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 - July 14, 2026

City Commission — Tuesday, July 14, 2026
BodySt Pete Beach, Florida
SessionCity Commission
DateTuesday, July 14, 2026
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 4:16:36

Original source
Transcript — VerbatimClick a timed line to jump · ⧉ to share it

Speaker numbers apply only to this recording.

Speaker 1

7:40

Thank you so much, Mandy.

7:42

Can everybody hear me and see the presentation?

7:51

Was that a yes?

7:52

I couldn't quite hear

Unassigned speaker

7:53

that.

Speaker 1

7:54

Okay, great.

7:55

Thank you so much.

7:56

Always want to check.

7:57

I know I've I heard you all have been having some technical difficulties.

8:00

So want to make sure you can hear me.

8:03

And if you have any issues hearing me, I I am more than happy to repeat.

8:07

So please, I can't I can't see.

8:13

So feel free to speak up and interrupt me at any time to ask any questions as I'm going through the presentation.

8:20

Especially if you can't hear

Unassigned speaker

8:22

me.

Unassigned speaker

9:53

At that time, was identified as a high priority fee to be evaluated along with community development fees.

Speaker 1

10:01

Obviously, we're not presenting on community development tonight.

10:05

Unfortunately, the Florida state legislator decided to throw sort of a wrench in our

Unassigned speaker

10:10

work

Speaker 1

10:13

about community development fees.

10:15

So that study is kind of ongoing.

10:17

So you'll hear from us on that study probably within the next couple months as we uh try to align those fees with the legislative updates that have happened.

10:26

Um and then the low priority fees that were identified were sort of what we call miscellaneous fees.

10:32

So that's a sort of whole other scope of fees within appendix A that are just miscellaneous fees and not necessarily associated with one department.

10:40

Um but obviously tonight.

10:44

Um so we evaluated all of those fees.

10:48

Um we identified places where we maybe could consolidate some of those fees and looked for places where we could maybe remove some fees and also new fee opportunities if needed.

11:01

We collected a whole lot of usage data, um, conducted interviews with Mandy and some of the finance staff.

11:08

Uh, one of the really important things we did was do the benchmarking that I've mentioned recommendations you are making against 10 identified peer Florida communities plus Sun Coast YMCA.

11:24

The YMCA was selected specifically as a summer camp fee comparison, um, but the remaining peer communities were chosen based on you know proximity to St.

11:36

Pete Beach, coastal communities similarly sized, and or places that have recently that was really important as well.

11:48

You know, we didn't want to compare against a community that really hadn't updated their operating fees in the last 20 years.

11:54

That's not going to give us any good data.

11:56

So we you know had a lot

Unassigned speaker

11:58

of

Speaker 1

11:59

things that went into our selection of benchmarking communities, and then the next stop was that cost recovery analysis.

12:05

So we needed to first determine current cost recovery, which I'm going to talk about in a minute by fee category, and then we used some industry standard percentages.

12:19

Um, and then we did we developed fee recommendations for each of those fees.

Unassigned speaker

12:26

So

Speaker 1

12:27

again, this is the communities plus the YMCA that were selected for benchmarking.

12:34

So this is an important part of this process in order to keep your fees competitive.

12:42

You know, we want people to say it's a great price, we're gonna go there instead of going to Treasure Island as an example, right?

12:53

So we wanted to make sure that the fees remained competitive within the market.

13:03

So currently parks and recreation fees are really split up into two types.

13:10

So there are a set of parks and recreation fees that are within appendix A, which is sort of your rating fees, and then there's another set of fees that are set by contractors.

13:26

Um, you know, you're talking about fitness classes, where there is, you know, a contractor that's leading the class, and then the fee is then split on like a 70-30 basis between the city and the contractor.

13:42

So those are outside of appendix A.

13:45

Um, and so that's important.

13:49

We can adjust the appendix A fees, but when the contractor is setting the fees, we can offer recommendations, but we can't necessarily um by resolution set those fees.

14:01

The fee structure right now does have a distinction, which is really important between residents and non-residents.

14:09

Um, and we really wanted to maintain that fee structure through this process.

14:15

Obviously, the residents of St.

14:17

Pete to the parks and recreation revenue.

14:23

And so we wanted to acknowledge that as we were setting these fees that they would receive the benefit of paying taxes here as opposed to non-residents who do

Unassigned speaker

14:32

not.

Speaker 1

14:33

Um additionally, in addition to prioritizing those benefits, we also wanted to apply inflationary increases.

14:43

So we were looking at a three-year forecast period for this study.

14:47

Um, and we so you'll see we period as well.

