[5:30] Good afternoon. This is a work session for the City of Largo.

[5:33] Today is Tuesday, August 11th, 2026.

[5:35] I'd like to call this meeting to order and ask that if you have a cell phone,

[5:39] please turn it to silent or off so that we don't have any interruptions.

[5:43] We have 2 items on the agenda.

[5:45] The first is fiscal year 2027 annual budget direction.

[5:47] Good afternoon, Mayor and City Commission.

[5:51] I am Jared Campbell, Performance and Budget Manager for the City of Largo,

[5:56] and it is my pleasure to bring to you today the Finance Advisory Board's fiscal

[6:03] today the Finance Advisory Board's fiscal year

[6:03] 2027 annual budget recommendations.

[6:06] Today we will be covering FAB recommendations from their July 27th

[6:11] recommendations from their July 27th meeting,

[6:11] presenting alternative millage rates per commission direction—

[6:16] directive at the July 17th work session,

[6:19] providing additional context on budget development surrounding estimated

[6:25] development surrounding estimated unexpended

[6:26] calculations, and finally requesting City Commission's direction on changes to the

[6:32] tentative budget prior to first hearing.

[6:35] All right, joining me today is the Finance Advisory Board Chair Bill McIntosh to

[6:42] present and provide context from the board's discussions.

[6:46] On July 27th, the board made a total of 7 recommendation, recommendation motions,

[6:52] 5 of which were carried.

[6:54] First being a recommendation to approve The reduction of city-paid entertainment

[7:01] The reduction of city-paid entertainment to

[7:01] Saturday, but staff should look into replacing entertainment with local free

[7:07] replacing entertainment with local free options

[7:07] for the eliminated days, carried 6 to 0.

[7:10] For context, the referenced reduction would limit paid entertainment to Saturday

[7:17] would limit paid entertainment to Saturday as

[7:17] opposed to Thursday through Sunday during the month of December.

[7:22] Paid entertainment for 4 evenings Began in calendar year 2024,

[7:27] and this year would mark the 3rd year.

[7:30] A recommendation was also made to approve the reduction of the senior trip program,

[7:36] carried 5 to 1. The program services 5 citizens on a monthly basis.

[7:41] City staff presented alternatives for the,

[7:45] for the program to include shifting to a quarterly basis and chartering bus

[7:50] services.

[7:51] Thank you.

[7:52] Each of the alternatives were found to be either a large increase in the cost—

[7:59] in cost to the city,

[8:00] or would necessitate unsustainable rate increases for the program.

[8:06] In terms of rates and fees,

[8:08] the board approved recommendation of the proposed 5.5200 millage rate for the

[8:14] proposed 5.5200 millage rate for the fiscal

[8:14] year 2027 budget, carried 6 to 0.

[8:17] Adoption of the Recreation, Parks, and Arts proposed fee schedule carried 5 to 1,

[8:24] and recommended a 15% stormwater rate increase carried 5 to 1.

[8:29] I now pass things over to Chairman McIntosh to provide additional context and

[8:35] feedback.

[8:36] Good afternoon, Mr. Mayor, City Commission.

[8:39] Jared gave the overview there for the Holiday Lights.

[8:43] The FAB discussed the various options of free entertainment versus continuing the

[8:49] paid entertainment. It was our feeling that if we can find some local acts,

[8:54] high school bands or whatever,

[8:56] to carry on entertainment during days other than Saturday,

[9:01] that would help reduce the cost while still providing for paid entertainment for

[9:06] still providing for paid entertainment for the

[9:07] largest attended day of the Holiday Lights.

[9:10] entertainment there, and we did pass that motion 6 to 0.

[9:14] Regarding the senior trips, um,

[9:16] Jarrod said there's only a very few individuals who take advantage of that.

[9:22] Um, considering, you know, renting a bus would dramatically increase the cost,

[9:27] and there wouldn't probably be that many more individuals that would take advantage

[9:34] of that.

[9:34] Okay.

[9:35] Um, so it was the board's recommendation to reduce the senior, uh,

[9:39] the senior trip program, and that motion did pass 5 5 to 1,

[9:43] because there are other private— it was brought up during the meeting—

[9:47] there are other private, uh, um, community facilities that offer similar trips, uh,

[9:52] to seniors in the area.

[9:54] As for the millage rate,

[9:55] we do recommend the continuing at the 5.52 millage rate and not reducing or

[10:00] increasing that, just considering the,

[10:03] the city budget obligations for the coming fiscal year.

[10:07] Thank you.

[10:08] For the recreation parks and arts fee increases, current fees—

[10:12] staff said current fees are expected to increase by about $5 per item per person.

[10:17] Several members of the FAB expressed interest in investigating whether it would

[10:23] interest in investigating whether it would be

[10:23] possible to make at least some of these programs revenue neutral by increasing the

[10:28] fees on these, and staff said that was a consideration for future years.

[10:33] We did move to adopt the RPA proposed fee schedule, and that passed 5 to 0.

[10:38] So the stormwater rate increase, we do recommend,

[10:42] and we had previously recommended the 15% increase just based on city staff

[10:47] recommendations that if we were to go to, for example,

[10:51] 7.5 this year and 7.5 next year, there would be a budget shortfall in future

[10:56] would be a budget shortfall in future years.

[10:56] Although staff did also say there probably would be fee increases in future years

[11:02] even with the 15%, but that would help offset the rate of those fee increases

[11:07] offset the rate of those fee increases better

[11:07] than the 75/75 split. So we did pass that 5 to 1.

[11:11] And then we talked about the budget documentation—

[11:14] budget document as a communication tool.

[11:17] It's extremely thorough,

[11:18] and we appreciate the city staff's time and effort and energy that they put into

[11:24] that. Some felt that perhaps it was—

[11:26] would be a little overwhelming for some residents because it is so extremely

[11:31] detailed. And we thought it would be helpful to highlight more of the positive

[11:37] accomplishments and good developments occurring throughout the year, not just—

[11:42] not just only in the budget document there.

[11:45] So does the City Commission have any questions that I might be able to help

[11:50] questions that I might be able to help answer?

[11:51] Thank you.

[11:53] Any questions? Commissioner Holmes.

[11:56] Hi, Bill. Got a question for you.

[11:58] The first one, you said the city-paid entertainment on

[12:02] Saturdays. What actually is that?

[12:05] So that would be the 4 days during Christmas in the park,

[12:10] Largo Central Park, where there is paid entertainment for the market

[12:16] there that occurs.

[12:18] Okay, so that's only 4 days per year.

[12:21] No, it would be 4 days per week,

[12:24] and it would be moving to 4 days per year, essentially,

[12:28] during the holiday festivities in the park.

[12:32] How much is it costing us?

[12:33] I will have to look up the total cost. The net cost on this one was brought up in—

[12:41] It was minimal.

[12:43] It was like $6,000.

[12:46] How much?

[12:47] I mean, you get a couple of minimals here and a minimal there,

[12:51] all of a sudden you're talking about some And if I may clarify,

[12:54] I think we've been doing 4 days of live entertainment.

