OpenPublica

Accountability starts with access.

© 2026 · Filed for the public record

Use casesAboutAPIPrivacyTermsLinkedIn
Home/St Pete Beach, Florida/City Commission
OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

St. Pete Beach City Commission Meeting Summary - February 10, 2026

City Commission — Tuesday, February 10, 2026
BodySt Pete Beach, Florida
SessionCity Commission
DateTuesday, February 10, 2026
StatusFILED
Video Record
Meeting Thumbnail
⇩ GET FROM SOURCE

STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE

Original source
Transcript — Verbatim

Speaker numbers apply only to this recording.

Speaker 1

0:00

The city commission meeting of the city of St.

0:02

Pete Beach.

0:03

Today is Tuesday, February 10th, 2026.

0:07

It is 6 p.m.

Unassigned speaker

0:09

And

Speaker 1

0:09

let's stand for the Pledge of Allegiance, please.

Speaker 2

0:13

Pledge allegiance

Speaker 1

0:15

to the flag of the United States of America.

0:18

And to the Republic for which it stands one nation undergone individual liberty

Speaker 3

0:25

and justice

Speaker 1

0:26

for all.

Unassigned speaker

0:30

So

Speaker 1

0:30

the clerk, if you can please call roll.

Speaker 4

0:32

Vice Mayor Marriott.

0:34

Here.

0:34

Commissioner Robinson.

0:35

Here.

0:36

Commissioner Rasniky.

0:37

Here.

0:37

Commissioner Maldonado.

Speaker 1

0:39

Here.

Unassigned speaker

0:39

And

Speaker 4

0:39

Mayor Pachula.

Speaker 1

0:40

Here.

Speaker 4

0:41

We have a quorum.

Speaker 1

0:42

Thank

Unassigned speaker

0:42

you.

Speaker 1

0:43

The first item is the approval of the agenda.

0:46

Are there any amendments to the agenda as proposed?

Speaker 5

0:50

I have some discussion items.

Speaker 1

0:52

Okay.

Speaker 5

0:54

Um first one would be I'd like to discuss the uh three times permit fee on after the fact permits.

1:04

Number two, an update on Mike Twitty coming for presentation.

1:10

And three historic designation.

Speaker 1

1:18

Okay.

1:21

Are there any other amendments?

Speaker 3

1:26

Oh we had umrdinance.

1:32

The second final reading of 2025-24, the revisions to the code of ordinances chapter 131 and 132 pertaining to communication and small wireless facilities.

1:56

Yesterday on Monday, they haven't been distributed.

2:00

Um so we'd ask for time to review those and put those in the packet.

2:05

I think it's important that the public see what's proposed as well as give you time to read uh the proposed changes, the expert report, and uh understand what you're voting on before we vote on it.

2:16

So we'd ask that item be continued.

2:20

Continue that we're looking at date certainly is March 13th.

Speaker 6

2:26

March 24th.

Speaker 3

2:27

March 24th.

Speaker 6

2:29

We wouldn't have time for February.

2:34

Don't we have another commission meeting by

Speaker 7

2:35

February?

Speaker 5

2:36

Or even the earlier March

Unassigned speaker

2:38

one.

Speaker 7

2:40

We definitely do not have time to turn it around for the second meeting in March because of the timelines, and we keep running up against these timelines, and then we don't have the packets prepared um for but the first meeting in March could work.

2:56

Okay, it just gives us less time to make sure we bring you a complete ordinance since we are working between two different stakeholder teams and trying to get you a very clear presentation of what the ordinances that you're gonna be considering and what are the alternatives based on the two different stakeholder teams that they're presenting as options or considerations for the commission.

Speaker 5

3:27

I think the sooner the better on this.

3:29

It's been out there for a while.

3:30

So yeah,

Speaker 1

3:31

we've been working on this for six months now.

Speaker 5

3:34

So the sooner for the soonest is the first one in March, then I you know would say

Speaker 3

3:39

you will have some choices to make then at that meeting.

3:42

Yeah.

3:42

Okay.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Technology and Innovation██████████████████████████26%
Community Redevelopment Agency██████████████14%
Public Engagement█████████9%
Public Safety████████8%
Procedural██████6%
Sign Ordinance██████6%
Community Engagement█████5%
Fee Analysis█████5%
Ethics And Conduct████4%
Summary of Proceedings

St. Pete Beach City Commission Meeting Summary - February 10, 2026

The St. Pete Beach City Commission convened on Tuesday, February 10, 2026, at 6:00 PM. The meeting featured a presentation on a new density bonus valuation calculator, a continued second reading of the small wireless facilities ordinance, adoption of a resolution establishing a Community Redevelopment Area (CRA), and approval of an easement vacation. Public comment periods touched on the mayoral race, a planned beach concert, and health and safety concerns regarding 5G tower placement.

Consent Calendar

  • Approved the February 10, 2026, agenda, as amended to move the small wireless facilities ordinance from a final reading to a discussion item and to add future discussion topics.
  • Approved the consent agenda, which included approval of the January 27, 2026, meeting minutes and an engagement letter for municipal finance support services.

Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council (TBRPC) Presentation

  • Sarah Vitale (TBRPC Director of Civic Technology) presented a decision-support spreadsheet tool developed for St. Pete Beach to assess requests for bonus density units.
  • The tool calculates the “unearned increment” — the market value generated solely by the city commission’s vote to allow units beyond existing zoning rights — and compares it to a developer’s offered public benefits package (e.g., resilience, infrastructure, public access).
  • It uses a “capture rate” framework to establish a “Zone of Possible Agreement” (ZOPA). The default capture rate was set at 77% to reflect the scarcity of the city’s finite density pool, placing the city in a “public-first” negotiation tier.
  • Commissioners discussed the tool’s utility for conditional-use density requests beyond the density pool. Mayor Petrella suggested, and staff agreed, the framework could be expanded to conditional use approvals requiring a commission vote.
  • Laura Canary (Community Development Director) emphasized the tool is a fluid staff resource, not a replacement for commission discretion, and requires regular data updates to remain accurate.

Public Comments & Testimony

  • Russell Boring (215 43rd Avenue) criticized Mayor Petrella’s conduct at a League of Women Voters forum, alleging personal attacks. He claimed the mayor has a foreclosure, an American Express judgment of over $24,000, and an IRS tax lien of $105,932 against him, and questioned the mayor’s access to his home for repairs the day after Hurricane Helene.
  • Todd Webb (4300 Bell Vista Drive) expressed concern over the tone of the mayoral race, supporting Scott Tate for his post-storm volunteer work and helping him with recovery decisions after his mother’s death during the storms. He criticized the mayor’s “name calling.”
  • Tracy McGackie (255 South Tessier Drive) stated she was disappointed by “personal attacks instead of solutions” at the forum, describing Scott Tate as composed and professional. She noted storm drains remain blocked with muck, leading to street flooding before the water even crested the seawall.
  • Deborah Scheckner (Boca Sega Isle Drive) requested increased sheriff presence, code enforcement, and lighting controls for the planned Thunder concert to protect skimmers, sea turtles, and shorebirds. She called the concert a “wake-up call” for the beach and urged the city to adopt rules preventing future large beach events from threatening wildlife.
  • Small Wireless Facilities Ordinance Comments:
    • Lauren Mones expressed frustration the ordinance was pulled again, arguing residents are the true stakeholders, not telecom companies. She stated the only new language involves a 30-foot minimum setback from residential property lines and noted she had given “six months of her life” to the effort.
    • Ron Vignot (Best Aguets Way) argued the health risks of 5G emiters are a “life-threatening” issue, displaying an RF meter and criticizing studies paid for by telecom companies.
    • Kelly Lee McFrederick (3612 East Maritana Drive) explained the 30-foot setback proposal originated from a tower placed 24 feet from her house. She advocated for a variance process and stated the city has 35 wireless infrastructures, compared to Treasure Island’s 11.
    • Jack Rice (3612 East Maritana Drive) warned that homeowners’ insurance rates will increase if towers are too close, similar to how fire hydrant proximity and flood risk affect premiums.
    • Claudine Reese (3120 East Venodelmore) expressed support for the residents fighting the unchecked telecom placement.
    • Matt Muci (AT&T representative) stated he was surprised the item was pulled, believing an agreement had been reached with the city attorney. He emphasized AT&T’s guide is compliance with state law and expressed a continued willingness to work with the city.

Small Wireless Facilities Ordinance Discussion

  • Item 5 (Ordinance 2025-24, final reading) was pulled from the action agenda after proposed language arrived the previous day. The commission converted it to a discussion item.
  • City Attorney Ralph explained the legal difficulty of drafting setbacks (30 feet) and separation distances (500 feet) without violating Florida Statute 337.401, which prohibits cities from “limit[ing] the placement by minimum separation distances” of small wireless facilities. He stated the current draft attempts to “thread the needle” by citing room for variances, though state preemption limits public hearings on such variances.
  • Commissioner Maldonado noted St. Pete Beach has 35 wireless infrastructures versus Treasure Island’s 11, arguing the over-placement must be curbed.
  • Commissioner Resniky expressed frustration with state preemptions and the slow pace of action, having taken citizens’ concerns to Tallahassee without legislative traction.
  • Commissioner Robinson stated she does not trust telecom-funded studies, noting 5G interferes with C band satellite signals used in her industry. She supported a legally defensible ordinance to avoid losing the 88 pages of already-agreed protections in a lawsuit.
  • Outcome: The commission agreed to split the ordinance. The main body (88 pages) will proceed to a second reading on February 24, 2026. A separate new ordinance covering the contested 30-foot setback and 500-foot separation will have its first reading on February 24, with a second reading scheduled for March 10, 2026. The motion to continue the original item passed 5-0.

