City Council Regular Meeting - Regular Meeting

All right. Good evening everyone and welcome to this regular meeting with the city council of the city of Fort Walton Beach. Thank you all for being here this evening. If you do have an electronic device, if you could please make sure it's on silent or mute because we usually get at least one a meeting and it is very distracting. We will start the meeting with an invocation from Dr. Roger Pedro, chaplain of the HCA hospitals in Fort Walton Beach and Twin Cities. And then we will continue standing for the pledge of allegiance. If you are so able, may we pray. Loving God, once again we come uh to a time of of sharing ideas and decisions and um I pray that these men and women would uh be able to uh speak with uh clarity and in mind and purpose and that they would uh be uh in tune with your spirit to direct them. Thank you for being with us in every aspect of life that we have and thank you for this venue uh and the ability uh to come and meet and share in such a way. We pray in Jesus name. Amen.

Thank you sir. 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.

All right. Council need approval of tonight's agenda. Second. Motion made by Councilwoman Deberry, seconded by Councilman Schmidt for approval of tonight's agenda. Any additional comments? Please vote. Next up for your consideration, council, is tonight's consent agenda. Do we have a any action on that? Move tonight's consent agenda. Second. Motion made by Councilman Schmidt, seconded by Councilwoman Deary to approve tonight's consent agenda. Any additional comments on that? No, sir.

Please vote. It does pass unanimously, which moves us to mayor and council comments. We start tonight with Councilman Brown. Save for the end, Mayor. All right. Councilwoman Deberry, uh, I'll save it to the end. Councilman Jeter, save for the end. Councilman Merrill, let's do it. Save it to the end. Councilwoman Ryan, I'll save it to the end. Councilman Schmidt,

let's do it to the end. I have a lot of comments that I know. I'll save [laughter] them I'll save them to the end as well. We'll move on to public comments. If uh you want to comment on anything that's not on tonight's agenda, we'll give you five good minutes up here at the podium. Just come up and state your name and your address.

Cheryl Cheryl Malagi Fort Walton Beach. And when I walked into the door, the smell hit me right off. And even now, I'm already getting horse. And I know we want a new building, but I was a decorator for years. There is a particular product called elastoic. You could at least put it on there and stop some of the mold cuz you people I mean I know we want a new building but I only have another 25 years left. You know in my lifetime there's not going to be one. But another thing I noticed when I come sometimes at night and it's dark. People aren't parked very well. They're parked in different ways. And we could give some attention to the striping. Maybe some people can't see the striping. And I noticed tonight it's very visible. And one more thing I do think Marty G is important.

What was the last part? I didn't catch that. Oh, Marty. Okay. Yeah, I didn't hear that. Marty is important. Gotcha. Thank you. Advocate for Mart. Yes, ma'am. [clears throat]

My name is Betty Buchanan and I uh live on Himmlock Drive. So, I am a neighbor in this for the rec center area and I walk there daily uh in the mornings. I knew that they were doing an expansion project, but I didn't realize the extent to which some of it was going to be done. As I walked in Friday morning, I saw that the fence on the Hollywood side of the drainage ditch was down and they were cutting some of those trees down that were in the area that was marked as entry prohibited wildlife and natural conditions in area. So, I went in and talked to David and he took me out and we both talked with the project manager there and he said he they were not clearcutting the trees. He had gone as far as what he was told to do. Um, and I asked about the two trees down near Hollywood that are large oak trees and he said those were supposed to come out too. So, I I do have some questions about that because those are mature trees providing a lot of shade down there and I know you have to um plant a tree for every tree that you cut down. But if there is some way that we could save those trees, that would be two trees that would not have to be planted. Um, and perhaps some of the extra area could be taken up by instead of having a little aisle with a tree in it in the parking area, we could make that area uh in the parking spots.

And then I just couldn't sleep Friday night after I had been over talking with David. It took me till we hours to get to sleep. But I came up with a couple questions and maybe some solutions. One of them was if we're going to have a lot of children in that parking lot area, the blueprints do not show any fencing going back on that side of the drainage ditch. My suggestion is that we get the fencing back up there also along the sidewalk and if the bridge is not going to have railing on it then also uh for across there kids run around naturally. I would hate to see one of the kids to fall into that drainage ditch, get seriously injured, and for the city, the possible financial upper soup if a child were to fall in and get seriously injur injured. And then also I was thinking we perhaps need to put the same signage on that side of with the fencing as well as what's on the other side of the fencing with the prohibited entry cuz that would probably lend a little bit more to the legal side that you tried to prevent to keep uh people out of that area so that they wouldn't get hurt. I think that was all I had to say. Thank you for listening.

Thank you, ma'am. All sound like very reasonable suggestions. Certainly. Anyone else from the public wish to speak? [clears throat] Seeing none, council will move on to item number eight, which is resolutions and specifically resolution 2026-1 to accept a FCCMA grant for internship program. Please [clears throat] leave us.

Yes. Noting shakes, we applied for a grant through FCCMA to fund a position. At the time, Daniel's team was really struggling, so I put it in under public works. But now, he's made some strides with his staffing, so I was looking to put it under the IT department, and FCC may have pays for the entire thing. It's just resolutions required, so bring it before council. Fantastic. Anyone from council with a question on this for Mr. Davis? Anyone from the public wish to speak on this item? Council, do you wish to take any action tonight? Mayor so moved the staff recommendation to approve resolution 2026-1.

Have a motion made by Councilman Schmidt preemptively seconded by Councilwoman Dary with much excitement to approve resolution 2026-01. Any additional comments council? Another grant. Mr. Barry, she likes it. Anyone else? [laughter] Council, please vote. It does pass unanimously, which brings us to ordinances on first reading. Ordinance 2194 amending the land development code section 5.04-11 for community residential homes. Mr. Gibson.

And actually, I'll read the title real quick, Mayor. It's ordinance 2194, an ordinance of the city council of the city of Fort Long Beach, Florida, creating section 5.04.33 04.33 of the land development code to update procedures for the review and approval of the certified recovery residence requests to comply with Florida statutes provider authority provide for severability provide for effective date. This is a quasi legislative hearing and Mr. Tim Gibson presenting on behalf of staff. Good evening Tim Gibson growth management director. Uh so this is a continuation of the item uh that we brought in December. Uh we did receive um the feedback from city council at that time. Uh this is all stemming from uh section 397.487. 487 of the Florida statute that was amended last year uh requiring us to adopt an uh procedures for review and approval of certified recovery residences by um it was by January but we're going to get it done now uh in there. So a lot of the requirements in there was that there's a written application process um timelines for processing it um and and really just the basic on how those are going to be handled if if people do apply for them. Uh initially we we had planned on just amending section 5.4.11 uh that is community residential homes um and just having it all as one thing there. Uh based on the feedback from city council, we decided instead to go ahead and create its own section. So basically we're leaving the 5411 community residential homes as is in the land development code. Um and we just created a whole new section of LDC 5.4.33 for certified recovery residences. There's a lot of similarities, but there's enough differences in there uh that we went ahead and just basically took the language out of there and just created a separate section in there. Um, and with that staff, respect to recommend city council adopt ordinance 2194, which has land development code section 5.4.33 certified to cover residents be consistent with amended section 397.487 of Florida statutes.

Thank you, Mr. Gibson, for that presentation. Questions? Councilman Schmidt? We talked about this and one of the reasons why it was punted to this meeting was getting our city attorney to kind of look at some things of what we could and couldn't do by federal law. But is there any things in this update that make it still compliant and legal with federal law but make it really challenging to have these inside of the R1's with six or fewer residents?

I can. So the what's called the Oxford House, those are still going to be allowable under federal law, but we I do have it noted if SP 180 gets repealed, then there are a couple municipalities around the state who have passed ordinances to treat Oxford houses similar to this. And then and the Oxford houses are the ones that are not licensed uh either uh under as a community residential home or certified covered residence. They and they actually are like six tenants of whoever the owner of the property is and they actually govern themselves like a council and the owner doesn't have any power over them. So that's that's what makes them different [laughter] facilities. Uh and so they kind of govern themselves. uh they're the special classification that exists through uh United State United States Supreme Court opinions and they're protected but we can restrict them but because of SB180 right now we can't do that and the reason we can pass this even right now with SP180 in place because there happen to be a separate statute that got passed last legislative session that require this to be put in. So so uh we kind of have to wait and see what happens this legislative session to get rid of the concern you have with the Oxford houses.