[12:58] We've been playing, you know,

[13:00] we play Christmas or holiday music throughout the entire time the lights are

[13:04] throughout the entire time the lights are on.

[13:05] For the last probably, I think, 3 years,

[13:07] we've been providing up to 4 nights of paid live entertainment.

[13:11] If we go to 1 night per week, we'd still be—

[13:14] there would still be music and festive music that would be Played.

[13:18] We just wouldn't be paying someone to perform on the stage.

[13:21] We continue to offer various school groups and things, nights to play, you know,

[13:26] have the band come play or the choirs come sing. Those activities would continue.

[13:31] That's a good idea. That was no problem.

[13:35] That was— well, we're going to talk about the millage rate later on.

[13:43] I guess for right now— oh, the 15% increase on the stormwater,

[13:49] is that based upon strictly salaries, or is that— I don't think we have—

[13:57] we don't treat stormwater, do we? I don't think we do.

[14:02] Not actively.

[14:04] No, we don't treat it.

[14:06] So the 15%— what is it actually costing us to get rid of stormwater outside of

[14:11] maintaining the pipes And, and maintenance, stuff like that?

[14:14] Pure cost, I would have to get back to you.

[14:18] Outside of maintenance,

[14:20] the 15% was a multi-year rate increase to get us back to the maintenance standard

[14:26] that was provided in a previous study to commission.

[14:30] Okay, because I couldn't quite— yeah, I'm very curious about that.

[14:33] Not going to beat up anybody, I just want to know. Okay, thank you.

[14:38] I would maybe add that the bulk of the stormwater fee is spent both on streets

[14:44] stormwater fee is spent both on streets and

[14:44] stormwater folks that work in stormwater world,

[14:48] but largely projects with a list of 8 or 9 projects, some, some of which are funded,

[14:54] some of which are unfunded,

[14:56] but largely regular maintenance and projects is the bulk of that money.

[15:01] So stormwater is actually integrated with streets then?

[15:05] Uh, for maintenance.

[15:05] Yeah, okay.

[15:07] Jerry, right? Jerry knows all that stuff. Thank you.

[15:11] Sure.

[15:12] Commissioner, Commissioner DeBreezy.

[15:14] Thank you. Um, first of all, that was— I,

[15:16] I had to fill in for Commissioner Lowser at that FAB meeting, and—

[15:20] Sorry.

[15:21] That was fine. Having, having never been to one before, I was,

[15:24] I was really impressed at how thorough you guys are,

[15:27] so I just wanted to pass that compliment along,

[15:30] but I was one of the ones at the meeting who brought up the last—

[15:33] our meeting about the holiday entertainment and the Christmas

[15:37] entertainment and the Christmas entertainment there.

[15:38] I mean, it's minimal, but, you know, it is the most attended event of the year.

[15:42] I'm okay with if there is, you know, some entertainment, if it's free or not,

[15:47] the 4 nights a week, but I think we need to stick to the 4 nights a week.

[15:51] And if we got to pay for it, I, you know, that's something I'd like to leave,

[15:55] you know, in the in their recommendations. So that's it.

[15:58] Yeah, kind of along those lines, I, um, and without the actual number for,

[16:03] for all of the nights that we've had, um, I,

[16:07] I think it might make sense to set a budget for the entire span of when the

[16:12] budget for the entire span of when the lights

[16:13] are out there and, and for the entire calendar.

[16:16] And, and, and if we're able to have more than just Saturdays within that budget,

[16:22] great. Uh, you know, I know that the, um, the Clearwater Jazz Foundation does their,

[16:28] uh, Give Them a Stage program where they pay for people to play jazz on a stage

[16:34] somewhere. Maybe we could partner with them for a couple of the nights and, and,

[16:40] you know, other school groups or whatever that either zero or very little cost to

[16:46] the city. Um, but I, I would rather than just strictly limit it to Saturday nights,

[16:53] we'll have paid-for entertainment, um, have a budget that,

[16:57] that is maybe less than we've spent for 4 nights of live entertainment every week.

[17:03] Um, but, uh, but give the Parks and Rec folks a little bit of, uh, leeway to,

[17:09] to schedule it, um, whatever, however they can.

[17:14] Mayor, if I can, the budget for the holiday lights for the season is $4,500.

[17:18] What is— I think it's important,

[17:20] the kind of the direction we gave RPA was to try to find reductions that would

[17:25] minimize the service impacts to the residents.

[17:28] And so that's why you're seeing, I think, the small dollar amounts come forward,

[17:33] because we were trying to avoid eliminating hours at rec centers or you

[17:38] eliminating hours at rec centers or you know,

[17:38] camps or camp programs and things like that.

[17:41] So that's why this budget, I think especially these recommendations,

[17:45] are nibbling at the edges a bit.

[17:47] Yeah, so, so, um, that $4,500, is that, uh,

[17:50] last year's budget or is that the proposed budget?

[17:53] I, um, Director Pinson, I think,

[17:55] will come and answer the questions more knowledgeably than I can.

[17:59] Yeah, sure.

[18:00] $4,500. You know what this used to cost?

[18:03] We used to spend $75,000 That's just the

[18:06] entertainment. Oh, just—

[18:08] That is just the entertainment for the bands that we bring out,

[18:11] and the $4,500 would be the savings of reducing, um, Thursday, Friday, and

[18:15] reducing, um, Thursday, Friday, and Sunday,

[18:16] um, but we would— of just the music,

[18:18] but we would still have the markets and the food vendors out there on those other

[18:22] evenings and then try and subsidize and fill in with school groups.

[18:26] Can you legally get sponsors for this?

[18:31] Well, we do have sponsors.

[18:32] And so that's something I mentioned to the FAB as well,

[18:35] is that we do have a reliable group of sponsors that we go to on a regular basis.

[18:39] So it's not just simply— it's not easy just to go add people.

[18:43] We already do actively pursue sponsors for all of our events.

[18:46] So we're just burdening the same people more.

[18:48] Buy more.

[18:49] The commercial says buy more and save.

[18:56] $100 is, you said, the savings?

[18:58] Correct.

[18:59] By reducing it. And so do you know what about we will spend that we expect to

[19:06] about we will spend that we expect to spend

[19:06] on—

[19:06] I'd have to look up that number to see what Kara currently has in the budget for

[19:11] just those Saturday evenings.

[19:12] All right.

[19:13] Saturday is the biggest evening,

[19:15] and that's usually when we partner with the Clearwater Jazz and some of those

[19:18] the Clearwater Jazz and some of those other

[19:18] activities.

[19:18] Okay, and so some of that is, you know, it's partly sponsored and some of it's,

[19:22] it's partly sponsored and some of it's, um,

[19:22] Probably I would expect maybe 1 or 2 of those nights cost a little bit more than

[19:26] those nights cost a little bit more than any

[19:26] of the others or whatever, right? Okay.

[19:28] Yeah, if it's linear, $4,500 savings,

[19:31] that would mean that last year the overall cost $6,000.

