City Commission Meetings - Regular Meeting

Thank you. I mean, just amazing. One of the things that I like to tell people is we don't get to see your work. Y'all are out. We get to see your results. And this, ladies and gentlemen, is a lot of work. So thank you for your work. And thanks for making it so I can order something and get it delivered the same day from Amazon.

New Triumph. The one you were talking about where the tests sell, that's not the wind tunnel, right? That's separate?

That engine is, they're bringing them here. They're not developing new engines. They're working on existing ones.

You mean for Opportunity Zone 2.0 in January? Yes. Okay.

Why does the social district didn't come into play when we were back and forth on creating this overload? There is no social district. Entertainment district. Why is that important now? Because it was all about the use. It wasn't about the zoning. On that vote, it was about the use of what was going to go there, not of where it was.

I believe, and I'll defer to Mr. Fuller.

The votes for the Gateway Overlay, not for the Entertainment District. Why is that important is what I'm asking.

Because it's outside of it, isn't it? It only goes 200 feet to the center line. Yeah, that's right.

Can you change the zoning up and then limit the use and take away the allowance? Is that what you're asking?

Can you cap the allowable uses in that if the owner says, oh, we're going to keep it this way, and if we sold it, we'll go to this, and we sold it, it can revert back or it's always there? I mean, that helps take care of it? There's already heavy trucks there.

I didn't know if that was allowed or if we've done it before that. We're just trying to take care of the increase of trucks. I don't know how much more they'll need from light to heavy. They're already there.

of the community in the affected area just to talk with them. I find that bringing the applicant and the community together, they have that set of direct concerns. that they can all work out there. I would also say that the road conditions have probably been bad, so I don't want to say that them taking over, we've ruined the road conditions. Of course. I don't believe that's what you're saying. I think that can they help in future improvements? I'd like to talk about that, but also just want to make sure that that we understand we just voted 5-0 for a bottle club. This has been in business for

Any other questions? So your only reason is so that you can get a business license? That's it. There you go.

I'd like to talk about it. We're getting ready to hire a new clerk, and if we do this two-year extension, we're going to top... Banking's changed in the last three years a lot, and I'd like to suggest that we do a one-year extension or a two-year extension with one-year option in singles so that we can... Ask the new hire to put something out for bid and do some comparison. I think banks today really want to work with people and will have some fee structure that might be better than this. They're a bad bank. I'm just saying we haven't shopped in three years.

And again, Sandy, this is no bearing on the bank. We're just dealing with a lot of numbers of money right now going in opposite directions, and so just putting everything out there and... checking in on everything. Absolutely.

Thank you. I think When Josh said the other day, of all years he's been here, he's never seen a budget process like this, it means we're doing something right. And by that I mean we're looking at different ways to spend, save, and from my side of the street, cut expenses. So my question first is, I think this is coming from the anticipated revenue style of budgeting, which you all are going to get tired of hearing from me about cut expenses first, and then we'll worry about revenue later. And to me, that is the problem. So my question is, if we took that 5% savings, or each year, if each depar

We should probably make that a policy now. 10% of not a lot of money. But my concern is that's not factoring into lost income, your years two, three, and four.

But we're still coming from the projected revenue. We don't even know what it is. That way to get to zero. See, by doing it, the more revenue we get, the less expenses we've got to cut. Let's start down here, and the more revenue we have, the more revenue we have. And I think we're close on that, because 100%, it makes us save money. Another thing that we can do is in order to budget, we don't have, staff has not heard from us, I want two ideas, you want two ideas, and now that kind of helps. Where can we prioritize budget, okay? Rather than throw it against the wall. So I think this is a step

But there's no requirement for the departments to meet that cut, that taking out of the revenue. We can match that with department cuts.

I appreciate the homework. It would be fair to say that each of the expenses, and one of those is a savings out of revenue, earns its way to the budget. We talk about it, and that earns its way over there, and we know that. It's just gone, and we don't get to use it, and that's earned its savings account.

I'll second that. The letter talked about tarniness, but didn't give me any reason to believe that money's an issue in terms of being misplaced or anything. And having never been through this, what are you looking for on that audit that would stop discussion today? And I'm just asking.