Gotcha. hypothetical. Go ahead. If SP 180 does pass, there is some [cough] we can do to make it more challenging or even discontinue the Oxford housing inside all at once. You can't you cannot discontinue it. But what you could do is [clears throat] set it up to have the same distance requirements like this right now like this. So there's ones you can't have more than one within 1,000 ft of another. So really restrict of houses that could come volumewise possible. All right. Thank you, sir. Anybody else? Questions for Mr. Good. Anyone from the public wish to speak on this item? Council, do you wish to take any action on this? Mayor Su staff recommendation. Second.

Motion made [clears throat] by Councilman Schmidt, second by Councilman Merrell to approve ordinance 2194 on first reading. Any additional comments? Council, please vote. does again pass unanimously which moves us to ordinance 2201 is Mr. Burns. Ordinance 2201, an ordinance to the city of Port Beach, [clears throat] establishing a temporary moratorum on the enforcement of the requirements for short-term rentals for section 8.13 of the city federal ordinances created by ordinance number 2181 providing findings of fact for 6 months temporary moratorum recognizing pending litigation over the constitutionality of SB80 recognizing that the Florida legislature may consider a bill modifying SB80 in 2026. provide for severability provide for the expiration of the moratorum on it's actually supposed to be July correct July 27th

that's July 27th July 27 2026 and provide for an effective date sorry the earlier version I had said June and so I just want to make sure and so this is a quasi legislative hearing we're here on first reading Mr. get some provide uh the report for that.

Right. So, there is the background in your in your record there, but I think um everyone out there is very familiar with SB80 and the impacts of it. Uh the short-term uh rental uh ordinance that we've passed was one of those wrapped up in there. Um since we've since SB180 was approved, we have not been enforcing it. Um obviously because we can't be because of SB180. This just really kind of f formalizes the fact that we're unable to um enact this at this time. I've spoken with Mr. Burns about this one. Um obviously this could be extended if we need to uh or it can be uh cancelled early um if um the SB180 issues are resolved before then. Um, with that, staff likely recommend city council adopt 2201 to enact a temporary moratorium on the enforcement of the requirement of short-term rentals set forth in section 8.13 of the city code of ordinances uh, expiring on July 27th, 2026.

Thank you, sir. Quick question for Mr. Burns. You referenced earlier SB 180 and it's possible uh being possibility of being repealed. Is that something that's currently on the table or is that just a rumor? No. Well, it's a I checked last Friday and it's still in committees right now, but Senator Gates uh is sponsoring it along with a another member of the House. If he sponsors something, it typically will make it out of committee. And so, I think the chances are pretty good it will make it out of committee, but it still hasn't been out committee yet. If you know anything about the state legislature, that's the key thing. you mix down committee is going to probably pass once it goes to the forward. So I I'll be checking in a few days on sex.

Gotcha. Thank you, sir. Anyone with questions for Mr. Gibson on this? Mr. B, Mr. Mer,

there's a moratorum for this. If we decide to uh if we don't decide to repeal it early or extend it, we'll be brought again at that 6 months when it drops off um to discuss then. Is it just naturally going to be brought up in six months if we haven't? Well, I think theoretically if say in about 5 months the the SB180 is repealed or the lawsuit happens or or determined whatever it's no longer an issue at that point really we'll just have to make the decision. I mean theoretically it could just expire at the 6month point and then we can start enforcing it automatically at that point. If say the the SB80 is repealed in March, um then we can just bring back another ordinance to basically undo the the moratorum.

I guess that was my question. Is it going to if it does just expire? If something doesn't bring it to us again, is it just going to expire and start? Yes. Okay. So, we wouldn't be it wouldn't really be brought to our attention anymore.

Correct. It would just expire at that point and move on. Um, but really by that 6-month point, we're hoping we have a a much better clarity on what's going to happen with that because if it's something where SB180 is not going to go away and it's going to stay in there, we'll probably have to actually bring back action to repeal that former ordinance and just wipe it out. We just didn't want to do that right now because we're hoping that it will be changed and rather than having to start from square one and and redo it later on, we really just kind of wanted to put the hard pause on it for 6 months. Councilman If SP180 is repealed through that, I believe it's SP 218, this board, I know staff put a lot of work into that ordinance with short-term rentals and the noise restrictions and all the things that kind of beefed it up so that the intentions were not to have your micro hotels inside of the residential neighborhoods. kind of really summarize it. Essentially, would that ordinance be brought back in the same time as we repeal the moratorum? It's it's still in place. So, right now it's there's no mortorium in place and staff on the advice of council and uh kind of on their own determination as well. We agreed they need to not force it because that would violate escalating. So, it's there. uh if y'all do nothing and this just expires the mortorium it's back on the books fully enforceable and but uh what Mr. Gibson is kind of saying is probably at the 5mon mark we think we extend more moratorum again because we think maybe if SB 180 is not repealed but that lawsuit has also been filed to maybe uh say it's unconstitutional and that's picking up speed looks like it's going to actually maybe a result of judgment we would probably come back and say let's extend more another 6 months or another 9 months to see kind of what happens but if uh that lawsuit gets uh reaches conclusion and and they decide that it is constitutional SB 180 and let's just say the legislature does not pass this repeal then we will come back with a something [clears throat] repeal

that'll moratorum but only the whole ordinance including the mortorium but the other side of the workflow is if SP 218 that corrects SP 180 does pass are we I know this is just talking about the mortorium tonight but are we looking into removing the moratorum then okay and then adding some of those very restrictive things in that ordinance that we did I believe pass. [clears throat] They're still there. They're still there, but SP 180 said, "Hey, you can't do this." All that work you did, the second reading, all that stuff [clears throat] discontinued because of SP180.

If SP 218 corrects SP 180, that we have in place that really restricts the mic. Once the moratorum either expires or you, you know, the council makes a decision before then to uh repeal the moratorum, then it's fully enforceable. all the rules that we went through, all that's going to stay exactly the same. We don't have to kind of relitigate that whole process again. You'll have to go through a first reading and a second reading of trying to mitigate those micro hotels inside the R1's and all that. Awesome. Thank you, sir. Anybody else have questions? Anyone from the public wish to speak on this? Council, do you wish to take some action?

So, move to adopt the moratorum on the short-term rental Uh, ordinance 2201. 2201. Second. Thank you. Motion made by Councilman Merrill, seconded by Councilman Schmidt to approve ordinance 2201 providing a temporary moratorium on short-term rentals. Any additional comments?

Thank you for staying in front of this staff and city attorney, especially with legislative session starting, I believe, today or tomorrow. So, thank you. Council, please vote. And it does pass unanimously, which brings us to ordinance 2202, an ordinance amending the comprehensive plan. Mr. Brand,

ordinance 2202, an ordinance to the city council of the city of Fort Witch, Florida, amending the comprehensive plan of the city, provide for consistency, provide for severability, and provide for effective date. This is first reading is a quasi legislative hearing, and Mr. Tim Gibson is going to present. Good sir. Good evening again. So, with comprehensive plan amendments, there's a couple of different ways we can do it. We did one um about a year and a half ago, if you remember, to um change some of the manufacturing definitions um and potentially change the the or allow the creation of the MX3 zoning district. Those are voluntary changes that we made to there. Uh there's other times where it's mandated by the state that we make these amendments in there. Uh so approximately every seven years we have to complete an evaluation and appraisal report and what that entails is we have to um examine any new changes in Florida statute that may have happened that may now make our comprehensive plan not follow Florida statutes. Um in this case when we did the the E uh we did discover in there that there has been a change in Florida statutes that require us um in a previous comp plan we we identified a 5year and a 10-year planning period. the Florida statute now required us to have a 10 year and a 20-year planning period in there. So based on that and the the E happening in there, we submitted that back to the state and said we're going to have to rewrite this. Um this is kind of a juggling act one as well because of SB180. Uh it does not only affect your land development code and your code ordinances, it also affects your comprehensive plan. So we're restricted on what we can change, but we did have to make the amendment in there to include those. Um this is a a full review in there. uh like the past one we did, we only amended those few sections and the state only evaluated those few sections. This one they're going to be evaluating the entire comprehensive plan as well. So with that did my staff did go through um and we made a lot of the changes in here did hear back from several municipalities in the area that were also going through their comprehensive plan amendments and the