[19:35] So because you're doing 3/4, or you're reducing it 3/4,

[19:39] so $1,500 would be the current budget for this year for 4 weekends.

[19:44] If it was linear. I don't think it is.

[19:48] I think Saturday is our bigger night that we do

[19:52] some of the bigger activities. Anything else?

[19:57] All right, I personally think it would make sense to, um,

[20:01] let's say that the budget was $6,000, say, you know,

[20:05] let's spend no more than whatever the budget is now with this $4,500 reduction.

[20:10] You know, I don't want to somebody to go out there and say, hey,

[20:15] how come there's live music on Friday night?

[20:18] And, uh, let's— why is the city putting live entertainment?

[20:22] They just passed that it was only going to be on Saturday nights.

[20:26] And now we have to explain that, well, this one's sponsored or whatever.

[20:31] So just give a budget and, and do what we can, and,

[20:35] and with the expectation that we'll have live music on Saturdays and maybe other

[20:40] days, right? Thank you.

[20:43] like mix it up a little,

[20:44] like have some of the sponsored music and paid music on the same night.

[20:49] Yeah, whatever.

[20:50] Yeah, I mean, they do a great job.

[20:51] And I know that even on Saturday nights when it's the bigger event, some—

[20:55] sometimes those people are not getting paid to play music.

[20:58] And sometimes we have a band that costs a couple hundred bucks or whatever.

[21:02] I don't know how much it costs to have a band. I've never been in a band.

[21:06] And to understand what you're saying,

[21:08] you were Were you saying make a budget based on what we're thinking now?

[21:11] That would be the linear $1,500 that Commissioner Louser was saying,

[21:14] which is the cut. Do we want them to be more than what they were, or just—

[21:17] I, I don't— we don't— the $1,500 was a guess.

[21:20] I know, just using it as an example.

[21:22] So, but a number around there, maybe a round number like $2,000 if it's whatever,

[21:28] and say that's your budget, and, and, uh,

[21:30] that will provide music on Saturday nights And then any other nights within that

[21:36] budget.

[21:36] I would agree with that.

[21:38] I mean, it gives the staff more, more latitude to, to, you know, stretch,

[21:42] stretch what, what money they do have and, and provide more service,

[21:45] as much service as they can.

[21:47] Yeah, and, and with understanding that, um, because we're,

[21:50] we're reducing how much money we're spending on the entertainment during the

[21:54] spending on the entertainment during the Holiday

[21:55] Lights, um, there may be less entertainment,

[21:57] but we got a great staff out there and maybe they'll be about the same if we can

[22:02] maybe they'll be about the same if we can If

[22:02] we can get folks to sponsor or different groups to play for free or whatever.

[22:06] Maybe you can recruit church choirs.

[22:09] That's possible.

[22:10] You got enough churches around, see if they want to come out and sing a song.

[22:13] You just advertised it so they could contact Parks and Recreation.

[22:18] Mr. Mayor, I'd like to— you know,

[22:20] I can pledge that I think we can find help from the chamber members to cover this

[22:25] shortfall, and I think you know, we ought to plan on doing it.

[22:29] And I pledge to find enough to cover that amount because I do appreciate the fact

[22:34] that we're cutting these things.

[22:36] I know it's like everyone's trying to squeeze their budget to hit our numbers.

[22:40] I don't want to like devalue their efforts,

[22:43] but I just want to say that I think we can find—

[22:46] I'm sure we can find some new sponsors that would help, um, cover that.

[22:50] Yeah, and chamber members and others.

[22:53] So, right.

[22:53] And to that end, I think that if we just Say this is your budget from city money

[22:58] that's going to pay for that, right? And, and, uh, then we'll figure out the rest.

[23:02] And if there's money or, or talent or whatever that comes to fill in the gaps,

[23:07] great. But at least we'll have the money to have live entertainment on Saturday

[23:12] night absent any sponsors.

[23:13] Yeah, so our direction is to—

[23:16] well, that's what we already have, right?

[23:18] That's what's in the budget is to have it on Saturday night, correct?

[23:21] So, so what I'm saying is, yeah, we're approving that.

[23:24] fund that number and not limit it to Saturday nights.

[23:28] We want to see more nights, whatever resources they can come up with to do

[23:31] resources they can come up with to do that.

[23:31] Sure.

[23:31] Just modify the language.

[23:33] And we don't present the budget based on the night of the week.

[23:36] So we will take the lump sum amount and apply it.

[23:39] Just the premise of the proposed cut,

[23:42] proposed cut is just in spending.

[23:44] It's not necessarily in nights of live entertainment.

[23:47] Right.

[23:48] Commissioner Carroll?

[23:52] So you're going to go sing, huh?

[23:54] We're not having commission karaoke, to be clear.

[23:58] That was going to be one of my answers. I don't think that will be a big draw.

[24:02] Any other questions?

[24:05] Leave the band.

[24:06] All right. With that, I will move on.

[24:09] During the July 17th work session,

[24:12] staff was requested to provide 2 alternative Property tax millage rates

[24:19] alternative Property tax millage rates between the

[24:20] rollback rate and the proposed rate.

[24:23] The above slide shows the specific details of and impacts on fund balance for both

[24:30] previous— previously discussed options, as well as a 5.45% and 5.49% millage rate.

[24:37] Alternative 1 of 5.45% would be an advertised 1.17% tax increase An

[24:43] advertised 1.17% tax increase An Alternative 2 of

[24:45] 5.49, a 1.91% advertised tax increase.

[24:48] The alternatives generate between $1.2 and $1.5 million in additional revenue

[24:55] compared to fiscal year '26.

[24:58] Both options are less than the proposed rate,

[25:02] causing out-year fund balance to fall below policy minimum.

[25:07] Prior to reviewing each alternative's per-resident impact,

[25:12] the above slide is providing—

[25:15] is provided to show the last 6 years of property tax impact on the average

[25:21] single-family home and homesteaded properties on an annual basis.

[25:27] The average homesteaded property in the City of Largo currently pays $81.79 per

[25:34] month or $981 per year in property taxes to the city.

[25:39] The above 4 options range between a $2.25 to $26.50 per year increase.

[25:45] A 5.4500 millage amounts to a $1.14 increase,

[25:49] while 5.4900 would be a $1.75 increase,

[25:53] Per month on an average homesteaded household.

[25:57] As previously stated,

[25:59] Alternative 1 and 2 generate between $1.2 and $1.5 million in additional revenue

[26:06] compared to fiscal year '26.

[26:08] In comparison to the proposed,

[26:11] Alternative 1 would generate $580,000 less in property tax revenue than the proposed

[26:19] rate, and Alternative 2 $248,000 less in property tax revenue.

[26:24] If directed to bring forth the tentative budget with the rollback rate or either of

[26:31] the alternative millage rate scenarios,

[26:35] additional service level and internal reductions would need to be considered to

[26:42] accommodate the change from proposed.

