAKES MORE TIME THAN IS ALLOWED, DOES THAT ENTITY PUT AT A DISADVANTAGE IN THE PROCESS? >> IF THE ENTITY HAS GATHERED DATA BEFORE THEY SUBMITTED TO US IT DEPENDS WHAT THEY ARE PROTESTING. I CAN'T SPEAK TO THAT. >> EVERYTHING WILL BE OPEN-ENDED. >> I BELIEVE THAT IF THEY SUBMIT A PROTEST AND INITIAL DATA IS NEEDED IN FACT WE WILL COME BACK AND ALLOW TO GET ADDITIONAL DATA IF WE NEED TO GET MORE CLARITY. THE IMPORTANT THING FOR US IS TO GET THE PROTEST IN. AT THAT POINT, THERE IS ALWAYS COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE VENDOR IN TERMS OF FOR CLARITY TRYING TO BE RESOLVED. I DON'T THINK THAT IF THEY PUT A PROTEST IN AND THEY DON'T SUBMIT CERTAIN DATA OKAY WE CAN'T SAY THE POST IS COMPLETE. PROTEST IS THE ADDRESSING SPECIFIC ISSUE. THE CITY SHOULD BE PROVIDING THEM THE ISSUE NOT THE INFORMATION THEY SHOULD PROVIDE INFORMATION TO US IT'S USUALLY THE OTHER WAY AROUND IT'S USUALLY THE CITY GIVING CLARITY TO THE PROCESS FOR A DECISION THAT WAS BEING MADE AS OPPOSED TO THE VENDOR SUBMITTING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. BECAUSE THAT THEY CANNOT DO WHAT THEY SUBMITTED INITIALLY IS WHAT THEY SUBMITTED. IF THEY ARE SUBMITTING ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS OR CLARITY, THAT'S A LITTLE DIFFERENT HERE THEY CAN'T SUBMIT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO SUPPORT THE INITIAL DOCUMENTS. I HEAR WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. >> I REALLY WANT US TO GET THIS RIGHT. WE HAVE SEEN SO MANY ISSUES. I REALLY WANT THIS ONE TO BE PRETTY MUCH FOOLPROOF. WE CAN ALWAYS CHANGE. >> THIS IS BEST PRACTICE. I DON'T THINK IT IS PRACTICAL TO GIVE SOMEONE 30 DAYS TO PROTEST. >> MAYBE I AM WRONG. THE SEVEN CALENDAR DAYS IS A DECISION TO LET YOU KNOW THEY ARE GOING TO PROTEST, RIGHT? THEY DON'T HAVE TO HAVE CHAPTER AND VERSE, RIGHT? >> THEY HAVE TO NOTIFY US THAT THEY ARE GOING TO PROTEST AN ADDITIONAL SEVEN DAYS TO FILE THEIR PROTEST. >> THE FILE PROTEST HAS TO HAVE THE MEAT OF WHY THEY ARE PROTESTING. IS THAT RIGHT? >> THAT IS CALENDAR DAYS IF I CAN JUST REITERATE THAT. AND IT IS BASED ON WHEN THE NOTICE OF A WAR OR INTENT TO AWARD HAS BEEN PUBLISHED. THAT IS THE REASON FOR THE NEW PROVISION ABOUT COUNTING TIME IN CALENDAR DAYS BEING USED SO THAT AN INDIVIDUAL COULD ARGUABLY GET ADDITIONAL TIME BASED ON WHEN THAT NOTICE OF INTENT TO AWARD WAS POSTED. IT COULD BE. IT COULD BE. >> I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE DO BUSINESS DAYS. BUT IT'S UP TO THE WILL. ANY TIME YOU PUT A WEEKEND IN OR A HOLIDAY, IT CREATES THAT CHALLENGE. JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT A WAYS TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF CHALLENGES OF GETTING SOMETHING DONE. THAT WOULD BE A FIRST ARGUMENT THAT I WOULD SEE COMING FROM A CHALLENGER. [00:45:04] >> THAT IS WHY WE ADDED THE LANGUAGE TO SPECIFICALLY EXPLAIN HOW TO CALCULATE THOSE CALENDAR DAYS. SO THAT WILL HOPEFULLY ALLEVIATE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT, HOW DID I COUNT THE DAYS? HOW DID YOU GET THURSDAY VERSUS MONDAY AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE. >> IT COMPLICATES IT. >> I CAN SEE HOW YOU SEE THAT. I GUESS I'M BEING THE LAWYER. THAT IS BEST PRACTICE. IT WAS WRITTEN IN A WAY THAT I BELIEVE WAS VERY SIMPLISTIC AND EASY FOR FOLKS TO UNDERSTAND. >> FOR ATTORNEYS. >> INITIALLY, I WILL HONESTLY SAY, THAT WAS THE CASE THE FIRST TIME. I WROTE IT. AND HE WAS GRACIOUS AND PULLED ME BACK SO I SIMPLIFIED THE LANGUAGE I WOULD LIKE TO THINK IT MAKES IT A LOT EASIER FOR ANYBODY TO READ IT AND UNDERSTAND, DON'T COUNT SATURDAY, SUNDAY, OR CITY DECLARED HOLIDAYS WHEN THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT COUNTING THE CALENDAR DAYS FOR THEIR TIME. >> YOU ALSO HAVE MORE TIME IF YOU FEEL THAT THE TIMELINE IS NOT SUFFICIENT, YOU CAN MAKE IT TWO WEEKS OR 15 DAYS OR WHATEVER. >> WHAT IS BEHIND THE TIME BEING THAT SHORT? DO YOU KNOW? BEST PRACTICES. I HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT. >> BECAUSE ONCE THE DECISION HAS BEEN MADE AND THE BID HAS BEEN CLOSED WE WANT TO GET ON THE PROCESS OF VALUATION WE WANT TO EXTEND FOR ANOTHER 30 DAYS BUT ONCE THE BIDS ARE IN, IF THERE ARE ANY ISSUES, WE THOUGHT THAT FIVE DAYS WORTH SUFFICIENT BUT IF THEY HAVE TEN DAYS. >> THIS WAS AFTER THE BIDS WERE ANNOUNCED THAT'S AFTER BIDS ARE ANNOUNCED. >> THE WINNER IS GOING TO SAY, NOW I HAVE WON. >> WE WANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH NEGOTIATIONS AND BRING TO THE COMMISSIONER. WE DON'T WANT TO WAIT ANOTHER MONTH TO DO THAT. >> SOMETHING COULD BE HOLDING OVER YOU WITH A PROTEST THAT COULD GO FOR SOME TIME IF YOU DON'T HAVE A DEADLINE. >> DEPENDING ON THE PROTEST, WE WOULD STILL TABLE BRINGING IT FORWARD UNTIL THE PROTEST IS CLEAR AS WELL. THAT HAPPENS SOMETIMES FOR INSTANCE, IF WE SELECTED A VENDOR. AND SOMEONE PROTESTS, WE WILL GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS SOMETIMES BEFORE WE ACTUALLY AWARD IT. THERE'S HOW THE SITUATION IS. >> IF THE COMMISSION IS CONFIDENT AT THIS POINT, I WILL NOT HOLD IT UP. I THINK HERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY THAT IF IT IS NOT WORKING OUT OF THE BOX, WE AMEND IT SOONER THAN LATER INSTEAD OF GOING ON FOR FIVE OR TEN YEARS. >> COMMISSIONER DZADOVSKY, WE DO THAT I'M GLAD YOU BROUGHT THIS UP. THIS DOESN'T HAVE TO BE CAST IN STONE. IF THEY TELL US IT'S NOT WORKING AND WE SEE IT'S NOT WORKING WE CAN CHANGE IT. AND WE ARE ALWAYS WILLING TO IMPROVE IT. >> IT'S FLEXIBLE. EVEN WITH ME TODAY, BUSINESS DAYS AND CALENDAR DAYS. I'M FLEXIBLE BECAUSE I KNOW WHAT BOTH MEANS. NONE OF THIS IS CASTING A STONE. WE WANTED INITIAL FRAMEWORK. IT IS THE CODE. WE CAN ALWAYS GIVE MORE CLARITY IN THE MANUAL AS WELL AND ALWAYS A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL IN THE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR? OF STAGES IN WHICH WE CAN GET CLARITY VERSUS HOW WE DELIVER THE ORDINANCE. >> YOU ARE RELYING ON FLORIDA'S STATUTE FOR THE OUTLINED. AND SECONDLY, DO WE COMPARE THIS LANGUAGE TO OTHER CITIES THAT MAY HAVE SIMILAR PROVISIONS IN THEIR CODES. >> YES, WE DID IN FACT, WHEN THIS WAS DEVELOPED, IT WAS DEVELOPED BY AN ATTORNEY OUTSIDE OF THE TAMPA BAY AREA WHO HAS A GREAT DEAL OF EXPERIENCE IN PUTTING TOGETHER PROCUREMENT CODES. THE CITY ATTORNEY MYSELF AND THE CLERK AND THE FINANCE DIRECTOR AND DEPUTY CITY MANAGER, WE ALL WERE INVOLVED IN DISCUSSING THESE TIMELINES IT WAS BASED ON BEST PRACTICES FOR MULTIPLE CITIES AROUND THE STATE. >> IT WAS AN OUTSIDE FIRM THAT DEVELOPED THE CORE OF IT. YOUR STAFF AND OUR CHARTER OFFICERS HAD INPUT INTO IT AND DID SOME TWEAKING. >> TAILORED IT TO OUR PROCESSES. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR. >> I HAVE A FOLLOW UP QUESTION I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE REVIEW COMMITTEE. THE REVIEW PARTIES. I BELIEVE YOU AND I HAD A BRIEF DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS A FEW WEEKS BACK IN THAT, I'M A FIRM BELIEVER IN BRINGING IN EXPERTS IN THEIR INDUSTRIES EVERY TIME WE ARE GETTING INVOLVED WITH ONE OF THESE AWARDS OF AN RFP FOR EXAMPLE, I CERTAINLY DON'T HAVE QUALIFICATIONS TO SIT ON A REVIEW COMMITTEE THAT'S GOING TO ASSESS RESTAURANTS I HAVE NO EXPERIENCE IN THE RESTAURANT BUSINESS BUT WHAT I DO IS I GO AND SPEND MONEY. THAT'S ALL I DO. YOU AND I HAD THE DISCUSSION OF BRINGING IN OUTSIDE EXPERTS. WE HAVE SO MANY PROVISIONS THAT WE CAN'T DO THAT BECAUSE OF DISCLOSURE ISSUES AND THINGS OF [00:50:02] THIS NATURE THAT WE SIMPLY CAN'T BRING IN OUTSIDE EXPERTS IS THAT ACCURATE? >> I WON'T SAY WE CAN'T. I WILL SAY IT MAY NOT BE WISE TO DO THAT BECAUSE OF THE INFLUENCE. WITH STAFF, THEY ARE BOUND BY CERTAIN RESOURCES CODES AND PROCESSES. THE CODE OF SILENCE, HOW WE COMMUNICATE INTERNALLY AND COMMUNICATE FOR AN OUTSIDE ENTITY TO COME IN I IMAGINE WE DRAFTED SOME TYPE OF AGREEMENT THAT LIMITED THEM IF THEY VIOLATED, WHAT'S THE REPERCUSSION FROM OUR STANDPOINT? THE STAFF HAS A LITTLE DIFFERENT. SOMETIMES YOU HAVE RECRUITMENTS AND YOU MAY BRING SOMEONE FROM THE OUTSIDE WHO IS NOT A CITY EMPLOYEE TO SIT ON RECRUITMENT FOR EXECUTIVE STAFF. THAT HAPPENS AS WELL. IN TERMS OF IDENTIFYING OUTSIDE ENTITIES DO WE EVALUATE APPLICANTS FROM THE SAME COMMUNITY, IT JUST RAISES A LOT OF EYEBROWS FOR ME IN TERMS OF THE INDEPENDENCE, THE INFLUENCE. WITH STAFF, WE HAD THESE PARAMETERS ABOUT ETHICAL CONDUCT AND SANCTIONS. WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO DISCIPLINE THEM IF THEY DON'T FOLLOW THROUGH OR WHAT THE CODE SAYS. ALL OF THOSE ISSUES ARE ON THE RISE. I WILL NEVER SAY CAN'T. >> UNDERSTAND MY CONCERN. IT'S THE SAME AS COMMISSIONER DZADOVSKY'S CONCERNS. WE ARE TAKING RECOMMENDATIONS FROM FOLKS THAT MAY NOT HAVE THE RELEVANT EXPERIENCE IN THOSE INDUSTRIES TO BE MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS THAT'S A CONCERN TO ME. EVERY SINGLE REAL ESTATE TRANSACTION THAT COMES FORWARD, I STUDY IT IN DEPTH HERE FOR THAT EXACT REASON, I HAVE TO BE COMPLETELY FAMILIAR WITH IT. I'M NOT NECESSARILY BUYING THE RECOMMENDATION THAT'S COMING IN. I'M PREPARED FOR THAT. IN AREAS THAT I DON'T HAVE EXPERTISE AND OUR REVIEW COMMITTEE DOESN'T HAVE EXPERTISE, IT SEEMS TO ME WE HAVE CREATED AS WE ARE SETTING THIS WHOLE THING UP FOR FAILURE. MAYBE -- MISCONCEIVING WHAT THEIR ROLE IS. >> I UNDERSTAND CLEARLY WHAT YOU ARE SAYING I'M NOT GOING TO REFUTE THAT. I BELIEVE THAT AS WE DEVELOP THE SPECIFICATIONS AND DEVELOP THE CRITERIA FOR WANTING THE RFPS OR THE CONTRACTS, WE SHOULD ENSURE THAT STAFF UNDERSTANDS WHAT THOSE REQUIREMENTS ARE. AND I BELIEVE THAT IT'S SOME EDUCATION INVOLVED DEPENDING ON WHAT THE INDUSTRY IS PURE I BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE ENOUGH COMPETENT STAFF IN RESPECTIVE AREAS TO REVIEW A CONTRACT OR A SPECIFICATION OR BID AND UNDERSTAND WHAT THE OUTCOME IS THAT WE ARE EXPECTING IN THOSE DELIVERABLES THOSE SPECIFICATIONS SHOULD BE CLEAR SO THAT IF SOMEONE IS IN AN EXPERT'S. I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE EXPERTS IN EVERY FIELD IN THE CITY, BUT WE SHOULD BE CONFIDENT ENOUGH TO GO THROUGH AN RFP AND DETERMINE WHAT THE DELIVERABLES THAT WE ARE LOOKING FOR, AND WHAT'S THE BEST SERVICES? AND SPELL OUT THE CRITERIA IN THE SPECIFICATIONS AND COMMUNICATE THAT THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT HEADS WHO IS GOING TO BE INVOLVED WITH THAT. WE WILL BE LOOKING AT THAT MORE CLOSELY AS WE GO ALONG. I CAN UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN OF 110%. I THINK THAT IN EVERY CITY AND COUNTY, YOU WOULD HAVE THAT CONCERN IN TERMS OF WHEN YOU HAVE AN RFP THAT IS BEING SOLICITED. AND YOU HAVE EVALUATION COMMITTEES INTERNALLY, DO THEY HAVE THE UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO ACHIEVE WITH THAT SERVICE OR THAT COMMODITY? DO WE HAVE THE CRITERIA CLEARLY SPELLED OUT AND EVALUATING THAT? >> YOU UNDERSTAND. WE ALL SEEM TO SHARE THE SAME CONCERN WITH. >> AND I WILL ENSURE THAT FROM MY PERSPECTIVE CLARITY AND SPECIFICATIONS. ONE THING THAT I FOUND WITH RFPS IN MY EXPERIENCE IS WHEN YOU SUBMIT AN RFP, YOU GET MULTIPLE QUESTIONS ABOUT CERTAIN ASPECTS OF IT. YOU DON'T HAVE A GOOD RFP. WHEN YOU PUT A RFP OUT, YOU MAY HAVE LIMITED QUESTIONS ABOUT TIMELINES AND THINGS LIKE THAT. IT'S CLARITY. EVEN BEFORE WE GET TO THE POINT OF EVALUATING IT, WHEN YOU HAD YOUR PRE-BID OPENING AND LOTS OF QUESTIONS COME IN, AND IT'S CONFUSING ON THE SIDE OF WHAT THEY SHOULD BE SUBMITTING. AND STAFF HAS A DIFFICULT TIME EXPLAINING IT, I WILL PULL THE RFP BACK SOMETIMES AND SAY IT IS TOO MUCH UNCERTAINTY. THE CLARITY AND THE SPECIFICATIONS ARE VERY IMPORTANT. WHEN WE HAVE THE PRE-BID OPEN, YOU CAN GET AN IDEA FROM THE LINE OF QUESTIONING IN TERMS OF HOW WELL WRITTEN THAT RFP WAS. I AGREE WITH YOU 100%. WE JUST HAVE TO POLISH UP AND BE ON TOP OF OUR GAME. >> IN THE SAME VEIN, WE HAVE LITTLE GEMS COMING UP. FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, I CAN TELL YOU HOW TO FIX THE THING AND REBUILD IT AND MAKE IT RIGHT AS FAR AS PICKING THE QUALIFIED TENANT, I DON'T THINK I HAVE THE QUALIFICATIONS TO DO THAT. WE HAVE COPS LANDING COMING UP HERE WE HAVE A BUNCH OF THIS COG IN. WE'VE GOT TO GET THIS RIGHT ONE TIME. WE'VE GOT ONE CHANCE. YOU ARE RIGHT, MAYOR. WE CAN COME BACK AND MAKE CHANGES TO IT. ONE OTHER THING I HAVE BEEN ADVISED THAT THE STATE TIMELINE FOR PROTEST IS TEN DAYS. SO WE ARE MIRRORING THE STATE CODE. WE HAVE TO MIRROR THAT PROTEST [00:55:03] TIMELINE EXACTLY THE SAME. I THINK WE JUST NEED TO CHECK. IS THERE A STATE PROVISION THAT SAYS TEN DAYS? >> I'M NOT AWARE OF THAT. THAT IS NOT WHAT WE ARE DOING IS MIRRORING THE PROTEST DAYS BASED ON THE STAE. WHAT WE ARE SAYING IS THAT TOTAL TIME IS TEN DAYS. IF YOU HAVE A NOTICE OF INTENT TO PROTEST COUNT YOU HAVE 72 HOURS -- WHICH IS THREE DAYS FOR UP TO SEVEN DAYS TO ACTUALLY FILE. >> IT'S NOT A STANDARD RQUIREMENT THAT THIS PROTEST TIMELINE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THEIRS. ONE FOLLOW UP QUESTION. ON THE RESPONDENT. I RESPOND TO THE RFP. I HAVE THE RFP. I HAVE SUBMITTED. THERE WERE FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS AND FOLLOW UP ISSUES THAT HAVE NOT BEEN IN DETAIL DELINEATED POSSIBLY THAT I HAVE FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS ABOUT. ARE YOU SAYING THAT FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS CANNOT BE SUBMITTED WITH THE RFP SUBMISSION OR THEY CAN? IS THERE SOMEONE MONITORING THAT TO RESPOND TO THAT? >> IF I MAY, I THINK HIS EXAMPLE WAS THAT, IF YOU HAVE A SOLICITATION THAT IS OUT, AND RFP. AND THERE ARE MANY OFTEN TIMES -- YOU WILL HAVE APPLICANTS SUBMITTING QUESTIONS. AS PART OF THAT PROCESS, THE RFP OR THE PROCUREMENT MANAGER WILL ISSUE A RESPONSE TO THOSE QUESTIONS. SO IF YOU HAVE THAT OCCURRING PRETTY MUCH ON MORE THAN ONE OCCASION A COUPLE OF TIMES, THEN IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING, THE SENTIMENT IS THAT WE JUST DIDN'T PUT OUT A GOOD SOLICITATION FOR BECAUSE WE REALLY SHOULDN'T HAVE TOO MANY QUESTIONS. >> ALL RIGHT THANK YOU. WHO CHOOSES THE EVALUATION COMMITTEE? IS THAT YOU? >> ACTUALLY THE PURCHASING DEPARTMENT DOES CALCULATE PURCHASING MANAGER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR SELECTING. OFTENTIMES THEY WILL BRING IT BY THE CITY MANAGER TO APPROVE CERTAINLY THAT IS HANDLED THROUGH THE PURCHASING DIVISION. >> I THINK I WOULD FEEL BETTER IF YOU HAD YOUR STAMP ON IT. AND YOU HAD INPUT ON IT. I THINK THAT IS A BIG RESPONSIBILITY. I JUST THINK THAT SHOULD HAVE THE SIGN OFF AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL. >> WE HAVE IDENTIFIED A PURCHASING DIRECTOR WHO IS EXPERIENCED WE WILL BE MOVING FORWARD HOPEFULLY ACCEPTING IT MOVING FORWARD. I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM REVIEWING THE EVALUATION COMMITTEE. I WANT TO BE SURE THAT THERE IS NO UNDOING. >> THAT'S RIGHT. YOU DON'T WANT TO. >> THERE IS NO PROBLEM FOR ME AS WELL. I'M APPROVING ALL THE EVALUATION COMMITTEES. I DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH LOOKING AT IT PURE I WILL DETERMINE IF I SHOULD BE THE ONE APPROVING EVERY ONE ON EVALUATIONS. >> DID I HEAR YOU TRY TO SAY SOMETHING? >> I WAS GOING TO ADD, I THINK THIS WAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO USE THE PROCEDURE MANUAL TO REALLY SPELL OUT WHAT IS REQUIRED FOR AN EVALUATION COMMITTEE IN TERMS OF THE SELECTION PROCESS AND WHO IS ACTUALLY SITTING ON THOSE COMMITTEES AND HOW MANY PEOPLE WE HAVE SITTING ON THAT COMMITTEE. >> COMMISSIONER GAINES, DID YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING? >> I WANTED TO FOLLOW UP WITH COMMISSIONER BRODERICK. WHILE WE WERE LISTENING I DID THE STATUE WITH THE TENGATE, THAT IS A QUICK SEARCH WHILE I WAS SITTING HERE. SOME CITIES AROUND THE STATE OF FLORIDA. IT GOES FROM THREE BUSINESS DAYS TO TEN BUSINESS DAYS. NOT TOO MANY SICK CALENDAR DAYS. MOST OF THEM SAID BUSINESS DAYS. THREE, FIVE. WE ARE AT SEVEN. THE CLOSEST TO US. THERE'S BUSINESS DAYS. EVERYBODY ELSE FROM DOING MY RESEARCH, WAS THREE, FIVE, FIVE. >> RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF IT. >> I JUST DID A QUICK AROUND THE STATE. >> JUST ONE MORE COMMENT. I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN ABOUT EXPERTS AND PEOPLE KNOWING WHAT THEY ARE DOING. THAT CAN BE VERY SUBJECTIVE A ALSO. AND IT IS AFTER ALL THE CITY'S. IT IS WITHIN OUR CITY RESPONSIBILITY. IT WOULD BE NICE IF WE COULD OUTSOURCE IT. IT IS WITHIN OUR JURISDICTION. IT IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY. WE NEED TO MAKE THE BEST DECISIONS FOR THE CITY. >> THAT IS THE KEY THING. THAT IS WHY I GET CONCERNED WE ARE GETTING RECOMMENDATIONS BACK TO THIS BODY BY POTENTIALLY PEOPLE WHO HAVE NO QUALIFICATIONS TO MAKE THAT RECOMMENDATION. THAT IS VERY TROUBLING TO ME. AS YOU HAVE DESCRIBED, I DON'T [01:00:04] SEE A COURSE AROUND THIS FOR. >> CERTAINLY A LOT OF THAT PRECEDED ME. WHEN I LOOK AROUND MY DEPARTMENT HEAD MEETINGS LIKE THIS MORNING, I SEE VERY, VERY COMPETENT DIRECTORS IN THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE. FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, SOME OF THE EVALUATION COMMITTEE MEMBERS WERE SUPERVISING MANAGEMENT STAFF HERE I'M LOOKING AT DEPARTMENT HEADS FIRST. I HAVE CONFIDENCE IN THEM. I BELIEVE THEY ARE VERY COMPETENT IN RESPECTIVE AREAS AND VERY ANALYTICAL. THEY ARE QUICK LEARNERS, MOST OF THEM ARE WELL-SPOKEN. HAVE CONFIDENCE IN THE DEPARTMENT HEADS WILL UNDERSTAND. MOST IMPORTANTLY THE PURPOSE OF THE SOLICITATION. WHAT IS THE END GAME? WHAT ARE WE TRYING TO GET FROM THE SOLICITATION? WE SPELL OUT THE SPECIFICATIONS GENERALLY CHARACTER SPECIFICATIONS ARE DRAFTED BY THE PROGRAM MANAGER