states are being very restrictive um as it comes to 180. Uh almost invariably all of them had their their comprehensive plan rewrites sent back to them. um because of SB180 violations in their changes in there. So, we try to keep these very basic and simple uh as we can uh run through all the changes um as quickly as you want. Um but if you got any questions or input on any of these or any other stuff in the comprehensive plan that you want to see uh just speak up and we can figure it out from there. So in element A the future land use section of there um well a lot of the stuff is um obviously in there we we made minor changes to uh change like the date of the comp the future land use map that's in there uh we corrected a typo um the CIU future land use was incorrectly uh references CIE um some minor changes in there um in policy 8.2.4 four it referenced um creation of like a downtown design guideline. As you all know, we've just adopted that recently. Uh so we revised the language in there for that adoption. Um in we wanted to recommending deleting policy A.8.2. Um it basically had um in there is talks about an advisory board uh for historic buildings that were to assist um in submittal nominations for historic sites. Um, obviously those are not super common. Uh, and staff believes that we can kind of handle those as a one-off situation. We don't currently have an advisory board for this and since we don't have that and don't have too many of them, we're recommending that be deleted out of there. Uh, in element B, we did revise uh language in policy B.5.1. Um in there it talks about um that the local planning agency uh shall be responsible to explore alternate rights of way and some things like that. Um obviously stuff like that would run through the LPA and to city council. Uh we just felt it read better that saying

the city staff will be responsible for exploring those rights ways um and stuff in there. We're not proposing any changes into element C. In element D, we did uh revise the language in there reference that 10 and 20 year planning cycle. um is the only changes we made in element D. In element E, uh we're recommending elimination of policy E.7.2, uh it talks about and there's several references in here about green inspectors and green buildings. Uh currently none of our inspectors are green qualified. Um it does take quite a bit to just even get um lead is the typical one in there to get lead certified. take quite a bit to become a lead inspector um is a very intense process. Um and it's just something we've never had since I've been here for six years. We've never had anybody apply for any of that kind of stuff. Um and the the cost and time associated with that would be pretty intense. So we're just recommending that that be um deleted out of there. Uh in LE E um we just revise the language in there reference to the uh the current edition of the building code. uh in element F um it just changed it uh it was referenced in there the Temple Mount as opposed to the Heritage Park and Cultural Center. Uh in element G was another change that we had to make for the 10 and 20 year planning cycle. Mr. Gibson.

Yes sir. I just just um I don't want you to have to go through this entire reading these off and I know that the council has reviewed these items and I know you've put a lot of work into this. I I would just like to open it up to the council to ask if they had any questions on any of these changes and then the public and that way you won't have to explain all of your your work here cuz it is a lot of work. Um council any questions on on this ordinance and all of its amendments to the comprehensive point. I have just a tickled me whenever I read this. Uh 2 uh 111.16

as the city does not have any specific culinary experiences coordinate. Where did that come from? I didn't know that we ever had any c col culinary experiences. Um I don't know. That's what was in the comprehensive plan that was passed in 2018 2019 time frame. Uh it specifically said that we're going to create these things. There's several things in there. historic tour, historic military tour, and the culinary experiences is just stuff that's that's okay. That was one of those stuck eliminated and removed from that is not happening.

Just some more outdated language. Any other questions, Mr. I know in the past a few council members have talked about and I told Tim this might be the only one that might generate discussion at the LPA meetings because I know some of the council members have talked about before and it's very [cough] very long. But uh it's it'll be eliminating the policy that says the city is pursuing a boardwalk project. Just so everyone's aware.

Gotcha. All right. Anyone else with questions for Mr. Gibson on this? Would anyone from the public wish to speak on these on this ordinance amending the comprehensive plan? Council, do you wish to take any actions tonight? So move to adopt staff's recommendation of ordinance number 2202 to amend the comprehensive plan. Second

motion made by Councilman Jeter, seconded by councilwoman Ryder to approve ordinance 2202 and amend the comprehensive plan as uh Mr. Gibson has laid out for us. Any additional comments? Thank you, Mr. Gibson. your team for that's a lot of um outdated language is updated in here. So, thank you for that thorough review and update. Any else? No. Council, please vote.

And the motion does pass unanimously, which brings us to appointments. Miss Barnes, mayor. Um on the Port Walton Beach Housing Authority Board, Miss Lynette Wolf Grim's um term is expiring in early February and she has expressed an interest to continue to serve another term because the terms are not limited with the housing authority and we have no other applications on file. So staff respectfully recommends uh the mayor reappoint with city council approval Miss Lynette Wolf Grant to the Fort Walton Beach Housing Authority Board of Directors for a 4-year term to expire February 15th, 2030. And I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you, ma'am. Questions for Miss Barnes? See none. Council, do you wish to make an appointment?

So, move to appoint Miss Lynette Wolfrram to the Fall Beach Housing Authority Board for a 4-year term expiring February 15th, 23rd. Second. Motion made by Councilman Jeter, seconded by Councilwoman Deberry to reappoint Miss Lynette Wolf Graham to the Fort Walden Beach Housing Authority Board. Any additional comments, Miss Wolf Graham? I don't believe so. Please pass on our appreciation to Miss Wolf. She's been serving since 2010. So quite a long and I do run all of these by the scale that the housing authorities are. So

well I I have and she's been she's been in position for 2010. You tell her we I absolutely appreciate the works that she has done. That's a long time and obviously is some consistency and dedication. We should send her like a box of candy or something. Very nice. All right, council. Please vote. Like a payday candy bar. Too fancy. debate. Oh, I thought I clicked it.

And it does pass unanimously, which brings us to item 11.1, request for a major development order for Ashton's Place, 105 Carson Drive Southeast. Mr. Gibson, before we get started on the general oath and then also ask, do you swear all the truth? I do. Here too, you're right. [clears throat]

Do you all start bullets? We got your own ro and and council just cuz these both will be quasi unusual hearings this one the next one we handled together. Uh I'll just ask have any of the four members had any communications with any members of the public or the applicants prior to today's meeting. Just received an email from Mr. Gray [clears throat] today regarding the outline of the project and just replied thank you for sending the information. And anyone else receive any? I received also and and Miss Riley, I think you will be recusing myself.

Recuse yourself anyway. But uh she has a an at fill out the form, but uh but other than Miss Riley and Mayor Algretto, anyone else receive any communications and uh so Mayor Algretto, uh will you be able to base your decision on both hearings here today on the evidence that's provided at the hearing itself? Yes, sir. Okay. All right. That's all I have to do, Mr. Gibson. All

right. Good evening again. So, this is a major develop the first part of this is the major development order. Uh our land development code does outline the really the three different times that we have major development orders. Uh this is one because of the development agreement that's coming with this. Um and the development agreement is because of the workforce housing in there. Uh this is a pretty straightforward development order. Um as it is though um so uh on uh May 14th 2025 growth management did receive the application for the major development order for Ashton's place. It did go through all the reviews on there and everything was completed reviewwise um on December 3rd, 2025. Um this is um again staff looks at it just like we do every development order that happens in the city. Uh there's a lot of back and forth with the uh typically with the design professional and just making sure that everything meets the the land development code. Um this does uh all the specifics are are outlined in there but uh under the project description, but ultimately it all meets the land development code requirements in there right now as it is. Um staff does find that it is in compliance with the city's comprehensive plan and the land development code. Um and from the financial side of this, on the major development order side, there's really no financial impact. It will come into play um on the development agreement side that's going to be next. Um with that, staff respectfully recommend city council authorization for the mayor to execute the major development order for the development of three unit multifamily building located at 105 Carson Drive Southeast.

Thank you, sir. Questions on this for Mr. Gibson? Anyone from the public wish to speak on this item? And the applicant does upright speak too. So they can come up and speak if they'd like as well. Sure. If you'd like, Mr. Gray. If not, you certainly don't have to. Anyone from the public wish to speak? Seeing none. Council, do you wish to take any action on this item? Mayor, staff recommendation.

Second. Motion made by Councilman Schmidt, seconded by Councilman Jeter for city council approval of a major development order for Ashton's Place located at 105 Carson Drive Southeast for the development of a three-unit multifamily building. Any additional comments from the council? Appreciate the applicant getting it to this point. I know that resolution for some of that funding has been there and and we wanted all the applicants to get to this point and here it is. So, thank you for getting the tees crossed and the eyes dotted and hopefully majority of the council will will feel the same. Well said, sir. Anyone else?

Council, please vote. Do you have a Oh, you got I'm sorry. First time.

The motion does pass unanimously with one abstension, which brings us to item 11.2, consideration of a development agreement for Ashton's place. Do you need to swear with that again, Mr. Burns or? No, the record's clear uh in the minutes uh because if anyone ever reviews this, it says clear. Uh all the witnesses were sworn in at the LA at the previous agenda item and the council members were all administered the col regarding the Indian party communications. So all those findings be adopted for this hearing. Perfect, Mr. Gibson.