[26:45] As presented on June 9th,

[26:48] the above list of reductions have been put together for consideration. Moving on.

[26:55] In an effort to provide additional clarification on the City of Largo's

[27:01] clarification on the City of Largo's budget

[27:02] development, the Office of Performance and Budget has put together a short

[27:08] presentation explaining budgetary estimated unexpended calculations.

[27:14] Featured in the Long-Range Financial Plan,

[27:18] which provides the organization's 5-year financial outlook,

[27:23] one important aspect is the estimated unexpended and the way we as an

[27:30] unexpended and the way we as an organization

[27:31] seek to budget based on actuals.

[27:33] The estimated unexpended is the projected amount the City of Largo will come in

[27:41] under budget each year based on prior year actuals.

[27:45] This amount is added,

[27:47] added back to the fund balance calculation so that rates are not automatically

[27:54] proposed for increase while allowing departments to provide for costs, uh,

[28:01] to provide services each year.

[28:03] A large portion of what the estimated unexpended addresses are position

[28:10] unexpended addresses are position vacancies

[28:10] and projects coming in under budget.

[28:14] Actual, actual and forecasted unexpended for the general fund Has fallen between 3%

[28:21] and 5% over the last few years, while the organization has budgeted 5% annually.

[28:28] The above slide shows how fund balance is calculated piece by piece.

[28:34] Within the calculation,

[28:36] the graphic shows exactly where the estimated unexpended reduces expenditure

[28:43] estimated unexpended reduces expenditure that is

[28:44] used to reflect our, our ending balance,

[28:47] or the amount available At the end of each year.

[28:52] Our ending balance, also what is available for tomorrow,

[28:57] is then subtracted by the next year's deficit to provide the unrestricted fund

[29:04] balance, which we base proposed revenue and rate policy decisions.

[29:09] And finally, our final section, City Commission Direction and Conclusion.

[29:16] Does City Commission wish to make additional changes to the budget or tax

[29:22] additional changes to the budget or tax rate prior

[29:23] to the first public hearing on Thursday, September 3rd?

[29:28] Thank you. Any, uh, input, comments?

[29:36] Yeah, I gotta push the button.

[29:38] Mr. Holmes.

[29:39] Um, looking at this thing, the 5.52 That gives us cover, the commission, that,

[29:45] gives us cover, the commission, that, well,

[29:45] we didn't raise your taxes, it's still 0.5, 0.52.

[29:49] Well, in reality we did though, because when Mr.

[29:52] Ross turns around and he gets through reappraising all the property,

[29:57] what is the increase in property appraisal in Pinellas County?

[30:01] Do we have that figure?

[30:03] The overall increase in property?

[30:06] Do we know what it is?

[30:07] It was 4.

[30:08] I have that number.

[30:10] If—

[30:10] I mean, if you, if you have, you know that it's gone up.

[30:13] They, they They do this every year, that, well, last year your house was worth $10.

[30:18] Well, today your house is worth $11, and you're going to base the 5.52% on the $11.

[30:23] Well, that's going to be a substantial property tax increase.

[30:27] So when you take the 5.52% and you're going to utilize that on an increased

[30:31] going to utilize that on an increased taxable

[30:32] value, that creates a substantial tax increase versus we're saying 5.52%,

[30:36] we're not going to change the amount of money that's coming out of your pocket.

[30:41] Well, that's not true.

[30:42] It will be more money out of their pocket because of what this—

[30:46] what the county's doing. It's nothing we can do about that.

[30:49] I mean, we can change the figures around where it looks like it's revenue neutral,

[30:54] but I'm just saying we can't turn around and say 5.52,

[30:57] we're not going to raise your taxes, because you are.

[31:00] I mean, not you, we— we are raising the taxes because the, the values have gone

[31:05] taxes because the, the values have gone up.

[31:05] Well, and that, that's an issue.

[31:09] Yeah, so in the presentation,

[31:11] the tax increase at a 5.52 millage rate is 2.6-something, I believe.

[31:16] 2.47.

[31:18] 2.47. So that's the proposed tax increase.

[31:22] Yeah, but we don't know what the value of the property is.

[31:24] We, we have a pretty good estimate.

[31:26] City of Largo preliminary values came in

[31:30] at 4.16% increase from the prior year.

[31:35] And so the reason that 2.47 is not 4.46 is because we had

[31:40] significant construction of new properties and some

[31:44] annexations.

[31:46] Oh, yeah.

[31:47] That's a given. It even has a disclaimer down here on that.

[31:51] Some of us read all this stuff.

[31:54] And it was—

[31:57] Mr. Ross wouldn't be estimating our values. It would be Mr. Twitty. Mr.

[32:02] Ross wouldn't probably get—

[32:04] I was with Ross last night.

[32:06] We were going to have the coup d'état and throw him out of office.

[32:08] But anyway, that's neither here nor there.

[32:10] Commissioner DeBriesi.

[32:13] Thank you. Um, a couple things.

[32:15] The, um, the couple slides about budgeting process,

[32:18] and I thought that was really cool. Thank you.

[32:21] Um, the only thing I would just caution is that's not an absolute In the general

[32:27] fund, it makes all the sense in the world because we're essentially operating at a

[32:32] deficit. We've been decreasing,

[32:34] and so you know we need we need what's unspent to replenish what is what's

[32:39] unspent to replenish what is what's dragging

[32:40] it down. But when doing budgeting,

[32:42] and I brought this up last time regarding solid waste,

[32:46] and and to briefly go into it is that you know in a solid waste situation.

[32:51] We're not operating at a deficit.

[32:53] We have a growing general fund— I mean, reserve fund.

[32:57] In that particular case, we, you know, we collected the money from the residents.

[33:02] We spent the money. We reserved what we budgeted,

[33:05] and we reserved an additional amount on top of that.

[33:09] And then we're asking for an increase to—

[33:12] which is going to show an even bigger surplus plus what we're asking for.

[33:17] So, you know, I just think that's a perfect opportunity.

[33:20] I know we'll get that in second reading.

[33:23] Thank you.

[33:24] it's a perfect opportunity to, to, you know,

[33:26] give money back to the residents because of some of it,

[33:29] because of what may happen in the future.

[33:31] So I just, you know, when we're— I know for me, when I'm looking at this and, and,

[33:36] um, you know, you do— you started your budget last year,

[33:39] but you do have to factor in what was spent, what are the actuals,

[33:42] so that we don't continuously collect money from the residents.

[33:46] My favorite Ronald Reagan saying is, you know,

[33:48] every time we spend money or give money to somebody,

[33:51] we're taking it from somebody else.

[33:53] And in this case, we're taking it from the residents.

[33:56] So, you know, it's just we always have to look at that, you know,

[34:00] take that into consideration. And I agree with you regarding the general fund.

[34:04] I just— and the other areas that may need to be looked at.

[34:07] You know, regarding the millage, you know, I would love to see it go down.

[34:11] I think any opportunity to be able to do that is great.

[34:14] I'm admittedly a little cautious because what we know is going to happen in the

[34:18] future, we may have to raise it in the future.