In football, you get paid for getting fired. Yeah, it feels like a football contract.

You're not going to do that at your house.

Discussion? I think that we ought to answer community events. It's the longest accredited running school in the state of Florida, a high school, and let's keep it going. And it comes down Harrison Avenue, which we have not been able to do on the regular for the last several years. And I would invite that every year. Oh, you're going to come on down.

It was my understanding that we weren't supposed to be charged by Bayhawk based on the way that we set that up. And so I think that's a separate discussion, but I don't think the school board should charge us for that. And or if we're going to do this, we just have that understanding.

Now, why is it going to cost us more money to get the school of right money? Because, and this is my problem with ODM, why can't we just pay for it? Why can't we just pay all regular, why does it have to be time and hours?

But it's not, they're not having to pay, that doesn't make zero sense.

Okay, and my argument is then, why can't we just have another section of, there they are, there's 18 officers that day that are off, I'm sure.

But what they're saying is if we're going to fade, they have to use on-duty officers versus off-duty officers.

And we disagree with it because it's costing us more money to save the school money.

We can go raise $2,000 just like that and pay for it through ODM from Bay High. It doesn't make sense for the city to have to take a hit to try to do something nice for somebody.

I'll go grab a bunch of friends and go raise money.

We'll get 20 people with $100 and we've got the money.

So your friends... I like the idea. And my friends, run, because I'm coming after you for $100. But does my point make sense? Kind of. It's going to cost the taxpayer more money for us to say we helped Veha out. To me, that does not make sense. I get the point. There's a way around this. What if we had a third party of security firm that we had... Because remember, I'm looking... No, ma'am, that's a third party. If they hired a third party, they could pay the security.

Whatever, third party. The argument that I've been making is, and this time this is showing up, this is about the wall now, is if we had another third party or another option, then that option could come in and it would cost less.

Interesting. Okay, so that fixes my issue. He went to Rutherford, everybody. Go Rams. And back in the day, he wouldn't have done that back in the day.

I see a couple of y'all in here. Get your checkbooks out.

I'll make a motion. We need to discuss. How do we do that? Because we don't have something... A motion to accept something? Okay, we can discuss. I mean, normally we have to make a motion to accept whatever it is.

Can I talk to that, please? I got a lot of phone calls on this. And if you don't know, I'm a real estate broker, so I dove into this. Well, some people, the friends that I don't have, then I'm not coming after the $100. And I really dove into this because I wouldn't ask any money to go pay a million dollars to that site. I wouldn't ask you to pay $900,000. You've got elevation issues and drainage issues that you're going to have to work with, and the site work itself is just a lot of money. But to test the market, we gave it three weeks on an unsolicited offer, because I've also been asked, we

And just the percentage of... And going forward, I'd like for us, I'd like for staff not to alter a purchase agreement and to bring it to us before we vote. Because what that does is it's setting, we're talking about something right now that's not in their offer. So we're making a counter. So are we accepting their offer or are we changing it and then they're going to have to agree to it? The motion is to accept the offer. And this percentage of lots and affordable and all that is not in there. So I would encourage staff not to include things like this in the future because it's setting up a d

But staff has created a reason for us to have to fill in a blank? Well, you don't get it. Did you create that? We don't know if we're going to talk about it or not. And I'm not saying... In fact, Shane, it's something that... I can give you the history. I think it limits us from being able to have... We have to now factor this in in this contract if that's what we're going to accept. I say what you're saying. Bring us back an acceptable, executable contract. This may or may not be in there, but let's not vote on that today because that's not what we were asked to vote on.

Right, exactly. Right. Like they have to hold on to it. It's got to be built in three years, which they said they were going to do. I like the idea they have to hold on to it for 10 years. But if we're going to give them a discount, it is very plausible that if we want 10% of affordability in there, we discounted it. That's where we get to make the rules. However... I would rather us address the offer, which instead they're going to do workforce housing, just not a percentage. I'd rather us address the offer on that today, take Commissioner Granger's motion, that y'all go negotiate something t

You got some thoughts? We have a liquor license notice in here that there might be one, and that's a question that was asked. And if so, can we transfer that there?

