Good morning.

I am calling this regular City of Sarasota Commission meeting of February 2nd to order.

Just a couple of announcements before we start.

Our deputy city auditor and clerk, Laurie Rivers is substituting for our city auditor and clerk Shayla Griggs this morning.

And also we've got some technical issues, so we will be doing roll call votes for all the votes.

So those are my beginning announcements.

Oh, and silent cell phones.

Okay.

Um I would like to turn to our deputy city auditor and clerk rivers to uh do the invitation.

Please rise if you're able.

Heavenly Father, we affirm our faith in thee.

We seek your divine strength, wisdom, and guidance in the deliberations that affect the lives of each of the citizens of our community.

In thy name we pray.

Amen.

And Vice Mayor, will you lead us?

I will.

I pledge a legend.

Thank you, Ms.

Rivers.

Are there any changes to the order of the day?

No, ma'am.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Uh may I have a motion to approve the agenda?

So moved.

Second.

Uh moved by Commissioner Batti, seconded by the Vice Mayor.

Um roll call vote.

Ahern Koch?

Yes.

Alpert, yes.

Batti?

Yes.

Alright?

Yes.

Yes.

And motion passes five zero.

And we will then move forward.

Um, and I'm going to ask Ms.

Rivers to read the pledge of public conduct before we begin citizens input.

Sure.

We may disagree, but we will be respectful to one another.

We will direct all comments to issues.

We will not engage in personal attacks.

Thank you very much.

I have received six requests to speak.

And when you get up here, or when it's your turn to speak, uh, name whether or not your city resident and if you're representing someone other than yourself.

Uh, Steve Martinucci, Henry Kawati, uh, Jim Lampel, Ron Shapiro, and David Lowe.

And we will start with Mr.

Martinucci when you're ready.

Okay, thank you.

Steve Marchinucci, City Resident, and I'm on my own behalf for myself.

Good morning, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Commissioners, and everyone.

I speak before you all concerning the noise ordinance provisions.

First, to establish different uh different noise area zones, and second to eliminate the noise ordinance exemption clause for the Sarasota County schools.

The current noise ordinance uh designates restricted hours at different times and days.

The plainly audible noise violation is only enforceable when exceeding a distance of one hundred feet.

The ordinance specifies sound level limits of sixty-five DBA and 70 DBC, which is extremely loud, especially when it originates from a neighbor that is twenty-five feet away.

And when the level is just below that threshold.

Two specific situations.

First, my next door neighbors constantly play loud music on their porch, shout and parties with friends until 2 A.M.

The noise can be heard inside and outside of my house.

SPD has been contacted, witnessed the noise, and has spoken with the renters.

Unfortunately, SPD has explained that there is nothing that they can do and they can enforce because the noise levels are just under the sound level thresholds, and the distance is too close.

Second, I have been woken up from another neighbor and their guests at three o'clock in the morning from shouting, screaming, and partying in their backyard.

Because the distance is approximately 85 feet from my house to the rear of their house, SPD cannot enforce any noise ordinances.

I respectfully request to consider establishing different residential noise zones outside of the immediate downtown area where the noise ordinance becomes based on plainly audible sound levels from a source distance of 15 to 50 feet.

SPD can then be able to assist with noise control.

When the average property lot measures 50 by 100 feet deep, the front porch is typically less than 25 feet away from the next house.

The City of Orlando has three different zone area designations.

Downtown entertainment area, multi-use area, and residential area, each containing different hours and source distances.

Their multi-use area distance is 50 feet, and their residential area distance is 15 feet, both having enforceable hours from 10 p.m.

to 7 a.m.

seven days a week.

Winter Park, Pensacola, and Jupiter have distances of 50 feet.

Again, the city of Sarasota immediate downtown area should be treated differently than the surrounding residential areas.

Lastly, the residents that are negatively impacted by the Sarasota County Schools want to remind you all that the sound ordinance laws cannot be enforced because the schools are exempt from all noise ordinance laws.

Regulatory oversight is needed, especially as they continue to expand within the city limits.

Thank you for all of your time and your consideration.

Thank you very much.

Mr.

Kawadi.

Yes, good morning, uh Mayor, Vice Mayor, Commissioners, and everyone here.

My name is Henry Kowani.

I'm a resident on St.

Armand's.

I'm a resident here in Sarasota, and I've been here since 2012.

I'd like to talk to you this morning uh about flooding.

Um as you are well aware, uh St.

Armand's flooded in both uh Hurricanes Helene and Milton.

At our house, we had about two and a half feet of water outside the house, which put a foot of water in the house from Helene.

And we had a little less uh outside and inside from Milton, but we did flood with about 10 inches of water at our house uh during Hurricane Milton.

Um I spent a lot of time thinking about our solution to what is a uh a problem.

And if you go to St.

Armand's and drive around, you will see a bunch of different solutions that people have taken.

Uh a lot of houses on the north half of the island have been torn down.

Fewer on the south half of the island, but a lot of houses have been torn down, and there's a couple other that I know are going to be torn down.

Um you also will find houses that people have renovated at grade.

Uh renovating a house at grade doesn't make any sense to me personally.

It's flooded once, it will flood again.

It might be next year, it might be five years, it might be ten years, it might be twenty years, we don't know, but it will happen.

Um solution that I've come up with after a lot of consideration, and after driving up and down the west coast of Florida is to elevate our property.

Uh our plan is to elevate the property 12 feet or so off the ground.

That will get us out of the floodplain.

As part of thinking through the process, I, as I mentioned, have been up and down the Florida West Coast, uh, and have talked to homeowners and seen properties that were elevated.

I just want to mention two.

Uh there was a house up in St.

Pete's.

Um the owners bought the house, they renovated, they did a nice job, they applied for a permit to elevate their property.

It took St.

Pete's over a year to issue a permit.

As they're waiting for a permit.

Helene came through, flooded their house.

Now, in addition to elevating it, they need to renovate.

Um I also saw a house down in um Sanibel.

So uh, of course, was hit very hard in E.

The house that I'm thinking of here was the first house in uh on Sanibel to be elevated uh post-storm.

Uh or elevated, period.

Um it took them also over a year to get a permit.

If you go their street now, most of the houses on the street have been elevated up.

Um there's a house there that uh uh is boarded up, another house that looks abandoned, but most of the street has come back and they have elevated up.

Sarasota's zoning ordinance is not designed uh to deal with a situation like ours.

And I would respectfully request that you give some thought to how the zoning code could be modified to reflect our situation and others that would be interested in that, and I'm happy to uh to meet with anyone to discuss what would be required.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh Mr.

Lample.

Good morning and thank you.

I'm Jim Lample.

I'm a downtown resident for many years.

I am so excited to be here to bring you a lot of good news.

We all are familiar with the observer.

It's full of good news.

I think Pat, you know.

Observer.

It's uh it's free most places and only a dime at Publix.

In the paper, it talks about the great news that the hobnob is reopening this spring.

We can all applaud that.

Even bigger news an airplane manufacturer is coming to SRQ, maybe 200 jobs.

How hard have we worked to get industry here?

This is great.

And in the middle section, it celebrates Ryan Chase, a principal of Sarasota High School.

He was named the Florida Principal of the Year.

And I think a lot of that is due to his great attitude.

He's very visible and accessible to teachers and students.

He jumps for capit jumps in for cafeteria duty and even cleans tables and picks up trash.

This is a great attitude and passion that we need in our next city manager.

Our next city manager should walk down Main Street and know virtually every merchant.

They should be as visible as the officer sitting over there in the corner.

Everyone should know who he or she is.

And there's even more good news, but it's not in the observer today.

Moms for Liberty sued Brevard County School District a short while ago for being gaveled and interrupted.

Moms won on appeal.

The judge said, in my in my words, the rules were vague and inconsistently applied to the public when they spoke.

Just like here, when Mayor Alpert was the mayor.

She let Martin and other people go on and on, and they were polite, but they were critical.

And she gave them that latitude.

But we have a new mayor who thinks that, since elections matter, and that's a quote from a recent interview, that she has the latitude to censor people if she thinks it might be heading to a personal attack, which I never did.

I quoted verbatim.

So the on appeal when the Moms for Liberty won, it was over five, it was over $500,000.

A half a million dollars at cost public.

It never should have happened.

And it's happening here.

So, Mayor, yes.

Lawsuits are a thing.

It's a First Amendment right.

But somehow here, commissioners can rant and the public gets only three censored minutes.

They can be interrupted any time that the mayor deems it necessary.

But as Mr.

Polzak will soon tell you, things are going to change.

Hallelujah.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And now Ron Shapiro, Mr.

Shapiro.

Is this working?

Do you mind changing seats?

Thanks.

Good morning.

I'm Ron Shapiro, and I'm a Sarasota resident.

As you may know, round three of 1260 North Palm has begun.

A project that was initiated in late 2022.

I can't think of a better topic to discuss this morning.

After all, it is groundhog day.

The developer recently utilized the Flued Romediation process to reach a settlement with city staff and the obsidian project.

I want to share the key elements of this settlement as it was a communicated at a public meeting about 10 days ago.

Number one, two new parking spots and a new loading zone on North Palm Avenue in front of the 1260 property.

This will be achieved by taking away about half of the existing sidewalk, public land owned by the city, creating an even more negative pedestrian experience on this block.

Number two, modified landscaping for the first two stories of the building.

Number three, a living wall at the parking garage entrance and near the FPL power box.

Number four, develop a 90-day staging plan.

And number five, guarantee that the 100-year-old palms will live for two years.

The size and scope of the project, including building footprint and height remain unchanged.

So let's take a look at how this new version compares with some of the issues from the last version to see if and how they've been addressed.

So the issues starting with the first, there were the three adjustments that were required.

Full retail frontage, no.

Facades, no, and habitable space, no.

All three of these.

Totally ignored and not addressed in the latest version.

The technical deviation granted by the previous city manager for off-premises refuse collection.

No.

Not addressed.

That's still an issue.

And from zoning code uh section 4, 506, specifically point one, land development regulations, Sarasota City Plan, and point four, the compatibility and many other key elements.

No.

No.

No.

Add to this the taking of the public sidewalk for parking spaces.

And one could argue this plan is even more egregious than the last one.

So in total, there continues to be a tremendous amount of evidence to deny this project.

Obviously, this developer doesn't care nor want to comply with the city's regulations.

And he's determined to wear down both the city and the opposition to eventually get what he wants.

A common strategy used by developers.

However, we're not going to let that happen in this case, and neither should you.

We're counting on you, our elected officials and city leaders to do what's right and deny this project again when it comes before you in the next month or so.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Shapiro.

David Lowe.

Yes, good morning.

I'm David Lowe, President of DSCA.

Today is groundhog day, and fitting the special events ordinance that had been scheduled for your meeting February 17th has now apparently been moved March 2nd.

At this point, it feels like we keep repeating the same agenda.

This ordinance has been under discussion for about a year, and there's already ready-bended robust community and city commission input.

I don't see a reason to continue to move this.

Separately, I understand the sound ordinance may take a little bit more time because staff is waiting on input from a sound engineer.

That makes sense.

During commissioners' comments today, I'd suggest you consider asking Mr.

Polzek and on the sound ordinance and possibly Mr.

Bullock on the special events ordinance to get some kind of update.

I would respectfully suggest trying to get these dealt with before Mr.

Bullet's last day.

Another item I think the community and I personally would appreciate an update on is a Cerevella.

The alley vacation ordinance has been approved, and the site plan has already received uh partial sign-off.

With that approval, the remaining review moves forward administratively and no longer comes back to the DRC.

So essentially no further public visibility.

I also noted this morning at their website, they are still advertising three-day minimum rental freedom, which continues to raise the question.

I've shared my direct opinions on this.

Mr.

Robinson may recall a remark I made to him at the C CNA meeting, so my thoughts I think are clear on this.

Fourth item, you also approved uh will be approving a budget calendar for this year.

And I would respectfully suggest as you talk about that, we again consider a town hall for public input on the budget, possibly earlier in the cycle than it has been the last two years.

This may be particularly uh valuable to the new city manager to get some input uh from the community.

And finally, I'd appreciate some discussion about where things stand with the strategic plan, including its approval and how it's intended to guide the upcoming budget, particularly the capital improvement program.

It's difficult to make it through the budget and the CIP decisions without that framework in place.

Uh so if you'd consider uh possibly discussing these during your comment period today, some of these items, I would appreciate it.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Lowe.

So thank you, gentlemen, and we have two more speakers who will be coming down.

Coincidentally, they are two women.

Uh Lori Muldowney and Ranique Hawkins.

And if you will introduce yourself, if you're city resident, and whether you're uh representing someone besides yourself.

Okay.

If you're ready, it's Ms.

Mel Downey.

Thank you.

Uh good morning.

Uh for the record.

My name is Lori Muldowney.

I am a resident of the City of Sarasota, and I'm here representing the Sarasota Alliance for Historic Preservation today.

I'm going to give you this.

Excuse me.

I'm here today to share some good news.

As you may recall, following the completion of the Purple Ribbon Committee report last July.

Community members submitted a preliminary site information questionnaire to the Florida Department of State for the Van Wazel Performing Arts Hall related to the question of its historic significance.

This action was taken with your knowledge and on a time frame that was mutually agreed upon.

Well, last week we received a positive response from the Florida Department of State.

I've shared that with the clerk just now, and learned that the building is potentially individually eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places for its architecture.

Because their reasoning was that the Van Weasel is a significant example of modern architecture in Sarasota and also experimental in design.

So for people like me, this is really exciting news.

Additionally, they thought it was important that the Van Weasel was a later addition to the Civic Center Master Plan.

This is all in the letter that I've just shared with Lori.

Our next step will be preparing the National Register forms for the building.

So thank you all very much for your attention.

Thank you.

And Ms.

Hawkins?

Good afternoon or good morning, it's still more time.

I usually do these presentations about noise in Newtown.

And I'm always stuttering because I'm really not wanting to continue to make these presentations.

What I brought today was really the focus of the purpose of why people do the advocacy for the noise ordinance to be lowered to a normal level.

What is it, 55 or 65 decibels, which is lower than it is right now.

And what I brought is something I did not have the last time I was here, which are the surveys that the NAACP gave the community on behalf of the Sarasota Police Department.

And as a whole, the community was asking for enforcement.

So I wanted that to be part of the record today.

And it seems that only one person is at the crusp of it, if you will.

When I hand you uh as part of the record here, that the community has asked for enforcement.

Not to stop people from having a good time, but to honor what the elder and vulnerable community, I'm actually part of the vulnerable community in cancer recovery.

What they have been asking for for a very long time.

The blasting of music and other things that go on in Newtown don't happen elsewhere.

The initiative is wide in the city.

It's it's not a new town issue or problem per se, but it's factually concentrated in Newtown.

So I am gonna just submit this and I'll do a uh a more extensive presentation another time.

But I'm asking the commission to please prioritize if you need to hire the sound expert.

I know you were waiting to do that, so that people in Newtown can be protected, and only one person does not go down to try to get you know to be the advocate for the elders and uh people who've been asking for that.

So I'm just submitting this now.

Thank you very much.

And that ends uh public comment period.

And we will move.

Okay, we're going to move on to approve uh item 4.1.

Uh approval of the minutes of the regular city commission meeting of January 5th.

Um move to approve.

Second.

Uh moved by the Vice Mayor, seconded by Commissioner Bad T.

Uh we're going to have a roll call vote on that.

Oh, sorry.

Yeah, no, um, I uh did not submit any uh edits, but I did submit a question that was requested a response or clarity from from Mr.

Lample.

Yeah, I can address that.

Um the reason when somebody submits something onto the overhead or submits it to the record, like we've just had here.

We mention that in the minutes and call them out by their name and give a little more description because they submitted something into the record.

Otherwise, because we're just action minutes, we just say so and so spoke.

That's the clarification.

Or a person spoke.

Yeah, that's the difference why one was um mentioned more than the other, I guess you could say, because she submitted something into the record, and we always make sure we reflect that in the minutes that something was submitted into the record and what it was.

So if if it if somebody shows something on the overhead, is that enough to be uh mentioned in the minutes or is it um submitting something into the record?

Because we that we collect what they get what they place there for the record.

So they're basically submitting something into the record when they place it there for so it's either physical or showing on the correct thing.

Okay, just for clarity.

Okay, thank you.

So um do we okay?

We have the motion on the floor and roll call vote.

Sure.

Albert?

Yes.

Petite?

Yes.

Ulrich?

Yes.

Trice?

Yes.

Aherncott?

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Motion passes unanimously.

Now we have uh item 4.2 approval of the minutes of the special Sarasota Commission meeting of January 13th.

Are there any corrections?

I had none.

Okay.

Move to approve.

Second.

Uh move by Commissioner Batti, seconded by the Vice Mayor to approve the minutes as submitted.

Um call.

Batti.

Yes.

Ulrich?

Yes.

Trice?

Yes.

Aherncot?

Yes.

Albert Yes.

Passes unanimously.

Thank you very much.

Uh now we are at consent agenda number one.

Are there any items to be pulled?

Yes, ma'am.

I'm aware of two.

Um Commissioner Ahern Koch has requested to pull items 6.1 and 6.2.

Okay.

Any other items to be pulled?

Okay.

Can I have a motion regarding the balance of the uh of consent?

So move so move.

Second.

Okay, that's a motion to pass the balance of consent one uh made by Commissioner Batti, seconded by the Vice Mayor.

Um, no discussion on this roll call vote.

Uh-huh.

Ulrich?

Yes.

Yes.

Aherncot?

Yes.

Albert.

Architectural services.

Okay.

Um Albert?

Okay.

Petit.

Yes.

Okay.

Vote is unanimously passed.

Um item 6.1 Commissioner Ahern Koch requested that that be polled.

Um, I just requested this be pulled for a presentation.

I think any time uh well, not any time, but often when we have something um like this where the city is expanding services that are needed, um, it's important to have a presentation so the citizens know um what the city's doing.

Um Shelley Ligarski, homelessness response coordinator for the city of Sarasota.

Um so basically we are requesting um an increase in funding for the beds that we provide for a homeless population at the Salvation Army.

We've had this contract in place since 2014.

So in uh 2025, we had 361 individuals that used our beds, and once they are in bed, you know, we want to connect them to the resources that are available to them.

And sometimes that's a homeward bound where we connect them to family outside of the state, or if it's family within the state, we work with Salvation Army to do that.

It could be mental health services, it could be employment services, uh, vote rehab, um, it could be substance use, you know, and whatever is in each individual's plan for service.

So at the end of the day, our goal is to end their homeless crisis and get them whatever serve wraparound services that are necessary for long-term sustainability and our partnership with the Salvation Army is critical in the homeless response.

Thank you.

Commissioners questions.

Um Commissioner Aherncott.

Oh, by the way, the the It works.

Yeah, that works, it's just we can't vote.

Okay.

So the city had uh 25 beds with the ability to expand to 25.

And you've just changed it so that it 25 will be available since we paid for those extra five.

Correct.

We are we want to bump that up to an extra five.

Yeah, it was just a minor language change.

Um the contract, the way it was written initially was just a little confusing.

It said 20 beds.

Um, and then with the ability to expand to the five additional beds, but regardless of how many clients we had, we were always paying for 25 beds a day.

So they just wanted to eliminate the language and just made make it a little bit more clear.

It makes sense.

And does this cost the clients anything to enter?

It does not.

Okay.

No, it is a housing first program, so all services are client optional and it is up to them whether they want to take the services or not.

Okay.

Because I know that sometimes people are approached about our unsheltered population and they they ask for funds to enter there, and um just it is it is not accurate that they can enter without correct.

And um Salvation Army previously had um it was a price that uh clients had to pay to enter into services that is no longer the case.