[34:21] But when I look at the slides like this,

[34:23] and I know the city manager and the staff are not going to agree with me on this,

[34:28] but I'm going to say it anyways,

[34:29] is that every cost we have in the city is not tied to a program.

[34:33] So whenever we talk about cuts, they bring up— they bring up service reductions.

[34:37] And I know that there, there are— there's plenty of money to spend,

[34:41] not hundreds of millions of dollars,

[34:43] but there is money spent in the city that's not tied to a program.

[34:46] I just— every time I see that, I get— I just— I It bothers me a little bit,

[34:51] but I understand. You know, there are cuts to make that have nothing—

[34:54] that residents are never going to see.

[34:56] It's not going to cause library hours to be reduced or anything else like that.

[35:01] You know, I want to listen to what everybody else says.

[35:04] I mean, I said this last time that if it would have remained the same at 5.52,

[35:08] it's because we're recognizing that what may be coming.

[35:11] So, you know, I very much would, you know,

[35:13] if we're able to bring it down and whatever the will of the rest of the

[35:17] whatever the will of the rest of the Commission

[35:18] is, you know, I'm, you know,

[35:19] I want to be able to try to take advantage of that as much as we can. So thank you.

[35:24] Thank you. Commissioner Lowser.

[35:26] Yeah, so Commissioner DiBrizzi kind of took some of what I had to say,

[35:31] but regarding the millage rate, I would love to see it go down, obviously,

[35:36] but I think at this point in time, is the juice worth the Is it really—

[35:41] is it just showing, you know, going down to 5.49, is that just kind of, you know,

[35:47] pretending like we lowered something?

[35:49] Given what we're probably going to be facing next year,

[35:53] do we want to start off already—

[35:55] Further in the hole?

[35:57] Already in the hole? So I'm comfortable with 5.52.

[36:00] We're not technically raising the millage rate. It's 2.47%.

[36:05] Um, I like the— I, I like our, uh, our city's amenities and, and services.

[36:11] Um, and I'm not looking forward to probably next year having to have some

[36:16] probably next year having to have some really

[36:16] hard discussions about reductions.

[36:19] So thank you.

[36:22] That's where I stand.

[36:23] Thanks.

[36:23] Sorry, I forgot one part.

[36:24] You know, and part of what makes me feel a little bit about that is, is that,

[36:28] you know, we have salt, we have wastewater at 0% next year, which is,

[36:31] which is great. You know, hopefully when we have the conversation about,

[36:34] about solid waste, we can even give further relief.

[36:37] So, you know, if we're going to leave the—

[36:39] if we're going to leave the millage as it is, if that ends up being the case, then,

[36:43] you know, let's look for other opportunities to be able to provide relief

[36:46] opportunities to be able to provide relief to the

[36:46] residents. So thank you.

[36:48] Thank you. Commissioner Johnson?

[36:50] Yeah, I, I want to echo Commissioner Lauser that, you know,

[36:53] this year just seems like a bad year to reduction.

[36:56] You know, I think, you know, a strategy just with the language of this, you know,

[37:01] constitutional amendment is that you would want to go up this year, you know,

[37:06] because you have an opportunity to.

[37:08] And I think, you know, just because again,

[37:11] when you look at the catastrophic results to our budget, if this amendment passes,

[37:16] I think we're, you know, we're going to have a lot of tough, tough,

[37:20] tough decisions to do even with everything we can think of to add back into the mix

[37:26] or change or whatever, it's going to be catastrophic.

[37:29] So I think, you know, I think the fair thing to do here,

[37:32] even though I'd love to see us cut the rate, would be to hold it.

[37:36] I think it's— that is being conservative in a time where, you know,

[37:41] I could definitely make an argument that, like,

[37:43] this might be a time to increase because we are going to have such a big deficit to

[37:49] make up for next year and with a capped out increase of 5% if this passes the way

[37:54] it's written, which, you know, it's the way it's written,

[37:57] so it's the way it's going to pass if it passes.

[38:00] So, you know, and I think to look at the things we'll have to do in order to make

[38:05] that work, I, you know, I think we just have to continue to inform our citizens,

[38:10] you know, of what kind of cuts we're going to have to do if this this amendment does

[38:15] pass and make sure that they're fully aware of what we're going to have to do,

[38:20] you know, what that's going to look like. So not looking forward to that.

[38:27] That's all.

[38:27] Thank you. So I support 5.52.

[38:31] Thank you. Any more discussion?

[38:38] All right.

[38:38] Moving on, I guess.

[38:39] All right.

[38:41] That would be it for us on this item.

[38:43] Uh, next time you will see me will be on September 3rd for the first public hearing

[38:49] of the tentative millage rate and budget adoption vote.

[38:53] Thank you.

[38:54] Thank you, Mr. McIntosh, as well for, for your input and your—

[38:57] the work of your entire committee. We certainly appreciate it.

[39:01] Absolutely.

[39:01] Thank you.

[39:04] Next up is chronic nuisance ordinance and short-term vacation rental ordinance.

[39:09] Updates.

[39:54] Good afternoon, Mayor and Commission.

[39:57] Chase Burgeon, the Community Standards Manager, and today I'll be discussing, uh,

[40:02] 2 ordinances that will be tentatively for first reading next month.

[40:06] That is the chronic nuisance ordinance and the short-term vacation rental ordinance.

[40:12] First, we'll go over the chronic nuisance ordinance.

[40:15] This is a new addition to Chapter 11 of the Code of Ordinances.

[40:19] This will identify and define chronic nuisances, create rules, policies,

[40:24] and practices relating to those chronic nuisances,

[40:27] and also outline the enforcement actions and the hearing procedures for those

[40:32] chronic nuisances. This is part of the direction from the commission back when we

[40:37] had the work session in May.

[40:39] You wanted some enhanced enforcement actions for short-term rentals.

[40:43] This will address some of those issues coming from short-term rentals,

[40:48] but also have the ability to address some other nuisance properties throughout the

[40:53] community, not just short-term rentals. So how is this handled?

[40:57] This would first be by noticing these nuisance activities, specifically.

[41:02] Anything that's outlined in our code of ordinances or state statutes,

[41:06] specifically some of the ones I have here, pertain just to short-term rentals,

[41:11] which would be you know open house parties, parking issues, noise,

[41:15] disorderly intoxication, or disorderly conduct.

[41:18] All of those could be cited, and as a result,

[41:21] with this new chronic nuisance ordinance,

[41:24] we could declare a property a chronic nuisance if there is a pattern of nuisance

[41:29] activity documented. by either community standards or the police department.

[41:34] Once that is documented, we are able to implement what is called a creative—

[41:39] or corrective action plan that is to address that nuisance activity.

[41:43] And then if those aren't followed,

[41:45] those violations of the corrective action plan can actually be sent to the special

[41:50] magistrate for further enforcement. And what are some of those enforcement

[41:55] what are some of those enforcement actions?