All right. So um on this one, the uh application for the development agreement actually came in several years ago. This was back whenever the the workforce housing incentive funding was first created. Um we did receive the multitude of them. We did go through the multitude of council meetings to determine how that money was going to be uh allocated. Uh around that there was the two different levels um for the larger project for the smaller project. Uh and it was ultimately decided that $75,000 per unit of workforce housing uh would be afforded to the smaller developments in there. Um, on this one it does in uh land development code section 4.10.6 it does identify all the requirements that have to be in there to be eligible for the incentive funding. Uh, and the applicant has complied with all of those. Um, there is a deed restriction that is part of the attachment on there that will be done. Uh, much of this is going to be very similar to the uh the development agreement that was done with the housing authority as far as deed restrictions and stuff that are on there. Um and so all of that will be um on there. Uh for the financial um information on this one, again, that's $150,000 total because they will be providing two of the three units at workforce rates for the period of 15 years in there. Um one point of discussion on this one, I believe Mr. Gray is going to be come up and ask uh at the when the decision was made on how the money would be um allocated. Uh the question came up about when it would be allocated. Uh the last guidance from council at that point in time would be that the funding would be distributed. Um once the foundation survey and all the foundation work was completed and approved um at that point that would be allocated out of there. Um like I said I'll let Mr. Gray um explain what his request is on that one. Uh but that's the only thing that that potential on that one. And with that respect we recommend city council authorization to execute a development agreement between UM Development LLC and the city of Fort

Walton Beach. Thank you sir. Mr. Gray wish to speak on this. [clears throat] And while Mr. Gray is approaching, uh, Miss Riley, for the record, you're also, uh, standing this way. That's correct.

Um, Barry Gray, 217 Bernard Avenue. Uh, before I start, I want to thank uh, Tim and his department. They was great working with us on the project. Took a while. We've been working on it now, I think, for two and a half, three years. Um just we also just bought 103 Carson to build six units. Um when I met with Tim when we first started this project uh that was two councils ago and that was a new another city manager when they first started I start I was going to the workshop then they had it where you get the funds when you did the development agreement then we had a new council come in then decided to change things and that's when they had to rewrite it and I was just asking Tim uh right now ourself we have on that project almost $300,000 spent on that site right now. Um, and I was asking him about could we get a 25% draw. Uh, because when you get financing most of the time is you get draws once you complete different different phases. That will help us get started. I mean, if we don't get it, we we're going it's going to happen. But that's a request. I'm asking you to vote on tonight, but if you can think about it and vote on the next city council, but like we want like we get the development agreement where we can draw down that 25% and then the other 75% once we finish the foundation, you know, I wanted the council to take that into consideration cuz when we started with this project, that was the agreement when I signed the development agreement, then it was changed, you know, in the middle of the river. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Gray. Questions, Mr. J.

Is the land owned outright by M development or is there? Yes, sir. So, there's no current lean or anything in place? Yes, sir. On both lots. That is how it works. Once you get it, most banks will only front you a draw if the lot is completely paid for. That's pretty much your draw lot to get started. Yes, sir. If not, it would be after certain phases and it's broken down. You've seen it before. 1% 3% once you finish certain stages you may get 6% of the draw or Yes sir 50% of the draw but it is zoned out right with Yes sir thank you questions council

do we does this come back in front of the council after this agreement is considered I don't think it does it so we probably need to hash that out now right yes okay just responded to what you know he said I don't think we have any time to really sleep on it but you No, I I'm back for a second reading. It will come back for a second reading. So, we don't need to dash. No. Any changes you want to make in there for the development agreement, we can make those changes and bring it back for the second reading in two weeks. Gotcha. Come back, but the development agreement will Okay. All right. Thank you. That's my question. Anyone else questions for Mr. Gray or Mr. Gibson?

And just so you know, uh you'll be amending section four of the adoption agreement if you agree with getting a draw. Did you say it was 25? You'd like 25% at this at right right now. So, okay. So, that if you do agree, Mr. Gray, you need to put that motion. Gotcha. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Green. Thank you. Anyone from the public wish to speak on this? Council, do you wish to take any action tonight? Mayor, I move to continue to support this project with $150,000 uh to improve and continue to improve thanks to Mr. Grace Carson Avenue but with 150,000 at the completion of the project. Second

motion made by Councilman Schmidt, seconded by Councilwoman Debury to recommend uh or rather to execute a development agreement with UN development LLC for Ashton's Place Multif Family Workforce Development at 105 Carson Drive Southeast as is. Any additional comments?

I want to thank Mr. Gray for continuing to clean up Carson and making these products look so much better. Carson Drive is getting like he mentioned they started working on this a few councils ago and with um Southside apartments and those things as well. Carson Drive continues to improve. Thank you Gail and her team. So completely support of the project. Let's see the project get done. I know he might have other financial obligations and things he's working with. I have full confidence that Mr. Gray and his team will complete the project. I would just like to allocate those taxpayers dollars when the project's done. Thank you, sir. Anyone else? And just to be clear, it's not Mr. It won't be when the project that's just once the foundation

once the foundation the clarification the the completely the complete project that would change when he would get the money typically. Yeah, like Mr. Burns said, it would change this it would change this section. So actually the default development agreement that's before y'all tonight actually does have him receiving the funding once the foundation inspection is completed. This motion includes the project the completed project 100% complete whenever they would get their co we have a motion.

Yeah. I would I would I would say we would at least keep it to how if we had our if we had set it up like that and with the money's invested I feel like we would have to I feel like I would rather work with you as a partner in this and say we could come to some agreement. I'm I'm open to it cuz you're working with the city and you're doing things. So I I could I couldn't support that at the end. I would at most default to the original agreement, but I would be open if council was to something to help that project. We want to encourage this type of development. They've done many before. I would be open to keeping the original when the foundation is set and possibly considering something if not the full 25% he requested something to help them get finish the project. That's that's my personal view.

Mr. Yeah.

And just for everybody to completely understand some some of the conversations that I've had is I think it's the ball was moved a little bit each time he's come here. So what I'm accustomed to is payment upon deliverable just in construction project manage. So if the deliverable is we need to go get the drawings done. It cost 25,000. Go do the drawings. we'll give you that money to do that and you bring that back so on and so forth. So I think that keeps the project moving and doesn't change that timeline. Um I mean I have no problem managing that on from city's perspective if that's if that's a concern. So if the deliverable is go get the drawings to do the to do the pour and the 25,000 or the 25% covers that then get it. Then we can does that make sense? I'm doing a bad job of rambling there but I think we can manage that internally. And I'm just used to deliverable payment as opposed to waiting all the way to the end. It's just easier to manage, you know, in those.

Yeah, fair enough. I I like seeing the projects though where I mean, yeah, we're working with them, their partners, and there's going to get some incentives for using taxpayers dollars, but I'd like to see the development complete the project, then we get the The part we kind of left out is this is the only money we have to do this forever. I guess the city got some money Yep. one before I started to do this and there's two projects identified, Mr. gray and project. Yeah. So, and then once this money's done, this is never coming back to us again unless there's another That's right. uh windfall of money, so to speak. So, uh I think once this project's done, we're not in this business. Yeah. Again, is Yeah.

So, trying to again keep it moving forward, I I think we're all on the same page there. And I have no problem having staff oversee that that part if that helps.

Thank you, Councilman Jeter. Yeah, I'm not going to support the current motion the way it's stated. Uh I will support uh what Mr. Davis has said. Very, you've been coming in here for three years. So, I got full confidence that you're going to get this project done. You've jumped through every hoop, gotten to this point. It's been multiple councils. The ball has been moved. I don't want to go as far as to say I'm sure you've seen one before. Anybody who's gotten a construction loan has seen the breakdown of every percentage, but if Mr. Davis is willing to take it on and oversee this. I think there does need to be uh some performance-based pay along the way. And I don't want to break it down as the the ones and 2% cuz it can be broken down very very you know there could be 50 50 line items on there that that are broken down. Can we do something once [clears throat] you get the slab done? You're going to finish this project. Would you be open to, you know, some money once you get the slab completed as that being your first draw and then the rest of it at the end of the project or along the way or breaking it up two or three different times? That way it covers both sides here. Can I can I interject just so the agreement already which is the one that the housing authority received uh they got 100% was the foundation so the common agree was laid and all the other work associated with the foundation was included they got 100% the draw at that moment and I think he was asking maybe to have two bullet points you said not 100% now and then the other 75% after foundation

but if all three of these were approved at the same time doing during the same thing shouldn't we keep them all the same wouldn't that be better that's That's not. So, I'm not going to support the current motion, but I will support the next any motion that resembles the first way we've already done this so that everything stays the same. And that would be approving the development agreement as presented to the council. Correct. So, there's a motion and a second. I'm not going to support the current motion. We'll see what happens after that. Is there a second? Yeah, there was a second. There was a second.