So if we have someone who is willing and wanting to take the opportunity for shelter, we enter them into one of our hot beds, and then if they are agreeable to a longer term plan, we transition them to the emergency shelter program within the Salvation Army, which is also of no clock cost, but it's an application process.

So we will hold on to them in our hotbeds while they are getting through the approval process and an opening happens.

So this is an entry way for people to enter into the system to eventually get out of their unsheltered situation out of that cycle that continues.

If if we don't lead them and help them, this is a way to get there.

100%.

We want to connect them to resources.

We don't want to keep them on the street.

Our goal is 100% to connect them to whatever we can to help end the crisis that they're going through.

Thank you.

And the county, they have 40 beds, is that correct?

So the county actually has 30 beds.

30 beds.

Yes.

Emergency shelter has 40 beds.

Okay.

And do we know the average on any one day or night or week or month of how many people do enter in and take advantage of the city's beds?

So it honestly depends.

Right now, we're close to being full.

I mean, the weather is definitely going to impact that.

Um it unfortunately seasonal as well, because we do have people that are coming into and out of the city because of our our weather here.

But uh right now for the month of December and into January, we've had on average 17 to 23 individuals staying in our beds night overnight.

Okay.

Um thank you very much for the work that you do.

Thank you.

I appreciate it.

Thank you.

Commissioner Alper?

I have a question.

Sorry.

Um just just if if they go in on their own, not through you know, homeless services, not through you all.

Um, does that still apply that they can take advantage of one of the free beds?

Oh, yes.

We my case managers actually help people regardless if they're taking advantage of the beds or not.

So um if they are if a police officer brings them into shelter or if uh they are one of our previous clients, Salvation Army will contact us and we'll put them into beds.

Um, our goal is to work with them.

We even work with clients on an outreach basis.

So even if they decline the option for shelter, because again it is client choice, we're still going to work with them and help them resolve their homeless circumstance or whatever crisis it is that we need to connect them to.

Right.

But if they just haven't talked to you, they don't know this, they just go there on their own.

An officer would have to bring them in on an outreach for our beds.

Yes, criminal diversion or our outreach beds.

Now, however, they could have applied for um street teams or one of the Salvation Army's programs, which if their numbers called and they're able to get in, they can go in on their own.

But for our beds, they would have to go in through criminal diversion or outreach.

Okay.

That's why you're yeah, and the the county beds work similarly.

Um I have uh a question, I was just wondering whether you're aware of the all of the beds, not just ours, but the counties and it being full so that there was no room in the inn.

So currently I know that the county has been full and close to full uh recently, so we will assist each other in that capacity.

Um I know that they've opened 30 cold night shelter, but I have not heard whether it has been full at full capacity.

Street Teams is on a wait list and emergency shelter is on a wait list as well so but they are understaffed so I know the beds have been impacted because of that.

So for example emergency shelter can have up to 40 beds available but currently because they are understaffed they're at 20 beds.

Yeah so that does in that also impacts our beds so when they are understaffed and their beds are not being fully utilized you know we are utilizing the beds for our clients.

Yeah.

Thank you and commission Commissioner Heranc has another question.

Yes I I'm I just want to clarify I think what Commissioner Alpert was asking and I could be wrong was that if somebody comes in whether it's through the city or through the county or just on their own they still don't have to pay a fee to enter and get a bed correct they do not have to pay a fee however they may not have a bed available for them right if there's not an opening.

Right.

And then my other question was in the backup material I saw that basically the choice is to go you can go to the Salvation Army and have a free bed or if they're if they're arrested and they go into jail the average stay in jail is 21 days and when I calculated the cost does it make sense to you that it's about $2,100 a day in jail versus um $2,100 not a day a year versus a thousand dollars a year in Salvation Army so it's is it really less than half this route as opposed to being arrested 100%.

And then even once they're arrested we still have a diversion court program that it's a it's another way for us to round people into services so if they do have a misdemeanor charge that's indicative of homelessness we encourage them to participate in community care court and if they work with myself and my case manager from Suncoast Partnership we provide a case plan for them and if they are actively and successfully working through that case plan we can ask the judge to dismiss charges.

So the whole system is designed to help our clients and their current homeless circumstance.

Thank you and then one last question the point in time count from last year do you know when we're gonna get those numbers I do not I actually just asked on coast partnership and I have a call into HUD as well to find out where we are apparently the all of the stats are in from Florida but there were two COCs that had some discrepancies and they're currently working through those discrepancies.

Thank you as soon as we can get those numbers I'd appreciate absolutely that it and Vice Mayor has a question.

Not a question a comment before we wind up I wanted you to know you your team your media team and the entire county team and beyond how much we value the services you bring to our residents and our visitors who are homeless.

Thank you I appreciate the support thank you so much.

Thank you very much that ends our questions and I will am open to a motion I would move approval and execute the 2025 2026 annual agreement between the City of Sarasota and the Salvation Army for homeless outreach team beds in the amount of 410365 dollars.

You mean second second okay uh motion by Commissioner Ahern Koch seconded by Commissioner Batie any discussion seeing none roll call vote.

Yes Alper yes okay uh unanimous passes unanimously thank you very much and Commissioner Ahern Kotch uh pulled item 6.2 yes good morning commission my name is Kelly Strickland I'm director of financial administration and this item that was pulled is the budget calendar for our preparation of the fiscal year 27 budget the first item that we have on here is April 20th and each of these items are specific to commission um participation so the first item is April 20th when we'll give you an update where we where we ended in the prior fiscal year where we see ourselves now and some issues that we have to look forward to in the future.

And then tentatively, we have scheduled on September 8th and September 21st, the pup the first and second public hearing.

Um and these dates say tentative because we have to make sure that we're not at the same time as the school board and the county.

Did you have specific I did, yeah.

Um, she pulled a letter go first.

Um, it's just that uh Mr.

Lowe must have been reading my mind last uh uh uh week when I was reading this curious about the community workshop um that we've um introduced in the last two years and has been I think well received and and and um a valuable tool for the community where that fits in with the schedule um and I do agree that earlier is better than later.

I know we have less details, but we have it tentatively scheduled for May 5th in the evening.

Um it doesn't require commission approval, so it's not on this calendar, but it is out there.

Okay.

And you're thinking here at the SRQ studio like 5:30.

Yes.

Okay.

Great, that's my question.

Thank you.

Okay.

Okay, and the vice mayor.

So um I think that's great that we're gonna add May 5th for uh a workshop, public workshop.

Um there would be some value in having a second workshop later on in the process.

Um maybe between July 28th and September 8th before the first public hearing.

Um giving us the opportunity to pull some of the details together more tightly so that the budget is more defined, but not yet approved.

Um I'd be interested in any comments on that from you, Ms.

Strickland, as well as from staff.

Um we would need a little bit of direction.

So when we have the workshops on the 27th and the 28th, on the 28th, we'll move into a city commission, a special city commission meeting where um the finance team will present what we've heard during the workshops of and then the commission will have an opportunity to talk about it to see if there's any changes or disinstallations that you want to make, and then we set a tentative millage.

Now, if you want another meeting above that, we just need um a little bit of direction on what you want to see in the that meeting.

Uh commissioners, any commissioners have comments on that?

Yeah.

Yeah.

Um so what are you looking to get out of that meeting?

Well, again, the first workshop would be more general.

Here's how our budget was last year, here's what we're thinking about doing.

And the second one would be after discussion with commissioners and direction also from the city manager and staff.

Here's what we are going to be proposing.

So you're proposing a public workshop?

Is that what you're saying?

I thought you meant a commission one.

No, no, not a commission one, a public workshop to discuss with the public the discussions that have been going on publicly but internally, really.

How about um Mr.

Bullock?

Any comment on that?

So just um to clarify the public workshop you're talking about, not a commission meeting, but one held with the public, much like the one that um Ms.

Strickland mentioned May 8th.

This one would be after you set the tentative millage, and in your uh two-day workshops, you you go through lots virtually everything associated with the budget.

I think in that one we could present to the public, and here's where we here's where the commission is as we head into final adoption, which would occur in September.

So that's fairly straightforward to do.

Um since uh in following the uh budget workshops, there's a lot of work done to sort of finalize the proposed budget.

So it might be um we might need a little time after your July 27th meeting and prior to your September 8th meeting, so it might be closer to September 8th, I think would make the most sense.

We could say here's where our budget is, the commission will consider this on the 8th, September 8th and September 21st.

So they get a pretty good snapshot of where where you are, barring last minute changes in your uh September meetings, that would be the budget going forward for the following year.

And that's what I'm talking about.

Okay.

I get it.

Okay.

Yeah.

That makes sense to me because I envision that as summarizing two days of budget workshop saying as a result, this is where we stand and you know with enough time for the public to weigh in before our first public hearing in September.

I do have a question, and it's really timetable.

We're, and I don't know if this is a clarification from Mr.

Bullock or for that matter, Commissioner Ahern Koch.

The legislation that's pending in uh the state legislature, which might change the homestead exemption and impact us in terms of ad valorum taxes and how much our general fund will be taking in.

My understanding is whatever passes will have to be voted on and approved by the voters in the November election.

If they pass it, would that change be retroactive so that it would hit our 26-27 budget, or it wouldn't hit until the 27-28 budget.

Go ahead.

Your last statement is accurate of everything we've seen so far that it would uh if it's adopted in November, it would apply to the next year's budget.

The the one thing it's it's too late.

You by the time November referendum happens, if one does happen, um we would have already not only adopted that year's budget, but be into it uh you know a couple months.

Um so there's really no opportunity to incorporate it.

The unfortunate thing is, you know, if we had a couple years notice on this, we could begin to whatever the impacts will be.

We could begin to modify our budget to accommodate whatever the the thing is that's going to hit.

But as it stands now, it would not become effective until the 27 uh uh the following year's budget.

So and it's too late to do anything in this year's budget.

Okay, thank you, and Commissioner Herrencock.

And I am I'm glad you answered that with some clarity because most of it doesn't have a lot of clarity.

Um typically when you do something like this, you have one of these kinds of bills, you have an implementation bill that is coupled with it that tells the municipality exactly how you're going to implement these changes if they passed.

There is no implementation bill.

So a lot of the questions that we have will go unanswered, except that one.

Okay.

But everything else.

Thank you.

So that was my concern as to whether or not you know our calendar on this item was going to be affected, but it won't be.

We'll see what happens in November.

But we will move forward with our budget process.

Uh thank you very much, Miss Uh Ms.

Strickland and Mr.

Bullock.

Mayor, I just want to say back, I think I heard a consensus of the Commission to hold a second public workshop between the tentative millage and the uh September meetings where you go through adoption.

So we'll plan for that.

Yeah, I think that's a great idea.

Thank you very much.

Thanks for the suggestion.

Um may I have a motion?

Move approval of proposed um 26-27 budget calendar as proposed by Ms.

Strickland.

Second.

Okay.

Move by Commissioner Aaron Koch, seconded by Commissioner Batti to approve the schedule.

Um discussion, roll call vote.

Ahern Koch?

Yes.

Alpert?

Yes.

Petit?

Yes.

All right.

Yes.

Yes.

Motion passes unanimously.

Thank you.

Um so moving on to consent agenda number two.

Um, are there any items pulled?

There's only one.

It's only one item.

It isn't pulled.

So may I have a motion, please?

I'll read the title.

Oh, sorry, yes, thank you.

Resolution number 26R 3375, a resolution of the City Commission of the City of Sarasota, Florida, amending the budget for fiscal year beginning October 1, 2025 by providing for supplemental appropriations and the amounts identified in exhibit A.

Providing for severality if any of the parts hereof are declared invalid, providing for reading by title only and providing an effective date.

Move approval of consent to.

Second.

Okay, move by the Vice Mayor, seconded by Commissioner Batte.

Um I guess we need a vote.

Oh vote.

Ulrich?

Yes.

Trice?

Yes.

Aaron Coss?

Yes.

Albert?

Yes.

Petit.

Yes.

Uh passes unanimously.

Thank you very much.

And we are now at the first item of unfinished business.

And that has to do with the second reading of proposed ordinance number 25-5581 dealing amending the future land use chapter of the comprehensive plan regarding the real property at uh Dr.

Martin Luther King Way.

We and currently considered the Marion Anderson property.

So I'm going to invite Mr.

Appleby and Mr.

Smith to give us a presentation.

Hold on a second, please.

I'll read the title first.

Sorry.

Ordinance number 255581.

An ordinance of the City of Sarasota, Florida, amending the future land use chapter of the comprehensive plan of the City of Sarasota, aka the Sarasota City Plan to change the future land use map classification of a parcel of real property containing approximately 9.22 plus minus acres and constituting approximately the southern two-thirds of a larger 13.95 acre parcel of real property located on the south side of Dr.

Martin Luther King Jr.

Way, west of the railroad wide right of way, east of the right-of-way of Mary and Anderson Place, and north of 21st Street, generally known as the Mary and Anderson Place Brownfield site, and having a street address of 2046 Dr.

Martin Luther King Jr.

way from the community commercial future land use map classification to the production intensive commercial future land use map classification in accordance with comprehensive plan amendment application number 25 PA02, repealing ordinances in conflict, providing for the severability of the parts hereof, providing for reading by title only, and providing for an effective date.

Thank you.

Gentlemen.

Good morning.

David Smith, Manager of Long Range Planning, and with me is Mr.

Appleby.

I'll lead off.

This is a second reading of a comprehensive plan amendment city initiated for the 9.22 acre site that's part of the Marion Anderson location to change the land use from community commercial to production intensive commercial.

The city commission did hold a public hearing on November 3rd and unanimously approved the petition.

Also added a site-specific limitation, which was a proffer from the contract purchaser, Newtown Gateway LLC.

So that's been added as on page four of your ordinance.

Also the City Commission did request a status update for the purchase and sale agreement.

So Mr.

Appleby is here to present that.

So I'll turn it over to Wayne to give you an update.

Good morning, Mayor, Commissioners.

Wayne Appleby Economic Development Manager.

Just briefly, you may recall back in November you had asked for an update on February 2nd because Newtown Gateway LLC still needed to meet a deliverable or submitting the site act uh site assessment report to FDEP, which had not been completed in November.

So today's update, I'm happy to report.

They did hire Kimley Horn, conducted the required uh analysis of the soils and submitted that uh SAR site assessment report to FDP on uh January 20th.

So we are back on schedule with our purchase and sale agreement from a deliverable standpoint.

Thus we're ready to proceed with the second reading of the comp line amendment.

Okay, thank you.

Are there any anybody signed up to speak on this item?

No, ma'am.

Okay.

Uh Commissioner questions.

Uh Commissioner Ahern Koch.

I just wanted you to see if you could read into the let the public know the item that was added that was requested that they agree to.

Sure.

It's on page four.

Yes, and and this will be added to Action Strategy 1.10 site-specific limitations for the future land use chapter.

Um it's going to state uh notwithstanding that salvage and recycling operations are considered permitted uses under the industrial use category of uses in two of the implementing zone districts.

In the in the uh production intensive commercial future land use classification.

There shall be no usage or activities in an open air setting on the site that involved one the processing or recycling of refuse or trash, or two the crushing, breaking, grinding, or pulverizing a rocks, concrete, mortar, asbestos, asphalt, or substantially similar materials.

Thank you.

I appreciate that.

Thank you.

And oh no, mine disappeared, Mayor.

Did you that was my very question?

Oh, okay.

Thank you.

Any other yeah, Commissioner Batte.

Uh yeah, and I just wanted to say thank you very much for that presentation, and um not something so much as a question and whatever, but that's just a comment.

And to thank uh uh Gateway as well for you taking in uh the initiative to take interest in this in this property, you know, as we know, you know, what the history of it being a dump site for so many years for decades.

Um then the proposal for a Walmart going there that was that uh didn't happen, you know, and the dismay of the community or what have you.

Um now, you know, uh gateway taking interest in uh trying to bring something to the community, provide jobs and help change the tax base up in uh up in Newtown.

So I just wanted to commend you all uh for working with with them and uh doing what we can to make use of this uh of this parcel of land, you know, in in uh the new town community.

So thank you very much, Mayor.

Thank you, gentlemen.

Okay.

So I'm asked time for a motion is move approval of ordinance number 25-5581.

Second.

Okay, Commissioner to uh Aher and Kotch moved approval.

Uh Commissioner Batti seconded.

Uh is there any discussion?

Uh no call vote?

Trace?

Yes.

Aaron Cox?

Yes.

Albert?

Yes.

Petit?

Yes.

All right.

Yes.

Passes unanimously.

Thank you very much.

Um next item on the agenda is item 9.2, uh, which is approval to authorize the mayor and city auditor and clerk to execute the third amendment to the agreement between the City of Sarasota and John F.

Swift construction for the design and construction plans of the new one-story clubhouse uh with a separate cart storage building at Bobby Jones Golf Club for 514,957.

Um, and I will do do you need to read anything?

Okay.

I I will call a fund parks and recreation director Jerry Fogle for a presentation.

Good morning, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Commissioners, Jerry Focal, Parks of Recreation.

Uh just uh here uh to answer any of your questions or if you need any additional information pertaining to the amended uh agreement, and then we also have a companion item.

If indeed you approve this, we have a budget amendment to reallocate money from the Bobby Jones construction uh to pay for the design uh services for John Ep Swith.

Thank you.

Um I have one person who's requested to speak, uh Martin Hyde.

What good morning?

Obviously, I'm still Martin Hyde.

I uh I still don't live in the uh in the city.

Get dragged into these things from time to time.

In any event, um here's some questions you might ask.

January 2022, five hundred and forty-four thousand dollars was what you approved for design services.

Seven months later, you approved a further hundred and twenty-six thousand dollars.

Uh and today, you're being asked for yet another just over half a million dollars, taking you to the thick point of one point two million dollars for a design.

The third amendment to any agreement, frankly, does risk questions of propriety, cronyism, but obviously, and most in particular cost.

You know, last week uh he was trying to persuade me to uh to support him.

I was talking to one of the largest uh which I didn't, uh one of the largest uh property developers in the area.

And um, in the course of conversation, I asked him casually what does it cost?

I didn't say to put up one of your rat holes, but to you know, to to put up one of your basic homes.

And he told me it's $76 a foot.

Wow, it's astonishing.

And I said, well, what about one of your so-called signature homes?

You know, where the doors actually fit that sort of thing.

And he was talking about about twenty a foot.

Um whatever way you slice it up, that's about twenty percent of what you are talking about as a cost per foot.

It's not close.

It's not half.

Twenty percent is what he can put up full houses for.

Now, of course, there is a distinction there, is that uh he obviously cares about the money because it's his money.

Um but it does beg the question how do you get from 76, 120 bucks a foot for full house to five times that for a building, which in half part is essentially an extended garage.

It's a cart bomb.

All right, so it's not 17,000 square foot of accommodation.

It's not you know fancy or it shouldn't be fancy.

It's supposed to be a utility.

So then the bid for construction.

Let's just be clear about this.

I am sure the City Attorney agrees with me.

That has to go out, notwithstanding that Jonathan Swift has had the uh the inside track on this thus far, and I am sure you will give him this extra 500 credit.

But that bid has to go out.

We have to see whether somebody might come up with something.

Because your own figures last week, $23 million potential drop in taxation.

I don't know if that referenda item will pass, but it might.

Thank you very much.

Um Commissioner um yeah, Mr.

Fogel come back and uh we will start questions with Commissioner A.

Harry Kotch.

Thank you.

Um I had a couple of questions.

On uh page 19 of our backup material with Kimley Horn, um it mentions the project will consist of one six thousand square foot single story clubhouse building and a separate four thousand square foot cart barn.

And um and then it references later on in their materials that um if there are any substantial changes that these numbers don't hold.

Um however, on page 10 and in our um executive summary it says it's a 6,000 square foot clubhouse and a 6,000 square foot cart barn.