[41:56] When you have a chronic nuisance issued order by the special magistrate,

[42:00] they have the ability on top of just fines of those any violations of city

[42:05] ordinances, they can authorize city to utilize chronic nuisance services,

[42:10] which would be abatement of those violations, or to seek judicial actions,

[42:14] which in that case would be an injunction to once again correct those violations.

[42:20] And that is just a brief overview of that chronic nuisance ordinance, which again,

[42:25] that would address, give community standards police department some

[42:29] standards police department some additional

[42:30] enforcement options when it comes to addressing some of the issues we're seeing

[42:35] addressing some of the issues we're seeing at

[42:35] those short-term rentals.

[42:37] Moving on to the short-term vacation rentals, just as a reminder,

[42:41] I'm sure we've discussed this previously.

[42:43] We are restricted by a couple legislative matters,

[42:47] the first being State Statute 509.032, which was passed.

[42:50] Back in 2011, um, that stated if you did not have language in your, um,

[42:55] city ordinances by June 1st of 2011,

[42:57] you are not allowed to prohibit the operation of vacation rentals or regulate

[43:02] operation of vacation rentals or regulate their

[43:02] duration or frequency of stays.

[43:04] Um, additionally, back, um, last year in 2025,

[43:07] in response to the 2024 hurricane season, um, to help, um,

[43:11] communities recover They passed Senate Bill 180.

[43:14] However, that does have language that any changes to the Land Development Code

[43:19] cannot be deemed more burdensome or restrictive.

[43:22] And because our current short-term vacation rental ordinance is in the

[43:27] vacation rental ordinance is in the Comprehensive

[43:27] Development Code, it is preempted by this Senate bill that is set to expire in

[43:32] October of next year.

[43:34] So going over a recent timeline of actions related to short-term vacation rentals.

[43:39] If you remember back in April,

[43:41] they had several concerned residents come and speak before the commission for a

[43:46] couple nuisance vacation rentals.

[43:48] You directed staff to hold a meeting with these residents to sort of explain what

[43:53] our current ordinance was, how we enforce it,

[43:56] what we were restricted by relating to the state preemption and Senate Bill 180,

[44:01] and also talk about potential future changes to short-term vacation rental

[44:06] ordinance. Um, we had a work session back in May where you gave us direction, um,

[44:11] to require registration, um, enhance those enforcement options,

[44:15] and add just a little bit more language to the short-term vacation rental,

[44:20] which the proposed, um,

[44:22] ordinance for the first reading coming up next month does include.

[44:26] Um, then just last week at the planning board,

[44:29] we presented those changes Seeing that the short-term vacation rental is in the

[44:34] comprehensive development code,

[44:36] the planning board did approve those changes to the short-term vacation rental

[44:41] ordinance, a 6-1 vote.

[44:42] And now we're here today to discuss these changes and updates.

[44:46] And like I said, the proposed reading will be next month on September 1st.

[44:51] That will be for the short-term vacation rental,

[44:54] the companion Chronic nuisance ordinance,

[44:57] and then we're also updating our fee schedule to include those registration

[45:01] schedule to include those registration fees for

[45:02] the short-term vacation rentals.

[45:04] So there will be 3 separate agenda items coming before you on September 1st.

[45:09] And just to give you some updated numbers when it comes to vacation rentals,

[45:14] because there was some discussion last week at the planning board pertaining to

[45:19] enforcement, just this year since January 1st,

[45:22] we've had 81 short-term vacation rental cases opened.

[45:25] Once again, these are reactive.

[45:27] We are still not yet proactive when it comes to vacation rental enforcement.

[45:32] Of those 81, 13 of those cases have been heard before our code board.

[45:36] Those cases are averaging about 4 violations of the cited city code.

[45:41] Those are usually the violations pertaining to not going through the proper

[45:46] registration, not having your internal posting,

[45:49] not having your designated responsible party posted, things of that nature.

[45:53] And then of those cases that have gone and been cited of those violations,

[45:58] that average daily fine amount is coming to around $200 per violation.

[46:03] They are capped at $250 is the maximum for first-time violators.

[46:07] And this is some updated data from the fire department.

[46:10] They are now at 370 total vacation rental properties inspected.

[46:14] With 851 actual inspections, and they are showing, um, 306 active properties.

[46:19] We know, um, doing some demos of the software we're potentially going to use to

[46:24] software we're potentially going to use to help

[46:25] track these short-term vacation rentals,

[46:27] that there's a lot more out there than just 306.

[46:30] So getting this ordinance updated, getting the staffing and the software,

[46:35] will really help us, you know,

[46:37] be more proactive and address all the issues for all short-term rental

[46:41] issues for all short-term rental properties in

[46:42] the city limits. And then, um, they're still facing, uh,

[46:46] the common issues when it comes to, um,

[46:48] fire issues when they do their high-hazard inspections, which is, um,

[46:53] not having the fire extinguisher,

[46:55] either not having the smoke alarms hardwired or not having them all,

[46:59] and then not having the clear, um, means of egress.

[47:02] And that concludes the update on those 2 ordinances.

[47:06] Staff is available for any questions.

[47:12] Thank you. Uh, Commissioner Smith?

[47:13] Uh, more comments. As the, uh, Commission liaison to the Planning Board, uh,

[47:18] just kind of give you a little background.

[47:21] Um, there were about maybe 30— 25 to 30 people there. Um, 11 did get up and speak.

[47:27] Um, Commissioner— or, uh, uh, the board, um, felt the direction.

[47:32] One of the concerns was that the language is not communicated between the code

[47:38] enforcement, planning, and us.

[47:40] Um, they want it kind of wondering if we would request a joint meeting of the—

[47:45] of us with the planning board and the code enforcement so we're all on one page

[47:51] basically on this. Because once, uh, planning doesn't have any teeth on what—

[47:57] how fines are, um, enforced or anything like that,

[48:00] their concern from what I kind of got was their Concern that people, you know,

[48:06] you go to, you follow through on the code enforcement,

[48:10] they bring down your fines kind of thing.

[48:13] They felt that, that they wanted to know where they, where we stood on, you know,

[48:18] if someone moved forward on that, would we, would they allow decreased on fines?

[48:24] At the time, Chair Faustini did ask in the audience how many people in the audience

[48:30] felt that this should move forward.

[48:33] Forward, and almost everybody raised— or was against moving this forward.

[48:38] Everybody in the audience pretty much raised their hand.

[48:42] That was kind of the direction where I was asked by Chair Faustini the direction of

[48:48] this Commission, where we were going with this,

[48:51] and kind of wanted to clarify that if we stopped right now by them voting no,

[48:57] It's not giving staff the foundation to move forward on these ordinances,

[49:02] and it would just draw out a lot longer process.

[49:06] Their concern was it didn't have teeth that they thought should be there.

[49:11] The city attorney spoke knowledgeably about what was—

[49:15] why we can't do that and why we're going down this direction.

[49:19] At the end of the meeting, I will say I met with many of them that were there.