All right. Anyone else wish to speak on this? Yeah, we took a lot of outside Robert Schill's order right there, Mr. Mayor, but I'm fine with it. I'm fine with it if you are. All right. Um, if there is no more comments, I would like to make a closing comment. I got full complete confidence in Mr. [clears throat] Gray. I don't want this to turn into not a project. I don't have confidence in him. I'm just trying to negotiate for the time to negotiate. I appreciate city attorney Burns bringing the information about the president that's been set with Miss Sansbury, her team that's a lot more in line to what Mr. Gay's request is. That gives some that gives some new information. So, I appreciate that. Council public comments before the the vote if you didn't already. I did. Okay. Sorry. Sorry. Uh, council, please vote.

All right. So, the motion does not carry. Anyone on council wish to make a different motion? I'll make a motion to approve Mr. Barry's asked for the 25%. And the I'm not I appreciate you, Mr. Davis, but it's simple. It's done. You've worked with the city and your then the 75% upon completion of this. Second.

All right. So, your motion is to approve the development agreement with M development LLC for Ashton's Place Multif Family Workforce Development at 105 Carson Drive Southeast. And the only modification that you're making is giving them 25% now and then the other 75% on completion of the slab. Is that correct? Yes, sir. Thank you for the clarity. Just so everyone's clear and all foundation work a slab as it states in the agreement. Okay. Any additional comments? Yes. Oh, go ahead.

I have worked with the city. It's one of the reasons I'm on the board because it's working with government as good as people are. As much as they want to work with you, sometimes it's difficult because it's difficult. You talked about being doing this project two councils ago, three years working this with Mr. Gibson. You've been there, you've done it. You guys have completed many projects. I think we need to be a city that recognizes that and makes it easier to get stuff like this done. It's such a good project you're doing. So that's why I supported what you asked for. Thank you, sir. Additional comments, Mr. J. I will support the motion. I'm just ready to see the project getting done. Let's let's get it done here.

Anyone else? Just we have Mr. Gray here and Mr. Sbury here as well. And then the third applicant is is not here, but looking forward to supporting this motion, supporting this project. And then after this 1.5 million that was dedicated like 5 years ago is out, I'm out. I'm [laughter] out. And it it just really gets a lot on staff to manage it. I know he doesn't mind managing it and different, you know, dispersements and things like that. Uh, but I just wanted to to put that out there as I'm sure we'll get pulled in different directions on future budgets to put more housing money in there. But that's all I got, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, sir. Anyone else? Council, please vote.

Motion does pass unanimously with one extension. brings us to item 11.3, amending the purchasing policy to update outdated language and procurement requirements regarding written quotes. Miss Neighbors,

thank you, mayor. Um, mostly this is just an administrative um agenda item to update some old language that we have in the policy to uh mimic what you guys have voted on already. As you guys already know, the two big things um about a year ago, it was $20,000 we had to bring to you guys for approval. then it went up to 50 and now it's a h 100red. Well, for internally for our staff, we have to get three um quotes like under $5,000. So, we're just asking to bring it up to $9,999 just to to kind of put some relief on our staff as well as we kind of pigeon hole some vendors when we go out to bid because our purchasing policy states that uh local like there's like a 5% sometimes local preference in certain bids and it's only to Fort Walton. But you have businesses that are in Sino that are like closer than other Fort Walton businesses. So we try to broaden that to Walton Escambia and like just like the kind of county area just to make it a little more competitive between between um vendors. So staff respectfully recommend city council approval of the revised administrative policy number finance 9 purchasing effective upon.

Thank you mayor. Questions for Miss Neighbors on this? Anyone from the public wish to speak on this item? Council, it's up to you. Mayor S moves staff's recommendation to revise the administrative policy number FIN-9 purchasing effective department adoption. Second motion made by Councilman Schmid, seconded by Councilman Browning to approve staff's recommendation revising that policy. Any additional comments?

No, sir. Council, please vote. And it does pass unanimously. It brings us to the discussion to amend resolution 2025-29, rules of procedure for city council meetings, Mr. Burns. And a council at the last meeting on December 16th, uh the council passed resolution 2529. And during the discussion, there were some uh items that Mr. Browning and I believe some other council members are to discuss and I asked that councils go and pass 2529 as presented at that time because it the subject matter was completely different to make those changes to 2529. Uh but uh since that [clears throat] uh the last meeting uh Mr. Browning emailed all of his potential changes to resolution 2529 uh to me and I reproduced those in the staff report and uh the only changes I made to it were he' sent them first person I changed the third person so someone reads it it's it doesn't sound like he's talking to them but there are four separate changes that he is recommending uh and there were no other changes that any other council members recommended so this would be the time once uh we once should all start to discuss if you'all want to make additional changes on top of what he's listed here. But uh the four categories that he has suggested changing are change paragraph 6.1 that's already in the existing resolution 2529 to remove the first round of council comments and just keep the second round. His second uh suggested change is to uh require a majority vote with the council to add an agenda item. And then the third item is to he recommends requiring a supermajority vote to to suspend Robert's rules of order. And then the last item he wants to do is to add

actually a new provision [snorts] to the charter or not charter but to the resolution that recommends adding uh language that no single council member may direct city staff or any chartered officer to take action that directly impacts the budget or a city department or division without a majority vote of the council. And so those are the four changes he's recommended. Um I think I could probably just turn it over to council, maybe Mr. Brownie if he wants to present uh his rationale for those items uh at this point in time. Thank you, sir. Mr. Browning, anything to add? No, just the the rationale is there. If anybody has any questions, then I'm here. Gotcha. Council questions on on these items or any discussion

if we right we have a good relationship with staff me just being new to this understanding this I bring something to Mr. Davis in the way it would work previously, you could then add that to the agenda. Is that And but now what we do maybe we discuss something and then say, "Hey, bring this up. Bring it here and then that item would then be voted on to have him or anybody in staff pursue something." I'm just trying to wrap my head around the the 6.2.

Yeah. The way that it it used to be is um council would ask for majority vote. I'm I'm I feel like that's what it used to be. And then the mayor can add agenda items and so could the city manager. The problem that arose was that items that council was requesting to be placed on the agenda was not being placed on the agenda and so it created some tension and this is just from outside looking in. I wasn't up here. I was sitting out there as an employee, but um you know this we we hired the city manager that we wanted as a body. We're a new body. It's it's totally different and this just you know makes it more efficient getting things done instead of continuously adding agenda items after agenda items of individual items that people want. So yes, to answer your question, you can either bring it up here in your comments or or he could mention, hey, somebody said they wanted this to come up and you can talk on it and ask for a second and two other people can vote on it. Hopefully, you know, get your item added in the next agenda or, you know, we can we can modify it to allow the city manager to add items on it again or whatever.

Gotcha. So I mean I I I'm wrapping my head around that as well. I almost feel like that's how we do it now. So I have, you know, seven of you, one of you will ask me for something. I'll put it in my weekly report and then it comes to council and somebody says, "Hey, what's for example, daycare?" Somebody asked me about it. We did the homework, brought it up here, became an agenda item. Same thing with So I feel like we're doing that now, but

sanitation, sanitation and daycare, I both asked, they didn't come up. I asked for those items to be put on the agenda. But with and that's I'm using the same thing. I I've added I've added this to the agenda. None of y'all may have wanted to even talk about it. So if I don't have the majority of the council as a body support to talk about it, then we don't talk about it. I mean, or you can go to the to the city manager and ask to get it placed on or if the mayor has something that he wants to put on like how it used to be uh before the previous council changed this. But like right now, I can in my final comments can say I want to talk about the golf course next, you know, and has added to the agenda, but nobody else may have thought it necessary to talk about it. I got you.

And and I think uh I talked to Mr. Brown beforehand and he explained his rationale to me. I think and and probably Mr. Schmidt could probably provide context and see was the council and Mr. Alvarezo since y'all were uh part of the old process before the 2023 amendment. But uh I believe back then it was the the practice to uh either do as Mr. Browning indicated at a meeting, you would get a motion and a second to add it to another agenda or you would politely ask the mayor or city manager if they would do it, but they weren't required to do it. Whereas the change that was made back in 2023 requires the city manager, one of the council members does ask, you know, outside the meeting requires city manager to put that on or inside.

That That's correct. I'm serious. That's the way I've seen it happen more often than not is somebody just goes, "Oh, by the way, I think we should talk about paper clips next time. Get a better deal."