So um I I'm not clear on the cart barn if it's 4,000 or 6,000 square feet.

Sir it is 6,000 square feet uh cart barn and a 6,000 square feet clubhouse.

Okay.

So what do we do about this number in here in their proposal that says 4,000 square feet?

It is it so for the 7.2, if you look in the agreement also, it's not to exceed that.

So we you know if it's 4,000, 6,000, they cannot exceed the 7.2 million to construct it.

Okay.

Because it does have the language in here to say if they are it's on page one twenty-two.

Um should modifications to the proposal uh building footprint or site layout, which require substantial revisions, um, and they have that throughout their standard language, I think, um, then that would increase the amount.

So uh legally I just want to make sure we're okay with that because going from 4,000 to 6,000 is this I would think would be a substantial revision.

There is uh um some language in there that they are not to exceed 7.2, Commissioner.

So I think that is uh there are kind of little wiggle room, if you will, from 4,000 to 6,000, but they cannot exceed that amount.

That's why we had it in the agreement.

And this keep in mind with John Swift, it was a design build.

Uh so they that's why you you have the different amendments.

One of the amendments was for the agreement itself, and one of the amendments because the Commission wanted to go uh had some conceptual designs, and one of the amendments was uh for the construction costs of the the buildings.

Uh and then this one is per the commission's direction to bring this back to move forward with the one story.

Uh so this is both.

I just keep that in mind that it's a both design and build.

Okay.

Um and then my uh another question has to do with the total amount.

I I know we have another agenda item for a um uh a budget amendment.

Um when I add these two numbers up, uh it's uh a million um 185,239 dollars, and the uh amendment is 1,179,06.

So I was curious about those two different numbers.

So which numbers are you talking about?

You're talking about the 544 and uh yeah, the 514, 957 uh 957, and then the new amount of 670, 282.

Uh and then there's a budget amendment.

So there's uh it looks like Ms.

Strickland was coming to help you out with the numbers.

I can answer that too.

So what I attempted to do, and I I didn't do a good enough job of that, is uh actually the original um amounts were 544,000 to 11.

And then we did do it a budget amendment to add the 126,000 um 71.

So that's 670,282.

That has been paid in full.

So that's paid.

Okay.

This this additional number of 514,000, that's an additional to that amount.

Uh so this will be so the other 670 has been paid.

So this a budget amendment would be to cover the 514,000.

And and the budget amendment is for a million.

I can speak to that.

Okay, thank you.

So um initially when we borrowed 20 million to do the uh golf course and then for the difference for the clubhouse.

Um we've earned interest on unused portions of that, and we've also we didn't spend it all.

So what this is doing is taking it out of fund balance and it's establishing a budget so that when we do um get ready to spend it, it is there available to spend.

Okay.

That's that's very good.

Thank you.

Um these may I?

Yeah, yeah, you still have five minutes.

Okay.

Um there was one item in here in the Kimley Horn proposal where they talk about the services that are not included.

Um I wanted to make sure that we reviewed that enough to make sure that we would not be needing those because we we definitely don't want to exceed any numbers here.

The team has reviewed those, so we're they're good with it, and I'm good with it.

Okay.

I just want to make sure because we absolutely all right.

Um those are my questions.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Uh Vice Mayor.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um I have three questions, Mr.

Fogel.

Uh first, does guaranteed mines guaranteed maximum pricing remain in effect for this third amendment?

Uh correct.

So it's not to exceed that $7.2 million.

It's last the last meeting we had.

Um we had stated that, and so I wanted that into this uh uh uh language.

So I think I am referring to smaller amounts within the maximum amount of guaranteed maximum pricing.

So we don't have a guaranteed maximum price for really either either uh building.

We don't have a guaranteed maximum price when we did the two-story because you have got to pay additional costs for for those numbers.

We don't have a guaranteed maximum price.

We there are estimations.

Uh, but it is a uh not to exceed number uh for the 7.2 for the one story, but it's not a guaranteed maximum price.

We haven't paid for that.

I understand.

Um my second question is not specific to the contract, but specific to the project.

There was great value when we were doing the golf course in having a project manager, Mr.

Kretzner.

Um things really got smooth once he came on board.

And I'm wondering if we plan on having a project manager for this.

Absolutely.

Uh I I will probably utilize Mr.

Kretzer again because he does such a great job.

So he normally works with those contractors, so he's worked with SWIP before many times and worked with other contractors before.

Uh really, really good, holds people accountable, uh, so he's excellent.

And I always would recommend having someone from the city oversee any contracts that we have going on.

And he knows the golf course and the golf course people too.

Because of involve his involvement in the earlier phases of that.

So good choice.

And my third question is also not specific to the project, but I'm wondering.

When can we expect the agreement with big waters in the city regarding the nature park to come back to the commission?

So I was hoping the 17th.

Uh I reached out to Ms.

Johnson.

They had a board meeting, I believe the 26th of January to get hopefully approval.

I reached out to her, so I'm still waiting on a reply back.

Uh but if we get it sooner than later, then I will try to turn it around and get it on the 17th.

But if not, it will be the first meeting in March.

That's good news.

Um, you know, we've heard soon in response to that question for about three years now.

Thank you, Mr.

Fogel.

Thank you.

Commissioner Alpert.

Okay.

I've got several questions.

So on January 10th 2022 the City Commission was presented with a one-story clubhouse, correct?

Correct.

Okay.

And that option was expected to cost between two and two and a half million.

Correct.

And it reduced the size of the cart barn and the restaurant from what we currently have, correct?

Correct.

Okay.

So at that meeting the City Commission offered their comments, including their desire to have a two-story structure so that there could be expansive views of the golf course in Nature Park, correct?

Correct.

Okay.

And so the vision at that meeting was to create a destination for more than just golfers.

Correct.

Okay.

And it was anticipated that people using the nature park and the county's ball fields could also be potential customers.

Correct.

And we have the legacy trail that's going to be going through the property so there are even more potential customers.

Correct.

So in considering what we want in a clubhouse we need to consider more than just golfers and what they want correct?

Correct.

Okay.

So then um so we're starting with we started January 10th 2022 we're four years ago.

So it took until May of 2023 to the City Commission was presented with the two-story concept.

So over a year almost you know close to a year and a half right?

Correct.

All right so at that meeting the city commission approved moving forward with a two-story clubhouse design estimated to cost between 7.5 and $9 million correct?

Correct.

Okay.

And you didn't put in that agreement that it couldn't exceed $7.5 or $9 million did you?

We did not okay.

So by the meeting in September and and we spent $54411 for the design correct correct okay so by the meeting of in September 2024 again almost a year and a half later before it came back again the estimated cost was nine and a half million correct correct okay so at that meeting the design review committee had given their full sign off the planning board unanimously approved of the design and the city commission at that meeting expressed their approval for the design but continued approval of the site plan in order to complete the final design of the clubhouse and get final pricing correctly something like that we didn't get final pricing but you're right about the final design and site plan.

So then it took until December of 2025 a year and three months later before it bro came back to us correct something yeah similar close it was the end of December so we're talking almost four years after this first beginning before the commission so that presentation at the December 10th 2025 meeting was supposed to give the commission options correct correct but it didn't did it well had an additional option for a one story but it was designed the presentation was designed to lead the commission to reject the two story option and go with the one story option isn't that correct it wasn't designed that way it was it led the commission right into a one story design being recommended by staff because of the funding correct it wasn't designed that way.

Okay it appeared to me that it was so the less expensive divine supposedly 7.2 million dollars as compared to 11 point two million dollars but that was in today's dollars correct correct so the one story design hasn't been completed has it no it has not so they can't know um what exactly is going to cost to build it correct correct okay so if we start all over we've spent to date $670282 dollars correct correct okay and we will be spending an additional if it's approved today $1149 for design services again correct correct okay so then that will need to go through the design review committee again correct

So if we start all over, we've spent to date $670,282, correct?

Correct.

Okay.

And we will be spending an additional, if it's approved today, $514,000 $57 for design services again.

Correct?

Correct.

Okay.

So then that will need to go through the design review committee again, correct?

Yes, correct.

It'll need to go to the planning board again, correct?

Correct.

It's going to need to go to the city commission, correct?

Correct.

And all that's going to take time, isn't it?

Correct.

Is there any guarantee that it's not going to take another four years?

I cannot give you guarantees.

Okay.

So in your presentation, what you talked about was that there by the time a one-story would be built, it would be at least 29 months from now, correct?

Correct.

Almost two and a half years from now, and that's if everything goes smoothly, correct?

Correct.

And during that time, prices are going to continue to escalate, aren't they?

There's a possibility, Commissioner.

So the estimated cost of a one-story will also escalate, correct?

Possibility.

So and without the design of the one story being completed, the cost estimate is only a guess, isn't it?

It is just an estimate.

Okay.

So the design of the two-story is construction ready, correct?

Correct.

The estimated cost then is likely to be more accurate, correct?

I believe so, yes, Commissioner.

Okay.

So we can look at guaranteed maximum costs for that, can't we?

So we haven't had the guarantee maximum price done, but yes, if that's something the commission wants to see, we could definitely have that done.

And we could start on the construction right away, correct?

Pretty close, yes.

In the vicinity a few months from now, probably so no matter whether it's a one-story or two-story, they'll need to be a cart barn.

Right?

Correct.

Okay.

And they'll need to be a pro shop.

Correct.

And they'll need to be offices for staff.

Correct.

And they'll need to be a restaurant.

Correct.

Okay.

So the two-story merely places the restaurant above the cart barn rather than a separate structure, isn't that true?

Correct.

The cart barn is going to be 6,000 square feet.

The restaurant, 6,000 square feet, correct?

Approximately 6,000.

You're correct.

Okay.

So if we do two separate buildings, that'll require an expanded footprint, correct?

It would be a separate footprint, but it I don't know expanded would it be separate.

So they'd be at two different locations.

So instead of 6,000 in one location, you'd have 12,000 square feet, right?

Yeah, if you did the two, if you did a uh two-story if you did if you did the two-story, it'd be six thousand.

If you do two one stories, you'd have twelve thousand.

I think the two-story is actually maybe around fifteen thousand square feet, something like that uh square feet.

So as opposed to the six thousand that would be with the clubhouse than another six thousand by the maintenance shed.

So it will still be an advantage foot expanded footprint, right?

The the two-story be bigger.

The footprint would take up.

How is that possible?

It will be a larger footprint for the two-story.

How is that possible?

If you have if you have two separate buildings, if you have one building stacked on top of each other and two separate buildings, how is that possible?

We're ex the the cart barn, uh the size of it for the two-story that's going on top of it, it's a larger footprint for the two-story.

Well then why why can't we do the same footprint as we you're planning for the one story?

6,000 and 6,000.

So I I I'm not sure.

Why is the park barn gonna be larger for the two-story than the one story?

That would be a swift question as far as uh why those things are the way they are.

So I don't know if they're here and want to come down and speak on that.

But that would be a swift question to discuss that those dynamics.

But it's just a larger building in in general, Commissioner, and that's why uh it's it's uh 12,000 square feet.

Just a bigger building.

Has bigger more spaces for different functions and things of that nature, bigger restaurant.

Uh the spaces are bigger.

There's not a reason that it couldn't be done.

That would be a swift question as far as if they could make a two-story building and it's six thousand square foot uh footprint.

That would be a swift question as far as if they could make a two story building and it's six thousand square foot uh footprint that would be swift question.

Okay.

So let's talk about Commissioner next round.

I'll go in the next round.

Okay.

Uh Commissioner Batti.

Uh thank you mayor.

Man, I hate me being deposed by the by Commissioner Alpha man.

Um so I I wanted to ask uh you know to uh one of the speakers points um and by the in that and I spoke about this um when we were discussing you know in in the early commission meetings uh regarding the design of the two story clubhouse and you know as it pertained to the storage space for for the carts and the um amount per square foot being included you know or or what have you particularly like when you're talking about storage space you know i you know to the speaker's uh point in terms of residential um square price per square foot and commercial price per square foot or whatever what what can anyone s explain to me like the difference and why and why that is when he says you know that it's going to be 20 percent you know like can can you okay yeah just uh justin Williams um project manager John Swift uh there's a lot of differences the codes are completely different the residential code book and the commercial code book are different uh there's there's differences in just the the way we have to do electrical systems there's a fire alarm system there's a there's a commercial elevator there's there's a lot of things that are you you can have a very high end residential home and it's still under the residential code book so there there is there's a lot of things that in in the commercial code that by default make your buildings more expensive and then there's no way to get around that essentially so you you can you can build to a lower standard still meeting minimum code but it is going to cost more than a lower standard on a residential code.

Okay so it pretty much comes down to the codes and why that's big part of it okay and and and you take into account you have a commercial kitchen for instance in in both of these options in the two store you have a bigger kitchen but a commercial kitchen equipment alone is several hundred thousand dollars for a small kitchen.

Okay.

I guess that sort of makes sense when you talk about like things going um in downtown like uh commercial space and and the the difference in square footage price per square foot or whatever now to to the to the mayor's point I mean uh commissioner alper's point um which she makes uh uh a a great deal of sense you know when we're talking about the two-story design and the one story design and she spoke about the the footprint and I see what she's what she's saying in terms of the the footprint being a lot more expansive if you have two separate buildings and I'm looking i in and I mean I could be wrong or whatever when I'm thinking about the footprint I'm thinking about the the square in that in the in that regard and I'm assuming that you're talking about footprint in terms of like the scale and or the size of the building itself or whatever.

But doesn't that you know to her point like isn't she correct when she says that it expands the footprint when you're talking about two separate separate buildings you know you got you you have the clubhouse and then you have a separate building of six thousand square feet for for the for the cart space yeah that that's that's correct.

So if you took to two six thousand square foot blocks and put them together it'd be total be larger than the the original or the the to the two story option um but if I could just talk to that a little bit the the reason why the the cart barn is the way it is on the two story based on the design that was approved years ago the single the when you when you enter the smaller two blocks stacked on top of each other was the Pro Shop and then the offices above then you had the breezeway and then the cart barn with the kitchen and the dining above that the kitchen and dining is what set the the the programming of that space set the dimensions so the cart barn and everything below that that space was what it was due to the requirements of the kitchen and the dining.

So within that space there is the cart barn and then there was some smaller ancillary offices for staff and there was also a concession stand down there.

So it wasn't just cart barn, and it wasn't just exactly 6,000 square foot cart barn and 6,000 square feet of everything else.

So you're saying that that dictated, you know, correct.

Okay.

Just due to that design with the breezeway and everything else.

So you you could design it a different way.

That's the way that that we call it the head and the tail.

That's that's how that you know because uh you know, I'm kind of conflicted, you know immensely to be honest with you.

Um because you know, we agreed on the design and and and the construction and so forth for the two-story building initially um and and went through all of those uh different, you know, iterations and and and um processes to get to that point and then to come back with the one-story.

You know, I hear what what commissioner Albert is saying because it it it almost comes to a point where you just like kicking the can down the road and whatnot to just keep going further and further and further and further out in way of this thing getting done, you know.

And you know, to her point where we already have the design and and and it has already gone through all the the various processes to get to the point of of the two-story building.

Um, and then now we come with uh another design for the the one story and an additional cost for that design of you know, over $500,000 or or what have you to take us even further and further and further out before this thing before we even get and then the next to be honest with you, the next time that is brought before us, the the the composition of this commission could be totally different, you know, and we can go in a totally and completely different direction.

And that's that's where um I'm conflicted and and can't kind of take an umbrage with with how this is just continuing to continue to sort of uh it be extended further out.

So um, you know, I I I I do hear the commissioner's point and and makes quite a bit of sense to be honest with you.

So uh I yield Mayor.

Uh okay.

Thank you.

Uh I have a couple of questions and you know, hearing what the other commissioners are saying.

Um, and I was not on the commission when the two-story plan was initially approved, but from what Commissioner Alpert described, I'm hearing two different concepts from the standpoint of who the market is.

Um the two-story plan seemed to have been aimed not only at the golfers, the people at the nature park, the people at the playground surrounding the area, but also for um banquet type people coming, and as a result, it was a larger uh restaurant, and from what we heard at the last meeting, it was like separate areas for the dress-up people and the people who were coming hot and sweaty from playing golf.

Um and then the one story seems to be aiming at the people who have been outside playing golf in the nature park or whatever.

So it seems to me that we're talking two different, aiming at two different sets of people.

Is that correct?

Uh so there are a couple of things.

So first, uh the two-story absolutely had a bigger vision as far as uh what it could attract.

Um I I think the same thing with the one story.

Uh we're not aiming just for the golfers at Nature Park.

Uh we'd hoped others would come and enjoy it too.

Obviously, you have a more attractive building, a bigger building, there's more things you can do possibly with the two-story.

Uh, but the one story, we were still going to do our very best to market that uh and and get more people than just the golfers and nature park users.

Um that would be still a target for us.

We may have to utilize tents and things of that nature to do weddings, wedding receptions, and things of that nature, but we would still target those individuals too.

Uh it just like I said, Commissioner Albert has a very valid point.

Uh obviously, when you have a building of that size and that magnitude, uh it's more attractive and it's bigger.

Uh so you can have more functions and different things in that building than you can a one story.

Uh but we would do our best to still market uh for a variety of individuals that come there.

The two-story didn't separate the hot, sweaty people coming in uh then the the cat business casual, everyone can come in, everyone can use that that building too.

It would attract everyone.

Okay.

But the two-story restaurant would have accommodated more seating than the one-story, but you're saying that we still have the kitchen that could accommodate banquet groups in a tent if if necessary.

Correct.

Okay, correct.

Thank you.

And then the other thing in terms of footprint, it would seem to me that the footprint, even if we were just looking at the restaurant portion, uh would be larger with the two-story, excuse me, because it has to accommodate elevators, stairwells, things that you don't need with the one-story structure.

And I hate to say this, I've seen too many elevators that are not as reliable as we would want them to be.

So I personally would like to avoid the elevator.

Um and then the other is the dollars.

If we decided we're gung-ho, we're going to move forward with the two-story.

Are the dollars actually in place right now so that we could start construction?

No.

So we'd have to bring back uh a budget amendment.

We have to probably do debt issuance and then do a budget amendment to reallocate uh certificate penny funds for the nature park uh for the parks and recreation upgrades.

Uh so we'd have to do, we have some work to do to get that back uh to moving forward.

So we would be delaying some other things in order to start construction on the two-story right away?

There would absolutely be some delays uh with uh especially park improvement items and things of that nature.

There would be some delays uh and possibly some things would not be able to be done.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, that's my questions, and Commissioner Aherncotch as our second round.

Thank you.

I just have a couple questions.

Um since we're talking about building two separate buildings, uh, one would be a restaurant and shop and offices, the other one would be the cart barn.

Could the cart barn be built in a way that was less expensive than the other 6,000 square feet because we're housing carts and not people and things like that.

So there's some possible um opportunities there for dollar savings.

It's not across the board square foot cost.

Correct.

Uh our our intention uh was to design that building is just a car bar.

It's not gonna have air conditioning.

It's gonna have just the just the power for the carts, it's gonna have minimum ventilation.

We're trying to not even put bathrooms in it, so we can keep that to a bare minimum, which leaves more of the budget for the building you're actually going to use every day.

Right.

So the cost could be actually lower than than we're we're thinking about because with the other building, everything was in one big building, and it all looked beautiful and it had to look great on the outside, including maintenance, including staffing, including insurance, including all of that.

Um, but this could be actually a very pretty building and a cart barn.

A true barn.

And that would take the cost of it down.

Correct.

You're not beautifying the barn just because it's attached to the rest of the and not just the cost of construction, but also the cost of maintenance insurance, staffing, et cetera, and liability and all of that.