[49:25] Their concern was that they just— they don't— from what I gather,

[49:29] they don't understand the Senate bill part of it,

[49:33] and they think we should be able to do it right now and be able to go after

[49:38] everybody. So just to kind of give you an overview of the Planning Board,

[49:44] they felt that, like I said,

[49:46] they would request this Commission have a joint 3-board meeting so everybody is on

[49:51] the same page. So that's all I have.

[49:54] Thank you.

[49:55] Thank you.

[49:55] Commissioner Lauser.

[49:56] Yeah, thanks. I just have a few questions.

[49:58] Um, so for the nuisance ordinance, and, and I understand, you know, the,

[50:03] the police are involved in, in quite a bit of that after hours.

[50:07] Is there, or will there be, um, you know, set up a, a way for,

[50:10] for the police and code enforcement to communicate,

[50:13] or is there already a way for that to happen?

[50:16] Yes, I actually just said, uh, the code board hearing last month,

[50:21] I used evidence of body cam footage and evidence report from a PD call in a

[50:26] code case.

[50:27] Good.

[50:28] Yeah, I guess from both ways, right?

[50:30] So if a police officer is getting called out to a property, he may not know—

[50:34] he may not have been the last—

[50:36] at the last 2 times that they were called out for a party or for a disturbance.

[50:40] So he may not know that this is the 3rd time, this is actually a nuisance

[50:44] time, this is actually a nuisance property.

[50:44] Is there a way that—

[50:46] Yeah, we would develop some type of internal process to say, hey,

[50:49] this is your first, you know, citation of a nuisance activity that way,

[50:52] because the language in the ordinance says if you're cited for nuisance activity 3

[50:56] times within 30 days, or I believe it's 7 times within 6 months,

[51:00] then we can move forward with that corrective action plan.

[51:02] They enter what's called a nuisance abatement plan with the city,

[51:06] and then if they don't follow that, we can take further corrective actions,

[51:09] further enforcement actions.

[51:11] And multiple calls at a single address are captured in our CAD system anyway.

[51:15] So when an officer goes out to a A party complaint or any kind of incident,

[51:18] and they have the history of that residence going back years.

[51:21] So they would know whether or not they've been out there or not.

[51:25] Good. Thank you.

[51:26] Yes, sir.

[51:27] And so, um, on the short-term vacation rental side, people are currently—

[51:31] technically it's in the code, they're required to register, correct?

[51:35] So the registration piece isn't new, it's just the cost.

[51:38] The registration is new. It's the— the inspections are already in there.

[51:42] So the inspections are currently required. They continue to be required.

[51:46] The actual registration is the new component of the ordinance.

[51:50] Okay. And how much is the registration? What did we come down on that?

[51:53] My suggestion will be $600 for the initial and the annual renewal. Okay.

[51:59] And is there any other cost associated? So say, say I'm a— I'm an Airbnb owner.

[52:05] I, I don't have nuisance, you know, I'm doing, doing a responsible job.

[52:09] What is the, what is the overall cost?

[52:12] Is there anything other than the $600 registration fee?

[52:15] Is it going to cost me money?

[52:17] If you do your annual registration, pass your code inspection,

[52:21] pass your fire inspection, and you're good to go.

[52:24] We'll see you in a year.

[52:25] So does that $600 include the fire inspection?

[52:29] Okay.

[52:30] That would be separate. The high hazard is separate.

[52:33] So it's a separate fee?

[52:35] Yes.

[52:36] How much is that high-hazard inspection?

[52:38] It's $100 right now.

[52:39] So the— so it'd be $700 then total?

[52:42] Total, yes.

[52:43] All right, thank you. Uh, Commissioner DeBreezy.

[52:47] Thank you. Regarding the nuisance ordinance,

[52:50] so being drunk in your house isn't a problem.

[52:53] Disorderlies becomes a problem, obviously.

[52:55] Um, so is, is the nuisance ordinance we're writing clear enough that It's not the

[53:00] people who are drunk and disorderly,

[53:02] it's the fact that they're doing it in the house.

[53:05] Because on a Saturday night, there's a party in— or if it's a loud party,

[53:09] or if it's drunk people, or whatever it is,

[53:11] those people are probably going to be gone Sunday,

[53:14] and then the next week it's going to be a whole different set of people.

[53:19] So we're citing the house and not the people? Is that— are we clear?

[53:22] Is— are we clear?

[53:23] Just like any other code ordinance, we are citing the property.

[53:26] So even if it's a rental property and you have in your lease that they're supposed

[53:30] to maintain the grass, if it's overgrown, we're still citing the property owner,

[53:34] not the tenant, even if it's in their lease agreement.

[53:36] All right. Just want to look and make sure no one's going to try to find a loophole.

[53:39] So it wasn't— it wasn't— you know, it was a different set of people. So, okay.

[53:43] Thank you. Commissioner Holmes.

[53:45] Well, yeah, you know,

[53:46] you got an integration here between code enforcement and law enforcement.

[53:51] I mean, if you've got a drunken orgy going on at one of these vacation rentals,

[53:55] That's not a call for code enforcement. That's a call for the police department.

[54:00] And that's why, if you're going to have a meeting,

[54:03] I think what you need to do is have a meeting with the city commission,

[54:07] city manager, police department,

[54:09] and code enforcement to figure out who's on first and what's on second.

[54:13] Who's got the prior call on this?

[54:15] And I think personally it ought to be the police department.

[54:19] You know, now I'm not talking about an inspection on a vacation rental where you

[54:23] inspection on a vacation rental where you go

[54:23] out there. you know,

[54:25] and get the $600 for the permit and get the fire inspections and stuff like that

[54:29] done. But when you get into some of this stuff, I mean, there's—

[54:33] those people that were down at Carlton Estates, assuming that they—

[54:37] what they were telling us was gospel,

[54:39] that was some pretty serious stuff going on down there.

[54:42] And that was stuff that was above and beyond what code enforcement could do.

[54:47] That was law enforcement.

[54:48] Yes, we have continued to counsel the residents that they should be calling the

[54:52] police department if there is activity That is not appropriate that's happening

[54:57] That is not appropriate that's happening in

[54:57] the evenings and on the weekends. That is—

[54:59] I remember when those people came here.

[55:01] I mean, I was just going, boy, good thing they don't live next door to me.

[55:04] I'd be in jail for homicide.

[55:06] But anyway, but I'm just saying that you get this thing, you know,

[55:09] make sure that it's in order of, you know, here's the order of enforcement.

[55:13] You know, PD goes out there and they say, well, no,

[55:15] this is just something code enforcement needs to come out and write up.

[55:19] All right, fine and dandy.

[55:21] Absolutely.

[55:21] If there's that match, That's a piece of cake.

[55:23] If there's criminal activity, obviously, you know, criminal—

[55:26] that department will take the lead.

[55:28] Um, but if there are subsequent code violations, then they can obviously loop

[55:32] violations, then they can obviously loop us in.