I do have a question on this uh situation and I think it's probably more for Mr. Burns or Mr. Davis. Um the final and new paragraph, direction to staff and chartered officers. So, I feel like I know this where this comes from. Um, basically if somebody says to the city attorney, hey, I want you to draft a resolution that we're going to discuss whether or not we want to take action on it as a council member. And then you do that, you don't do that for free. So that does impact the city's budget, right? I mean, I know obviously we've allocated so many dollars in a budget to pay a city attorney, and if those hours aren't used, whatever, but if there's more hours used because of somebody on council unilaterally deciding, I want you to do this, that could be an issue, and that's the the feeling behind it.

Yeah. I mean, well, explain on on that particular issue because I have had council members ask me to do stuff that I've had to politely say no unless I get a vote or consensus of the council, right? U my contract states I'll research anything for anyone know individually. So, that technically would be an increase on the budget because you you're asking me to research an item, I'll always do that for you and and you can always ask me ethical questions and and items like that. If you're uh ever to ask me to draft something that's going to be a formal document like a resolution, I would want that brought before the council first. I would not feel comfortable under my contract doing that. Just Okay. So, I mean, is that really the only motivation behind that item?

No, I mean the the the daycare situation, the sanitation situation, all there's no transparency with it at all. It's all done. I don't I mean you I get asking to get things done but then all the leg work that's done but not it was never directed. It was never talked about up here. So I just I feel like certain things should be spoken in a public forum and decided as a body instead of an individual. And so the impact to the budget or department or division without a majority vote of council in those two situations was all of the leg work, staff hours, time, etc. Okay, that's just what I'm asking.

No. Yeah, I agree. Yeah, it's anything that's going to possibly change the budget. So changing it could be good, it could be bad. Getting rid of sanitation depending on how you look at it, getting rid of child care, [snorts] depending how you look at it, that changes the budget either way. So decisions like that is made up here to say, hey, go forth and look into this or go forth and and get a RFP, RFQ for certain items or look in house first or you know, whatever the situation is. some of that we I mean I feel like we should do that on our own though it's just process evaluation to make sure

we don't know what we don't know right so I still want to evaluate my programs things change and our business model changes and if we don't evaluate it annually just to see where we're at you get 10 years down the road and you have a daycare that's losing $120,000 you don't know so you should do that anyway on your own just process management but in terms of making a change I would always bring that before counsel anyway but I think putting it in in codifying it, if you will, when you guys get tired of me moving me out the door, right? You're going to bring a new dude and he has marching. So, make sense. Yeah. All right.

And if y'all do plan on adopting that, I would just ask that you modify slightly and say outside of legal advice on the budget I do because anytime you ask me, I'm required to provide that legal advice and that does technically necessary research sometimes, too. Yeah, Councilman Smith, the clarification on what's increasing the budget by asking staff to add something to the agenda. What's not increasing? It's it would be the impact what's impacting the budget.

The final thing, right? So, if we got if if say I say, "Hey, let's get rid of HR. We don't need it." Right? I mean, obviously, I'm not going to do that. Me asking that question doesn't impact the budget, but getting rid of HR would impact the budget. It could impact it positively or it can impact it negatively, but either way it's impacting the budget. The final, you know, the final solution is what impacts the budget. Asking the question is not I mean it does when you for obviously when you're talking to Mr. burns, but the the it's it's the those big ticket items I just feel like should be transparent and talked about up here and not I mean, of course, I I talk to him all the time. I talk to Mr. Burns all the time. I talk to Kim all the time about items and that may impact the budget or something and then it it's seeking advice and then I'll bring it up here if I want to talk about it versus saying and this is all just personal opinion instead of saying like hey I want possible sanitation and I get looking into it and evaluating it but then doing all the leg work and doing all this stuff and providing all the documents and all the stuff and then we're getting told all the information before we're even coming up here and discussing it or we have the final everything and then we come up here and talk about it. So it's to me it's I just I mean it's just my personal thing. It's not the impact's not by asking the question. It's whatever happens out of that decision is what I mean by that.

Copy. And I'm just trying to track the examples you use. You mentioned the daycare situation and the trash situation. When those things got brought to the agenda, we give marching orders to staff whether or not to move forward to another example was just an example with eliminating HR, right?

The the front-end load is not the time and effort. It's if majority of council decides to take trash to go out to bid or remove the daycare. And that night that we did the thing with daycare, the majority council voted to do what it did and staff does what majority counsel does. So, I don't see the the impact to the budget on, you know, a a single member asking staff to add something to the agenda. Staff like this item that got to the agenda tonight was an item that, like you mentioned, you put on there. The heavy lifting would be if majority of council said, "Hey, let's change all this." Then staff goes in there and prepares the resolution and does the things to change it. And rightfully so, majority council says to do it, they're going to do it. I don't I don't see any impact to the budget on the front end, whether it's the daycare or the trash just by adding something to the agenda. I don't think public works or the city manager is going to do any heavy lifting to put out something to bid until majority of council votes to put it out to bid.

Well, I couldn't agree more. I I I said it has nothing to do with the question. And it's about the item that's going to be changing drastically the budget if the item itself is. And the daycare was placed on the agenda because I asked for it to be placed on the agenda because it was not talked about in a public forum at all. Same thing with the sanitation was not talked in a public forum at all. Maybe previous council has, I'm sure, but this council has not. So, I'm not again I agree it's not I I I ask questions all the time, but it's the question is not the problem. It's the in my opinion it's the the item that we're discussing that will be a big ticketed item that will drastically change the budget. Whether we stay inhouse or put it out for for bid, that changes the budget. Whatever comes back at the next the next uh council meeting when we get that briefing, it's going to change the budget. or if we send it out for RFQ, RFP, it's going to change the budget. That's that's what I'm saying. The item, not the question.

I just want to say something in this debate as well that this last part here, the way that you explain it makes way more sense to me personally than the way that this is written. When I read this, it it's basically like nobody's allowed to say anything to anyone to do anything by themselves, right? And I don't I'm not a lawyer. I don't know how to like wordsmith everything. No, I that was what I was hoping when I sent it he would make me seem a lot smarter than my biggest concern like do your thing.

My biggest concern would just be that you know say we wanted to do this and then we put this into action and then all of a sudden now councilwoman Riley is violating the charter because she said X to Y. No, it's not. Yeah. Talking I know that that's not your intention. I I just feel the way it's written is is different from what you're saying. I believe the intent is you don't want any council member to direct any action be taken outside of a council meeting to would this be what your intention is to either uh cut back on a department or to take any action that would result in the uh termination of the employees. Is that kind of what you're getting at? But it was that

I mean it's already in the charter that council members are not allowed to direct staff to do anything. Yeah. Right. Well then remove the staff part and keep the chartered officers part in there. Okay. Cuz we can direct them. Absolutely. You can match up to you. No. Go ahead. I say M question.

Okay. Um, I don't really actually have a question, but I I I'm trying to uh wrap my head around uh what Logan is saying and Councilman um you know uh Brown, sorry for that, but any any um I just wanted to say because you did when you mentioned it about the sanitation component part of it. Honestly, I didn't I didn't know anything about that myself. So I I was I'm trying to uh rep, [snorts] you know, again understand what you're saying. So, in other words, you're saying when something like that transpired, that should be discussed with the coun with the council prior to the public even mentioning anything like that. Is that what I'm hearing you say? Because I I didn't have I didn't think it was any transparency in there when you brought it up because I'm like, well, what what are you talking about? You know, transportation being bidded out. I'm in the blind on that.

Right. Yeah. So, is that what you are am I on the on the right track on that? Yeah. I feel if it's going if it's something like that, if we're going to talk about sending out for RFP or out for bid, then it gets brought up to the board in a public forum for transparency and then we vote on does council even want to do that? Not an individual person. Does council as a body I gotcha wants to do it. Okay, council me. Procedure-wise, does a majority of council have to to vote to put something like trash out to bid? Sure. So, I'm trying to figure out what's not happening in the sunshine.

But I didn't say anything's not happening in the sunshine. the the whole conversation about it like the topic itself. who like I won't say who, but it's why are we getting emailed about possibly sending this out for bid when four people did not say we're interested in sending this out for bid and nothing's going out to bid until majority council decides whether or not it's going to I know but that's not that's not my question is why are we talking about it if four people did not say we want to talk about it like or why is the leg work being done at all if majority council didn't vote on getting it done.

So your intention is to stop the pre-leg work that's not discussed in here, right? And make everything something that's discussed here on the narrow list of violence, right? Yes.

But I that I mean staff whether it's public safety or anybody, they do a lot of drafting ordinances, drafting things all the time before any of us making the decision. So, I'm just I'm just trying to better understand the situation because that would eliminate staff from like having to do any pre-work on drafting any I mean, majority of ordinances I've seen come up here has been work by staff. They present to us, hey, do y'all want an ordinance for schools own cameras? Do y'all want an ordinance for whatever it is? And then we make a decision, yay or nay. Staff says okay on whatever our decision is. So I mean then whether it's the CEO or the directors, they're constantly strategizing on what they think needs to go in front of council. True.