Okay.

So yeah, I think that's an important consideration when thinking about this and thinking about our budget and thinking about our dollars, because I think that's going to be top of our conversation for the next couple of years, and it should always be top of our conversation.

But especially now with um what's going on, that we really need to be mindful of those pennies and those dollars and those cents.

And okay.

That's uh an important point.

Thank you very much.

Okay.

Vice Mayor?

Thank you.

Um, I think I recall one of the reasons that we kicked the can from a two-story structure to a one-story structure for discussion of that, was when we included the revenue generating aspect of the two-story versus the one-story structures.

And that we would have to borrow money, regardless, one or two stories.

And our ability to pay back the money we borrow.

Would you address that?

So what are projections, and this is really Indigo, which is our management firm, they did a performa, and it it includes not only the revenues, but also the expenditures.

So you know, obviously, for a bigger building, you up you have more opportunity to make more revenue.

Uh and and they did uh uh have them making more revenue with the two-story.

However, the expense is more.

And I can attest to this because I have buildings I maintain, and the the larger you have just the operational costs is what it's going to be.

Uh so at the end of the day, their projections were uh basically they were going to net 200,000 more with the one story than the two-story.

And how does that impact the city's ability to be pay back the money that we borrowed?

That's not a a big uh issue with paying back the money that we borrow.

I I guess the the biggest thing is having 11.2 million dollars that you may pay for a two-story as opposed to 7.2.

Uh and that in incorporates the um the debt uh debt service over time, the interest rates are included.

So that that may that's where I'm more concerned that the cost over time may be about five million more uh than uh the the two-story building.

So that I think that's the biggest uh thought.

And even for me, and this is probably singular thinking I shouldn't do this, uh, but I'm really really concerned.

I I mean I don't have an issue, parks and recreation in general, we don't have an issue with the two-story.

Uh the biggest concern is using so much parks and recreation funds to fund this.

If somebody was coming off the street to do a naming rights or to do this, that would be awesome.

We can go for it and do it, but you're using so much of parks and recreation, uh surtox penny funds.

That is a huge concern of mine because we just bid out a project MOK, Martin Luther King Park.

We projected like 800,000 around that number.

It's like 1.5.

Uh and then two other bids were almost two million.

And I'm thinking if this is going to be kind of uh the you know the stat the uh standard going down the road, then we're gonna be in a lot of trouble uh with doing what we need to do for our parks.

Uh and if you're reducing our overall surtax penny, I mean that's going to be so detrimental to us.

So that was that's a big concern of mine because I'm responsible for parks and recreation, and I want to make sure we not only can take care of our parks because that the penny funds is also replacing lights, replacing playgrounds, replacing uh, you know, uh restroom uh uh sinks and toilets and and benches and and picnic tables and pavilions and everything that goes into a park, we use that for.

Uh it's just not park improvements.

And so I just want to be very cognizant, want the commission to be very cognizant of that.

That is my biggest concern is that you go down that road, and then the expectation is going to be for parks and recreations to continue to do the level of service that we've been providing for several years.

And I just want to uphold that for the Commission and most importantly for our residents.

Um that's you know where I'm at with it.

Thank you, Mr.

Fogel.

Thank you.

Uh Commissioner Batti.

Uh yeah.

Um more or less, you know, comment and you know, that is for public consumption.

We can see, you know, Mr.

Fogel's, you know, not only passion for what it is he does, but the integrity in which he he he does it and what I um and uh I said, man, I can't, you know, thank you enough for the job that you do for parks and rec.

And this, you know, again, you know, brings forth the conflict, you know, for myself, you know, um listening to you talk about the you know those those uh uh cost uh projections and and now when you when you project something you said you would you projected, you know, like say something um like MLK Park right down the street from me, you know, um at $800,000, and then it and then it ends up being like say one point five, almost double that.

I mean how how are we so far off with the projections?

So Commissioner, that that's the that's the challenges, right?

So we get a opinion and probable cost from Kimby Horn, you know, a consultant.

Uh and some of them are we did line item by line item, some are right on point.

Some are just almost really, really close.

And some of them are way off.

So that's the you know, that's the business uh of bidding this out.

And you hope that the opinion probable costs are in line, uh, but when they're not, uh and and they're not, like we don't have the funding to do 1.5 million.

So we're going to obviously go in to negotiate and do what we need to do.

Uh but it's challenging when you have those things you know out there.

Um so my thought is if we go down the road and and we want to do some of this uh for Northwire Tower Park, for instance, which is coming up uh for Orange Avenue Park, which is coming up, uh Shenandoah, the Lesky all these parks are coming up.

And this uh is just you know it's challenging.

Yeah.

Uh because I'm trying to figure out how can we get this done.

Yeah, yeah, right.

What we have.

Right.

And if you take that money and you and we have half of that, or one third of that, then I'm I'm thinking, you know, I I don't want our residents to feel this, right?

Whatever decision you make, uh, you know, we support and we will always support our commission.

Uh but I just want to figure out a way so our residents don't fill it.

They don't have an impact, uh, whatever decision you make.

And that's and that's you know um something as well.

You know, the strain on your budget.

Um, and again, it's just not for Bobby Jones' part.

I mean, I I I can speak personally for what we did at Pioneer Park.

You know, and then the money that had to go into putting in a brand new basketball court and and in uh tennis court and so on.

Um point earlier.

Mr.

Bullock.

I mean, what's the possibility of some type of concessions being made, as you said?

I don't know, putting it out there just like we we we did for uh the new performing arts center, you know, when we got you know someone that that made a huge donation that might want to have name and rights for for this building to help you know cut the cost of something like that.

What I mean is that is that a possibility or so the excuse me, the uh ability to raise revenue from sort of other approaches will be determined by the market at the time.

So uh putting your name on a to to may I mean to Commissioner Alper's point and whatnot, like you know what the dollars today would be totally different than dollars tomorrow.

Putting your name on an iconic community building probably is worth more than putting your name on a different type of building.

However, you never know with those because there could be a very significant supporter of public golf of all those things associated with it, who is willing to step forward for that.

You never know until you go through that process.

You can't budget based on that, but you can you know it doesn't take long to find out.

Yeah, yeah.

I mean, even you know, um uh vendor or something like that, like say, you know, uh was it first T or whatever, you know, um that that may want to put their name to it or whatever.

Yeah, because I I want everyone to really know and understand that from let's just say the time that I was on the commission, you know, initially and whatever.

This whole process will have gone through three compositions of commissions.

Three, you know, and they could be pushed into four.

That's insane.

You know, so uh thank you.

Um Commissioner Alpert.

Okay.

So let's talk about the funding.

All right.

Um for either building, what was presented to us at the December 10th meeting was that um there would be four and a half million from the penny sales tax that was for the nature park, correct?

Correct.

Okay.

And for either building, we would be using 1.2 million from the Bobby Jones Construction Fund, correct?

Correct.

That's the next item.

So as you said, any difference would come from the funds for parks and recentially.

The Parks Rec upgrades, those are that's where the difference is.

Right.

Um we would be bonding this out, correct?

Correct.

Okay, and so the debt service on the bond could come from the revenue, correct?

I do not believe so.

I don't believe we can uh cover uh those costs.

So I believe that's why we have a lot of people.

Well we don't know that, correct?

Correct, we we don't know.

Yeah.

And the pro forma that Indigo did was an estimate, correct?

Correct.

And if you recall when we were looking at how we were going to pay for the golf course, there was a pro forma done, correct?

Estimates.

And the estimates were that no matter what we did, we were going to be losing money on the golf course.

Commissioner, that is that was performed by like the Gulf Foundation or somebody.

So you're correct.

But I don't know if we were going to lose money no matter what we did.

I've had to look into the no matter how many holes.

I don't recall it, Commissioner.

And so people told us that we were crazy to spend as much money as we were going to spend on the golf course, correct?

People may not have supported the direction.

And they were wrong.

Right?

We're making money on the golf course.

I believe they were wrong.

I believe so.

So the people who were predicting this doomsday scenario could be.

We could be wrong here, too, correct?

Correct.

Yeah.

I mean, we have a marketing company or a management company that could be marketing this, correct?

Correct.

And one of the things that the idea behind the two-story was that it would allow for an expansive view of the golf course and nature park that you can't get in a one story, correct?

Correct.

And so that was why it was going to be more desirable and maybe be a destination for the community rather than just the golfers, correct?

Correct.

So that was the vision.

When you and I talked, um, you seem to be supportive of this as well.

I I have no issues with, like I mentioned the two-story commissioner at all.

I have no issues.

Uh my main concern has been and will continue to be the costs coming and funding from parks and recreation.

Uh just, I mean, you know, you have $5.5 million for the two-story that would come from parks and recreation upgrades as opposed to $1.5.

So let's so let's talk about that.

Yes.

Okay.

Um you're saying that right now that you're putting in the agreement, it can't exceed $7.2 million.

The construction of a construction.

Correct.

Um, but if this is extended out to one, two, three, or four years, construction prices are going to go up.

And I have a um a handout for the commission here.

That I did a cost estimate for municipal projects over a one, two, and three-year period for escalated costs.

Um it's uh at the end of this, you'll see.

Okay.

So for uh one year out, it could be go from 7.2 for to 7.5 to 7.8 essentially.

If it's delayed two years out.

All right, I'll go to my last round.

Yeah, okay.

Yeah.

Okay, is anybody else have questions before we give Commissioner Albert her next round?

Can I save my questions for after she finishes?

Okay.

Okay.

And one of them is I don't know if you're going to be able to do that.

So you can continue.

Okay.

So two years out, it could be anywhere from 7.9 million to 8.3 million.

Three years out, which is probably the more likely scenario, it could be 8.3 to 9.07 million.

And four years out, um, 8.7 to 9.7.

So let's say it's delayed a year or two, which you know, we're talking about a timeline, best case scenario, 29 months.

How is that guaranteeing how they're going to guarantee a 7.2?

They're going to have to in order to accommodate the escalating costs.

Aren't they going to have to continue to shrink the building to shrink something because they aren't going to be able to construct it at 7.2 as designed?

Well, Commissioner, I think we have a timeline, so SWIFT has a timeline that we're trying to abide by.

But if for some reason you're right that that gets delayed, and we have to wait a year or two to follow the timeline, then of course that would have to be considered.

So you'd be correct about that.

And then we would have to be paying for another design that we, you know.

And you know, as as Commissioner Batiste said, you know, we're going to have potentially new commissioners, at least one new one for sure.

And each time there's a change in the commission, if we change our mind and delay, and we keep wasting money.

We've wasted 454,000 if we do this.

Isn't that correct?

Because now we're spending another $544,000 to design a new building.

It's money that we that we might as well just lit a fire to, correct?

We've spent.

We kept that money.

Um there's no guarantee that even this will go forward because it's not ready to go.

And I think there was a uh a question of you.

You said that it would be there would be a delay even if we voted for the two-story to um vote to have the penny tax changed over.

That that's delay is going to happen whether it's a one-story or two-story, correct?

Of course, correct.

So all of these things apply.

And if the income is enough coming in, it can at least pay for, if not all of the debt service, most of the debt service, or some of the debt service.

It doesn't all have to come from parks and rec.

If it were to come in uh right now, we have the revenues of the clubhouse revenues right now.

So uh it's not a new revenue source, Commissioner.

And so uh but it would be an expanded revenue source, wouldn't it?

It would be they would make additional revenues.

I I just like I said, their performance shows that it wouldn't be enough to uh fund the debt service.

And and I don't, like I said, that's the where we're at.

But it would be enough to help uh defray some of those costs, correct?

So there's not a guarantee that we're going to be taking that much out of parks and rec.

Uh I'm that's an that's an unknown commissioner until we build it until we do it.

Point of order until you design it.

Point of order.

I don't know.

The commissioner's time has expired.

And I never usually take any of my time.

So thank you.

All right.

Okay.

Thank you.

And questions.

Okay.

So we have statements, not questions.

Okay.

Um so at this point I'm going to ask I'm going to make a motion.

Ask for a motion.

Okay.

Okay.

I'm going to move that we deny this.

Um I didn't even get a chance.

Well, I'll say it after I that we deny this request for the money to design a one-story clubhouse and authorized to bring back an agenda item for us to approve the final design and site plan for the two-story.

Are there any seconds?

Uh hearing no second, the motion failed.

I think Commissioner Batty is going to second it.

I'll second that.

Okay.

Motion by Commissioner Alper, seconded by Commissioner Batti to deny the request and the maker of the motion.

Yes, I have a statement.

Okay.

So we need to remember we've got a construction ready design in hand.

We know the cost in today's dollars.

We can lock in those costs, just like the purporting to lock in the 7.2.

We could have the clubhouse built within 17 months from now if we don't to continue to delay and go back to square one.

We've already spent $670,282 on design.

If we start over, not only is it delayed for at least a year, and likely more, we will have spent another $544,211.

For for what?

You know, so we will have spent $1.2 million, as Mr.

Hyek pointed out, on design.

Um that would seem that that is not fiscally conservative.

In addition, delaying for at least a year or more will add to the actual cost.

We're being told that the estimate in today's dollars is $7.2 million.

But it's only an estimate.

Without the design, it's a guess.

And with inflation, the real cost two years or more from now could be as much as nine million or more.

And this will be for a lesser project.

Everyone liked the two-story design, like the old Florida feel and the fact that it was modeled on the original clubhouse, a classic old Florida design.

The idea that the golfers aren't interested more than a stock shop is not taking into consideration all of the potential users of this space, people who golf, people who visit the nature park, people who use the county ball field, people who use the legacy trail, the neighborhood, and any other people who just want to come and enjoy having dinner with a beautiful view, which you get from a two-story.

So whatever we decide today will be what we and future generations will experience.

Do we want something that we can really be proud of or something we settled for by thinking small and not considering what could be?

I'm asking you to reject this request for more money to design a one-story clubhouse and authorize staff to bring back an agenda item for us to approve the final design and site plan.

Thank you.

Commissioner Batti, seconder.

Thank you, Mayor.

As I said and spoke of before, just the you know, being conflicted with uh with with all of this, to be honest with you.

Um and you know, trying to be practical, logical and pragmatic about it, you know, um all in one is uh uh conundrum in and of itself, to be honest with you.

Um I myself uh am not forget being an admin golfer.

I've never golfed before in my life, you know.

And as this was stated in golfer magazine, my quote, I don't know the difference between Donald Ross and Donna Ross.

You know, I mean so um, you know, the the what the the commissioner is saying in the in the points that she laid out make total and complete sense to me.

And part of the reason is because you know, we said and she stated that we can lock in the cost for what it is we have designed like right now.

We can't lock in the costs for for the future, but which you know um this is going to take quite some time to come before us again, and it could come before a totally different commission, and it will come before a totally different commission.

Um those costs uh are just gonna escalate.

And the to lock in or to say that it's gonna cost 7.2 or what have you today may not be tomorrow.

I mean, here we are uh again already asking for another half a million dollars, you know, to go into into a whole you know different iteration of of this of this thing.

Um and trust me, uh I I hate to go against you know Mr.

Fogel and anything that that that he does or whatever, because I have such, you know, like respect and admiration and and uh um and belief in in his abilities, and even with uh Jonathan the job that they they're doing over there and have done, um, uh he said I I I just think that the the commissioner laid out a case he asked uh questions that um still you know uh think need to be answered in in way of going forward uh with uh the what's been presented with the one story and what makes sense with the two-story, even when it comes to the observation deck.

I mean, that was something that that I know that a lot of people were looking looking forward to.

Um, you know, being able to overlook the golf course, look into the trees, you know, uh, you know those that that that uh I'm sure, you know, um the vice mayor goes out to Bobby Jones quite a bit, but she lives in that in that district and represents that district and lives in that area.

Um can go up to the observation deck and you know, and watch the birds or or what have you and and and so on.

But uh I just think that she she laid out a case that uh makes uh a great deal of uh sense and uh very very rational in the way of a question about it.

Um so that's gonna be my reason, and again, please take into consideration that this is going to be coming before us again with a totally different commission, the third or fourth different commission.

Thank you, Commissioner Ahern Cotch.

Um I I can appreciate a lot of what was said.

I can appreciate um Commissioner Alfort's laying this out and her issues that she has taken with some of this.

Um I completely understand that.

And I thought she did make some very good points.

Um there are some points that I would like to add, though, uh in addition to to what she said and contrary as well.

Um you mentioned that you want to build something that that we are going to be proud of, and and I agree that we do want to build something that we're going to be proud of.

We put a lot into this golf course, we put a lot into the nature park, and um.

And a lot of what she talked about when she said everybody said we were going to fail.

Um, some people said we were going to fail.

But we had numbers proving that with the different the 1836, the 45 holes, what those projections were.

And the reason why I supported the 45 holes was because that gave us the best fiscal outcome to not fail to invest in the golf course to be able to maintain, always maintain two courses open to have a continuous source of revenue while the third one was being uh maintained and still had the short course.

That didn't pass, but um the course is successful, and it is true that it is more successful than we um when we had projected, which is a great thing.

Um but what we also know is that the restaurant is not a moneymaker.

It wasn't a moneymaker, it hasn't been a moneymaker, it never almost never operates in the black.

Um, but what is successful is the shop.

So if anything should be expanded, it should be the shop.

Um but expanding this restaurant beyond what the size of what we wanted and and what our numbers show, it puts us in the black.

Um I I think is not being true to what our community wants.

And yes, I think we can market it uh to the people at Legacy Strail, uh, Legacy Trail.

Maybe a few people at the baseball park will come in, maybe the public at general will want to take a trip out there.

Um but nothing says that we can't do that with a one-story option.

People want to view, we can build an observation desk, the uh deck in a tower.

That can be part of the nature park.

You can go up there and have a look around and and see things.

But to encumber the future of the city and our parks department with the maintenance of a two-story building is not good fiscal government.

It's not responsible.

The $544,000 will be eaten away in maintenance and insurance, uh staffing uh in in a heartbeat.

Um we can build a building we can be proud of that is a restaurant offices and uh uh pro shop, and then a cart barn separately that you know does its job.

So we can build a smaller facility on the ground, um, have it adequately sized.

If we need a larger uh space for events, we get a tent.

Um otherwise, you know, what we have heard again and again from the community is that the golfers and the the people who go to the nature park, they want to be able to go there, they want to be able to get a cup of coffee and a hot dog and not spend more than $10.

I mean, that's just you know what they want.

If we want something fancy and big, um, this is a municipal course.

This is for the everyman.

This is for the public.

And to take the funds in the future, far into the future, because once we build it, we will have to maintain it.

We will have to staff it, we will have to ensure it.

We will have to paint it, we will have to fix the elevators.

We will have to do all of those things.

To take those funds from the future of MLK Park, from the future of Shenandoah Park, from the future of Whitaker Park, from the future of Marina Jack Park.

Those funds are real.

That money is real.

We have a Parks Master Plan.

We have things that we want to do.

And to encumber those funds for future generations is not fiscally sound, especially with the constraints that we know that the state is putting on us.

They want us to lower our budgets.

They want us to be fiscally sound and provide the services the community wants, period.

So at this point in time, this is absolutely not something that I can support.

Vice Mayor I want you to remember what Commissioner Ahern Koch said.

I won't say any more.

Thank you.

And I did want to mention we had a catastrophic storm season in 2024.

And the effects of that have prompted us to change a lot of our plans for how we were going to spend money.

And obviously we also increased our millage rate to help restore our reserves.

So this is really one of the things that we are doing or trying to do to recognize the reality of the situation.

If we hadn't had the 2024 storm season, we might not be having this discussion today.

And I'm trying to remember what the difference in price between the one-story and the two-story was that four million dollars?

So it's not that we are spending $500,000 that we wouldn't normally be spending.