So we still don't know yet. Well, that's about a million-dollar expense. So I think having that information sooner than later, because that's going to have to work into their budget, yes. Okay, so 2.4. and allow proposers to submit other considerations not listed in the RFE. And I want to thank the staff for adding that in. And what that means is, I'm learning in RFEs, if you get outside the box, It disqualifies you. Here, we're allowing them to say, hey, I've got another idea that's going to work with the Martin Theater that I'm going to do, and so maybe those come together so they can tell u

So you can do some research on that. Okay, sweet. Very good.

I think in Section 1.5, you have May 15th. That needs to be October, I think. Is that correct, Keith? All right. All right. A couple of other things. In Section 221, we have it here that the proposal will be responsible for planning.

Scope of services. The program will be responsible for all programming, and that happens at the Martin. And then it comes down here to say that we want them to generally align with the community values and all programming is subject to the approval of the city. Big Brother does not need to be watching and approving. If we're going to have a partner and all the qualifications that they're going to have to show us, that should be enough. They've proved that to me. I don't need to know if Bambi's playing over Star Wars. It's not just my thought there.

Okay, now that's different. But programming is what's being played there. We're not changing the scope. But that can be interpreted that way. I agree. And so I just want to make sure there. Also, on the broad part, Let me see here.

I'm still on page 11. The specific number of days that would be used for the community. I want to be broad in that too up front, but I think here... Once we get into having people make us proposals, they're going to tell us more about how many days, what their plans are. So I'd rather that be a negotiation than something inside here, if that's okay. Just things to collect there.

That was on page, well, that's in just above paragraph 2.2.

No, no, third paragraph. Yes, the third paragraph. I guess I am in a different... And then also, we have in here under financial, y'all want us to propose a base rent plus... Again, we're trying to get away from this is all about making money for the city. We're going to make money sometime. It doesn't need to be day one. Our contribution to this is we have put together this nice, shiny object. We need somebody that's professional, that knows what they're doing, and that's not us. Let's let them come in and tell us, and then we'll work about how the money is. But have it as a requirement? I can't get on board with that.

Because they're going to tell us in their proposal. Right now, this is saying that they're having to tell us we're not going to fund anything. This is all in the proposal. This whole thing is set up for the proposal to spend all the money make all improvements or changes, and we get paid. We're going to take care of the major components of the building only, and we don't pay property taxes.

It is, and I think that will come to the surface in their proposals. I think they'll show us that without having to have that. It's really the base requirement, and That may not be there. And it has another modified version.

Okay. That's what I've got so far. Yeah, I sat up and read this whole thing.

I'm sorry. I did get a call on the audit, which, by the way, I want us to audit them to make sure the money's right. There are certain things that are exempt in audits in these, and trade secrets are one of them. And I'm sure if you have any familiarity with that, I'd like to include any statute that's in here that identifies what they don't have to have in an audit so the public understands that's not going to show up. That number might not show up. That's a transparency thing I want to put in there.

My point is base payment plus percentage shouldn't even be in there. That's introducing an idea of the city wanting money up front, and that was what we were trying to get away from in this one.

So my experience so far, and Jason said it, the scoring thing kept a lot of people from, I think you're going to see bids that we're going to be okay with. And people have been calling saying, thank you for getting that far now.

And I'd also like to add that when it's time to review vids that come in, I'd like to have a minimum of two industry experts that would understand if these bids have some legitimacy in what their expectations of income and expenses. if that would be okay with y'all. The staff is very smart and good, but industry experts being an advisor, not on the committee, just being an advisor, they can offer up some help to maybe, we make better decisions on who we choose.

Let's get this out. Does this get this out first at the same time, Brian, in that motion?

And I would second that and just add into that possible, there's some grammatical, clerical errors, like a date that would not be okay that staff have the ability to update that.

I would put my money on. And we need to tighten up. We're going to have to tighten up our timeline because it's easy for, they book Robbie and Janice and they, oh, we're not done yet. We need to move the date back. They booked Allen and Kenny Chesney. They're on their tour. So we have to. That's a good ticket. He's the opener for you.