OR PROJECT MANAGER. AND WE COMMUNICATE THAT TO THE EVALUATION TEAM. THAT'S WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO ACHIEVE. THESE ARE THE SPECIFICATIONS. I HAVE TO ENSURE THAT YOU ARE CORRECT ABOUT WHO'S ON THAT COMMITTEE. I DON'T HAVE TO STEP EVERYTHING. WE WILL WORK THAT OUT. I HAVE ENOUGH CONFIDENCE IN OUR DEPARTMENT HEADS TO FEEL THAT THEY CAN GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS AND BRING A GOOD PRODUCT BACK IN TERMS OF WHO THEY ARE RECOMMENDING. I HAVE CONFIDENCE NOW. I CAN'T SPEAK TO THE LOWER STAFF THEY ARE VERY CONFIDENT. MAYBE THEY SHOULD BE REVIEWING COMPLICATED RFPS. DEPENDS ON WHO YOU ARE IN THE ORGANIZATION AND YOUR BACKGROUND AND EXPERIENCE I HAVE CONFIDENCE IN OUR DEPARTMENT HEADS. >> EVERY GOVERNMENT HAS THE SAME ISSUE. THEY HAVE STAFF THAT THEY HAVE TO DEFEND ON. >> THAT'S GOING TO BE MY FOLLOW UP QUESTION. YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE UP HERE THAT HAS BEEN INVOLVED IN MULTIPLE GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES WITH YOUR DIFFERENT POSITIONS IN YOUR CAREER. I AM FORT PIERCE. THAT IS IT. MY ONLY EXPERIENCE TO THE POLITICAL WORLD AND OPERATIONS OF A CITY HAS BEEN HERE. BY COMPARISON TO ALL THE OTHER ORGANIZATIONS YOU'VE BEEN INVOLVED WITH, IS IT STANDARD THAT THEY TAKE PEOPLE FROM STAFF SOLELY TO STAFF REVIEW COMMITTEES? >> ABSOLUTELY IT'S NOTHING UNUSUAL TO HAVE A STAFF PERSON WHO IS TOTALLY UP FIELD WHEN EVALUATING AND GRADING. YOU MAY HAVE THREE OR FOUR PEOPLE REALLY CLOSE. ONCE THAT PERSON WAY OUT THERE. WHY DID YOU VOTE THAT? FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, THEY HAD TO REALLY DOCUMENT WHY THEIR POINT SYSTEM WAS SO FAR AWAY FROM EVERYONE ELSE. YOU HAVE THESE ANOMALIES SOMETIME. >> I HAVE SEEN THAT. WHERE DID THAT COME FROM? >> THAT'S WHEN YOU GET TO THIS THING HERE DID YOU REALLY UNDERSTAND THE SPECIFICATION? IF YOU HAVE FIVE PEOPLE IN THE EVALUATION COMMITTEE AND ONE PERSON IS WAY OFF IN THE IMPACTS OF THE DECISION, THEY ARE REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN THEIR REASONING BEHIND IT. ONCE YOU DRILL DOWN CAN'T YOU FIND THE SCORES COME BACK. NOT BECAUSE OF INFLUENCE. WHEN THEY START EXPLAINING THEIR REASONING FOR MAKING THE SCORING THE WAY THAT THEY DID, THEY REALIZED THAT THEY DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THE CRITERIA. YES. YOU HAVE SITUATIONS WHERE YOU HAVE JUST WITHIN THE RANGE. THAT IS WHAT WE ARE LOOKING FOR IN THE RANGE, YOU HAVE FIVE EVALUATORS ALL WITHIN A CERTAIN RANGE. THEY ALL KIND OF UNDERSTOOD WHERE WE WERE GOING. THOSE SCORES ARE EXTREME. THAT IS WHAT WE ARE LOOKING FOR SOMEONE WHO UNDERSTANDS IT AND SCORES IT WITHIN A CERTAIN RANGE OF ACCEPTABILITY. >> WELL, I'M GONNA GO WITH THE FLOW HERE AND SAY, I'M GONNA PUT TRUST IN MY FOLKS HERE. AND THAT THEY ARE GOING TO GET THIS RIGHT. OBVIOUSLY, WE HAVE THE LAST SAY ON ALL THIS. IF WE DEEM THAT WE HAVE MORE EXPERTISE THAN THE SELECTION COMMITTEE POTENTIALLY, WE ARE GOING TO SPEAK HIGHLY AS TO WHAT OUR OPINIONS ARE ON THAT. I WOULD IMAGINE ANYBODY HERE IS GOING TO DO THAT. I HOPE THAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN. I'M NOT GOING TO PUT STOCK IN THAT. EVERYBODY HAS DIFFERENT AREAS OF EXPERTISE THAT WE ARE GOING TO BRING THAT TO THE TABLE AND MAKE SURE WE HAVE A CONSCIOUS DECISION TO MAKE THE BEST CHOICE FOR NOT JUST WHAT'S COMING IN THE DOOR. THAT IS KIND OF MY TAKE ON IT. >> MADAM MAYOR REAL QUICK. COMMISSIONERS AND MADAM MAYOR, I HEAR YOU. EVERYONE HEARS YOU. WE HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT WE HAVE ALREADY SAID THAT COMMISSIONER SAID IF WE HAVE TO COME BACK, WE CAN PICK THE DEPUTY CITY MANAGER SAID, WE WANT TO GET PAST THIS SO SHE CAN PUT TOGETHER A MANUAL. SO MAY THAT MANUAL WILL ANSWER ALL OF OUR QUESTIONS THAT WE ARE ASKING TONIGHT. IF WE BRING THE MANUAL BACK, AND IF WE DON'T LIKE THE MANUAL, WE CAN HIGHLIGHT THE MANUAL AND SAY WE WANT THIS AND WE WANT THAT. BUT WE HAVEN'T HAD WITH THIS NEW CODE, WE HAVEN'T HAD ONE PROTEST YET. LET US GET A PROTEST. THEN IF IT DOESN'T WORK, THEY ARE GOING TO TELL US IT DIDN'T WORK. IF THEY DON'T TELL US, THE PUBLIC IS GOING TO TELL US IT DIDN'T WORK. BRING IT BACK IN. WHAT DO WE NEED TO FIX RIGHT THEN AND THERE INSTEAD OF WAITING FOR 67 PROTESTS. I SAY LET'S WAIT AND GET THIS. LET'S WORK THROUGH OUR MANUAL AND REVIEW THE MANUAL AGAIN THE MANUAL COME BACK IN FRONT OF US? WE REVIEW IT. [01:05:04] EVERYBODY SITTING UP HERE KNOW THAT WE ARE GOING TO HIGHLIGHT SOMETHING IN THAT MANUAL AND ASK QUESTIONS. YOU ALREADY KNOW THAT. WE ARE GOING TO DO THIS IT IS JUST US. ONCE WE GET THE MANUAL, IF ALL OF US AGREE ON THE MANUAL, THEN WE GO FROM THERE. THEN WE WAIT AND SEE. I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER. THIS IS OUR FIRST STEP. WE WANT TO GET IT RIGHT. LET'S GET THE MANUAL AND COME BACK AND TEAR THE MANUAL UP AND LOOK AT THE MANUAL. WE LIKE THE MANUAL AND GO FROM THERE. >> COMMISSIONER GAINES, I'M GOOD. THESE ARE MY CONCERNS I WILL DRIVE IT ALL THE WAY THROUGH. I'M VERY EXCITED TO GET THIS MANUAL WHEN IT COMES OUT. WE NEED TO FULLY UNDERSTAND WHAT THE PROCESS AND MINUTIA THAT GOES INTO THESE THINGS. >> WE HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR A LONG TIME TO GET TO THIS STEP HERE. >> GOING WITH THE FLOW. >> I WILL LET YOU HAVE IT I WILL SIT BACK AND LET YOU HAVE IT. >> JUST DO IT AND I WILL GO FROM THERE. >> IN THE SUNSHINE. ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING ELSE FOR STAFF BEFORE I OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING? THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING ANYONE WISHING TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE PLEASE COME FORWARD. YOU HAVE 3 MINUTES, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME YOU GET A WARNING OF TEN SECONDS FROM MISS COX. IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES, MA'AM. >> YOU CAN GIVE IT TO ME. >> NO, NO, NO . IT'S AN EXCERPT. >> THANK YOU. SPEAKER WOULD YOU LIKE TO START? MISS COX, ARE YOU READY? >> YES, MA'AM,. >> 3 MINUTES WILL NOT BE ENOUGH TO COVER EVERYTHING BUT I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT IT FOR SPEAKING FOR PUTTING IN THE RFP, ALL THE ISSUES. A COUPLE OF THEM ARE IN THERE. 72 HOURS STATE STATUTE NOTICE TO INTENT TO PROTEST. THEN IT'S ANOTHER TEN DAYS AFTER THAT. YOU ARE GROUPING THE 72 HOURS AND THE SEVEN DAYS THAT YOU ARE GIVING AND TRYING TO GET IT LONGER THERE'S A LOT YOU HAVE TO COVER. YOU DON'T HAVE TO PUT EVERYTHING IN THERE. WHEN IT WAS ASKED ABOUT HAVING IF YOU HAD TO DO PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST PER STATE STATUTES AND FOR WHAT YOU WERE RECOMMENDING HERE, IT DOES SAY YOU HAVE TO PUT IN ALL THIS INFORMATION. AND YOU CAN'T REALLY COME BACK. ONE SHOP PUT IT IN. WHICH WAY IS IT? A LOT OF CONFLICTS. IF YOU READ THROUGH WHAT IS PROPOSED AND READ SECTION 2459C, IT MAKES NO SENSE YOU ARE INTERCHANGEABLY USING WORDS. NOTICE THE PROTEST, PROTESTS. THERE'S NO WRITTEN FORMAL PROTEST. THE WORDS AND DEFINITIONS ARE NOT IN THERE. THAT IS WHY I WROTE IN SAYING YOU NEED CLEAR DEFINITIONS AND CLEAR PATHS. YOU CAN'T PROTEST THE PROCESS. THAT IS THE BIGGEST ONE. WE WILL GO THROUGH THIS WHOLE PROCESS, AND YOU ARE NOT ALLOWING THE PROCESS AS WE ARE TALKING WHEN SHE CAME IN HERE FOR SHE SAID IT'S A WAY TO INTERPRET IT. AND I'M READING THIS SAYING THAT YOU CANNOT PROTEST THE PROCESS BUT YOU CAN ONLY PROTEST WHEN YOU PUT IN THE INTENT WHEN THE PERSON ATTENDED TO WIN IS AWARDED. SO THIS WHOLE TIME IF WE HAVE ANY ISSUES, WE CANNOT PROTEST UNTIL THAT PERSON IS THERE TO RESET THE CALENDAR AND START ALL OVER. THE TURNING IN PAPERWORK TO THE CITY CLERK. YOU ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO TALK TO ANYBODY OUTSIDE OF PROCUREMENT. THAT KIND OF IS GOING DIFFERENT OR AGAINST THAT AS WELL. THE ELECTRONICALLY. NOW YOU ARE SAYING YOU CAN FILE ELECTRONICALLY I WAS GOING TO SAY, WE HAD THIS TYLER SYSTEM WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO UPDATE AND PUT OUR NOTICE IN THERE. THE SAME THING, YOU WANT TO MAKE SURE IT STAYS WITHIN AND WE [01:10:03] DON'T SHOW OUR HANDS SAYING SOME OF IT. BUT THE BIG THING IS THAT AND I GAVE THE WHOLE ISSUE AND EVERYTHING THAT WE HAVE GONE THROUGH WITH THIS IN PROCUREMENT I THINK WHEN YOU STEP BACK AND REDUCE SOME OF THIS STUFF. IT IS COME BACK AND REDUCED SOME OF THIS STUFF. A LOT OF THIS NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED AHEAD OF TIME. YOU CAN SEE THE STATE STATUTES. I DON'T KNOW WHY WE DON'T FOLLOW THEM A LITTLE BIT CLOSER TO HAVE THAT ON THERE. THEY ALLOW PROTESTING OF THE SOLICITATION ITSELF. ALL OF A SUDDEN WE ARE NOT. EVERYTHING THAT HAS HAPPENED TO US IS COMING IN HERE AND ADDRESSING IT AND MAKING IT VERY DIFFICULT TO PUT IN FORMAL RFPS. THE EVALUATION COMMITTEE. I HAD A WHOLE SECTION IN THERE. I KNOW WHAT I WROTE IS QUITE LONG. I AMENDED IT. THE DRAFT I SENT TO YOU GUYS LAST TIME, I WAS NOT IN TOWN AND I THREW EVERYTHING IN THAT WE WENT THROUGH. CHATGPT DID IT. I REVISED IT AND SENT IT TO YOU. I KNOW IT WAS LAST MINUTE. I THINK YOU SHOULD AT LEAST REDO THE PROTEST SESSION. THERE'S A LOT OF ISSUES WITH IT. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION, PLEASE COME FORWARD ON THIS ISSUE. ANYONE ELSE ON THIS ISSUE. ALL RIGHT, WE WILL COME BACK TO THE COMMISSION. AND ANY DISCUSSION? QUESTIONS? >> MY QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN ANSWERED. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION? SO IS THERE A MOTION? >> MADAM MAYOR, I MOVE TO APPROVE. >> IS THERE A SECOND? >> I WILL SECOND. >> CALL THE ROLL PLEASE. >> COMMISSIONER BRODERICK, COMMISSIONER DZADOVSKY. COMMISSIONER GAINES. MAYOR HUDSON. >> OKAY, LET'S GET BUSY ON THAT MANUAL. [I. Legislative Hearing - Ordinance 26-014 - Amending Chapter 113 regarding Impact Fees offsets and credits FIRST READING] >> THAT IS THE KEY. THE MANUAL IS THE KEY. >> WE CAN GO FROM HERE. >> NEXT WE HAVE ORDINANCE 26-014 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE AMENDING CHAPTER 113 IMPACT FEES OF THE CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES AMENDING DEFINITIONS PROVIDING FOR THE RECOGNITION OF IMPACT FEE OFFSETS AND CREDITS INCLUDING CERTAIN TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS CONSISTENT WITH COUNTY STANDARDS IN COORDINATION WITH CREDIT PROGRAMS PROVIDING FOR PROPORTION ALITY AND AVOIDANCE OF DUPLICATE PAYMENTS. PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR APPEAL OF ALL ORDINANCES OR PARTS IN CONFLICT AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THIS IS THE FIRST READING. >> MR. FREEMAN, DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING FOR US TONIGHT. >> THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR. KEVIN FREEMAN, PLANNING DIRECTOR HERE TONIGHT. YOU MAY RECALL EARLIER ON IN THIS YEAR, THERE WAS A PRESENTATION MADE REQUEST. AN APPLICANT CAME IN AND WAS REQUESTING AN IMPACT FEE CREDIT FOR PART OF THE IMPROVEMENTS THAT HE WAS MAKING IN PARTICULAR TO A COUNTY ROADWAY FOR CAPACITY. THAT APPLICATION WAS PROCESSED. DURING THAT PROCESS, WE EVENTUALLY FOUND THAT HE DID NOT QUALIFY FOR THAT OFFSET OR CREDIT. AND THE REASON WHY THAT OFFSET OF CREDIT COULD NOT BE GRANTED WAS ENTIRELY BASED ON THE FACT THAT THE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE ROADWAY AND THE CAPACITY OF THAT ROADWAY WERE ENTIRELY IN THE ALTHOUGH THE DEVELOPMENT ITSELF WAS IN THE CITY, THE MAIN ARTERIAL ROADWAY THAT IT ACCESSED WAS IN THE COUNTY. SO THE BARRIER THAT WE HAVE AT THE MOMENT IS THAT EVEN THOUGH APPLICANTS CAN DEDICATE RIGHT OF WAY OR CONSTRUCT ROADWAY CAPACITY OUTSIDE OF THE CITY RIGHT OF WAY UNDER THE CHAPTER WHICH CONTROLS THE GRANTING OF AUTOMATIC CREDITS OR OFFSET REQUESTS. THEY MAY FAIL, BECAUSE OF THAT ROADWAY CAPACITY IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE CITY 'SCIP. EVEN THOUGH THE CODE AT THE MOMENT OFFERS THAT OPPORTUNITY TO REQUEST AGAIN IF IT IS OUTSIDE THE CITY'S RIGHT OF WAY, IT FAILS. >> SO IT HAS TO BE IN THE CITY CIP OR IT HAS TO BE IN THE CITY. >> CITY RIGHT OF WAY. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF QUALIFICATIONS. IT SEEMS TO ME IT NEEDS TO BE IN THE CITY RIGHT OF WAY. CITY CIP. OR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. AND IT ALSO NEEDS TO INCREASE [01:15:02] CAPACITY OF THE ROADWAY. SO EVEN THOUGH APPLICANTS MAY BE SUBJECT TO AN IMPACT FEE FOR TRANSPORTATION, IF THEY ARE NOT ABLE TO ADD CAPACITY TO THE SYSTEM, THEN THEY ARE NOT ELIGIBLE TO APPLY FOR A CREDIT. TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES ARE RELATED TO CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS ONLY. THAT CAN BE ACHIEVED BY WIDENING OF THE RIGHT OF WAY OR DEDICATING PROPERTY OR TURN LANES TO INCREASE THEIR CAPACITY ON THAT ROAD RIGHT OF WAY. ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT CAME AROUND FROM WAS THE APPLICANT HAD MANAGED TO GO THROUGH THE COUNTY SYSTEM AND BE GRANTED A RIGHT OF WAY CREDIT. THEN THEY CAME TO THE CITY EXPECTING THE SAME OPTION TO DO THAT. AND THAT CODE DID OFFER THAT OPTION TO APPLY. BUT THE CODE ALSO LIMITED THE SCOPE OF HOW WE COULD DEAL WITH THAT. THE COMMISSION DEAL WITH THAT. SO THAT IS THE EXISTING SYSTEM. GOING TO REITERATE EVERYTHING. IT MUST BE ON THE CITY CIP OR COMMITTED TO THE CIP BY THE CITY COMMITTEE RESOLUTION. AND THAT MAKES IT ELIGIBLE FOR POTENTIAL TRANSPORTATION FEE IMPACT FEE OFFSET. THESE OFFSETS DO NOT APPLY TO ANY OTHER IMPACT FEE, CREDIT, OR CATEGORY WITHIN THE CITY. IT IS ENTIRELY TRANSPORTATION BASED. TRANSPORTATION OFFSETS CAN ONLY OFFSET TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES. THERE IS NO CROSS CREDITIG. THEY MAY FIND THEY ARE PAYING A LOT OF IMPACT FEES FOR OTHER CATEGORIES THAT WE CAN'T -- AND IT'S NOT RELEVANT TO TRANSFER IMPACT FEES PAID ON ONE CATEGORY THROUGH TO THE TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES. APPLICANTS CAN QUITE OFTEN FACE SUBSTANTIAL ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS OR DEDICATION OF PROPERTY. THE ONLY CREDIT THAT CAN BE OFFERED CAN ONLY EXTEND TO THE TOTAL. THE APLICANT HAS PAID IN TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES. CAN'T CREDIT MORE THAN THEY HAVE PAID. SO EVEN THOUGH THE NETWORK AND THE CITY, THE DIFFERENT AGENCIES, THE CONTROL RIGHT OF WAY IN THE CITY, F DOT COUNTY. IMPROVEMENTS THAT APPLICANTS MAKE TO ROADWAYS MAY BE BENEFICIAL TO THE CITY IN TERMS OF GETTING MOVEMENT AROUND GETTING CAPACITY ON THE STREETS. THEY ARE NOT ELIGIBLE TO BE CREDITED. SO WHEN WE DISCUSS THIS WITH THE COMMISSION BOTH IN THAT APPLICATION AND INSTRUCTION BY COMMISSION TO COME BACK AND TALK ABOUT THESE THINGS, THIS WAS PRESENTED TO A CONFERENCE, CITY CONFERENCE MEETING BY STAFF. THAT BOTH OF THOSE HEARINGS AND PRESENTATION THAT THE STAFF WOULD WORK ON A WAY TO RESOLVE THIS. SO WE ARE HERE TONIGHT WITH THAT WEIGHT OF RESOLVING THIS FOR APPLICANTS WHO MIGHT FIND THEMSELVES MAKING IMPROVEMENTS TO COUNTY RIGHT OF WAYS. CAPACITY ONLY TO APPLY FOR AN OFFSET. THE CITY, WE CAN REQUIRE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH REVIEW. AND WE OFTEN DO. BUT THE CHAPTER THAT WE HAVE IN A MOMENT IN THE CODE DOES NOT OFFER THE CLEAR PATHWAY FOR AN APPLICANT TO GO THROUGH THIS. EVEN THOUGH THEY MAY HAVE GOT THEIR CREDITS FROM THE COUNTY. THAT IS CAUSING CONFUSION FOR APPLICANTS. IT IS CONFUSION FOR THE COUNTY AND CONFUSION FOR THE CITY. IT IS FOR THE APPLICANTS THEMSELVES FINDING THEMSELVES IN A CATCH 22 SITUATION. SO THE AMENDMENT LOOKS AT THE CODE. THE MOST SIMPLE SOLUTION THAT WE COULD FIND WAS TO ALLOW IMPACT FEE OFFSETS TO BE RECOGNIZED IF THE COUNTY HAVE GRANTED THEM FOR [01:20:02] THEIR RIGHT OF WAYS. THEY ACCEPT THE FULL CAPACITY ISSUES. THERE'S THE WHOLE PROCESS THAT THE APPLICANTS GO THROUGH WITH THE COUNTY, GOING THROUGH STAFF. I THINK ULTIMATELY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS APPROVED THOSE. IT'S AN AGREEMENT. WE ASK FOR EVIDENCE OF THAT BEING UNDERTAKEN. AND THAT IS RELATED TO THE COUNTY CIP OR THE TBO TRANSPORTATION NEEDS. AND THE APPLICANT IS PART OF THE DOCUMENTATION OF APPLICATION FOR THE CITY IMPACT FEES. SO AS I SAID BEFORE, REQUESTS ARE LINKED IN ENTIRETY TO THE TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE. THAT IMPACT FEE DETERMINED RELEVANT TO THAT CHARGE TO THAT APPLICATION AND THAT DEVELOPMENT. IT IS ONLY THE CITY'S PORTION OF THE TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE RELATED TO A DEVELOPENT THAT CAN BE SUBJECT OF THE CITY COMMISSION GRANTING THE OFFSET OR CREDIT. WORTH BEARING IN MIND THAT THESE FUNDS ARE RESTRICTED FUNDS AND DO NOT IMPACT THE CITY'S GENERAL FUND BUDGET. THEY CAN ONLY BE USED FOR TRANSPORTATION RELATED PROJECTS THROUGH STATE STATUTE. APPLICANTS WILL STILL HAVE TO DETERMINE SEPARATELY ELIGIBILITY FOR ANY CREDIT FOR THE LUCY PORTION IMPACT FEES AND THAT WILL BE DETERMINED ENTIRELY BY THAT AGENCY. USUALLY, THAT IS DETERMINED BY AN ENGINEER'S COST ESTIMATE OF IMPROVEMENTS EITHER THROUGH ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS OR DEDICATION OF PROPERTY. AND THAT WOULD BE VALUED THROUGH THE APPRAISER. SO STAFF ARE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THESE AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 113 CHARACTER RECOGNIZED IMPACT FEE OFFSETS AND CREDITS FOR CERTAIN RIGHT OF WAY IMPROVEMENTS -- WHICH ARE CONSISTENT WITH SOME COUNTY STANDARDS. AND WHICH OTHERWISE INCREASED THE CAPACITY OF THE ROADWAYS THAT THEY ARE IMPACTING. THE ALTERNATIVES FOR THIS ARE TO IMPROVE THE AMENDMENT WITH ALTERNATIVE LANGUAGE OR DENY THE AMENDMENT. THANK YOU. >> I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THE HARD WORK THAT YOU AND YOUR