Unassigned speaker

14:52

And that's to you know, maintain cost recovery that we set for fiscal year 27 into the future as you know, staff salary increases and benefits increase over time.

Speaker 1

15:04

So you can maintain that cost recovery.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Procedural███████████████████████████27%
Engineering And Infrastructure█████████████████17%
Parks and Recreation████████████████16%
Transportation Safety██████████10%
Disaster Recovery Funding█████████9%
Fee Analysis█████5%
Public Safety████4%
Public Engagement███3%
Pending Litigation██2%
Summary of Proceedings

St. Pete Beach City Commission Meeting - July 14, 2026

The St. Pete Beach City Commission met on Tuesday, July 14, 2026, at 6:00 PM in the Commission Chambers. The meeting included a recreation fee study presentation, public comments, consent agenda approvals, discussion and action on a parking prohibition and a disaster procedures plan, first reading of an ordinance to change recreation fee adoption from ordinance to resolution, and a lengthy quasi-judicial hearing on conditional use permits for an off-premise parking lot. The meeting adjourned at 10:30 PM.

Presentations

  • Recreation Fee Study: A consultant presented the results of the recreation fee study, recommending a tiered cost recovery approach (0% for parks, 70% for mixed-benefit programs, 100% for individual-benefit services). The study proposed a 3.1% annual inflationary increase for resident rates and larger increases for non-resident rates to move toward full cost recovery. Current cost recovery was 29%; projected to reach 47% with increases. The study also suggested consolidating and removing certain fees. Commissioner questions focused on the use of YMCA as a benchmark and the feasibility of the timeline.

Public Comments & Testimony

  • John Kurzman (address not stated) expressed strong opposition to the recently passed sign ordinance, arguing it would lead to privatization of the beach, increase liability, and create enforcement issues. He referenced similar problems in Walton County and provided examples of current sign misuse.
  • Deborah Scheckner (Boca Sega Isle Drive) opposed the sign ordinance and criticized the recreation fee study for using YMCA as a benchmark, noting that YMCA requires expensive memberships. She also urged improvements to LEDO Park and creation of a resident review board for commercial construction.
  • Kathy Garchell (St. Pete Beach resident) urged postponing rate decisions to allow public comment, highlighted that the proposed wastewater and recreation increases translate to $22.42 per month total, and noted the city’s millage rate is half that of St. Petersburg. She emphasized the need to fund drainage and stormwater projects.
  • During the conditional use permit hearing, several residents testified against the expansion of parking on the Bayou residential lot, citing 15 years of broken promises, illegal beach parking, noise, light, and safety concerns. Speakers included Jack Martinell, Amanda Davis, Vicky Pullin, and Deborah Scheckner. They requested strict conditions: valet-only operation, no self-parking for special events, enforceable penalties, and mitigation of light and noise.

Consent Calendar

  • The consent agenda was approved with the exception of Items 4C and 4H, which were pulled for separate discussion.
    • Item 4C (Resolution 2026-21): Establishing a parking prohibition on 46th Avenue between Gulf Boulevard and Boca Ciega Drive. Assistant City Manager Poyer reported that a survey of residents showed 44% first-choice support for no parking at any time on both sides. The resolution was approved unanimously with a correction to change “Gulf Way” to “Gulf Boulevard.”
    • Item 4H (Substantial Damage Administrative Procedures Plan - SDAP): Building Official Luke Curtis presented the plan, updated per state law. Key changes include issuance of a demolition permit via placard after damage assessment, allowing immediate cleanup without waiting. Commissioner Robinson expressed concern that the wording implied residents must wait for the placard before beginning demo. The commission clarified that the intent is to allow immediate work and that wording would be revised. The plan was accepted with the clarifications stated on the record. Vote: unanimous.

Ordinances

  • First Reading Ordinance 2026-14: An ordinance to remove recreation fees from Appendix A of the City Code and allow fees to be set by resolution (rather than ordinance), providing flexibility. The ordinance passed unanimously on first reading. Second reading will be held concurrently with adoption of the new fees as a resolution.