We're investing $500,000 to save $4 million, so in effect the net savings will be three and a half million dollars.

We're not throwing the money away.

And it didn't come up, but I'm going to guess that some of the original half a million dollars for the design included studying the land and and figuring out what those baseline things are, and that does not have to be replicated because that was already in the first design.

But again, the points that Commissioner Ahern Koch made.

But you know, this is a post-2024 storm reality.

And you know, we need to take that into consideration.

Um Commissioner Batti, did you have another thing you want to say?

No, yeah, no, I was just going to say, you know, um, thank you, Mayor.

You know, a lot of a lot of the a lot of this is about projection, you know.

Um, and you know, I don't want us to get completely like in the weeds and bogged down with all of that.

But we did we did this before, you know, in terms of not looking at what could be.

I remember when I got here, we we lowered the millage.

Okay, had millage hadn't been lowered in who knows how long.

Then we came back.

You know, it was election season and lowered it again when we didn't need to and whatnot.

And guess what?

We got hit with those storms or whatever, and we felt the effects of it.

You know, so we need to stop with okay, you take in money from here that you know we do this all the all the time in terms of you know uh moving money from here, moving money from there, um, not neglecting this or whatever.

We we do everything in our in our power to make sure that things aren't neglected.

The state, you know, preempting us in certain ways and coming down on us and you know, coming down on our budget and so on and so forth.

And listen, you know, they don't care about you know whatever services because trust me, they're talking about you know taking away property taxes or whatever, but you're gonna be making up for it somewhere and whatnot.

And if you if you would much rather be coming to us about your services than to be going to damn Ron DeSantis, I'll tell you that, you know.

So we need to sort of you know think about how these funds are going to affect us not only today but tomorrow.

So I hear Commissioner Aher Cotch's point, but I also hear what Commissioner Alpert is saying in terms of, you know, this is something that the community had no issue with when we voted for before the two-story building or what have you.

And I don't see where where would be an issue, you know, going forward with it now.

And we know we'll we'll deal with the money we can we can we'll make up for it somehow, as we always do.

Commissioner Alpert, would you like the final word before we vote?

Yes.

Um I want to make a comment, uh, a couple of comments about um the the whole situation.

Number one, the restaurant is not a moneymaker because it's in a trailer right now.

And before that, it was in a direct building that nobody would want to come to.

That was the idea.

In order to make it a moneymaker, you have to make it a desirable destination.

It's certainly not.

People aren't going to drive to have dinner at a trailer.

So that's one of the things.

When we think about it, Bobby Jones is part of our parks and recreation.

This is a parks and recreation budget expenditure.

This is one of our major parks that we invested a lot of money to make it world-class, to make it what it is today.

And it deserves that kind of clubhouse.

Um another um another issue is remember during Tropical Storm Debbie, the golf course was designed to take in water.

It's a watershed.

It was filled with water.

Doesn't it make sense to put a restaurant on the second floor?

And we're talking about a restaurant on top of a cart barn.

It doesn't have to be bigger.

It can be the same size.

You don't have to put out 200 tables.

You can put out 70 tables if that, you know, for most of the time that's what works.

Um then if it, you know, as it as it grows, we've got the room to expand it.

So the only difference in maintaining it is an elevator.

That's it.

So we have to maintain two buildings or one building, and one has an elevator.

So yeah, there's a little more expense with an elevator.

But by the time this would get done, um, the estimate is that we wouldn't be saving four million dollars.

We would only be saving one million dollars if that because of the rising costs because they aren't going to they they don't know that 7.2 million is the right figure because they haven't designed it yet.

And if we're gonna spend money for an addition design, why don't we do a crappy cart barn and then a nice smaller two-story building that has a restaurant on the second floor?

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um there is a motion on the floor by Commissioner Alpert, seconded by Commissioner Batti to deny the um staff recommendation to approve the third amendment for the one-story um clubhouse.

Um yes voters to deny.

Ahern Koch.

No.

Albert?

Yes.

Betty?

Yes.

Ulrich?

No.

Trace.

No.

Motion fails uh on a vote three opposed, two in favor.

Then I'm gonna make a second motion.

Okay.

I'm going to make a motion that I don't know if we can approve it here, whether it has to come back, that we then for the second building, make it two-story, do a separate cart barn and do a two-story, smaller footprint so the restaurant can be on the second floor.

That was the vision for making sure that we would make this a place where people would want to come.

Second.

Motion by Commissioner Alpert, seconded by Commissioner Batti to bring the issue back to the commission for a smaller two-story restaurant building.

Yeah, but with the cart separate cart barn, and could put the the pro shop and the offices on the lower floor, and then just the restaurant on top of that.

Would you be looking for cost estimates of court presentation?

There'd have to be cost estimates with whatever is done.

Do you have any kind of time frame for when you would want them to come back with this?

ASAP.

So I don't know if we can vote for the design now, or if we have to still reject this or bring it back for if we wanted a different design.

So Commissioners, if if you want it, uh there's a couple ways you can go here.

One is to bring back the conceptual design that was just spoken about in uh in the motion, and a cost estimate.

One is to authorize the design and the full cost the final design and the full cost estimate associated with that.

So those are two different things with two different costs and two different time frames.

Um I'm gonna look to Jerry and um his contractor at SWIFT to say how long would it take to bring back a conceptual design and a cost estimate, that's the shorter one, versus the full design with the much more precise cost.

I'm gonna guess we're looking at months between those two.

Just like we have anyway.

We're talking about months out anyway.

So is this clarification?

Yeah, yeah.

Yes, clarification.

Yeah.

It's if it's a conceptual.

Just speak to that, please, only so if I understand the question correctly, what would it take to bring back a proposal for a two-story building that has offices on the first floor, restaurant on the second floor with a separate cart bar?

Separate.

And a smaller restaurant.

Yeah.

So okay.

Uh well, you could just take what we just did.

We were here in December, and now we're here today.

December was the ask to to bring the information today.

Right?

The December 12th or second commission meeting we had was the direction we got that to proceed with the pricing, the design pricing for a for what we presented today.

So two months.

If we use the same schedule to we'd have to have a staff meeting again and figure out exactly sizing and everything.

I would say two months.

Uh, we've got a if we you're asking also to bring back an uh agreement, amended agreement uh similar to to what we did today.

I guess, you know, if it would be a conceptual and estimate.

I would say so.

If this is the direction of the commission, that I would recommend bringing an omitted agreement back for you to uh you know make a decision.

Yeah, because we aren't authorizing another 544,000 at this point.

We're just authorizing it new conceptual design.

And just or if we off are we authorizing the 544,000.

No, just for clarity purposes, SWIFT gets paid every time we ask them to do something also.

So we read that now.

But we paid for everything else, so um that we're throwing out the window.

So if I if I could um just to clarify uh to bring back uh a smaller size two-story building and a separate cart barn with a conceptual design and associated prices, um you could do it in two months.

It would not have a conceptual design.

No.

Okay.

You but but this is just a proposal.

Okay.

Right.

But excuse me, Jason with John Swift construction, adjuston Swift.

I I think, and to your point, Dave, or Mr.

Bullock, excuse me, is if you want a good estimate, we have to have a good set of plans.

If you're asking us to, hey, we want to do it quickly, take this out, do this, that's where the numbers get a little bit because we're guessing, right?

Or taking our best estimating abilities to try to understand the program, trying to disseminate that, get that to our subcontractors to be able to give you realistic prices.

But when it's not drawn on a drawing, they are going to go to the higher end, right?

And make sure they're covered because we don't want to come back to you and say, hey, we gave you this price and we need more money.

So to do that, to get everybody involved, sit down with the program department and draw all that.

It's probably going to be four or six months.

And if we have to get an amendment of something to be able to pay us to do that work, that is that's two months in itself.

That's what we're talking about.

Just to get the pricing to get turned around to get on your agenda, to get you pricing to be able to do this exercise is going to be two months.

Then to actually start that exercise and do that work is probably going to be four months.

Three or four months.

And so again, I just, you know, and I don't see that there would be any cost savings, because now what you've done is you've taken a two-story building.

You have to elevate it.

We have to either elevate it by building something underneath it, like a basement, or we have to bring in a bunch of dirt, which my wife has told me dirt is not dirt cheap, and we have to build that whole thing up.

And now we're taking that 6,000 square feet ish and building a building over here.

So I don't just in quick analysis, I don't see it being significantly cheaper, if cheaper at all, by the time we spend these monies, go down this road and delay it again.

Well, how are you saying that?

Because we have a motion in a second we need to deal with if they're answering questions round of questions here.

Okay, so would you would you yeah, would you restate your motion and we'll see whether how it is now?

Okay, because all right.

But I'm not sure what motion I need here to make this happen.

The motion without you know the motion we have on the table right now is to bring back the second story building in a separate cart barn as a conceptual design.

Okay.

Then that was seconded.

We want to deal with that before we move any further here.

Well, I guess what I want is that they do a conceptual design for a two-story smaller footprint, you know, not two building.

A cart barn that doesn't have to be air conditioned, so that can be less fancy.

Certainly, and a nice two-story building, you know, based on that old Florida feel kind of thing, with the restaurant on the top floor with verandas and the golf shop and or the pro shop and the offices on the first floor.

So you're building offices and pro shop, which you have to build anyway, and rather than building the restaurant to the side of it, you're building it on top of it.

So, Commissioner, we would have to bring back another amendment uh to the agreement uh before we could even do that work.

So you know, so it would be it would be an amendment to this to approve, approve that.

Amendment number four, I believe, to the to the contract.

Well, no, it would be number three, because if we don't approve, you know, if if this one doesn't get approved, if we approve this, then it would be the third amendment asking for that.

So but we'd have to do that in order to even so you're talking about maybe two months at at the at the least uh minimum.

So maybe early April in a March, possibly.

It's taken us four years to get here.

So I think you know we're we're we're work talking about two to four months where we could maybe do something that would still solve all of the issues that you know wanted to do with the before we start debate.

Are you happy with the motion as it stands?

Would you repeat the motion your understanding of the motion?

My understanding is is a motion to bring back an amendment to this agreement that includes the two-story with the restaurant on the top, a separate cart barn uh to bring that back conceptually and with a cost estimate.

Yes.

In the form of an amendment for the great job, okay, however long it takes.

So there was a second.

Yeah.

We have a motion in a second that we need to talk.

We you each can speak to that two times now.

Okay.

Not questions.

That's speaking to the right.

We finished with the questions.

So do you want to continue speaking to that motion?

Yeah, I will speak to that motion.

I think this to do this rather than a one story, is what we need to do to solve the you know, to I guess address the issue of the vision that we had for this structure to go to a second story.

We rejected a different commission rejected a one-story, and Commissioner Ahern Cotch did not vote for the two-story at any point.

So the fact that she's not voting for it now is, you know, she didn't vote, she wasn't for this, but the rest of the commission at the time was.

So that depresses the number of people who will find it desirable to go there.

And we want to set this up for success, as somebody said in one of the previous uh meetings.

So I think that would resolve the issue of the uh of the amount of the increased cost, you know, it has to be less money than you know, if they're saying, you know, we have to maintain a cart barn and you know, on the first floor, and and um and I will say that the size of the cart barn was what was dictating the size of the restaurant and not vice versa, according to the transcripts of the meetings that we have.

So let's at least do this, Commissioners, that we can really again have something that was better than that was there before for all the money that we've spent on this, and this is our park.

Okay.

Uh Commissioner Batti, the seconder.

Uh yes, uh, thank you, Mayor.

Um, you know, speaking to the point of uh the commissioner regarding the restaurant.

Um, I I think she makes a valid point when she says that a lot of people don't they're not going to travel out there to go to uh uh uh an airstreamer or a trailer that you know where the restaurant is right now.

Um and the restaurant would be designed to make money, you know, um coming from hospitality.

That's exactly what it what it would do.

I just spoke to some friends of mine not long ago that were out at Bobby Jones, and they said, man, you all missed out on on uh a ton of money.

The golf course was packed of whatever.

He said, I had like eight to ten guys in my group, not to mention the groups that were ahead of me and the groups that were behind me and were not.

We all wanted drinks, we all wanted sandwiches and so on.

And there was no cargo.

You know, there was no one out there to take, you know me.

So all of that missed revenue.

So the restaurant, you know, and food and beverages would make money or what have you.

Um I'm not gonna say it's gonna be root chris or anything like that, but you know, anybody going to the golf course they're not going out there to say, oh yeah, what I want to uh uh be able to buy a sandwich in the soda for ten bucks.

You know, not not at a golf course, you know.

I uh I don't see that golf is somewhat of a a leader sport because it takes a lot of money in order to be able to participate in it.

So anybody going out there to to go to golf course can afford to pay more than ten dollars for it.

And then another, in light of black history and and the history of Bobby Jones, someone you know, to Mr.

Bullock's point when he says about the band with something like the Van Wazel one or the new performing arts center, you know, uh someone won a name and rights for because that's you know historic or whatever.

Well, Bobby Jones is historic.

He's extremely historic.

In both Atlanta and Sarasota, serving as a battleground for desegregation in public spaces years before the broader civil rights movement.

All right.

Sarasota, Bobby Jones Bobby Jones golf course followed a different path following uh inclusion.

Uh 30 years uh black residents were only permitted to to use the course as caddies that breakthrough in 1959 uh following uh quiet negotiations with the city manager, Ken Thompson.

Uh a group of black golfers, including Robert Bud uh Thomas, who was my barber, and Calvert Davis were granted permission to play nine holes at the 4 p.m.

So Bobby Jones is central to the legacy in the in the history of the city, particularly when it comes to uh desegregation and inclusion.

And we sit up here talking about our public spaces.

That's exactly what this is speaking to, our public spaces.

You know, I just walked around the bay with uh with um Mr.

A.

G.

Laughley yesterday, and he talked about uh one part for all.

What the bay should should should represent.

Everyone being able to participate in it.

I want kids to be able to go to Bobby Jones, go up to the observation deck, and look and look at all the wonders of nature with which it was designed for, which the commissions prior to this one, you know, decided that's what we wanted to do.

And now you come back again, this and that's the thing when you come this is why these elections are important, people.

You gotta understand, because whoever controls the election controls the commission, and the commission controls the direction of the city, period.

So now though that the the the decisions and the votes of that commission is now going to be undone by this one, and then we'll go into a whole other commission, which would possibly be four commissions with this same topic, kicking it down the road again, again and again.

And then people wonder why you know nothing happens with government, because it gets caught up in this type of bureaucracy, this type of red tape, and nothing gets done.

So you got you got to be mindful of all of that stuff, okay, and whatnot.

And that's and and even you know, talking about the history of Bobby Jones, talking about you know uh uh Bobby Jones as it presently is and so on.

A lot of this stuff comes down to again, just as I was speaking of before, in terms of where these things head, change the date.

I'm here because of that very thing.

Bobby Bobby Jones and its desegregation and inclusion and inclusion, centered around the same daggone thing, inclusion, inclusion.

That's the history of the city, it's the legacy of the city, and it's the legacy of Bobby Jones, and it's the history of Bobby Jones.

So I don't like what we voted on before being undone.

We're dealing with that nationally, and now here we are dealing with it locally.

So be mindful of that going forward and be cognizant of it when when we cast our votes.

Thank you very much, Mayor.

I yield.

Thank you.

Vice Mayor.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, this boils down to time and money.

Uh this motion is not expediting the amount of time it will take for us to have a new clubhouse.

In fact, it'll probably expand the amount of time that it'll take.

Money.

We're talking about the amount of money a new clubhouse will generate for the community so that we can pay the bonds and also take care of the other parks that are in our city.

I just, even though this is in my neighborhood, I don't hear the golfers and the people at the nature park begging for a two-story clubhouse.

They want a functional clubhouse that's nice, that's something that we can be proud of, that they'll go to, but that will not encumber our city unnecessarily.

Commissioner Ahern Coch.

Um Yeah, I I uh I think if you want to kick the can down the road, you support this motion because this is going to add six months to this process already, which all of that is money.

Um I I'm not interested in kicking the can down the road.

I'm interested in us uh building something that uh is going to be affordable, that's going to be accessible.

If we keep the cost low, that's increases the the viability that the prices are lower.

This is a municipal golf course, it should absolutely be accessible to everyone and approachable to everyone.

So doing the most fiscally conservative thing would be to go forward with what we have right now, keep moving with this and not kick the can down the road.

So and along those lines, I see that this motion would impose the same delay that the um proposal by uh Parks and Rec was in the agenda item would do.

Uh it would not probably avoid the $500,000 expenditure because we would probably have that same $500,000 expenditure for the revised two-story plan.

Uh and from what we learned, I think we would still need uh a car barn underneath the restaurant because otherwise, how do you fill that empty space and then a second car?

Not not the car barn.

Well, that would be first floor.

Point of order.

Yeah.

Porch wait, I was doing my debate, so you're not interrupting that.

So smaller car barn to fill the space that's not used by the offices and the pro shop, plus an additional remote car barn.

Um I don't see that there will be any savings from making a smaller two-story restaurant.

But the biggest thing which I'm hearing as the reason for two stories is the observation deck.

And I'm wondering, I don't remember how that was laid out on the two-story design, but it seems to me it still would seem to be integrated with the restaurant, and the perception by the public would be I have to be a restaurant patron in order to go up to that observation deck.

We might be better off at some point saying we'll go with a one-story design and we will have an observation tower or deck built at the nature park that will be inviting to the public rather than the public feeling I have to be a restaurant patron for that observation deck.

But the other thing that I'm hearing that I am hoping to ensure assure ourselves, a one-story building would still have the fit and finish that we were ex anticipating with the two-story building.

Just because it's one story doesn't mean it's not going to be a beautiful build inviting building.

And if you think about it, most of the restaurants in Sarasota are one story.

In fact, the ones that are on the second floor tend to go out of business.

But but that's neither here nor there.

So I I think that this motion takes us even further backward.

So mayor I call the question.

No, okay.

So um roll call vote, please, Miss.

How can you always call the question when she wasn't even finished talking?

I was finished.

So okay.

Alpert.

Yes.

Mattie.

Yes.

Ulrich.

No.

Trice.

No.

Ahern Koch.

No.

Motion fails.

Uh three opposed, two in favor.

Um we may or I have a motion.

Thank you.

Move to approve the third amendment pursuant to RFP 20-19 TS.

Second.

Uh move by the Vice Mayor to uh approve the uh Third Amendment pursuant to RFP 20-19 TS and uh seconded by Commissioner A.

Hearn Koch.

Is there any discussion still?

I have none.

I am not supporting it.

Okay.

So it's a huge mistake.

Okay.

Roll call but T.

No.

Uh Ulrich?

Yes.

Trice?

Yes.

Uh uh Ahern Koch?

Yes.

Albert.

No.

Okay.

Motion passes three to two.

Um so I'm looking at the clock.

I had anticipated we would have a break, but the next item on the agenda is directly related to this.

So I believe we should uh do it nine point three, which would be do you want to read it first?

I'll read the title.

Yes, thank you.

Uh resolution number twenty six R thirty three seventy-six.

A resolution of the City Commission of the City of Sarasota, Florida, amending the budget for the fiscal year beginning October one, twenty twenty-five.

Providing for severality if any of the parts hereof are declared invalid, providing for reading by title only and providing an effective date.

Move approval of uh resolution twenty-six R dash three three seven six.

Second.

Move approval by Commissioner Ahern Koch, seconded by the Vice Mayor.

Um, is there discussion?

I'm not going to support this either.

Okay, then uh roll call.

Ulrich.

Yes.

Yes.

Ahern Cosh?

Yes.

Alpert.

No.

But T.

No.

Okay.

Motion passes three to two.

Thank you very much.

Um, in light of the fact that we sort of skipped our morning break.

Uh, let's have leave for lunch early.