Council will decide based off a majority of vote. If it's absolutely favor, they keep moving forward on putting out the bid or creating an ordinance to put school zone cameras or whatever it may be. But they're not directed by one individual council member to do that. Nobody's directing. I'm not saying that they are, but I mean if there is like let's talk about I agree. I mean, staff all the time brings information to council that there's leg work on the front end that they do without council's approval because they think it's necessary to bring it to the board.

Yes, ma'am. So, did did staff decide? Is that something that um the staff was uh maybe um trying to analyze the data or whatever and say, "Okay, we're going to bring this for the council for the uh the bid uh and put our RFP out or whatever for the sanitation. Is that something staff prior to you or or is that something that just leaked out into the you know to the city and you know because same as you? I have no idea. Yeah, that's what so I understand what you're saying.

Well, I I'll share information. I guess y'all don't we read the weekly status reports. I mean, we get communicated regularly and it's it's the most communication that we've ever gotten from a CEO that I've worked with in 10 years. We get status reports from our CEO that shares interest in things that they are interested in evaluating

and and that information is being evaluated whether it's daycare, whether it's trash, whether it's public safety ordinances. There's a long list of things in our weekly report that we get. Trash is being brought up a lot tonight. That was one of them that was in our weekly status report months ago and and we have not taken any action on it. Not one person has single single directed anybody to do it. So I I Yeah, I'm just not I'm not following uh paragraph 6.2.

Councilman, I think what they're referring to, or at least I think what Mr. Browning is referring to is why that information was in that initial status report. Like where did that come from? Was that Mr. Davis's own accord or had members of the council directed him to look into it to investigate the situation to evaluate the cost not to actual bring back formal bids etc etc that's at least just yeah and if I had not have read the weekly reports I wouldn't even be talking about sanitation right now so all right so anyone else have any additional questions on any of these items

I don't have any additional questions I here. But um I know I had asked for historical data on that and you know if it was going out from the RFP and when and when we get to that it you know we will definitely have that but I know at the next meeting we are going to have a presentation on sanitation. So and and mayor before

emotions made I because you did point out that uh and I'm not trying to say Mr. Browning worded these in a way that was confusing, but uh because I didn't make any changes to it because I wanted to see what the council's direction would be. I think uh I would ask that y'all consider them one at a time on the on the vote and then if y'all pass any of them, we'll we'll bring back something for y'all to actually consider at the next meeting that incorporates the items before it actually becomes a part of the resolution. Okay. I will first ask if any member of the public wishes to speak on this item at all. Seeing none, council, anybody wish to make a motion?

I make a motion to adopt changes to paragraph 6.1 of resolution 2025-29. I'll second. Have a motion made by Councilman Browning, second by Councilwoman Riley to approve the changes, proposed changes to resolution 2025-29 in paragraph 6.1. Any additional comments? I do Mr. So this will if we go one well I mean that motion we're at 6.1 right? So we're doing individually when Okay I'll wait 6.1 I'm I'll wait till the other one

and and Mr. confirms did say each one of these would just be an initial approval and each one of these would be rewarded into legal ease. That is still able to be understood. 6 611 is pretty clear what's asking but the rest of them uh [laughter] statements only not not questions. What you got Councilman Jeter? I will support the motion. years ago, we would be here really, really late. And I think it was you that suggested adding some up front so that we could speak to some of the directors and

some people early on. Um whether you speak in the beginning or speak at the end, you can speak on as many topics as you would like or want. I think I think with the new city manager and some of the meetings are going a little faster. I could go either way on this one. I'll support the motion. I believe tonight no one spoke up front. It took less than 10 seconds. Yeah. So I don't see the point, but I don't get a vote. What you got? Okay. Just if if there's not you're not not too concerned either way. Is there any flexibility with the person who made the motion to remove the second council comments and keep the first? Sure.

Awesome. Well, no. Councilman Merrill made the motion. Okay. Okay. All right. You made the motion, Mr. Browning. Mr. Browning, would you amend the motion to for it to read removing the second round of com council comments instead of the first round? Yeah. I'm in the motion to remove the second round of council comments, but keep the first. All right. So, we have a Mer

amended motion and a second. and we've had some opportunity to discuss. So, please vote and the motion does pass 5 to one. Need another motion if we're going to take any action on any of the other paragraphs. I move we adopt the verbiage for paragraph 6.2, to resolution 2025-29. Do we have a second? Second.

Motion made by Councilman Browning, seconded by Councilman Merrill for the proposed changes to resolution 2025-29 for paragraph 6.2. Any additional comments? And just for clarification, if I make this change, I'll be removing the part that says council members can add any items. Uh it'll basically it'll go back to the old outro before. Gotcha. Comments. Councilman Schmidt.

Yeah, I'm not going to support this mainly because I mean since this has been amended in two years, I don't I haven't seen anybody abuse this. Uh, I would entertain like restricting it to not add any more than one item for each agenda. But, um, like Mr. Browning mentioned, you know, one of the things that he was advocating for or at least trying to stay in front of was like the daycare situation. He was able to add that very quickly to the agenda and discuss that and there was some action taken. So, uh, I've been a part of councils where the politics, for whatever reason, there was a majority of council that didn't want to get things added to the agenda. And man, I think one of the closest accesses that the residents have to getting to the agenda is their representative. If I was seeing some behaviors where every meeting there was four or five items items being added to the agenda by one or two council people, I would like to consider modifying this. But because of that, I won't be supporting this.

Thank you, sir. Councilman Jeter,

I will not be supporting the motion as well for many of the same reasons as Council Member Schmidt. It I think it's very beneficial uh to be able to add an agenda item for a lot of the reasons that you said earlier and it gives if you say tonight during your council minute that you would like to put something on an agenda two weeks from now, that gives everybody clarification as to what you're trying to do, what you're trying to accomplish. It gives everybody else two weeks to really know what's coming up on the agenda. And I think it's very beneficial. Also, like Council Member Schmidt said, we are up here to represent the people. The closest thing that people can do is to let us know what they're seeing, hear, and feeling. And if we can't listen to them and get that put on the agenda, I don't think that's very productive. So, I think it and and it has not been abused. It's been on on here for two or three years and it's not been abused. I think it currently sits at one item per meter already.

And actually does it? I remember when we discussed it 2 or 3 years ago and we changed it. I thought we said one per me. It no limit was actually put in there in 6.2. Y'all did discuss. I do remember that. I went back and listened to it, but it never actually got formally put into it. Uh y'all wanted to see if it would be abused or not. And so y'all didn't actually put the limitation in there. So we didn't limit it. Still hadn't been abused. But anyone else comments? Council, please vote. the motion.

I'm going to All right. Uh if we want the other two need a motion again. I make a motion to adopt changes to paragraph 11.1 of the resolution 2025-29. Do we have a second? Second.

Motion made by council member Browning uh for the proposed changes to 2025-29 to add the language from paragraph 11.1 seconded by Miss Riley. Any uh questions on this from the council? Anyone from the public wish to speak on this item? Council, please vote.

The motion does carry. 4 to2. All right. Uh, one left. Mr. Browning, if you so choose. I move we adopt the new paragraph the resolution 2025-29 with removing city staff um I'm trying to think rewarded by Mr. Rewarded by Mr. Burns. Fair. And as part of the rewarding, can we put an exception for providing legal advice to council? Motion. Do we have a second? A second.

Motion made by Councilman Brownie, seconded by Councilwoman Riley to uh move forward with this new paragraph added to uh resolution 2025-29 and some changes uh made by the city attorney. additional comments.

This is being brought back to us after this to review. My my I just want to make sure this doesn't make it more cumbersome. Everything I'm supporting here is in the idea of transparency. But at the end of it, when we hear the second time and if there's any research done, if you find anything that makes this more cumbersome to do city business, I would have more of a problem with it. But as long as it's not and it's just providing transparency, I will be in support. So I'll support it here. But when we come back, if you haven't if you come up with anything as you're rewarding it and you're like or Mr. Davis and you guys see this become more cumbersome, I would like to know if if down the road you you see an issue.

Yeah. No, I I I like I want to keep the weekly meetings. That's all, you know, I get a lot of feedback and input from all of you. you bring good ideas and I'm going to keep so I think that it will help with my weekly reports that if somebody does bring one of these type of big ticket items if you will I'll say a council person has suggested this then you can talk about putting it on the agenda the next time or if it's my own creation I'll just say this is what I want to do I'll I'll make it clear that it does not interfere with the city manager's charge uh and contractual responsibilities so he can generate his own ideas too or not.