Action Items

  • Item 6a (Approval of Settlement Agreement for Merry Pier): The city attorney presented a proposed settlement to terminate the existing lease and resolve unpaid rent. No public comments were received. However, the commission did not take a vote; the item was deferred or not acted upon as the discussion moved directly to the conditional use permit items.
  • Items 6b, 6c, 6d (Conditional Use Permit 26107 and related rescission resolutions): These three interrelated items involve an off-premise valet parking lot at 3815-3861 Gulf Boulevard (Bayou residential zoning). The applicant, Miramar Property Holdings LLC, sought authorization for up to 200 spaces (phase 1: 113, phase 2: 87) for a three-year term, replacing existing 2021 permits that were out of compliance. Staff presented 15 conditions, including valet-only operation, self-closing gates, landscaping, and seawall repair. The applicant requested 120 days to implement conditions and modifications to seawall timelines. After extensive public testimony and commission discussion, the commission expressed preference for valet-only operation (no special event self-parking) and stronger light mitigation. A motion was made to continue all three items to July 28, 2026, at 6:00 PM to allow staff to refine conditions. The motion carried unanimously.

Items for Discussion

  • Short-Term Rental Registration and Fees: Commissioner Causey suggested exploring a registration fee to offset code enforcement and administrative costs for short-term rentals, potentially generating revenue. City Attorney noted that any fee must be justified by a study to create a nexus to cost recovery. The commission agreed to continue this as a discussion item at a future meeting without committing to a study at this time.
  • City Commission Agenda Timelines: Vice Mayor Robinson proposed moving agenda distribution to Tuesdays instead of Thursdays to allow more review time. The city manager noted it would take about six cycles to change. No consensus was reached; the matter was deferred for further discussion.

Key Outcomes

  • Consent Agenda approved (except Items 4C and 4H).
  • Resolution 2026-21 (46th Avenue parking prohibition) approved unanimously.
  • SDAP Plan accepted with clarifications that immediate demolition may proceed without waiting for a placard; wording to be revised.
  • Ordinance 2026-14 approved on first reading.
  • Conditional use permit hearing (Items 6b, 6c, 6d) continued to July 28, 2026, at 6:00 PM.
  • Short-term rental fee discussion deferred; no action taken.
  • Agenda timeline discussion deferred; no decision.

Meeting Transcript

Thank you so much, Mandy. Can everybody hear me and see the presentation? Was that a yes? I couldn't quite hear that. Okay, great. Thank you so much. Always want to check. I know I've I heard you all have been having some technical difficulties. So want to make sure you can hear me. And if you have any issues hearing me, I I am more than happy to repeat. So please, I can't I can't see. So feel free to speak up and interrupt me at any time to ask any questions as I'm going through the presentation. Especially if you can't hear me. At that time, was identified as a high priority fee to be evaluated along with community development fees. Obviously, we're not presenting on community development tonight. Unfortunately, the Florida state legislator decided to throw sort of a wrench in our work about community development fees. So that study is kind of ongoing. So you'll hear from us on that study probably within the next couple months as we uh try to align those fees with the legislative updates that have happened. Um and then the low priority fees that were identified were sort of what we call miscellaneous fees. So that's a sort of whole other scope of fees within appendix A that are just miscellaneous fees and not necessarily associated with one department. Um but obviously tonight. Um so we evaluated all of those fees. Um we identified places where we maybe could consolidate some of those fees and looked for places where we could maybe remove some fees and also new fee opportunities if needed. We collected a whole lot of usage data, um, conducted interviews with Mandy and some of the finance staff. Uh, one of the really important things we did was do the benchmarking that I've mentioned recommendations you are making against 10 identified peer Florida communities plus Sun Coast YMCA. The YMCA was selected specifically as a summer camp fee comparison, um, but the remaining peer communities were chosen based on you know proximity to St. Pete Beach, coastal communities similarly sized, and or places that have recently that was really important as well. You know, we didn't want to compare against a community that really hadn't updated their operating fees in the last 20 years. That's not going to give us any good data. So we you know had a lot of things that went into our selection of benchmarking communities, and then the next stop was that cost recovery analysis. So we needed to first determine current cost recovery, which I'm going to talk about in a minute by fee category, and then we used some industry standard percentages. Um, and then we did we developed fee recommendations for each of those fees. So again, this is the communities plus the YMCA that were selected for benchmarking. So this is an important part of this process in order to keep your fees competitive. You know, we want people to say it's a great price, we're gonna go there instead of going to Treasure Island as an example, right? So we wanted to make sure that the fees remained competitive within the market. So currently parks and recreation fees are really split up into two types. So there are a set of parks and recreation fees that are within appendix A, which is sort of your rating fees, and then there's another set of fees that are set by contractors. Um, you know, you're talking about fitness classes, where there is, you know, a contractor that's leading the class, and then the fee is then split on like a 70-30 basis between the city and the contractor. So those are outside of appendix A. Um, and so that's important. We can adjust the appendix A fees, but when the contractor is setting the fees, we can offer recommendations, but we can't necessarily um by resolution set those fees. The fee structure right now does have a distinction, which is really important between residents and non-residents.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com