And um back at quarter to one.

It's okay.

Yep.

Okay.

Okay, we're we're coming back into order for the afternoon portion of our regular February 2nd.

And we're about to start legislative public hearings, so I will call upon the deputy city auditor and clerk to administer the oath.

Um anyone who has signed up to speak or plans to sign up to speak at a public hearing today, please stand to take the oath.

Repealing and replacing Article Six of Chapter Two of the Sarasota City Code regarding city procurement.

Perfect.

So I'm just going to do a really quick just overview of the procurement code.

Again, the ordinance that we are introducing today is repealing our current procurement code and providing some needed revisions to it.

There are some parts of the code that are staying in place to what they are today.

Some of the verbiage is just being clarified, so we're not going to go through every single thing in the procurement code.

But we are going to go through the major policy changes that we are looking to approve in this repeal and revision.

And just really quickly, you'll see here where our procurement code actually currently exists in our Sarasota Code.

It was approved back in July 16th of 2012 and was amended in 2020.

So as you can see, it's been a while since the procurement code was put into place.

And that's where those changes came.

In addition to the procurement code itself, at the end of the presentation, I'm going to turn it over to our city attorney, Mr.

Polzak, because there is section 2-5 that addresses approval of contracts that is linked to our procurement code.

But there are some red line changes in that provision of the code as well that is separate from the procurement code but related.

So I'll let Mr.

Polzak talk through those changes.

And just a really quick overview of what is the purpose of a public procurement.

It's a little bit clumsy sometimes than purchasing in the private world, but we do have to make sure that we're very careful with our city dollars.

They are tax dollars, and so we do have a very specific procurement code that we must follow when we are purchasing goods and services.

The main purpose of our procurement rules are to make sure we provide a fair and equitable treatment of all of our vendors who are bidding on a certain procurement.

We want to maximize obviously the purchasing value of our public funds and then maintain our procurement safeguards of the procurement process.

Make sure that those are equitable and fair.

So again, I talked a little bit about it.

The purpose of revising the codes.

We are suggesting revisions to the procurement code for a couple different reasons.

Since they were amended or drafted and/or amended, there have been some changes in state law in the procurement of state law that we should be following.

And just to note, the state of Florida does have a procurement Florida statute.

Not everything in the state procurement statute is needs to be followed by local government.

And that's why we have our own procurement code.

There's definitely some Florida statutes that municipalities and counties have to follow, but not all of them.

But because there have been some changes in state law, we want to make sure the ones we do have to follow our procurement code is updated with those.

Procurement processes have also changed in the time that we've drafted our procurement code and also done our revisions.

There's technology now that is being used that wasn't used at the time.

There's business practices, and then we are asking for some improv increases in our thresholds, and those are due to some of the inflation, obviously, in purchasing processes.

Part of making sure that we're being fair and equitable and also using our tax dollars is to be as efficient as possible as well with our procurement process.

So some of these changes will help with some of the efficiencies in our process as well.

And that goes to the benefit.

I'm just jumping ahead of you on my presentation.

So some of the benefits of these changes, obviously, we're going to be increasing efficiencies, not only for our procurement team, but also for the departments as well.

We are increasing our vendor understanding of the procurement process, so it's easier for our bet our vendors to do business with the city of Sarasota with some of these changes.

It encourages vendor participation.

And then again, increasing our thresholds to align with inflation.

Regarding the increasing the vendor participation, I am going to ask Ms.

Hayes to talk a little bit because, in addition to some of the procurement code changes, we've also done some process changes internally since Ms.

Hayes has started with us that has also helped with getting vendor participation.

One of the things that the City of Sarasota has utilized is a bidding platform called BidNet, and we've migrated implemented OpenGov, which we're super duper excited about because speaking of vendor participation and outreach, BidNet had about 11,000 companies that were interested in doing business with the City of Sarasota since we rolled out OpenGov in the fall and started posting our solicitations just the last month.

Since we rolled out OpenGov in the fall and started posting our solicitations just the last month, we have over 43,000 suppliers who are specifically interested in doing business with the city of Sarasota.

OpenGov allows for a lot of efficiencies, not just with the buyers, but also with the vendors.

We're still working through some of the kinks, you know, as any implementation might go through, but we are receiving a lot of questions and participation, and we're super duper excited.

So hopefully the days of one bidders are behind us as we increase the competition with OpenGov.

Okay.

So as I said, the majority of the changes we're going to go over today are policy level changes that we're making in the code.

So the first one we're going to talk about is exemptions to the competitive solicitation.

And these exemptions are listed in the backup material that I had provided.

It starts on the bottom of seven of 45 if you want to look at the backup material.

That's just the title of it.

So the actual verbiage of it starts on page eight of 45.

And so in any competitive solicitation or any procurement code, there are exemptions that are written into that procurement code, meaning these items are exempt from having to go through the requirements of the competitive solicitation.

And the reason you have that again, sometimes it doesn't make sense for certain products to go through competitive solicitation.

For example, legal services is one of the things that we exempted from our procurement code because those are very specific.

Those are something where you don't always want to get the lowest dollar.

You want to make sure that you have good legal services.

There was a need to add some new procurement code exemptions, and so that is what we are suggesting here today.

And there was sometimes a little bit of confusion.

If we provided the funds, does that neighborhood association now have to go through our entire procurement process to use those funds to potentially hire whoever they needed those funds for?

And we want to make it clear that's not the intention.

We're giving those grants.

With that said, however, grants sometimes are written that there are certain requirements that the grantee must follow to accept those grant funds.

So any requirements that maybe the economic development department or a neighborhood association department would require would be in those grant documents, not the procurement code.

So we're just making that clear.

On the last bullet, I want to point out I've I've highlighted two words in red and put a strike through.

If you look through the language in the ordinance in your backup materials, originally we talked about program development executive executive management studies and realized that's a handful.

We don't need we don't need all those verb, all that verbiage.

So we are requesting today on this first reading, if these get approved, that we strike out program development and we just call it consulting services for executive management studies.

And again, one of the reasons we're adding this is that gives the city leadership, it gives the city commission the ability to potentially hire executive management studies that are something you may need on a quick basis, something that's very specific to the needs of the city, and we wouldn't go through a public procurement for those.

And those start on the page nine.

I think they mainly start on page nine of 45.

Um again, the reason why we're asking for some of these to be removed is some of them just should have a competitive solicitation.

Books and maps, advertising, um, those are competitively, those should be competitively solicited services and goods.

So some of these that we're removing, we want to have a competitive solicitation on those.

Some of them we're removing because they either again should be a competitive solicitation, or there might be another source of solicitation or another type of solicitation that can be used.

For example, and we'll we'll get to that in a little bit.

There are other ways that we can solicit besides a competitive solicitation.

We can do a piggyback, and that means that another government entity did a competitive solicitation.

We have the right to piggyback on that again from efficiency perspective.

We don't have to do our own.

Some of these items are available on piggyback agreements, so we shouldn't have a flat out exemption for them.

There may be other services again, what we would call either a single source or a sole source.

And instead of those being listed specifically as an exemption, they're listed as a single or a sole source, which is there's a process in order to get those approved, and we want to make sure those processes are followed, so they're not just a flat exemption.

So I won't go through all of the exemptions we're removing.

But there most of them are because there's already either another way that these are procured, and we want to go through the right process for those.

These are a few other ones again that same thing that we just talked about, that there's either they should be competitively procured or there's a different process in order for us to approve these type of solicitations.

That wouldn't be a flood exemption.

All right, and I'm going to turn it over to Ms.

Hayes to walk through the new categories.

So one of I think the driving factors that we had when we wanted to update the code was to increase thresholds, and so these are the recommended thresholds that we would like to move forward and have approved.

Currently, for quote for if you just want to buy something, it's 10,000.

So we want to move that up to right under 20, which is in line with other organizations.

As far as category two, which is where we would receive quotes, it's been 10,000 to 65 because 65 is the bid threshold that we currently have in the code.

So this would increase it from 22, just right under the 100,000.

And one quick thing, sorry, on any of our procurement codes or thresholds, for example, on category one, if the procurement official or even category two, if the procurement official feels because of the nature of the purchase, it should have a competitive solicitation.

She does have the right to work with the city manager to do a competitive solicitation.

So these are our starting points, but again, we can be harder on these than than the procurement code if it makes sense for the city to do that.

And then this is our formal procurement recommendation or request is currently at 65,000, and we would like to increase that to 100,000 as well.

If you find the need to increase it even more, we'd be happy to hear from you on that.

The only reason why I say that is because at the Florida State statute, they have it's like 195, I think.

So we're still being actually more conservative than what's in statute by having it be a hundred thousand.

And for the thresholds, again, one thing to point out is these are a procurement codes that we would follow unless there is a different law, so a different state law that we have to follow, or sometimes when we do get federal and state grants for the purchase that to use for the procurement of certain items, they do have specific qualifications in federal law and/or sometimes those grant documents, and if they are stricter than our procurement code, then we do follow those as well.

So again, this is a starting point, but there might be items in a procurement that allow us to or that um request that we follow a different way of doing it.

And the per a procurement approval currently the city manager has up um has authority to be able to approve contracts up to 200,000.

Uh this request is to increase that threshold from 200 to 500,000, meaning the city manager would be able to approve those, and we wouldn't necessarily uh need to bring them back to commission if you give him the authority to do so.

As long as they're budgeted.

Oh, yes, absolutely.

There would be nothing that we wouldn't take to the city manager that as a commission you had not already approved within the budget or through a budget amendment as well.

Um, and then again, like for change orders and extension, the city manager may approve change orders for construction-related contracts if the change order does not exceed the city commission approved budget, and the city manager may approve amendments, renewals, or extensions up to the additional expenditure amount not to exceed additional 200,000 dollars.

And then, of course, um, whenever we bring items to the commission for approval, sometimes they're three-year with two renewal, two years, two one-year renewals.

So the city manager may execute contracts, amendments, renewals, or extensions, including those requiring approval of the commission if you approve this request.

Sole source and single source.

This is a little bit as far as um identifying the differences between them.

A sole source will be a company who says I'm the only one in town who buys this, you know, or sells this.

And so we have a requirement to post those uh potential purchases on our bidding platform to see if any other companies come forward.

And if they don't, then we're able to move forward with that sole source company.

And a single source would be primarily as far as something that might integrate with something we currently have.

You know, we wouldn't necessarily quote or bid out something that potentially could be an issue that would integrate with the city of Sarasota.

So those um would be re reviewed by me as well, as far as the reasons, the justifications as to why we would move forward with a single source.

And then again, any contract over the 500,000 um would be approved by the city commission, which currently it's at 200,000.

Um local preference is in our current code as well as in the re um proposed um code.

And this slide is basically just discussing a little bit about local preference.

You know, as you all know, you approved um the waiver of a particular ITN um recently, and although we proposed this in the current, this is open for conversation to see if you might want to remove the local preference, you know, completely from the code or keep it in there.

And then just some reasons um behind that.

You know, one of the things that Jennifer mentioned is a lot of times it's based on funding.

If we use FEMA, if we use a grant, you know, um construction, you know, um C CNA, those do not have local preference.

But basic ITBs and basic RFPs in the ITN process, you know, does have local preference in there.

But you know, I know whenever this first came um forward, it would the recession, we obviously want local companies to be able to participate, things of that nature.

And you know, whenever you look at different funding sources, sometimes the biases of having points associated to a local company are um usually just for that reason.

So to keep it completely fair and open to have all companies participate, not having that preference, but again, that's your decision.

And then one final thing is we are adding a section of administrative procedures.

Um and basically what this is is it allows the city manager to request the procurement team to create policies, procedures that expand on our procurement code.

So our procurement code sets our very specific rules, but obviously it doesn't go into great detail of how to do everything on a step-by-step, and a code should not do that, an ordinance should not do that.

Um, but we should have a pretty extensive procurement manual in order to create those step-by-step.

That is not only for the benefit of staff, so um they know the expectations, but also to our vendors.

And so this addition to the procurement code gives that city manager the right to um request that additional procedure be done as long as it does not obviously conflict with the city code.

Oh, and one sorry, one additional thing that we wanted to um talk about.

This was not in the first um rendition of the procurement that we had sent to you.

We did this after it had already been published.

So I wanted to um discuss this really briefly.

And if this is something that you wanted to add into the procurement code, if you agreed with this, we could add it before second reading.

Basically, what this is is it would be a new exemption that would be added to the exemption section as section number 27.

And this is specific to information technology purchases.

So there are some information technology exemptions we are removing or requosing to remove from the code because the language in which they're currently written is a little bit confusing, and sometimes there's disagreement or gray area on to how we use our current IT exemption.

So this new exemption for IT purchases makes it very clear that any IT purchase that's a software hardware service is exempt from doing a competitive solicitation as long as that hardware, software service integrates or is compatible with an existing software.

And the reason we're doing that is is again you wouldn't want to competitively compete something that doesn't interface with something that you currently have.

It would be better for you to be able to purchase software that integrates or hardware that integrates with the current software package because of the additional costs that could be for interfaces that you have to create if you're competitively soliciting this doing a competitive solicitation for a standalone software.

Um the other exemption as it relates to information technology purchases is if there's an eminent threat to public health.

We want to make or security, cybersecurity, anything like that.

We want to make sure the IT director and the procurement official have the ability to purchase that without taking the time to do a procurement.

Um and also for any um maintenance or service of IT or hardware, as long as that IT hardware and software solution had previously been competitively solicited.

So if we competitively submit solicited um Microsoft Word or Excel, we want to make sure that we can purchase their maintenance package as well, as long as that was the original um software that was procured.

As long as that was the original software that was procured.

And then any annual recurring expenditures.

So again, software and maintenance has annual licenses, and we don't want to have to go procure those annual licenses every time.

So as long as that was an originally in the contract, but there would be annual licenses for that software, we wouldn't have to procure that.

So that was one additional exemption we wanted to point out.

And that is it.

Good afternoon.

I am still obviously Martin Hyde.

I uh don't live in the city, but I couldn't resist uh this one.

I uh I did enjoy the uh the fightiness of you all this morning.

Um there's a point to that comment.

I like that you seem to care, which is why this ordinance, which is proposed, is a seminal moment for this commission.

You all got elected at great personal effort and cost to shape policy and by extension to take responsibility for the actions of the city.

This new procurement uh procurement ordinance in significant part takes away your authority away from this commission and gives it to a greater extent to an unelected city manager, potentially a new manager as yet to be hired, would have a $500,000 purchase authority up from $200,000 without commission approval, which could add up real quick.

They'd also be able to renew contracts without your approval.

One wonders uh what would be left for you to decide upon.

SB 180 and live local from the state have already taken away much of your discretion on development.

Now, what is plainly a staff-driven idea is presented here to take much of your remaining authority over procurement away.

We shouldn't forget recent procurement issues from local preference, questionable poor results on bids, to uh $600,000 spent on bathrooms right here at City Hall, which anecdotally have been criticized as poorly constructed.

Stows are too small, wrong tiles used, doors locking on users.

I I got some pictures here.

Just spare with me a sec.

Um for everybody to see.

Um that's right across the way here.

So coming back, I've got to get back to my notes now.

All right.

So, you know, I think it's fairly clear that those pictures speak for themselves, and they suggest that whoever the project manager signed off on that shoddy work needs to be questioned as to what he or she considers quality control to mean.

Uh as do the procurement manager, uh one wonders if this is the kind of value for money they were just speaking about.

Future similar bungles will be blamed on you.

But here, in large part, the same professional staff who approve that work seek to remove U5 from the decision process.

This is a 45-page ordinance which excludes lobbyists, CPAs, consultants, real estate proposals, and other inside deals from competitive bidding.

And one wonders on whose suggestion that might have been.

We're moving to AI quickly in this country, but it shouldn't be to the extent where your own intelligence and decision-making role becomes purely ceremonial.

I would urge you strongly, reject this power grab, lest this commission is left with almost no power at all.

This is not a red or blue issue.

It's an issue of elected representation over unelected.

Thank you.

Um Vice Mayor, you're up first.

Thank you.

My first question has to do with pages seven and eight of your PowerPoint.

You have three categories for procurement there.

And as I was reading through those pages, I thought of we frequently hear lowest is not the best.

How do you take that into consideration?

So with a quote or even a solicitation or just a call, it has to be apples to apples.

So we just need to make sure that we ensure that whatever we're requesting a quote from is exactly the same as everything else.

Sometimes we might fall into the lowest quote or lowest price that we get might have missed some parts that other companies perhaps may have participated in, provided a better quote for that.

And what if you do have apples to apples?

So if we have apples to apples, then yeah, it's it's typically the lowest quote.

One thing I will say is if there is a procurement where the service that we are doing, we should look at quality over lowest bid.

The procurement official does have the ability to move this into a request for proposal, meaning they do have the ability to say, based on that type of service that we need and or wanting to get quality of that service, we aren't going to just get three quotes because it falls into category two.

We are going to um write up a full scope and we're going to put that out to a request for proposal.

And since it's a request for proposal, then we don't have to take the lowest bid.

Good.

Thank you.

Also related to those same pages seven and eight.

Where did you come up with the numbers that are your caps for those categories?

19,999, 9999, you know, et cetera.

Where did you come up with those numbers?

Any other municipalities that you're comparing to?

I was going to say Dave made us do them.

Yes, so we looked at a lot of different things.

So we looked at other municipalities and counties within our area.

In all of these changes, we looked at Sarasota County, we looked at Manatee County, we looked at the city of Bradington.

We also looked at the state requirements as well, even though we don't have to follow them to see what others similar to us and our size used.

Um were over these.

Some smaller cities are a little bit under these.

So these made sense from the research that we've done for the size of our organization and the number of procurements that we do.

Okay, thank you.

And then moving on to page 11, where you brought up that for discussion, uh local preference.

Um referring to page 30 of 45 of the ordinance where it talks about local preference.

In section B, um it refers to company that misrepresents that it's a local business, and it says it would lose the privilege for two years.

Use lose the privilege of being qualified as local.

Also, of course, uh it would be disqualified from the current project it's bidding for, I assume, or is that explicit in the ordinance?

Well, a vendor could misrepresent their local preference by stating that they're local and they're not.

And in the code, we also have some areas that we would not allow them to identify that they're local, such as a PO box.

So we look at Sunvis and we request different documents in order for them to be deemed, you know, to give them the points for the local preference.

And yeah.

And and so my question is not only are they disqualified for two years, but of course they're disqualified from the project they're currently applying for when they got caught.

Right.

Okay.

Um and even if we didn't have a section on local preference, could we say in the case of a tie in the bidding calculations, a company that is local would be preferred.

Just in the case of a tie.

You you Barbara Deschampeller, by the way, uh my first time here.

Because if you don't say in your code how you want it dealt with, or it's not said any place else, the allegation that you could open yourself up to is that you don't always act the same case on case.

And so therefore that creates equal treatment things.

Well, you broke the tie this time that way, but then in the past you didn't break the tie.

So whatever your rule is, it needs to be a uniform rule and not just made up as you go along, depending on what the solicitation is.

So it doesn't have to be even local preference.

Some codes that I've done, the tie is broken by the drawing of straws or the flipping of a coin.

You just have to say what are we going to do to break it?

Yes, that makes so much sense to me.

And so I'm looking at local preference now, but let's talk about the breaking of a tie.

Is that explicit in this ordinance someplace else?

So the the um I'm sorry.

No, go ahead.

The uh procurement uh manager has administrative rules and in her administrative rules are here's how we deal with ties.

Okay, good.

My community in Ohio, many years ago, there was a tie vote for mayor.

And they flipped a coin.

When that was at the county, we flip the coin whenever we had tiebreakers, you know, too.

And in our code, this was um you know, based on local preference.