STAFF HAVE DONE ON THIS. I THINK WE ARE TRYING TO BE FAIR. WE RECOGNIZE THAT PERHAPS WE WEREN'T IN THE PAST. WE ARE TRYING TO CORRECT THAT. THIS SEEMS TO BE FAIR TO THE TAXPAYER AND FAIR TO WHOEVER IS DOING THE IMPROVEMENT. SO I APPRECIATE YOU DOING THAT. QUESTIONS OF STAFF. >> DO WE GET INTO A CHALLENGE WITH THE POLICY OUTCOME BEING ARBITRARY OR A SUBJECTIVE? CRITERIA IN WHICH WE CAN BE REALLY -- >> I THINK THAT IS A VALID QUESTION. WE DEPEND. IF IT IS ANY IMPROVEMENTS TO THE RIGHT OF WAY, WE WILL ALWAYS GET A COST ESTIMATE OF SOME SORT EITHER AN ENGINEER'S SIGNED AND SEALED COST ESTIMATE OF THE IMPROVEMENTS. WHICH WILL BE LOOKED AT BY OUR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT. BUT ALSO THE COUNTY'S PUBLIC ENGINEERING RIGHT OF WAY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT. OR IF IT IS TO DO WITH A DONATION, THERE IS ALWAYS AN APPRAISED VALUE ON THAT PROPERTY. >> AS YOU ARE SAYING THAT, DO I RECALL FROM THE INCIDENT YOU ARE REFERRING TO IS THAT THE INDIVIDUAL DONATED A PORTION OF HIS PROPERTY FOR THE RIGHT OF WAY. WOULD WE NOT PAY FOR THAT ANYWAY? WOULDN'T WE NORMALLY PAY FOR ANY PROPERTY THAT WE ARE TAKING QUESTION MARKS B WHEN IT WAS A COUNTY ROAD. >> MORE IMPORTANTLY, THE ONLY REASON THE APPLICANT NEEDS TO DONATE THAT PROPERTY IS BECAUSE OF THE IMPACT BEING CAUSED BY THAT DEVELOPMENT. OTHERWISE, THE ROADWAY MAY BE ON A CIP. WE WOULD BE SAYING, IS THAT A MANDATORY TAKING OF THAT PROPERTY? COUNTY OR CITY DON'T WANT TO GET INTO THAT TAKING OF PROPERTY THROUGH THAT PROCESS. [01:25:04] THAT IS PART OF THE NEGOTIATION WHERE WE LOOK AT DEVELOPMENTTHAC IMPACT ASSESSMENT. WHAT IMPACTS ARE THE DEVELOPMENT GOING TO MAKE ON THAT ROADWAY? WHAT IS THE CAPACITY? IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED. THAT COULD BE FAR GREATER THAN THE CIP INTENT OF WIDENING THE ROADWAY. THAT DEVELOPMENT COMES IN AND REQUIRES ADDITIONAL TURN LANES AND ADDITIONAL WIDTH TO MAINTAIN THE CAPACITY OF THAT ROAD. THERE IS A CALCULATION ATTACHED TO IT. WE ARE NOT ABLE OR NOT PERMITTED TO EXCEED THE VALUE OF WHATEVER THAT IMPACT FEE IS IN TERMS OF CREDIT TO GIVE THAT BACK TO THE APPLICANT. >> I'M JUST TRYING TO PUT IN CONTEXT OF THE SCENARIO WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. THE INDIVIDUAL IS LIKELY TO HAVE THOUGHT, WE WILL USE THE TERM DOUBLE DIP. IN ESSENCE, THAT REALLY WOULD HAVE BEEN THE CASE. BECAUSE THE COUNTY PROVIDED SOME LEVEL. >> REFUNDS. >> THE CITY PROVIDING ADDITIONAL WOULD HAVE BEEN DOUBLE-DIPPING. >> THE IMPACT FEES ARE RELATED TO THAT DEVELOPMENT. THE ACTUAL TOTAL COST OF THE IMPROVEMENTS ARE PRO-RATA. THE CLAIM OF THE CITY OR THE COUNTY. IF THOSE IMPROVEMENTS DO NOT EXCEED THE AMOUNT OF CREDIT AVAILABLE FOR THE IMPACT FEES, WHAT USUALLY HAPPENS, OR WHAT WILL HAPPEN, IS THAT THE COUNTY AND THE CITY WILL COMBINE THE WHOLE IMPACT FEE. AND LOOK AT THE PROPORTION AVAILABLE FROM THE COUNTY AND THE PROPORTION AVAILABLE FROM THE CITY. NOT TO EXCEED THE VALUE OF THE COST OF THE WORKS IMPLEMENTED. THE APPLICATION MAY NOT GET THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF THOSE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS. BECAUSE THE COUNTY MAY NOT HAVE RECEIVED THAT OVERALL PART. BECAUSE SOME OF THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN RELATED TO THE CITY. >> THIS WILL CLEAN IT UP BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE COUNTY. SO THAT LANGUAGE WILL GO OVER TO THEM. THAT IS THE IMPORTANT PART. >> I AGREE. THEY LET THEM KNOW IT. IF YOU SEE THIS SITUATION DEVELOPING, I DON'T KNOW. THIS WAS IN THE CITY. BUT IT WAS ON A COUNTY ROAD. SO YOU WOULD HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF THAT. >> YES, I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR. AT WHAT POINT DOES THE APPLICANT COME TO THE CITY? PRIOR TO THE WORK OR THE DETERMINATION. >> THAT IS CRITICAL IN THIS PROCESS. WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO MAKE THE DETERMINATION UPFRONT BASED ON THE INFORMATION THEY ARE PROVIDING THE COUNTY OR THE TPO. WE GO THROUGH OUR EVALUATION PROCESS. WE DETERMINE WHETHER WE CAN MAKE THAT DECISION TO GET THE CREDIT. WE HAVE TO SPELL THAT OUT. THAT HAS TO BE CLEAR SOMEWHERE THAT THEY HAVE TO COME THROUGH THE CITY BEFORE THEY START WITH THE COUNTY. ONCE THE COUNTY APPROVES THE RECEIVING CREDIT. >> THAT IS A GOOD POINT. >> MADAM MAYOR. >> I THINK IMPLICIT IN HOW THE CODE READS, THAT IS WHAT WE ARE SAYING SHOULD BE DONE. BUT JUST FOR CLARITY, THE AMENDMENTS THAT WE ARE MAKING IN THE CURRENT CODE DO NOT REQUIRE THAT SPECIFICALLY. SO IF THAT IS HOW THE COMMISSION WOULD LIKE TO PROCEED I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE AMEND THE CODE FURTHER TO EXPLICITLY REQUIRE IT BE PRIOR TO ANY WORK OR ANY AGREEMENTS ELSEWHERE. BUT THAT COULD BE -- THAT COULD BE DONE AT ANOTHER DATE AS WELL. >> SO WE COULD GIVE YOU THAT INPUT. BUT WE CAN'T APPROVE IT TONIGHT UNLESS IT IS CHANGED? IS THAT RIGHT? >> IT IS JUST READING, FIRST READING. >> SO IT COULD BE CHANGED ON THE SECOND READING? >> MADAM MAYOR, YOU CAN MAKE CHANGES BETWEEN FIRST AND SECOND READING. HOWEVER, MAKING SIGNIFICANT MATERIAL CHANGES ARE PROBLEMATIC. I THINK THAT SINCE THIS WAS ADVERTISED WITH NO MENTION OF WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT, I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT BE DONE BY A DIFFERENT ORDINANCE. >> OKAY. THEN WE WILL HAVE TO COME BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD. AND YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO. [01:30:03] >> EXACTLY. >> THERE'S A REASON WHY THERE'S TWO READINGS. >> HE WANTS TO KNOW. >> I'M SUGGESTING THAT THERE ARE REASONS THAT THERE'S TWO READINGS. ONE IS TO DISCUSS IT, BECAUSE WE CAN'T DISCUSS IT OTHERWISE. AND THEN TO VET IT OUT HERE. AND THEN IF THERE ARE THINGS THAT WE NEED TO APPROVE, IT IS A SECOND READING. IT WILL ALL BE ADVERTISED AGAIN. >> THERE WAS ONLY ONE ADVERTISEMENT. >> IT WILL BE IN THE AGENDA FOR THE SECOND READING -- WHICH IS A DATE CERTAIN I SUSPECT. SO WHOEVER IS WATCHING THIS WHO WOULD HAVE A CONCERN, THEY WOULD HAVE NOTICED THAT THIS WILL BE ON THE AGENDA AT A DATE CERTAIN THAT WILL BE DECIDED TONIGHT. IS THAT THE CASE? AM I MIXING UP MY PREVIOUS LIFE TO HERE? SPEAK UP WHAT I UNDERSTOOD, IF IT WAS LIKE A SMALL CHANGE. BUT THIS IS A TOO BIG OF A CHANGE TO GO FROM THE FIRST READING TO THE SECOND READING IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES, MA'AM, MADAM MAYOR. IF YOU LOOK AT THE PUBLICATION ATTACHED TO THE AGENDA, THE TITLE BLOCK GETS ADVERTISED BECAUSE ONLY ONE ADVERTISEMENT THAT GETS DONE WE DON'T RE-ADVERTISE FOR THE SECOND. IT'S ALL DONE BEFORE THE FIRST HEARING. THE TYPE OF CHANGE THAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT WOULD HAVE TO CHANGE THE TITLE BLOCK. BECAUSE WE WOULD BE MAKING A MATERIAL CHANGE ELSEWHERE IN THE ORDINANCE THAT IS NOT CURRENTLY INCLUDED IN THE TITLE BOOK. ESSENTIALLY, THE ADVERTISEMENT THAT YOU DID WOULD NOT BEFORE THE ORDINANCE THAT YOU ARE APPROVING. SO IN MY OPINION, THIS IS TOO A MATERIAL OF A CHANGE UNLIKE WHAT WE SAW WITH THE CODE WHERE WE WEREN'T MATERIALLY CHANGING BETWEEN FIRST AND SECOND. WE WERE MAKING SOME CLARIFICATIONS. I DO BELIEVE THIS ONE IS DIFFERENT WHEN YOU LOOK AT WHAT WAS ADVERTISED. >> IF WE WANT TO MAKE THAT CHANGE, DO WE HAVE TO -- WE DON'T ACT ON IT? OR WE DON'T APPROVE THIS, AND YOU COME BACK WITH A BRAND NEW ONE? IS THAT CORRECT? >> MADAM MAYOR, MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE, YOU CHOOSE. YOU HAVE A COUPLE OF OPTIONS. YOU COULD PROCEED AS WRITTEN CURRENTLY. MR. FREEMAN COULD MAKE THAT ADDITIONAL CHANGE SUBSEQUENT IN A SEPARATE ORDINANCE. OR IF YOU WOULD LIKE FOR THAT CHANGE TO BE MADE AND IT ALL BE DONE AT ONCE, WE WOULD START OVER AT FIRST READING. IT WOULD GET RE-ADVERTISED WITH THE ADDITIONAL CHANGE THAT YOU WOULD BE REQUESTING. >> YOU HAVE TO RE-ADVERTISE NO MATTER WHAT. >> I THINK HE MIGHT HAVE TIME TO GET IT ADVERTISED AND ON THE NEXT MEETING FOR FIRST READING AGAIN. SO I THINK WE COULD DO FIRST READING AGAIN ON AUGUST THIRD. I THINK WE CAN. >> OKAY. SO THE ACTION RIGHT NOW WOULD BE TO TAKE NO ACTION? >> WE WILL PROCEED TO THE NEXT MEETING WITH A REVISED ORDI ORDINANCE. >> I DIDN'T HEAR YOU. >> WE CAN PROCEED TO THE NEXT MEETING. BUT YOU MIGHT WANT TO DO IS GO AHEAD AND DO A PUBLIC HEARING TO SEE IF THERE'S ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT THAT YOU MAY WISH TO CONSIDER BEFORE WE MOVE FORWARD. >> THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. ANYONE WISHING TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE, PLEASE COME FORWARD. SEEING NO MOVEMENT, I'M COMING BACK TO THE COMMISSION. AND SO WHAT IS THE WILL OF THE COMMISSION? >> MADAM MAYOR, IF THIS NEEDS A MOTION, I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO BRING THIS BACK AS