That's awesome. That'll I think that I think that'll clear a lot of that up. I I I feel like we're doing this already, but maybe there's just some cloudiness and I can clean that up. So, that's on me. I can wear that. Yeah. None to it. Cass, a clarification question, too, because So, is this supposed to be limited to take any action to direct any charter officer to take an action to any action that would result in the removal of any employees or termination of the employee? Is that kind of cuz I know on two items that ultimately would have been something along those lines. I don't want to get into terminating employee. That's not that's city manager stuff.

I think I think that's getting too much today. Mr. Davis, that's what we have you here for. Thank you, council. Please vote. Bless you. Bless you. Bless you. [clears throat] And the motion does carry unanimous unanimously which moves us to city manager reports. Uh well the first thing on the 12.1 uh Jeff if you want to speak to that but uh that's regarding the revert clause on this property. So an executive session will be here in the city manager conference room. They have to attend that. Correct.

Yeah. And I'll do the statutory announcement here in a second. If you I can do it right now if you want. By all means.

All right. So, uh on five at 5:00 p.m. on June or January 27th, 2025 or 2026, uh there will be an executive session called here at city hall to take place in the city manager conference room in the case of Jackson Land Company versus City of Oral Beach, formerly known as Town of Form Beach, case number 2024CA 3512 uh in the circuit court of Oak County, Florida. The individuals that will be present are the city manager, city attorney, uh all members of the city council, including the mayor, and a licensed court reporter who will transcribe the entire proceedings and which will be released at the end of the litigation. And that's all. Moving on, some fun things. Uh we are now in possession of a police department boat is physically in the city of Fort Walton Beach. So, Chief Bage will coordinate a christening, if you will. So, you'll be invited to that. Um, audit services, we will be going out for bid for that and somebody from council has to physically be on that board. Can you speak to that?

Yeah, that'll come to you guys at the next council meeting. Um, I'm still kind of reviewing and figuring it's my first rodeo, so to speak, on on bringing about audit services, but there has to be some kind of committee and um, one member from council has to head up that committee. No city employees allowed to be on the committee. I'm at the advisory portion of the board and I think that the council member uh appoints it's three to five people from the community but I'm still researching it and it'll all come back. Just wanted to give you guys a heads up it'll all come back because they're up for renewal this year. So

So one of the first things when I first started I was asked to look into putting that back out and expanding that search because the language so you corrected the language earlier where we can expand the the local preference too. So, good job.

Um, Fireman Leonard, that the event is on the this coming Saturday starting at the block and going to Harley-Davidson um fundraiser that I got to I got to really mention the Harley-Davidson group, the Fast Signs group and the block group. I mean, they're going above and beyond to help this individual. So, really nice to see the community come together on that. Uh Martin Luther King Jr. parade on Monday, starting here and then making its way over to Chester Puit. Good stuff there. Uh on January 24, the next city sponsored cleanup on Lovejoy will be taking place. You'll see some postings on that. We're going to start at uh [cough and clears throat] I already forgot the name of that school. You'll tell me 40 times and I'll forget 41 times, but we'll start the school in Love Joy and work uh a mile in each direction. Okloo Academy. That's what I said. And then uh golf course doggy has been identified. His name is Mashie. He is being trained. He'll be part of that PGA program. So, kind of cool thing. Uh Jacob's grooming him. And then some of our three 3% issues that we've uncovered just this week. Tim has been hustling hard trying to figure out we're we're losing business tax receipts cuz people are starting businesses and they're just not coming here. Um so we we cannot bring a company on that that that will track that down for us because of the 3% cap. So, we're losing about $170,000 potentially. Uh, open house for fire rescue. I have to kind of be a jerk and stop that this year because I don't know how our our monies are going to trend throughout the year. So, we're going to punt on that. It's a cool event where the public can come to the firehouse and see, you know, we set stuff on fire and they can see, you know, how the stuff works and how the fire department operates. So, unfortunately, we're going to punt on that until we're more comfortable. it has several servers that need to be updated and those sorts of things. And that just opens us up for all kinds of issues that I'd rather not navigate, but uh we need to buy a lot of

lot of new stuff. Uh and the grant that you approved earlier for the FCCMA intern, we don't pay the grant the the intern out of that grant. It comes out of our operations. So there could be a potential where we're just going to turn away free employment because of the cap. It's just really handcuffing ourselves. So, just again things we're trying to keep that uh education campaign going and then I'll I'll maybe I get to do the first Billy Bole Legs plug, but we've started uh planning that event and they want to go big. So, I'm excited to see some of the cool changes. I've never seen one myself, so we're starting and I think it's going to be epic. That's all [clears throat] I got.

Thank you, sir. F or I'm sorry, I see your training reports. You already did. You're good. Final council comments. Uh start again with Councilman Brown. Yeah, I was going to mention the community convoy this Saturday. It's pretty awesome thing for that uh firefighter. He lost his wife. Um and then I was going to ask, do we have a plan to do a strategic planning workshop? We're about to start to talk about budget on Thursday. So we'll update next week.

Yes is the answer. Uh I started too late in the year to have that, right? We had some verbal conversations, right? So, we drafted a new strategic plan based on your input. But if you want to do another I was just going to use what you gave me in October, sorry, August as this year's, but if you want to do another one, we can. I just we haven't we used the previous strategic plan for this past year's budget. We didn't use the cool new one that we made, but if you want to do another one, absolutely, we can. But I need to get that sooner than later. Right. Usually, I think what is it, Kim? Is it in April that we normally do it? beginning of April if if council wants to do another one

that I want to wait that long because we have uh between navigating the governor getting rid of property tax and those sorts of things I' I'd rather plan that if you want to have another strategic planning input session I'd rather shoot for February March the latest I got mayor thank you sir councilwoman dear um no no comments thank you counciloman jeter no comments It's on the last ever. I don't know. [laughter] Potentially potentially. Councilman May. All right. Councilwoman Riley,

I certainly have comment here. So, thank you so much for allowing me to do so. I want to um thank um Mr. Davis, Cam, and and the the staff for putting on a wonderful, wonderful holiday lunchon for the employees of the city. It was an honor for me to be there and to be present to see the wonderful employees that we have. And sometimes we don't know what we have until we just really we observe and we kind of look around and and we talk and we listen to others. And I I believe that I can truly say that we have a dedicated staff. And I want to continue to thank you all because for me looking looking around and everybody was excited, they were happy. They seemed like they were enjoying themselves. And it just made me feel good that we have city employees that, you know, that are thankful, you know, for the opportunity to come together like that from all of the department and across the city and have a beautiful lunchon together. So, thank you again for um for inviting me. I really enjoyed it. We have a just to clarify, we have a super cool events committee that drives all that. I just I'm just along for the ride. Okay.

There's like 10 people on that. So, yeah, they do a good job. Yes, absolutely. Thank you. There's council member Smith. Since I made the comment publicly, I also want to publicly apologize. The competitor came in into me and and apologize, Mr. Mayor, as far as presiding over the meeting with Robert's rules and those kind of things. I know we haven't comments regularly throughout the 10 years, but they probably you presside however you want to and again I just want to apologize for for that. I appreciate it.

Uh this this Friday there is a a grand opening for Epicide that's going to be inside of city for beach more specifically in Uptown Station. They do advanced artificial intelligence for automated military systems. And it's going to be a lot of higher wage, higher skilled jobs that we need more in this community so that more people can afford to live and to play and to stay in our our great city. Um, also too, I know it mentioned in the CRA meeting, uh, but I just want to reiterate this. I know I know Beige has been watching it or working before current city manager, but if we can do anything to try to mitigate the amount of signs on the Egglund Parkway resurfacing project with FOT staff. Um, I don't know if we need a motion or a second, but if there's any objections by council to not test staff to do this, but trying to mitigate if we can not have all of the wrongway signs on Eglund Parkway that are very similar to

racrack to racetrack those kind of That's right. You weren't even Yeah. So I understand it's code and the state those are state roads and state code but whatever we can do to try to mitigate the signs signs everybody sign and then um holiday lunch want to piggy back or copy and paste what councilwoman Miss Riley Broadex mentioned to see Nicole and to see Jason serve both the chiefs and leadership Tim miss Barnes it was a really neat effort just to see leadership serve and I don't know what the turnout was but there's probably what 10020 employees that came through there

to eat um again it was an awesome model of leadership and servant leadership so shout out to y'all on that and that's all I got this morning thank you sir um everyone's mentioned everything I was going to say so we'll leave it at Enjoy.