But as long as we express how we want to do that, um if it if it's a tie, then we can put that in a different area if you guys decide to change that.

I do want to point out if you go to page 14 of 45, there is section 2-352 subsection D.

And there it does talk about for an invitation to bid for commodities when there are two or more bids that have a tie, we do break that tie with looking at which vendors within the county.

So there is a local preference type of um tie in the new code that we're introducing.

But that's good, I think.

And my final question comment is related to page 12 of your uh PowerPoint.

Um I'm sure it's a page in the ordinance as well called oh, it's section 2-370 of the ordinance.

Uh it's called administrative procedures.

Just because that terminology is a little too close to a touchy terminology for other stuff.

Would it be possible to change it to procurement procedures instead of administrative procedures?

We can change the name, certainly.

The purpose of the PowerPoint was because it was in the code, but that the calling of the name of that section were open.

And those are my questions, comments.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioner A.

Hern Katsch.

Thank you.

Um I want to just start by saying thank you so much for taking the time earlier to meet with me about this.

Um I did have lots and lots of little tiny questions and and things that they cleared up, so I really appreciate taking the time to do that.

Um I have basically um three three points that are causing me a little bit of um concern.

One of them is on page seven, and those uh limits being uh raised from uh category one from ten thousand to nineteen thousand nine hundred and ninety-nine dollars and ninety-nine cents.

Um the cumulative um uh inflation from when it was enacted to now is 41.4 percent.

It would make sense to me to raise it to $14,140 and not $19,999 and 99 cents.

Um I understand it was looking to adjust it.

It's just a little too high, in my opinion.

And if you'd like to speak to that, I'd give you the opportunity.

Otherwise, I I that that much of an increase causes me a heartburn.

So I can speak to it a little.

I'm um Miss Asken as well.

Um so the first thing is in all of these, we wanted to make sure that the efficiency makes sense for our staff to be able to do their job in an efficient way, because we do think there is a cost savings as it relates to efficiency of the process as well.

Um and so increasing them to just below 20,000 made sense to us when we look across the board at the numbers and the procurements that we get.

Um I know we've had um public comment before where you know it seems like it could be a better deal if you were able to just pick up the phone and call a bunch of vendors and and see who will do a project for a certain price, um, and we don't get to do that in the rest of the categories.

Um and we don't get to do that in the rest of the categories.

And so this allows you to have a little bit of that freedom to be able to um call different vendors and and see for the work that you're wanting to do who may have the better price and not having to go through such a formal solicitation.

Um there's no magic number to the to the just under 20,000, as we said, that really came from doing some research to what the other um uh communities around us do.

And like I said, some have them much higher than that, and this is where we landed for the process that we do here at the city.

I I understand.

I I completely get that, and then um you know, and I thank you for doing the research, and it's you know, Sarasota County, which is way larger than we are.

Uh Manatee County, same thing.

Um I'm I'm hesitant about going up that high.

But what causes me even more um concern is the city manager approval of contracts up to 500,000.

Going from 200 to 500,000, I think is a very, very big jump.

I would be again comfortable with doing it with the cost of you know inflation, but um that big of a jump is you know more way more than double.

So those two pieces are causing me a little bit of hesitation.

Otherwise, I am happy to um accept the proposed name to procurement procedures for two-three seven zero, and then the last slide you submitted um for the uh IT uh 2-348 um exemptions.

Uh those I think make complete sense along with a lot of the other suggestions that you made.

Um thank you very much for doing this.

There are a lot of things that are that you know we have guidelines and codes and talk about this all the time about updating things, and it's really important as a city we stay on top of all of our guidelines and our procedures so that we are taking advantage of the latest technology and the best practices, not staying stale, continuing to do things just because that's the way we've always done it.

Um really thank you for doing this.

This is very, very sorely needed.

I put a lot of value on not just the cheapest, but also best quality, as we sometimes see, sometimes the cheapest isn't can get you into trouble, right?

It really can sometimes.

So thank you so much for doing this.

Um those were just my two points with uh that I have concern about.

Okay.

Thank you.

Commissioner Alpert.

Okay.

Um what I was gonna ask about was the $500,000 limit.

If you know Commissioner Agram Kotch asked about it, but there was no answer as to why you chose that.

Yeah, so again, we chose to increase it for a couple different reasons.

One is is again the research that we did.

Um I think Sarasota County has a million.

We knew a million, you know, going from 200,000 to a million is just too large of an increase.

We're a smaller organization than them.

Um so the 500,000 made more sense for for our um uh size of a city.

Um we also look at it as a lot of times when we do procurement, um, and this is just a uh consideration, it's not the final we should do it because of this, but procurement process takes a long time.

It takes a long time to put a bid out, um, it takes a long time to select all the recipients to go through them to have an evaluation committee.

Um it can be anywhere from two to maybe sometimes five months.

And so projects are stalled while we do that.

We have to go through that process.

It makes the most sense um in order to make sure we get a lot of um solicitation and responses.

But then what happens is when we actually go to the contracting portion, you're going back and forth with the vendor, you're doing red lines, um, and then once you get finally get a contract, now you may have to wait a month or two months in order to get it on an agenda.

Um and so we felt like for that $200,000 level to move it up to the $500,000 level.

For example, last year there was approximately 25 of those contracts that would have gone to the city manager versus the city commission out of about 300 contracts.

So we're under 10 percent of those that would have really been affected by this change from last year, and for the efficiency of it, we felt like that number um was a good number to be able to give the city manager that approval, especially since we also have the caveat that anything that the city manager approves has to already been approved by the city commission as a budget item.

So it cannot come um to the city manager and sign off on it if the city commission hasn't already approved that in the budget approval process or a budget amendment.

And Rob, I don't know if you have anything to add to that.

You've drafted a dozen or so of these.

Can you can you speak to that?

Uh to what Jennifer said.

I uh I always joke to people, you know, I I am board certified and and I've done uh labor employment, public labor and employment most of my life, but in 2009 when I was with Mancy County, the county attorney said who wants to take over procurement because the per the person is doing is retiring, and so I caught the assignment.

And since then I've become like Mr.

Procurement around the state.

Um I helped uh um Fort Pierce with theirs, uh a lot of our Connells County clients, I've redata Sterrow.

So I have a lot of of experience and exposure to these very same discussions.

Um and I think that the the issue that staff raised about the time to final approval and the desire for more efficiency is really what drives it.

Um and so it's up to you guys what you want, you know, the the amount you're comfortable with, but raising it to whatever you all are comfortable with raising it just just allows once all of the the steps to get the vendor on board have been followed, right, which have to be done, whether you're the approval or he's the approver, that she still has to make sure those steps are done.

Why do you have to wait another three, four, five, six weeks to get the contract approved before the work can start to be done or the stuff can start to be delivered just because it has to go to the commission?

And one thing I always ask clients when I draft these is how many times in the past five years has your governing board not unanimously approved a contract brought to them before them?

And the answer usually is none, because the you uh you assume staff has done its job.

So I hope that addresses and also the efficiency I would think would help with the cost of every project.

Is that true?

Oh yeah, absolutely.

And you know, that time is money, and a lot of these contractors they're holding their price if it's construction or whatever, and if it takes a while to get to you all, they're gonna be like, well, geez, we told you we'd hold our price, but we're now four months from when we thought we would start working on the four years, yeah.

Thank you.

Very good.

Okay.

Commissioner Batte.

Uh uh.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um you talk about uh local preference.

I mean, is there any sort of uh state preemption or weird asking, sir?

No.

There's no.

Okay.

Um you put things or put things out for bid or or whatever you're trying to procure, you know, uh a vendor for something, is that that amount uh include like the the total amount of the the of the project.

One thing I remember I asked that is because we get so caught up in all of these change orders that they you know that that come about that now you've got to come back and whatever that that becomes a pro of a challenge.

I mean, we just got finished dealing with that, you know, uh a moment ago with another item.

So how does that work?

So the new proposed ordinance says that the city manager can approve change orders as long as the change order does not go above the budget for that project that was originally approved by the city commission.

And so if the budget was a million dollars and that was what was originally approved by the city commission, sometimes because the um procurement goes so well, the project maybe is only 500,000.

So technically they could um the city manager could approve a change order up to that million dollars without having to come back.

But as soon as that change order pushes it over that budgeted amount, now it has to come back in front of the city commission for approval.

So to follow up on that as well, and one of the new sections that I've recommended uh to you all is um page uh 14 of 45 in the agenda materials.

It's uh section 2-3-2 minimum solicitation requirements.

And and so what I I put in there in subsection A is that it's really, really important for staff up front to come up with a good scope of service.

A good what are we looking for?

Because when I see a solicitation fail, a lot of times it's because the work wasn't done up front to say what are we really looking for?

And then procurement staff goes out and puts it on the street and they get the bids or or the proposals in and they go to the client department, and the client department says, This is not at all what I wanted, or this this contractor is not qualified.

Well, why didn't you tell me what your minimum qualifications were?

Why didn't you tell me you only wanted red?

Whatever it is, you know, so so it's important um and so I think if staff, to sort of speak to your question, if staff does a good job up front in telling the vending community this is what we want, whether we're building something, buying a commodity, getting software, then that means that change order risk is down because we've told you in great detail what we want.

So that being said, and thank you for that explanation.

How do you you have any ideas on how we go about doing it to ensure that staff is is doing it, you know, that uh so at the end in the what used to be called administrative procedures but are now going to be renamed procurement procurement, um there's a new sections that I put in there that uh empower and charge our procurement manager to do yearly training with the staff.

And so that's an important component.

And you know, Ms.

Hayes is is drinking through a fire hostile, she's been here a year.

But but one of the things that I know she wants to get her arms around is to go out to the operating departments and say, you guys have to be my partners here in this, don't just dump it on to me.

And part of that is to teach them how important it is to do a good scope.

What is a good scope look like?

And then on the other end, vendor management.

If a department is having a problem with a vendor, you need to do a vendor performance report, and you need to give that to your procurement folks because then when we go out uh uh for a solicitation and we say part of minimum qualifications is you should have not been in breach of any sort of sort of contract in the past three years.

Well, if we have vendor performance reports that this vendor has been screwing up right and left, then she can say you're not qualified.

We're not considering your bid, even if it's the low bid because you're not doing well.

So it has to be a partnership between the operating departments and procurement.

But it can be done.

Okay.

Yeah.

So I mean, and I'm just trying to get to the bottom line of like best practices to help streamline the process and uh make it, you know, as efficient as it possibly can be.

So thank you for the presentation.

I appreciate it.

One of the other things um, not to keep bringing up OpenGov, but they have scope available to be utilized by other entities.

We we are going to work on training for the end users for them to have a little bit more comfort with that.

But in a previous organization where I uh worked where they utilized OpenGov, the scope of work, they were able to see so much more just in that platform so that they could use research, that sort of thing to make our scope even that much better and and meet more meaningful to the city of Sarasota.

So it's an additional platform that I think will be very helpful for the departments as well.

Um excuse me, I had questions since we were talking just now in terms of change orders.

Um it would seem to me that if there's a major a significant difference between the budgeted amount and the actual bid, that maybe there was some error in the scope.

Um and and you know, the the bidders might not have understood what the originating department was looking for.

So I mean, if it's it's the budget is a million dollars and the bid is a half a million dollars, you know, now we're saying, oh yeah, the city manager can approve another half a million dollars because it's a million in the budget, but it seems like there might have been a bigger problem somewhere in there.

That was probably a bad example.

We don't usually get them that are that different from the budget, but you're exactly right, and that's where Renee and her team work very closely with our departments on um drafting the scope, making sure that the scope makes sense before we put it out to bid.

And I will say, just because there's a change order that is um requested by a vendor, a change order doesn't always automatically get approved, even if it's below the budgeted amount, because to your point, Mayor, if the change is so significantly different than the scope that was originally bid, there can be an argument that it's no longer the same bid that they or the same solicitation um that they responded to.

And so Ms.

Hayes and her team work very hard to look at all the change order requests to make sure it's even in compliance with the original solicitation that went out.

So I'm even wondering rather than say, you know, uh it can go up the city manager can approve the change order up to the amount on the budget, maybe it would be the lesser of 20 percent or 25 percent or the amount in that was budgeted, just to avoid the situations like you know, it's double what the original bid was.

Is that seem feasible?

I'll leave it up.

I mean, it's it's completely up to um to the commission, of course, on what you want to do and and for the legal language, the proper legal language, I'll look to Mr.

Eschenfelder for that.

Um I will say, in my opinion, having one dollar amount to look at versus everybody looking at either a percent and or a number um could add a little bit of a complexity, but it's not that big of a complexity that we couldn't make it work.

So if that is something that makes sense to the commission as a whole, we can make that change.

The other thing we were talking about local preference.

I'm wondering if we remove local preference, how feasible is it for certain uh items for the commission to add local preference in going out.

Um and offhand, I can't think of any say specific situation.

Say we you know we wanted an architect for a building that we were going to have built that maybe we would choose to add uh local preference, whereas under normal circumstances we wouldn't.

Would that be feasible?

Well, it feasible is not the word I'm concerned about.

Uh legally troubling, I think is that the the issue there, as I kind of referred to earlier, is with that kind of a thing, you want a uniform policy because then what you're gonna get, whether your heart is pure or not, you're gonna get folks say you're just doing this this time for cronyism because you're trying to drive the contract to this particular person.

Okay.

You either have a local preference or you don't have a local preference, and you apply it uniformly every time, and then that takes that accusation off the table.

Okay.

So then talking about local preference with the um the tie, tie-breaking.

Um that was what was that was on page 14 of 45 with uh local preference on I think it was paragraph D.

Outside of that situation where is uh tie, how do we break the tie?

So, yeah, based if they're in the county or not would be the tiebreaker how it is here.

In in all instances where there's a tie, we would use local preference to break the tie.

Well, you look at that first.

Okay.

And if that disposes of it, you're done.

If it's but if the tie is local local, you still have a tie, and that and that provision won't break it because they're both local local, so then you have to flip the coin.

Well, uh yeah, that was what really my question, because I didn't know that we had flipping a coin in here.

I didn't see that.

But it's in in his own.

It's her administrative procedures.

That's okay.

So it's in the administrative procedures rather than in the ordinance.

Okay.

Um and then the other one that you sort of answered this question.

I was trying to understand the implications of the city manager's authority to approve.

And the amount has been budgeted by the commission.

Staff is recommending the vendor based on the procurement process.

And in this instance, we're saying the city manager approves it versus the commission approving it on the consent agenda.

And the pros and cons is as I'm hearing you is purely the length of time it takes to get on the consent agenda.

Yeah, it's it's an efficiency.

It's a it's a time to get the work done or get the commodities delivered.

Okay.

It's probably a two-month period of time.

We have to prepare the agenda item, make sure it's all ready to place on there.

When you look at the at the time on the agenda, that's one thing, but you've got to get it ready for an agenda item as opposed to convince your city manager that that this is a good decision.

And then he or she is still going to look at it.

I mean, I have rejected change orders in the past, just because I didn't think uh they went back and did something else, you know, to figure it out.

So it really is a time issue because it is, I would I would say it's a minimum of two months to prepare it and get it on the agenda.

So I I think I'm uncomfortable with the um half million dollar number.

What was that category C?

I mean third category three, category two.

Um and I know Commissioner A.

Hearn Koch was saying, how about a smaller number?

I'm wondering, especially since we're going to have a new city manager, whether a number like 350,000 might make sense for now, and how difficult would it be two years from now to come back with an amendment up to the 500,000 or or whatever number.

If that's what you're comfortable with, that's fine.

I mean, how difficult would it be?

It's an ordinance, you know.

So but a minor change.

Yeah, yeah, but I mean it's a one-page ordinance, you know, all you're doing is changing it.

So this is a policy decision.

So I had but before we leave here today, I hope we get some guidance on that number.

And I think you were talking about the 19,000 if you want that to go down.

Just don't let us leave here without that because we have to make the typing and put it on for a second.

So that's all I have and uh the Vice Mayor has another round of questions.

I do.

Several of my questions have been answered during the discussion just now.

I'd like a little bit more comment from Mr.

Bullock who's you know been in the arena for some time and the pragmatics of the city manager having a ceiling and you already talked about the amount of time it takes to get something on the agenda.

Pragmatically speaking are the are there any other benefits to the city manager having a high cap.

So could you put your slide up there that you talked about caps understand that all of these have gone through a process already.

It's not like well the manager just arbitrarily approves that they've gone through some type of process.

So if you're looking for how to manage risk which is one of the elements the commission would be concerned about then you do rely on process that that's how we manage risk in public agencies.

So they've all gone through that and then it the next question gets to be efficiency.

And you know frankly all of this is built on a competence of staff platform.

I mean if you if you have an area that constantly has contractual problems you have a staff problem.

I mean honestly that that's what that means.

There's some weakness somewhere in that that that the manager should be dealing with and let me say that there will be contracts that get change orders no matter what we do because conditions will have changed and fairness on the part of the public sector to treat our contractors right is different than fairness in the private sector.

We cannot negotiate the way a private sector buyer could negotiate.

We're much more constrained by state laws and our ordinances we just have to deal with change orders when conditions have changed.

Whereas in the private sector you hear stories I'm saying we'll either build it or get out and I'll get someone else to do it.

Well it isn't quite that simple for us we have to go through another procurement and and we're talking months in what may be the middle of a project.

So you know it has to work within the framework of of uh um how we buy services and products so I would say um efficiency is one the reliance on the processes because you have if I recall correctly three different processes that we go through on all of these things it's either um the the direct purchase the get three quotes or some procurement type process um that that then the uh manager has some um flexibility with your when you would when you um adopt the budget and set the budget for example mostly these are capital projects you you have an estimate of cost and so you adopt your budget you build your budget around that and then when it goes out for bid if it comes in below that and the job is completed great you didn't spend all the money it drops to fund balance you have it to begin next year with if it costs almost all of that and there's some kind of a change order or something related to that as long as it's within the budget then you're giving your manager the authority to spend up to the budget under the conditions that he or she believes are fair and equitable.

So you know you all have to one have confidence in your manager know that you have competent staff and know that the processes that are embedded in these the procurement documents are adequate to protect the city and be fair to taxpayers and vendors.

I don't know if that answered your question it did.

I appreciate that very much and I have a question on local preference I'd like Mr.

And this ordinance is refining that somewhat it seems to me that it was pretty easy to add the section for local preference when we needed it.

What would be the problem with removing that section now and adding it again when the time is right for it.

Well there would be no problem at all.

Kind of like what we were talking about earlier with changing if we did 350 moving that up to to 500 again it's just bringing an ordinance forward and you know adding a new section to your code.

I local preference here because I but but that's that's uh because I'm not an elected official but I'm not a big fan.

They from the lawyer's perspective, the the municipal lawyer's perspective, they draw the most protests that you know you're I think you just went through a protest because of your local preference.

Once the protest gets filed everything comes grinding to a halt until you deal with the protest.

And so i if you can make the argument in your community that you truly have a business community that is so struggling that it really needs to have local government step in and give a a preference to it I'm not sure that Sarasota's economy is that you know you guys are very for blessed and fortunate with a thriving economy.

If you do have a downturn as as you mentioned Vice Mayor you can always add it back in.

So if if I were sitting on the other side of this table, I would vote to just remove it at this point.

Thank you.

Mayor if if I may give another point of view because he is sitting on that side this is truly a policy question for you.

So I just want to just to say some things uh about that policy.

To the extent one we are to get the most services for the dollars um for our taxpayers and two you do have an interest in the local vibrance uh economic vibrancy so local preference can throw business to local vendors and enhance that um that vibrancy and you know so I think it's a legit and by the way I don't have a preference on whether you have it or not but you do need to think about both of those things and whether or not it's worth putting in the code because it does limit uh the number of people who can can uh compete sometimes they'll look at the local preference and they'll say these guys going to get 10 points you know 10 additional points uh I I'll never win that and you know they just go away.