Action Items

Resolution 2026-04: Community Redevelopment Area (CRA) Finding of Necessity

  • Laura Canary and Matt Lewis (Stantec) presented the Finding of Necessity (slum and blight) study for a proposed CRA covering the downtown Corey Avenue corridor and the main hotel district.
  • The study identified statutory blight conditions, including vulnerability to storm surge (entire island is Evacuation Zone A), 42% of residents aged 65 or older, 547 infrastructure damage points (65% utility-related), a 6.4% vacancy rate (higher than the county average of 4.9%), a 27% increase in code violations post-storms, and a 50% drop in half-cent sales tax revenue following the 2024 hurricanes.
  • The CRA is proposed to be unique in the state by being primarily centered on infrastructure and resiliency, using Tax Increment Financing (TIFF) to fund recovery.
  • Commissioners praised the effort. Commissioner Marriott noted past CRA attempts failed but the post-storm environment and new county criteria have improved the timing.
  • Commissioner Resniky emphasized leveraging the city’s status as the second-largest contributor to Pinellas County’s tourist development tax revenues in county negotiations.
  • Public Comment: Gregory Primer supported the CRA but warned that “blight” and “slum” terminology sunk the effort 12 years ago. Deborah Scheckner expressed opposition to hotels receiving funds, urging safeguards for residential infrastructure and against VRBO conversions.
  • Outcome: The commission voted unanimously (5-0) to adopt Resolution 2026-04, accepting the Finding of Necessity report and beginning the process toward creating the CRA.

Resolution 2026-01: Easement Vacation (103 24th Avenue)

  • Staff reported a building permit for relocating the sewer line had been obtained, protecting the city’s interests.
  • The property owner, Michael Peza, updated the commission that he plans to donate the existing house for relocation to Corey Avenue and build a new single-story home. The $8,000 cost of moving the sewer line will be borne by the property owner.
  • Outcome: Resolution 2026-01, vacating the three-foot platted easement at Lots 5 and 6 of Block C of Sunset Park Replat, was approved unanimously.

Commission Discussion Items

  • After-the-Fact Permit Fees: Commissioner Robinson raised concerns about the three-times permit fee penalty for unpermitted hurricane-related work scheduled to take effect February 16, stating notification to residents was inadequate. The commission reached consensus to establish an amnesty period for unpermitted hurricane repairs, waiving the triple-fee penalty through June 30, 2026, matching neighboring Pinellas County cities. Regular permit fees will still apply. Commissioners agreed to help contact 250 non-responsive homeowners in their districts to offer direct assistance and education.
  • Mike Twitty Update: Commissioner Robinson announced that Mike Twitty (Pinellas County Property Appraiser) is scheduled to present at the February 24 meeting regarding condition status letters, FEMA mitigation, and the 110% rebuild rule. A related educational session will be held February 12 at the South County Building.
  • Historic Designation: Commissioner Robinson encouraged promoting historic designation for homes 50 years or older, highlighting its value for property owners, especially those who choose not to elevate their homes.

Key Outcomes

  • Density Bonus Valuation Tool: Informational presentation received; tool to be refined by staff with local cost data.
  • Ordinance 2025-24 (Small Wireless Facilities): Second reading continued to February 24, 2026. A new ordinance for setbacks/separation distances to be introduced for first reading on February 24. (Motion to continue carried 5-0).
  • Resolution 2026-04 (CRA): Adopted unanimously (5-0). Staff directed to begin stakeholder engagement and plan development.
  • Resolution 2026-01 (Easement Vacation): Adopted unanimously (5-0).
  • After-the-Fact Permits: Commission consensus for an amnesty period through June 30, 2026, waiving the triple-fee penalty for unpermitted hurricane repairs. Commissioners will assist in contacting non-responsive residents.

Meeting Transcript

The city commission meeting of the city of St. Pete Beach. Today is Tuesday, February 10th, 2026. It is 6 p.m. And let's stand for the Pledge of Allegiance, please. Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. And to the Republic for which it stands one nation undergone individual liberty and justice for all. So the clerk, if you can please call roll. Vice Mayor Marriott. Here. Commissioner Robinson. Here. Commissioner Rasniky. Here. Commissioner Maldonado. Here. And Mayor Pachula. Here. We have a quorum. Thank you. The first item is the approval of the agenda. Are there any amendments to the agenda as proposed? I have some discussion items. Okay. Um first one would be I'd like to discuss the uh three times permit fee on after the fact permits. Number two, an update on Mike Twitty coming for presentation. And three historic designation. Okay. Are there any other amendments? Oh we had umrdinance. The second final reading of 2025-24, the revisions to the code of ordinances chapter 131 and 132 pertaining to communication and small wireless facilities. Yesterday on Monday, they haven't been distributed. Um so we'd ask for time to review those and put those in the packet. I think it's important that the public see what's proposed as well as give you time to read uh the proposed changes, the expert report, and uh understand what you're voting on before we vote on it. So we'd ask that item be continued. Continue that we're looking at date certainly is March 13th. March 24th. March 24th. We wouldn't have time for February. Don't we have another commission meeting by February? Or even the earlier March one.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com