ADVERTISED FOR A FIRST READING WITH THE SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES AS WE DISCUSSED HERE TONIGHT. >> IS THERE A SECOND? >> SECOND. >> IS THERE ANY MORE DISCUSSION? YOU ARE CLEAR? >> I WILL WORK WITH THE CITY CLERK AND CITY ATTORNEY TO GET THIS INTO SHAPE. >> CONTROL THE ROLL PLEASE. >> COMMISSIONER DZADOVSKY? COMMISSIONER BRODERICK, [J. Legislative Hearing - Ordinance 26-015 Modifying the method of appointment of members to the Board of Examiners of Contractors. FIRST READING] COMMISSIONER GAINES, MAYOR HUDSON. OKAY, THEN NEXT ORDINANCE IS ORDINANCE 26-015 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE FLORIDA AMENDING CHAPTER 103, BUILDING AND BUILDING REGULATIONS ARTICLY AMENDING SECTION 103-89 BY MODIFYING THE APPOINTMENT [01:35:04] PROCEDURES OF MEMBERS TO THE BOARD OF EXAMINERS OF CONTRACTORS, REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES OR PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH IMPROVISING FIRST SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE THIS IS THE FIRST READING. >> WHEN I WAS READING THE BACKUP OF THIS, I WAS THINKING -- >> THIS ONE IS MINE. >> THIS IS AN EXAMPLE. WE TRIED SOMETHING AND IT DOESN'T WORK WE NEED TO GO BACK TO THE WAY THAT WE DID IT BEFORE. WE RECOGNIZED THAT IT DOESN'T WORK IF WE CAN CHANGE IT WHEN WE FIGURE OUT THAT THINGS DON'T WORK. >> WHEN THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT DID IT THE FIRST GO AROUND, I'M, LIKE, THAT'S NOT GONNA WORK BECAUSE WE IMPROVE THE POINT. THE BOARD OF EXAMINERS OF CONTRACTORS IS ONE BY THE BY STATE STATUTE THAT HAS TO BE MADE UP OF SPECIFIC BOARD LICENSED MEMBERS. WHEN EACH OF YOU HAVE TO PICK A MEMBER, IT JUST DOES NOT WORK. THEY NEED TO BE CHOSEN AT LARGE BASED ON THEIR INDIVIDUAL PROFESSION. WE ARE BASICALLY JUST CUTTING THE SPECIFIC APPOINTMENTS OUT AND PUTTING IT BACK TO WHERE IT WAS. >> THEY WILL ALL BE AT LARGE BASICALLY. >> AS LONG AS THEY FIT SPECIFIC CRITERIA WITHIN CERTAIN PROFESSIONS. >> QUESTIONS OF MISS COX? THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING ANYONE WISHING TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE, PLEASE COME FORWARD. SEEING NO MOVEMENT, I'M GOING BACK TO THE COMMISSION IS THERE A MOTION? >> THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND. >> COMMISSIONER BRODERICK, [A. Discussion and acceptance of proposal from S. Renée Narloch & Associates to conduct the professional search for the next City Attorney in an amount not to exceed $30,950.00, including expenses.] COMMISSIONER DZADOVSKY, COMMISSIONER GAINES, MAYOR HUDSON. NEXT WE MOVE ON TO THE DISCUSSION AND ACCEPTANCE OF A PROPOSAL FROM ASPIRIN AND ASSOCIATES TO CONDUCT THE PROFESSIONAL SEARCH FOR THE NEXT CITY ATTORNEY IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $30,950 INCLUDING EXPENSES. >> OUR MANAGER GAVE AN OVERVIEW OF THE RECOMMENDATION. THEN I BELIEVE TWO OF THE PHOTOS THAT SUBMITTED AS WELL. >> GOOD EVENING. HR MANAGER. MADAM MAYOR COMMISSIONERS, HERE TONIGHT TO DISCUSS THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR OUR CITY ATTORNEY. OUR NEXT CITY ATTORNEY. THERE WERE THREE FIRMS THAT I RECEIVED QUOTES FROM CALLING PASSENGER AND ASSOCIATES, GOV HR, USA OR MGT. AND S. RENEE NARLOCH AND ASSOCIATES. THE DASH $34,500 WITH 12 WEEKS TIMELINE. GOV HRUSMGT CAME IN AT $28,000. I WOULD LIKE TO NOTE THAT THEY ADDED ADDITIONALLY $1200 FOR EACH VISIT THAT THEY CAME HERE IF YOU HAD THREE VISITS, THAT WOULD ADD AN ADDITIONAL $3600 FOR THE TOTAL COST WOULD COME TO $31,000.600. RENEE NARLOCH AND ASSOCIATES CAME DOWN AT $39,000.50. THAT INCLUDES THREE ON SITE VISITS FOR VIDEOS. SO OUR RECOMMENDATION IS TO GO WITH RENEE NARLOCH AND ASSOCIATES AS BEING THE LOWEST BIDDER AS WELL AS ALSO MOST RECENTLY COMPLETING WORK ON OUR POLICE CHIEF. SO WE ARE HERE TO ASK COUNCIL A'S APPROVAL FOR DIRECTION OF WHICH WAY THEY WOULD LIKE TO GO IN ADDITION TO THAT -- WE COULD DO THAT FIRST AND I HAVE ONE MORE COMMENT AFTER WE HAVE THAT DISCUSSION IF I MAY. >> MR. SORENSEN. >> DID SHE GIVE A TIME FRAME FOR. >> 16 WEEKS. >> FOUR MONTHS. SPEAKER WHICH LEADS ME TO MY SECOND QUESTION AFTER WE HAVE THAT DISCUSSION. SPEAKER MADAM MAYOR. SHE MAY HAVE GIVEN A TIME FRAME OF 16 WEEKS. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT SHE WOULD FIND SOMEBODY IN THE MEANTIME. SHE COULD JUST CUT THE TIME FRAME. >> THAT IS CORRECT. IF YOU LOOK AT EACH ONE, COLIN BASINGER PUT A 12 WEEKS MGT PUT IN 14 WEEKS OR 16 WEEKS SOMEWHERE IN THAT RANGES WHERE IT WOULD TAKE TO COMPLETE THE WHOLE PROCESS. BUT THE QUESTION COMES UP IN THE MEANTIME. WHAT IS THE DRUTHERS OF THE COMMISSION OF HOW WE INTERMITTENTLY FILL THE POSITION INTERIM? WHAT IS THE DIRECTION THE COMMISSION WOULD LIKE US TO TAKE? >> WE HAVE MISS CAROLINE. MISS CAROLINE HAS SOME KIND OF AN AGREEMENT WITH US, CORRECT? >> SHE IS WORKING PART TIME IN THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE RIGHT NOW UNDER CONTRACT. YES, MA'AM. [01:40:01] >> COMMISSIONERS. >> MADAM MAYOR, I BELIEVE THAT THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR AN INTERIM ATTORNEY. WHETHER IT IS FOR THE FINAL OUTCOME OR A TRANSITION PERIOD. AND I THINK THAT THE COMMISSION MADE THEIR DECISION TO MOVE FORWARD. I THINK THAT NEEDS TO GET STARTED. I THINK AS MISS NARLOCH IS SEARCHING, I THINK SHE COULD ALSO BE LOOKING FOR SOMEONE TO BE AN INTERIM IN THE SAME VEIN. I THINK THAT IS AN OPPORTUNITY THAT CAN HAPPEN. THAT IS JUST MY POSITION. SPEAKER MADAM MAYOR, MY COMMENT IS THAT, I DON'T AGREE WITH ANY OF THIS DECISION. EVERYBODY IS AWARE OF THAT. THIS IS THE FIRST DOWNSTROKE OF $31,000 THAT THE CITY HAS IN CURRENT COSTS AMONGST DAMAGES AND OTHER THINGS OF THIS NATURE. THIS IS GOING TO BECOME A VERY COSTLY ORDEAL I DISAGREE WITH COMMISSIONER DZADOVSKY. THE ENTIRE COMMISSION DID NOT APPROVE THIS FOR A PORTION OF THE COMMISSION APPROVED IT. >> MAJORITY. >> MAJORITY DOES NOT OWN THESE DECISIONS MOVING FORWARD. >> COMMISSIONER GAINES, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD? >> I DO, MADAM MAYOR. I'M NOT GOING DOWN THAT RABBIT HOLE. I'M NOT HAVING INTERIM AND THEN COME BACK IN. THAT WOULD BE THREE ATTORNEYS IN FOUR MONTHS OR FIVE MONTHS. SO I THINK WE LET THE SEARCH TEAM DO THEIR JOB. BEFORE I MOVE, I HAVE A QUESTION, BECAUSE SOMETHING POPPED UP HERE I'M GOING BACK TO THE POLICE CHIEF. WE PUT OUT AN RFP OR WHATEVER IT IS CALLED, RF WHATEVER FOR HOW MANY DAYS DOES THAT STAY OPEN? BECAUSE YOU ARE SAYING, IF WE FIND ONE, DO WE JUST CUT IT? THAT IS NOT FAIR. HOW MANY DAYS ARE WE GOING TO HAVE OPEN? SHE SAID 14 WEEKS 16 WEEKS, REQUEST A MARK DOING THAT 16 WEEKS. HOW MANY DAYS WILL CANDIDATES HAVE TO SUBMIT THEIR APPLICATIONS OR WHATEVER WE DO? IT IS NOT THE WHOLE 16 WEEKS. IT'S NOT THE WHOLE 16 WEEKS THAT PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE SUBMITTING APPLICATIONS FOR YOU GUYS GO THROUGH IT. AND TRY TO SELECT LIKE WE DID WITH THE POLICE CHIEF PICK I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S GOING TO BE DIFFERENT I'M GOING BY WHAT SHE DID WITH THE POLICE CHIEF. I'VE GOT A BINDER HERE I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IF THE SAME PROCESS FOR EVERY CANDIDATE THAT WANTS TO COME, THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE THE SAME OPPORTUNITY TO SUBMIT AN APPLICATION. >> SO IF COMMISSION APPROVES TONIGHT TO GO WITH MISS NARLOCH, I WOULD BE REACHING OUT TO HER IN THE MORNING. THE FIRST THING THAT SHE WOULD DO AS SHE STARTS THIS PROCESS IS TO DEVELOP A TIMELINE OF WHEN WE ARE GOING TO DO THE RECRUITING, HOW LONG IT'S GOING TO BE OPEN, AND WHAT THE PROCESS IS. IS THERE GOING TO BE INTERVIEWS OR A MEET AND GREET? ALL OF THAT WOULD START BE DEVELOPED TOMORROW I WOULD HAVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING AFTER I SPEAK WITH HER TOMORROW IF SHE IS AWARDED THE CONTRACT SO I CAN COME BACK AND GIVE YOU A BETTERE IT HAS. I DO KNOW FROM LOOKING AND DOING MY RESEARCH, I DO KNOW THAT SHE HAS A CITY ATTORNEY RECRUITMENT OPEN SO I KNOW THAT SHE IS ALL READY IN OTHER AREAS LOOKING AT THIS. SHE MAY ALREADY HAVE SOME PEOPLE IN THE PIPELINE -- WHICH WOULD STREAMLINE THE AMOUNT OF TIME IT WOULD TAKE. >> AND THAT IS FINE THAT IS FINE. JUST TO BE CLEAR TO ANYBODY THAT IS LISTENING. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THEY SHOULDN'T APPLY. Y'ALL ARE LAUGHING. YOU KNOW HOW PEOPLE HEAR THINGS. SO LET'S JUST BE CLEAR. >> MY GOAL WOULD BE TO WORK WITH MISS NARLOCH TO PUT TOGETHER THE SAME KIND OF PROCEDURE THAT WE DID FOR THE POLICE CHIEF. TO ALLOW THE BREADTH OF GETTING OUT THERE AND ALLOWING EVERYBODY TO APPLY. AND REALLY BRING IN SOME GOOD CANDIDATES THAT YOU GUYS CAN GO THROUGH AND NARROW DOWN TO A SHORT LIST AND EVEN DO ADDITIONAL INTERVIEWS OR WHATEVER TO GET TO YOUR FINALISTS. WE WERE SUCCESSFUL IN BRINGING A REALLY GOOD APPLICANT FOR THE POLICE CHIEF. I HOPE TO BE SUCCESSFUL IN THIS AS WELL. >> WE DID VERY GOOD WORK ON THAT. GOING BACK TO THAT SITUATION. IF I REMEMBER RIGHT, I THINK THE CHIEF WAS PUT ON LEAVE DURING THE SEARCH. WE HAD DEPUTY STEP IN. BUT HE WAS ALREADY THERE. IT WASN'T A NEW FACE. IT WASN'T NEW ANYTHING. I AM NOT FILLING THREE NEW [01:45:06] BODIES. HERE UNTIL SEPTEMBER PER THE CONTRACT. >> THE CONTRACT ENDS ON SEPTEMBER 10TH. >> SEPTEMBER 10TH. SO IF WE START NEXT MONTH WITH MISS NARLOCH, THAT'S ONE MONTH THEN FOR SOMETIMES IN SEPTEMBER YOU'VE SAID AN INTERIM. AND THEN IN NOVEMBER OR DECEMBER OR NOVEMBER OCTOBER OR OCTOBER NOVEMBER, WE BRING IN SOMEBODY NEW. I'M TRYING TO GET A TIME FRAME BUT I DON'T WANT AS WELL I DON'T WANT. SOME INTERN AND ANOTHER ATTORNEY. IT'S NOT LIKE WE ARE GOING TO STOP DOING WORK. >> I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE WORK BEING DONE. WE ARE GOING TO BE WITHOUT A CITY ATTORNEY FOR THREE MONTHS. I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THAT. THERE'S A LOT OF WORK THAT COMES OUT OF THAT OFFICE. >> I CAN SAY THAT PROBABLY TOWARDS THE END OF OCTOBER AND THE BEGINNING OF NOVEMBER, REASONABLY IS WHEN YOU WOULD LOOK AT BEING ABLE TO FILL THE POSITION OF SOMEBODY. >> COMMISSIONER. >> I THINK WHAT YOU SAID A MOMENT AGO GIVES US AN OPPORTUNITY. THE FIRST THING ON THE TABLE IS APPROVING THE CONTRACT. I'M THINKING I'M HEARING EVERYONE IS KIND OF AGREEING THAT. >> MICROPHONE. >> I NEED A BETTER MICROPHONE. >> GET IT AROUND YOUR COMPUTER. >> IT NEEDS TO BEND CLOSER. ANYWAY. THE FIRST THING WE HAVE TO DO IS APPROVE THIS ITEM. SHE CAN GET A BETTER IDEA. MAYBE NEXT MEETING, WE HAVE THIS CONVERSATION AS TO WHAT THE THOUGHT PROCESS WOULD BE. I THINK SHE ALSO HAS TO HAVE THE APPROVAL FIRST AND GIVE US A BETTER TIME FRAME. THAT IS SOMETHING WE DON'T HAVE IN FRONT OF US OR KNOWLEDGE THEREOF. >> BECAUSE OF THE QUOTES, I DIDN'T GO INTO DETAIL WITH EACH INDIVIDUAL QUOTA. I QUOTED IT AND I PUT ON A SPREADSHEET TO BROUGHT TO YOU. THE MINUTE YOU APPROVE, WHATEVER YOU WANT ME TO MOVE FORWARD WITH, I WILL GET WITH THEM AND IMMEDIATELY START THE PROCESS AND GET YOU BACK A TIMELINE. MAYBE EVEN BE ABLE TO HAVE IT TO WHERE YOU CAN UPDATE THEM ON THEIR ONE ON ONE MEETINGS AND SHOW ON THE TIMELINE AND TALK THROUGH IT AND ADDRESS ANY CONCERNS THAT YOU MAY HAVE THAT I CAN TAKE BACK TO THE INDIVIDUAL AND TALK WITH THEM. >> I THINK STEP ONE. >> I WOULD ALSO THINK A VERY, VERY PRIORITY IS A JOB DESCRIPTION. BECAUSE, WE ARE IN THIS POSITION A LOT BECAUSE OF DIFFERENCES OF OPINION. AND WE ARE IN THIS POSITION BECAUSE OF A JOB DESCRIPTION. WE NEED A JOB DESCRIPTION THAT WE AGREE ON. AND WE ALREADY HAD A JOB DESCRIPTION. OUR CITY ATTORNEY HAD A JOB DESCRIPTION AND THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT JOBS AND DOING OTHER PEOPLE'S JOBS AND OVERLAP. I WOULD BE VERY INTERESTED IN A JOB DESCRIPTION THAT THIS COMMISSION ALL UNDERSTANDS. AND SO, THAT NEEDS TO BE DASHED WE ALL NEED TO BE VERY, VERY CLEAR ON THAT. BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO GO DOWN THIS PATH EVER AGAIN. >> I CAN CERTAINLY WORK ON A JOB WE HAVE A NEW FORMAT ANYWAY SINCE THE LAST TIME THE JOB DESCRIPTION WAS WRITTEN I CAN UPDATE IT IN THERE OF COURSE IT WOULD BE A RECOMMENDATION TO BRING IT BACK TO COMMISSION FOR YOU GUYS TO DISCUSS AND APPROVE I COULD DEFINITELY DO THAT. >> $31,000 CHARGE. THIS IS THE FIRST CHARGE THAT WE ARE PAYING FOR TENS IF NOT HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS OF EXPENSES BASED ON THIS. WHERE IS THAT MONEY COMING FROM? WHERE IS IT BEING ALLOCATED FROM? >> I TALKED TO THE FINANCE DIRECTOR. UNFORTUNATELY, SHE IS NOT HERE TONIGHT. ANOTHER APPOINTMENT SHE HAD TO GO TO BUT SHE'S IDENTIFIED THE MONEY. I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHERE IT IS BEING PULLED FROM. I KNOW THAT SHE'S FOUND THE MONEY IN THE BUDGET THIS YEAR TO BE ABLE TO PAY FOR THIS. >> I'M GOING TO MAKE A REQUEST HERE ON PUBLIC RECORD THAT EVERY PENNY EXPENDED IN ANYTHING TO DO WITH REPLACEMENT OF CITY ATTORNEY IS ITEMIZED AND MEASURED. I'M GONNA WANT ALL OF THAT INFORMATION. >> I CAN TELL YOU LIKE WE DID THAT FOR THE POLICE CHIEF, BECAUSE THERE ARE CERTAIN CODES. WE CAN'T DRAG THAT OUT. WE WILL MAKE SURE THAT HAPPENS. >> I HAD A SECOND QUESTION. IT WILL DAWN ON ME MOMENTARILY. >> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? >> I HAVE TWO CODE POINTS, MADAM MAYOR. I AGREE WITH YOU AS FAR AS A DESCRIPTION. I WISH WE WOULD HAVE HAD A DESCRIPTION BEFORE WE DID A CONTRACT. [01:50:01] WE WILL ALL BE -- WE DON'T NEED NO DESCRIPTION WE ARE GOING TO AGREE ON. I AGREE WITH THE DESCRIPTION. SO EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS THE DESCRIPTION. I AM KIND OF/I'M GONNA TRY TO SAY THIS THE BEST WAY THAT I C CAN. WHEN WE DID THE POLICE CHIEF SEARCH, IT WASN'T ALL THESE REQUESTS FOR ALL THIS EVERY PENNY SPENT. IT WASN'T ALL THIS REQUESTS. I UNDERSTAND IT WAS A SPLIT VOTE. IT WASN'T ALL THE REQUESTS. I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, WHY NOW THERE IS SUCH A BIG QUESTION. WHEN WE DIDN'T HAVE A REQUEST WHEN WE WENT OUT AND FOUND THE POLICE CHIEF. IT WAS GO GET -- >> THE POLICE CHIEF RESIGNS. AS A WHOLESALE DIFFERENT SET OF FACTS. >> COMMISSIONER RESIGNED. AND WE ALL KNOW WHY SHE RESIGNED. I DON'T WANT TO GET ON THAT, BECAUSE WE HAVE A NEW POLICE CHIEF. SHE WANTED TO RESIGN. LET'S NOT GO THERE. ALL I'M SAYING IS I'M NOT ABOUT TO MAKE THIS POLITICAL. A DECISION WAS MADE. IT AIN'T THE FIRST TIME THAT WE HAVE DISAGREED ON SOMETHING. BUT NOW WE ARE NOT GOING TO SIT UP HERE AND MAKE THIS POLITICAL BUT I WANT TO KNOW EVERY PENNY. BECAUSE WE HAVE NEVER DONE IT BEFORE. >> YOU ARE TELLING ME I DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO ASK FOR THAT? >> WHY DIDN'T YOU DO IT AGAIN? DOING IT NOW BECAUSE YOU ARE MAD BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T WANT HIM TO LEAD. THAT'S WHY YOU WERE DOING IT THAT'S THE ONLY REASON YOU WERE DOING IT. THAT'S THE ONLY REASON YOU WERE DOING IT. >> IT'S IRRELEVANT WHAT MY REASONING IS. >> IT'S NOT. >> IT ABSOLUTELY IS. >> THAT'S FINE. I'M PUTTING IT ON RECORD. YOU KNOW IT'S KIND OF FUNNY NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN, WE WANT TO EVERY PENNY SO I WILL LEAVE IT AT THAT. >> COMMISSIONER BRODERICK. >> THE CITY COMMISSION CAN VOTE TO NOT ALLOW THAT INFORMATION TO BE GIVEN TO ME I HAVE A RIGHT TO REQUEST THAT INFORMATION AND HAVE THAT INFORMATION IF THE CITY COMMISSION WANTS TO TAKE A DIFFERENT TACTIC AND SAY WE'RE NOT GONNA RELEASE THAT INFORMATION TO YOU, PUT IT ON THE RECORD THAT WAY. >> ABSOLUTELY NOT I WANT YOU TO GET IT. >> THAT WOULDN'T EVEN BE LEGAL. IT IS PUBLIC INFORMATION FOR ANYBODY IN THE PUBLIC. >> YES. THIS ORIGINAL ISSUE WITH MISS HEDGES WAS IN THEORY A CHARTER CONFLICT BETWEEN CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE AND CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE BECAUSE THAT ISSUE IS BY THE BOARD IS IRRELEVANT AT THIS POINT IN TIME. >> IT'S NOT. >> SHE WAS BLAMED FOR ALL THIS INSTEAD OF USING THE CHARTER AS THE REAL ISSUE HERE. WHICH WAS ORIGINALLY BROUGHT UP. IT SHIFTED TO A PERSONALITY ATTACK ON MISS HEDGES AND HER LACK OF QUALITY OF WORK PRODUCTION ET CETERA, ET CETERA. WHY WE GOT TO THAT POINT IS BEYOND ME. IS THE CHARTER GOING TO BE REVISITED AS YOU ARE SUGGESTING, MADAM MAYOR, TO AVOID THESE CONFLICTS IN THE FUTURE? ARE WE GOING TO LET IT SIT OUT THERE AND SAY THAT'S THE REASON SHE WAS FIRED. LET'S NOT PUT THE REAL REASON OUT THERE. WE ALL KNOW THERE'S AN UNDERLYING REASON THAT HAS YET TO BE. >> PLEASE EXPLAIN, BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW IT I'M SITTING RIGHT HERE, AND I DON'T KNOW YOUR UNDERLYING REASONING. SO PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME. WHAT YOU JUST SAID FROM MY SEAT IS NOT TRUE. SO PLEASE EXPLAIN. WE ARE HERE. PLEASE UNDER EXPLAIN YOUR UNDERLYING REASON FOR EVERYBODY IN THE PUBLIC TO UNDERSTAND WHY SHE WAS FIRED. I'M LISTENING. >> CLEARLY IT'S A POLITICAL MOTIVATION HERE. >> COMMISSIONER DZADOVSKY. >> TO CORRECT THE RECORD, THE SITUATION OCCURRED WHEN THERE WAS A CONFLICT BETWEEN TWO CHARTER OFFICERS. AND I BROUGHT THAT FORWARD. AND THE REASON WHY I DID IS BECAUSE HE WANTED TO SEEK OUTSIDE ADVICE FROM THE ATTORNEY THAT WE ALREADY HAVE ON CONTRACT. AND THEN, IT TRANSFORMED INTO AN ISSUE WITH LOOKING AT THE CONTRACTS, LOOKING AT THE CHARTER. THE REASON WHY THAT GOT BROUGHT UP AND THE REASON WHY WE ARE HERE, AND IT WAS NOT TO FIRE. IT WAS BECAUSE THE CONTRACT HAD A 90-DAY NOTICE IN WHICH TO RENEW THE CONTRACT TO APPROVE THE CONTRACT. TO NOT APPROVE THE CONTRACT. OR BE THAT WAS SOMETHING NEW FOR ME HAVING NOT BEEN ON THIS COMMISSION BEFORE SO I QUESTIONED THE FACT THAT IT WAS ONLY TWO WEEKS AWAY FROM THE 90-DAY NOTICE PERIOD AND AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE WERE NOT NOTIFIED. YOU MAY HAVE BEEN. I WAS NOT NOTIFIED. IT WAS NOT AN AGENDA ITEM TO REVIEW AS TO THE CONTRACT RENEWAL OR NOT AND THAT'S HOW IT ALL UNFOLDED. THIS IS NOT A WITCH HUNT. [01:55:02] THIS IS NOT AN ATTACK OR A FIRING. THIS WAS SIMPLY MOVING INTO A DIRECTION IN WHICH THE COMMISSION MAJORIY VOTED TO NOT RENEW THE CONTRACT. THAT'S THE SIMPLE FACT OF THIS SITUATION. THAT'S IT. >> WHICH IS THE END RESULT IS A TERMINATION OF AN EMPLOYEE. LET NOT SUGARCOAT IT. CALL FOR IT WHAT IS IT. DON'T BE EMBARRASSED ABOUT YOUR DECISION. >> HOLD ON MADAM MAYOR. I'M NOT GOING TO SIT HERE AND TAKE THESE SHOTS FROM COMMISSIONER BRODERICK. NOT LIKE SHE'S THE FIRST EMPLOYEE TERMINATED FROM FORT PIERCE. I'VE HEARD NOTHING FROM YOUR MICROPHONE WITH THESE EMPLOYEES. ALL OF THE SUDDEN NOW IT'S POLITICAL. I'VE NEVER MADE A POLITICAL DECISION SINCE I SAT IN THIS CHAIR AND YOU KNOW THAT SO LET'S NOT DO THIS. >> LET'S NOT DO THIS. WE'RE REHASHING OLD QUESTIONS AND I'D LIKE TO, I'D LIKE TO SAY ONE MORE THING BEFORE I CALL THE QUESTION. IN LIGHT OF COMMISSIONER BRODERICK'S REQUEST IN TERMS OF CHARTER I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO TELL, TO PROVIDE TO THE COMMISSION WHAT THE CHARTER SAYS ABOUT THE CITY MANAGER THE CITY CLERK AND THE CITY ATTORNEY. AND THE CURRENT CHARTER AND I KNOW THAT THERE WAS A PREVIOUS CHARTER AND I THINK THAT'S BEEN ON, THERE WAS A PREVIOUS CHARTER IN SOMETHINGS WERE SUPPOSED TO HAVE BEEN DONE THAT JOB DESCRIPTIONS WERE SUPPOSED TO BE FLESHED OUT AND I'M NOT SURE WHERE THEY ARE BUT IF YOU CAN WORK WITH MS. COX AND MR. CHESS AND MS. HEDGES SO THAT, I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE THIS DID START OUT AS A CHARTER DISPUTE, AND I THINK THAT WE ALL NEED TO BE CLEAR ON WHAT OUR CHARTER SAY, SO THAT WE CAN FOLLOW THE CHARTER. >> I'LL CERTAINLY GET WITH THE CITY MANAGER AND MS. COX. >> TO PROVIDE THE COMMISSION THE INFORMATION IT NEEDS TO HAVE, OKAY? SO WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO NOW IS HAVE A MOTION ABOUT THE ITEM WHICH IS, ITEM 13-A. IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE? >> MADAM MAYOR MOVE APPROVAL OF MS. NARLOCH AND RENEE NARLOCK & ASSOCIATES WITH THIS CONTRACT. >> SECOND? >> SECOND. >> CALL THE ROLL PLEASE. COMMISSIONER BRODERICK >> NO. >> COMMISSIONER DZADOVSKY? >> YES. [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.] >> COMMISSIONER GAINES? >> YES. >> COMMISSIONER HUDSON? >> YES. >> OKAY NEXT ITEM IS COMMENTS FROM PUBLIC. >> THIS IS A CHANCE FOR ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC TO COME AND ADDRESS US ON ANY SUBJECT. STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES AND MS. COX WILL GIVE YOU A TEN SECOND WARNING. >> GOOD EVENING. COMMISSION, I AM JERRY MONROE AND RESIDE AT AVENUE-H FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA. I HEARD DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THE HOUSING, AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR THE COMMUNITY AND THE PEOPLE OF FORT PIERCE. I DO BELIEVE I DID HEAR SOMETHING ABOUT HOUSING STANDARD AS WHILE BACK AND WITH THAT BEING SAID, I JUST WANT TO KEEP IN MIND THE ORDINANCE AND KEEP IN MIND THE TYPE OF HOUSING THAT WE DO HAVE. JUST, YOU KNOW FOR CONSIDERATION. ROOMING HOUSES DO NEED TO BE CONSIDERED AS, I'VE NEVER OWN AND HOUSE OR ANYTHING IN THOSE REGARDS, BUT THERE IS DIFFICULTY WHEN IT COMES TO HAVING CONFLICTS WITH YOUR UP BRING ORIGINAL WHAT YOU WERE TAUGHT VERSES WHAT SOMEONE ELSE WAS TAUGHT. THESE THINGS DO AFFECT US IN THE COMMUNITY AND IN A PLACE LIKE ROOMY HOUSE, AS WELL AND I WOULD LIKE IT TO BE CONSIDERED FOR A COMMON GROUND, TO BE UNDERSTOOD OR A SOLUTION TO BE PROPOSED. THANK YOU GUYS FOR LISTENING. OH SORRY. THERE WAS ALSO TALKS IN REGARDS TO, YOU KNOW, SHELTERS AND THINGS LIKE THAT AND JUST TO REHASH THE SAME POINT. MAKING SURE THAT THE RESIDENTS OF FORT PIERCE WHO MAY NOT KNOW ALL OF THESE CONFLICTS OR ISSUES THAT DO COME TO THE SURFACE, YOU KNOW, ARE BEING CONSIDERED. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. [02:00:02] ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION? PLEASE COME FORWARD. ANYONE ELSE? [15. COMMENTS FROM THE CITY MANAGER] OKAY. BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION AND MOVE ON. >> NEXT WE HAVE COMMENTS FROM CITY MANAGER. >> YES. I HAVE ONE COMMENT AND I JUST WANT TO THANKS THE CITY STAFF AND THE POLICE DEPARTMENT FOR UNITY IN THE COMMUNITY. IT WAS A GREAT EVENT. WELL ATTENDED. IT WAS GOOD TO SEE THE CHILDREN OUT THERE AND PARENTS AND POLICE INTERACTING WITH THEM. THEY HAD THE K9S DOING THE RETUNES. IT WAS A GOOD EVENT. >> IT WAS HOT. I DIDN'T SPEND A LOT OF TIME OUTSIDE I WILL CONFESS. I WENT INSIDE WHERE THE AIR-CONDITIONING WAS. OKAY. >> THANK YOU. >> MS. COX DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING? >> MS. HEDGED? [16. COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSION] >> NO. >> WE'LL MOVE ON TO COMMISSION COMMENTS. WHO WOULD LIKE TO GO FIRST? >> NO COMMENTS TONIGHT. >> MADAM MAYOR I REPRESENTED THE COMMISSION AT THE REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL ON FRIDAY. AND I MADE IT CLEAR THE CONCERNS OF THE PUBLIC FOR THE CAUSEWAY COVE PROJECT IS NOT, IT NEEDS A CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW, NUMBER ONE. NUMBER TWO, THE CALCULATION FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING USING PORT SAINT LUCIE AS THE CALCULATION BUT THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE IS DIFFERENT IN WHAT THE RENTS ARE GOING FOR THERE AND IN MARTIN COUNTY SO WHEN YOU CREATE THE CALCULATION AND ALSO, THE AVERAGE WAGE FOR FOLKS IN FORT PIERCE, SO IF WE'RE BEING FORCED TO ACCEPT THIS PROVISION, LIVE LOCAL, THEN MY POSITION IS WE SHOULD LOOK TO FIND OUT IF OR WHY WE SHOULD NOT USE THE AVERAGE WAGE IN FORT PIERCE AS THE CALCULATION AS APPOSED TO WHAT THEY ARE BEING USED WITH THE HUD AND - >> AREN'T THEY USING THE A.M.I? CENSUS? >> THAT'S THE, THAT'S WHATS UTILIZED. >> IT IS'S IN THE LAW. >> THERE'S NOT A SEPARATE ONE FOR THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE. >> I THINK THAT'S THE CHALLENGE I SEE AS AN ISSUE IF THE CITY IS BEING FORCED TO USE THAT PROVISION IT SHOULD REALLY AND MAYBE THIS IS WHERE WE GO BACK TO THE LEGISLATURE AND SAY IF IT'S SPECIFIC TO THE CITY LET'S LOOKING AT THE ACTUAL VALUES OF THE WAGES IN THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE RATHER THAN MARTIN COUNTY AND PORT ST. LUCIE BECAUSE FORT PIERCE IS A VERY DIFFERENT AREA. ANYWAY I PUT A LOT OF THOSE THINGS ON THE TABLE. THERE WAS A LOT OF SUPPORT FOR THE ISSUE AND ACTUALLY SOME CONCERN FOR THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE WHEN THEY LOOK AT THE DENSITY AND THE ROADWAY CONFIGURATION, SO I THOUGHT AT THE PLANNING COUNCIL WHERE WE DEAL WITH A LOT OF ROADS I THOUGHT IT WAS BEST TO THROW IT OUT THERE THAT WE WERE DEALING WITH THIS. >> YEAH. NOBODY LIKES IT BUT EXCEPT THE DEVELOPER. COMMISSIONER GAINES? >> YES, FOLLOW UP ON THIS LIVE LOCAL. I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE CAN DO TO LET THE PUBLIC UNDERSTAND THAT I GUESS THEY WANT US TO FILE SUIT AND DO ALL OF THIS STUFF. I GUESS WE NEED TO PUT IT ON OUR WEB PAGE SO THEY CAN READ IT AND SEE. I'VE BEEN TELLING EVERYBODY TO CALL OUR STATE REPS. CALL TALLAHASSEE BECAUSE I KNOW WHEN THEY WERE CONTEMPLATING THIS STATUTE ALL FIVE OF US WAS JUMPING UP AND MR. FRIEDMAN WAS JUMPING UP AND DOWN SAYING DON'T PASS IT. >> WE WERE WORKING WITH THE FLORIDA LEAGUE OF CITIES. >> NOBODY LISTENED TO WHEN IT HITS THEIR BACKYARD NOW EVERYONE IS UP IN ARMS AND LOOKING TO US TO DO SOMETHING AND WE HAD A CHANCE BEFORE THEY PASS IT AND WE SHOULD HAVE BEEN FLOODING THEIR NUMBERS IN TALLAHASSEE THEN SO PUT IT UP OR DOING ONE OF THE MEETINGS AND HAVE SOMEONE COME IN AND REALLY EXPLAIN TO THE PUBLIC WHAT WE CAN DO AND CAN'T DO BECAUSE I DON'T REALLY THINK THEY KNOW WHAT WE CAN DO AND CAN'T DO AND THEY ARE NOT TAKING US WHEN I SAY MY HANDS ARE TIED. I DON'T THINK THEY BELIEVE US. SO THE EVENT SATURDAY IT WAS HOT. LOT OF KIDS. HAD A LOT OF FUN. GREAT EVENT AND WE EVEN HAD WHEN I WAS OUT THERE IT'S PROBABLY GOING TO BE BIGGER NEXT YEAR. WE HAD TWO DOCTORS OFFICES. WHEN I WAS THERE AND CAME ACROSS THE STREET AND ASKED WHAT WAS GOING ON, WHOEVER PUT THE EVENT [02:05:02] TOGETHER IT PROBABLY HAS SOME MORE NEXT YEAR BECAUSE THEY ENJOY THEIR EVENT. THE LAST THING I TOLD MS. COX ON AUGUST 3RD, I WILL BE IN THE AIR FLYING BACK TO FLORIDA DURING OUR MEETING SO I'LL BECOMING IN FROM CINCINNATI SO I'LL DO MY BEST TO TRY TO LOOK UP ON THE PLANE AND LISTEN TO YOU ON THE FIRST MONDAY BUT I WILL BE ABSENT. >> ALRIGHTY. I THINK THAT'S ALL WE HAVE. WE'RE GOING TO BE ADJOURNING AND THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH AND * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.