So I think it that weighing and of the two different uh points of view is something that you all just need to think about.

And I do think if I could just pick back up another point that I I forgot to make the first time was that if you think about how business is evolving you're always going to have some things like construction where people are on site and they have a hammer and so forth but so much of of our services industries are becoming national and even international.

Everything can happen online and in the local preference world it becomes frustrating to administer it because what is a local business?

Does it mean that you have a brick and mortar does it mean that you your own you can operate out of your condo that you own here and that therefore you're a local business and is that fair to somebody who has a brick and mortar I it it gets to be very difficult and and the philosophy behind it sort of changes when so much can happen over internet lines.

Thank you.

Okay so uh Commissioner Batti.

Uh thank you mayor so you know getting into the criteria in terms of you know local preference and look whatever um how does that work I could be completely off the left field whatever when it comes to minority contracts so local preference doesn't speak to minority contracts local preference is is there is some criteria in the new procurement code that states that you have to have a physical address you have to have at least one employee or a partner so it doesn't speak to the minority contracts.

Yeah that so I I've been through this many times that and litigated it the United States Supreme Court has in the past allowed racial preferences or gender preferences but only where the local government has done a disparity study and has established evidence that it has engaged in historical discrimination against the groups that are about to be benefited by that kind of a preference.

But they had no disparity study.

So they had to go out and hire professors and they spent a couple hundred thousand dollars to to come up with evidence, you know.

So I don't know that Sarasota's ever done that.

I haven't heard that they have, but if they haven't, then certainly you couldn't do that now.

Yeah.

Thank you very much.

Because I propose that like at least twice, you know, in the dais that uh we do uh uh disparity study because we've spoken about this.

I I don't even know if we have any minority contracts, you know, if any.

Well, one of the things between work day, our financial system, and open gov that data is captured so we can pull reports, you know.

So that's so we might I I did not have that prepared to see which ones we have right now.

Uh thank you.

And and and you know, to that point, thank you for that.

Has Sarasota ever done a disparity study?

Do we did we know this?

I'm not aware of it.

Um I think it's a high time that that we do.

Um look into that and um you know make that uh uh reality that we do a disparity study, you know, in the city.

So um I yield, Mayor.

Thank you.

Okay.

Uh Commissioner A.

Hern Kotch.

Thank you.

Um the this this amount, this five hundred thousand dollars, um that ties a little bit to the nineteen thousand dollars.

The nineteen thousand dollars were lower.

No, actually the the two separate things.

Right, they're two separate things.

Well, category one, category two, category three are the level the the um whether and to what extent competition needs to occur.

Right.

The five hundred is simply who approves, you or him.

Right.

So if the numbers were lower from 19 to 14, uh and it went from just one to the second category, right, where you would get two quotes.

That's that's a little bit more of a um oversight than just one, right?

So that's where I was going with that was that if you had two quotes on something and they came in pretty even, you'd be like, all right, that's probably a pretty good number.

Um so that's where I felt like they maybe were tied together a tiny bit.

And um I I'm still I'm still uncomfortable with the 500,000 number.

Um, you know, the county you said was a million.

Uh they have 500,000 residents.

We have 58.

Um and you know, 500 is half of a million.

So we are not half of their population.

So I'm just trying to find something to grab on to to say this is why 500,000 makes sense, and it's not inflation and it's not population on Sarasota or Manatee County.

Um I like the suggestion of raising it because I I see the efficiencies.

I see that if this item is budgeted and it's gone through a certain process at this point in time, um, you know, the vendor does know they're dealing with a government body, so there's some expectation that it's not going to be done like this.

Um however, we don't want to we want to become more efficient.

That's the whole idea of all of this.

And so I I am okay with raising that number.

I'm just not sure which which number it should be like the mayor's suggestion of 300,000, and then with the caveat that in two years we revisit that number uh and look at raising it again, if indeed that that is something that needs to happen.

Um but I'm not really sure where the rest of the commission is on that.

Um having a new city manager.

Are are we doing questions or just yeah, we still have questions?

Yeah, okay.

I'm not hearing a question.

I was just asking them questions.

Okay.

And I was gonna ask what level would each of you see fit as opposed to the 500, and maybe we can have that.

So that's my question is what number do you think you all would feel comfortable with?

Um I I mean I'm leaning towards the suggestion of the mayor, $300,000.

I think that's something that I would feel comfortable with.

Um but again, with the discussion and the caveat being that this is a first step to a broader conversation and and and looking at this, and maybe in the meantime, track that for us to see the difference between 200 and 300, what did that do?

And and are there efficiencies if it were 350?

Or 400.

I mean, just so that we I have something to grab on to to say this is the reason why we raised it.

Well, I know currently right now any contracts between and Jennifer mentioned between 200 and 500, it was about 25, but I didn't do the 300, but I could also bring that back.

Right, but no.

Right.

Just you know, we'll see what the commission says.

But as this goes, if we if that's something that's easy enough to do, I know this new software you said was bells and whistles and all kinds of exciting opportunities for the city.

Um more vendors participate way more, right?

You said and to just the you know level of competition, you know that some companies you know that might have been doing business with us, they might, you know, oh this is how we do it, but we're gonna have a lot more competition from other companies that aren't used to doing business with the outreach.

We had 11,000 with the other one, this one's 40,000.

Over 40,000.

Over 40.

So that in and of itself, I think is going to create more attraction, more competition, more bids, you know.

So there are, you know.

I think this is a um we're on the way to getting uh a much much better process here.

So thank you.

Thank you for that.

And then um also the you know, just the commission's discussion on that number of twenty thousand, what that looks like.

Commissioner Alper, do you have a second round question?

I do not.

Okay.

Um I did want to ask um if you have a sense between the 200,000 and the 500,000, what have we seen in terms of contracts or that we have gone out with?

Uh have we had a whole bunch that are below three hundred thousand and just a couple that are above it?

Is it been you know straight across the board?

Any sense of any trends?

Well, I looked at the report this morning, actually.

So out of the about 300 contracts, and this is I think just for the last year.

I can't remember um the date range, but again, between the two and the five was twenty-five.

Um I didn't count all the three hundreds, but I would guess when I if I'm remembering right, I would say from two to three hundred, there was about ten.

So and and again, that's not Renee's looking at the data, she can probably get you more specifics.

Um, because that was me just looking at it quick this morning when I was counting up the twenty-five.

Looks like she's looking right now.

Yeah, so uh so out of the twenty-five that fall between two hundred and five hundred, just in a bird's eye view, it looks like there was about six that um were over three hundred, a bit less than five hundred.

Okay.

So a a three hundred number or three hundred and fifty number would probably catch most of them.

Right?

Whoa.

No, the six of twenty six out of twenty-five.

Yeah, yeah.

So the nineteen were above three hundred.

Okay.

So anyway, that was that that was my trying to get a sense of what would work, but it didn't work.

Right.

I pressed the button.

Uh Albert.

Okay.

Um in your view, and in your um expertise.

Is the 500,000 number a better number in terms of more realistic based on um today's inflation?

Yes, absolutely.

I mean you've heard your staff did the research, but uh way back when I know Manatee County is bigger, but when I was in House of Mantee County, that's when it it went to a million dollars for that administrator.

The board still paid attention to where the money was going.

And and what your interim manager indicated, you know, is trusted management is is key.

And so that county administrator would go and brief uh his board and say, you know, I'm gonna enter this contract, I'm gonna enter that contract.

Um but but really you all budget the money during the budget cycle.

It is for management to administer that budget.

And so as your manager said, you have to have confidence in the manager.

But I I we talked about it, we had a lot of meetings, went back and forth, you know, staff and and myself as we went through iterations of this draft, and it wasn't always 500.

But I I think at the end of the day, you know, some people were advocating for more, some people were advocating for less, but but 500 is is a good number.

And frankly, around the state of Florida, many managers have right around 500.

And he couldn't approve anything that wasn't in the budget.

And was it something that we said that we it would be unlawful for him to attempt to enter a contract with budget and money, correct?

Okay.

And as far as the 20,000, um, does that seem reasonable to you?

Yes, to me it does, yeah.

The 20,000 is uh a little lower than I think some of my other clients.

But but given where it is now, we felt coming to you at the 1999 was a good step that you would be comfortable with.

Yeah.

I would I was just gonna ask you that about that it seems a little low to me, actually.

Again, considering so the members of the public, you know, will say, well, gee, so does this mean that you can go out and you could just buy something without competing it?

Yes, it does.

And so, you know, there is that element.

Now, what what your new manager still still new is also trying to drive towards it is a very good thing of having term agreements wherever she can, because there's a lot of governments that go out and just buy a hammer or buy a hammer or whatever, and it's always a constant or have these annually renewing things.

If you just have a three-year contract or a five-year contract with the supplier, that's it.

You've done your procurement and you've got that price list.

And it's good for three years or five years or whatever the term is, and staff just goes out and orders off of it.

And then you don't have to bother with procurement.

So there are ways to get it to be more efficient.

And if you're doing that, this 19 doesn't even matter anymore because you've already negotiated that contract with that list of pricing.

You know what your pricing is.

So this is only if you haven't done that, and I and you have to go buy something.

What do I get to buy without even getting quotes?

Thank you.

Uh Commissioner Batti.

Uh no, thank you, Mayor.

Um, more or less comment and and piggybacking off what it is you were just saying that you know essentially this comes down to trust.

You know, and put in trust in our managers, you know, to basically do what they've been hired to do, you know.

Um you're the you're the expert in in this regard.

Um for public consumption, you know, those numbers aren't arbitrary, you know, they're not conjecture that are just grabbed out of thin air and and come up with they've been flushed out.

Um and you know, Commissioner was trying to find the the nexus, you know, um to to to meet and and grab on to as to like where where these numbers come from and and and why uh or what have you, but I don't I don't have um an issue in in to your point, you know, the 20,000 is less than what you normally used to deal with with other clients.

Um listen, I don't want to be sitting here, you know, for a whole meeting talking about bathrooms and stuff like that, you know what I mean?

So uh I want to uh um defer you know defer to the bathroom experts and whatnot and let them take care of it, you know.

So um but thank you for your presentation and thank you for uh for this being so comprehensive and and and so on and flushed out.

Appreciate it.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you.

I don't see any more commissioner questions, so I'm gonna close the public hearing.

Uh thank you very much.

Really appreciated uh your input and your advice.

Um it seems to me that the things that we were going back and forth on might have been uh the amount for the city manager approval number and the uh point with which we go for the bid and also local preference, yes or no.

So I'd be happy to entertain a motion which may or may not include information on those.

I'll make a motion.

I move to approve ordinance number 26-5588 on first reading.

Okay is there a second.

Okay, move by Commissioner Alpert, seconded by Commissioner Batte to um approve ordinance uh 26-5588 on first reading.

Um Mayor, I move to amend that motion.

Um to approve the ordinance, but also add a change of the heading of section 2-370.

Include section 2-348 with IT exemptions, and remove the section on local preference.

Isn't that what they proposed?

No.

Okay.

Then I'm I'm okay with that.

Okay.

So second remains.

Okay, I'm I'm trying to understand what we have here.

So she's changing the title.

The title of one section.

Section.

You're removing local preference, correct?

And the other one.

Adding a section on IT exemptions and exempt exempting that.

Yes.

Okay.

I go along with that.

Okay.

So let's vote on the amendment.

Let's vote on the amendment.

Okay.

So which was motion by the mayor and second by Commissioner Bettee.

Right.

I was just wondering, we don't do any discussion on amendment proposals, right?

Well, we can discuss the amount of the question.

We have to discuss the amendment first.

Okay.

Because the amendment gets voted on first.

We have the opportunity to discuss the motion.

The amendment motion.

So Commissioner Vice Mayor, do you want to discuss the amendment issue just the change of title for section 2-370 on page 12 of the PowerPoint is changing it from administrative procedures to procurement procedures.

Okay.

The change in the addition of section 2-348 is the addition of exemptions for IT when necessary.

And that was fully explained at the table by our procurement and the whole team there.

And the third one was removal of the section on local preference.

As we discussed, it was easily added during the economic downturn and can easily be added back in if we need it again.

Okay.

Okay.

Roll call vote on the addition of the amendment.

Trice?

Yes.

Ahern Koch?

Yes.

Albert?

Yes.

Petit?

Yes.

Ulrich.

Yes.

Okay.

So we now have the initial motion as amended to approve the proposed ordinance with the amendments we just approved.

So is do you want to discuss?

I'll just make um a brief comment.

I think they very thoughtfully went through our procurement process to make it simpler.

And to me it makes a lot of sense because coming through the commission for everything does delay everything.

It adds to the cost.

It adds to the complexity.

And I think this makes it a little bit easier.

I am comfortable with the raised limits on the amount that can be approved because it does have to go through a process before it can get approved.

And truthfully, as they said, how many of those have we looked at and not just approved them anyway?

So if we ever find there is a problem with that, you know, it can be added, you know, we can change those limits just as easily as we could change and add back in the local preference.

So I think it makes sense to approve it as is with the amended.

Okay.

Um I'm trying to remember, did Commissioner Batti second it?

Uh yeah.

I mean, like I said, I think the Commissioner said that you know everything.

Um just in terms of this uh procurement and process and uh our contracts or whatever would uh I think it would behoove the this body to seriously consider and think about the uh the whole uh disparity study um for minority contracts.

You know, I think it's something that needs to be discussed further at this commission at some point.

Commissioner Ahern Codge?

Um yes.

So uh I agree that um that they analyze this very carefully.

I was very uncomfortable with the those limits being raised as high as they were, but after hearing the explanation and this opening a door to efficiencies, um in the end saves money.

If it's a problem, we can change it back.

And I'm sure the staff will let us know this is a problem.

We've opened a uh a barn gate and uh help quick change it.

So uh I'm very comfortable with the the motion and um to Commissioner Betty's point, um maybe the suggestion is to ask uh the city manager to put that on an agenda item with some information about what that entails, what it costs, and a timeline for it.

I would be happy to support you on that effort.

So thank you.

Thank you.

And Commissioner Vice Mayor.

Yes, thank you.

Um so we've issued thanks to the those who were at the table for their good and hard work.

We appreciate that.

I'd also like to thank the anonymous participant in this whole process, Mr.

Polzap.

I try to be as anonymous as possible.

So I guess it's time for a roll call vote.

Uh I don't need to repeat the uh approve on first reading.

We're good.

Okay.

Yes.

Albert.

Yes.

Petit.

Yes.

Uh all right.

Yes.

Yes.

Uh, motion passes unanimously.

Thank you all.

Yes.

Is this one short?

So, then with this knock that out and then we have new business, and we have comments.

So fifteen minutes.

Okay.

The February 2nd regular City of Sarasota Commission meeting is back in session.

And we are at the point of legislative public hearing agenda item number two, and I'm going to ask that we uh issue the um oath to anybody who is planning to is there anybody here who hasn't been sworn that plans to speak at a public hearing.

No.

I guess everybody's been sworn.

Okay.

We're in business.

Um so we're going to um next item is proposed ordinance twenty-six-five five nine one.

And I'm going to ask that uh the deputy city auditor and clerk read the title of the proposed ordinance.

Ordinance number twenty-six-five five nine one, an ordinance of the City of Sarasota, Florida.

Amending the code of the City of Sarasota, Chapter 33, traffic and motor vehicles to establish fees and maximum time limits for the use of the day docks at the Bay Park as more fully specified herein.

And to change the title of Article 4 of Chapter 33 and the title of Division II within set of said Article 4 as provided herein.

Repealing ordinances in conflict, providing for the sabability of the parts hereof, providing for reading by title only, and providing for an effective date.

Thank you.

I'm the general manager of parking for the city of Sarasota.

Today I'll be coming to you with a brief PowerPoint presentation to discuss the proposed ordinance to accept to establish the fees and the maximum time limits for the day docs.

Some are charged per foot and some are charged per hour, and again, the recommendation here is for to be charged per hour.

So what we had to do is actually make some amendments to the definitions and the definitions, two definitions were actually added, and they're underlined here, and that is to more MOOR, and more is to actually tile for vessel.

And also the definition of vessel as well, which is synonymous with a boat, and that is in regards to how it is stated in the Florida statutes of vessel safety, Section 327.

And again, it's any watercraft for boat or airboat other than a seaplane underwater that is used and capable of being used as a means of transportation on the water.

Another change to the ordinance is going to be the actual docking fees.

And here in Section 33-137, I'm sorry.

And again, the rates are going to be $2 an hour with a maximum of five hours with a $10 day daily max as well.

And also Section 33-138.

Penalties for violation, we actually had to add here as well that if you did not pay for docking your boat, or if you did go over your time restrictions, that you could be cited as well.

And that is all outlined here that it basically states just to summarize any vessel is moored or allowed to be more without a payment, maybe subject to a fine.

And this also goes into motor vehicle park without payment with the applicant fee, applicable fee as well, or maximum time limit is gone over as well.

And that is the end of my presentation, and I will open the floor for any questions or comments regarding the day docs.

Ms.

Ribbridge, do we have any um anybody signed up to speak?

No, ma'am.

Okay, thank you.

So Commissioner Ahern Koch is uh first one up with questions.

Thank you.

Thank you very much for this.

Um my first question has to do on page three, the definition of more.

Do you think that we need to have specifically day docs in that um tying up to specifically a day doc in there in that description or definition?

Piling dock, wharf, seawall, buoy, and uh.

So that was the at the recommendation of the city attorney's office?

Yes.

It says dock or other object or thing, I think it covers it.

Okay.

Um and then my qu other question had to do with the hours.

Uh 8 a.m.

to 8 p.m.

Um, what are your thoughts on that?

Uh you know, I know that very specifically this day dock is thought for the Bay Park.

The Bay Park is where we're gonna have potentially a performing arts center.

We currently have the Van Wezel.

Um there will be potentially dining there.

Um do we want to allow people to stay a little later than 8 p.m.?

Is there pushback from residents on that?

I mean, how how are we weighing all of that?

So those are our current hours of operation, our current enforcement hours right now.

So any lot, even if you park at um a parking lot in the city, the hours are actually either eight until eight p.m.

or maybe even further back from 10 a.m.

to eight p.m.

So those times could be adjusted as we move into um the day dock business.

Um as far now, until we're actually able to see what the needs and the wants are from the community, um, I would say that these are the best hours at that point at this point in time.

Keep it simple.

Correct.

Okay.

And so I did want to get clarity.

The other comparison cities that you had there, it was $2 an hour, $2 a foot an hour.

Those those were sums.

Well, yes, a lot of them were a lot of them are.

This is much uh more affordable than other places.

That is correct.

Okay.

And I wanted that on purpose to actually keep it at that lower end of the I just want to make sure I understood that correctly.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um, this is new to the city, right?

Charging for day docks.

Um other than at Marina Jacks, um, but for the city of Sarasota, us as a whole, correct, yes.

Okay.

And you did mention that there would be penalties for violators.

How will that be enforced?

So the same staff, my enforcement staff that actually goes and scans for license plates to see if there is an active session or if a person is overtime, they would actually make um trips to the enforcement hours to the day docs as well to actually see if there is actually active sessions and if there are not active sessions or you didn't start a session or your overtime, then we will either provide a warning or a citation.

Just depends on the situation.

Gotcha.

Thank you.

I wonder, will data be collected over time so you can determine if there's rationale to change the fees up or down or not?

Always.

Always.

We're always collecting data for any of our operations to, and we actually take looks at that annually to when we're doing budgets to see if we're actually within market rate, if we're below, above, and to make adjustments based on that as well.

Great.

Thank you.

Those are my questions, Mayor.

Commissioner Alpert.