[55:32] Like I said, we've used body cam footage,

[55:34] we use their event reports in our code cases to help document the violations of

[55:38] cases to help document the violations of code

[55:39] violations.

[55:39] I think the key is that we communicate back and forth between Community Standards

[55:43] and police all the time. It's just a routine basis.

[55:46] If we go out there and it's something like—

[55:49] even if it's a house party late at night and we're limited on what we can do

[55:53] and we're limited on what we can do because

[55:53] We can't access the house, they're not opening the door, they're—

[55:57] the noise isn't too loud for us to do any kind of enforcement.

[56:00] We'll communicate with Community Standards and see if they can have any,

[56:04] but it's a backwards conversation to see what's the best,

[56:07] best method to get there and just get compliance and for the peace of the

[56:11] compliance and for the peace of the neighbors.

[56:11] Thank you.

[56:13] Thank you. Vice Mayor Dawson.

[56:16] Yeah, I wanted to I happened to— this weekend, I was up in Georgia,

[56:20] and I met the short-term rental enforcement, code enforcement person up

[56:24] enforcement, code enforcement person up there.

[56:25] I happened to take a picture of his car. I sent it to everyone. It was interesting.

[56:30] He works weekends for Putnam County and during the week for another county.

[56:34] And I asked him, I said, if you— in a perfect—

[56:37] I asked him if he has a lot of problems, and he said no,

[56:40] but they have very strict rules.

[56:42] And I said, what makes you the most effective,

[56:45] and what kinds of things are you dealing with?

[56:47] You know, he said if he could, in a perfect world, have it be able to—

[56:52] they have a 3 strikes rule, 3 strikes in a year, and you lose your license.

[56:56] And the owners take that seriously.

[56:58] They're not going to take a chance of killing their revenue without that, you

[57:03] killing their revenue without that, you know,

[57:03] if they get 3 strikes.

[57:04] Now, he doesn't— he's like, I very rarely have to actually write a ticket.

[57:09] I usually just have to either talk to the people there, or I talk to—

[57:13] The owners.

[57:14] Or I call the— because they have everyone in a database,

[57:17] they can call the person responsible for the home.

[57:20] And he said it's— I never, you know,

[57:23] almost never have to write an actual enforcement ticket because of that.

[57:27] So, you know, he did say very important to work on the weekends.

[57:31] You know, he worked 7 days a week, which, you know, we're not expecting that,

[57:36] but he worked for 2 different counties.

[57:39] But, you know, he did say, you know, Friday, Saturday, Sundays, biggest,

[57:43] busiest time. So you got to have enforcement then.

[57:47] But he said without that, without the owner of the, you know,

[57:51] short-term rental having skin in the game for like a problem and renting to problem

[57:56] tenants, that you're going to have problems because he said his other county

[58:01] problems because he said his other county isn't

[58:01] as strict. And so they're, they have more ongoing problems at certain houses.

[58:06] So I just thought that was interesting.

[58:09] I actually—

[58:09] he's going to write me a little if I could do this over again list,

[58:13] so I'll give that to staff after I get it.

[58:16] But he was a fantastic guy, long conversations, and I learned a ton from

[58:20] conversations, and I learned a ton from him.

[58:20] My wife was very irritated with me because I kept her from shopping,

[58:25] but we had a good time, a good conversation.

[58:27] He was super friendly and with lots of great information. So—

[58:31] I love the car.

[58:32] Yeah, yeah, yeah. And the fact is, you know, he has a big wrap on that car.

[58:36] And he, when he's driving through neighborhoods,

[58:39] people come out and they'll point out issues at STRs that they've seen.

[58:43] So he can go down and see it.

[58:45] But he also gives the neighbors a sense of this,

[58:47] there's a patrol coming through my neighborhood that's paying attention to

[58:51] neighborhood that's paying attention to these,

[58:52] especially these neighborhoods that happen to have a lot of short-term rentals in

[58:56] them. And I think that's a huge assurance to our citizens that we are, you know,

[59:01] doing our job, that we care, and that we're patrolling and looking for, you

[59:05] we're patrolling and looking for, you know,

[59:05] things that could be wrong proactively.

[59:07] So I thought that was a wonderful way to put it and learned a lot in 30 minutes.

[59:12] The guy was super friendly, and I wish I could remember his name right now.

[59:16] I wrote it down. I have it in my phone.

[59:18] But anyway, I'll pass along his contact information to our team. That's it.

[59:23] Thank you.

[59:23] Thank you. Commissioner Holk.

[59:26] Commissioner? Yeah, I'm just looking at my notes.

[59:30] Commissioner DeBriesi touched on what I was wondering about, how, you know,

[59:37] the people— the changeover is usually on a Sunday.

[59:41] So whatever infractions were on Fridays and Saturdays,

[59:46] Monday when Community Standards comes back,

[59:49] those people are gone and we're on to the next group.

[59:54] Also the fact that, like, um,

[59:56] Vice Mayor Johnson was saying that we don't have anybody from code on Fridays,

[1:00:03] after Friday at 5 till Monday.

[1:00:05] So when there are these infractions, that all falls on, on the PD.

[1:00:11] But as you said, yeah, we communicate with— you're communicating with—

[1:00:17] it's something we can enforce over the weekend.

[1:00:19] I mean, most of it Yes.

[1:00:21] Like Chase was saying, the code violations are— go back to also the, you know,

[1:00:28] things that you find wrong with the property,

[1:00:33] not necessarily drunk and disorderly or nuisance or—

[1:00:38] the other question I have is, how are we enforcing registration,

[1:00:44] or are we enforcing registration of people that have Airbnbs or short-term

[1:00:51] rentals? Are we just relying on the honesty policy right now?

[1:00:57] Well, currently there is no requirement for registration.

[1:00:59] So we are requiring those inspections by both community standards and the fire

[1:01:04] department. So if we either get a complaint or someone reaches out saying,

[1:01:07] complaint or someone reaches out saying, hey,

[1:01:08] I just bought this property, I want to, you know, operate a short-term rental,

[1:01:12] what do I need to do? We set them up.

[1:01:14] But if it's a complaint, we verify, yes, we can find it, you know, listed on

[1:01:18] we can find it, you know, listed on Airbnb,

[1:01:18] wherever, VRBO. We try to reach out.

[1:01:20] If they work with us and they pass their inspections, then they're good to go.

[1:01:24] If they're not, those are the ones that end up before the board.

[1:01:27] You know, then we tend to find other violations such as building without

[1:01:31] violations such as building without permit.

[1:01:31] We've had ones with, you know, obviously parking, trash, overgrowth issues.

[1:01:35] So it's not just the short-term rental. inspection requirements.

[1:01:39] It's anything else we find when we actually go out there and inspect the

[1:01:42] actually go out there and inspect the properties.

[1:01:43] I like the wrap car.

[1:01:45] Yeah, like you're saying, it just like, you know, visual is great,

[1:01:52] you know. So if we had like one community standard wrap with the vehicle

[1:01:59] with that average suggestion on there.

[1:02:03] give people a little bit more peace of mind and more positive about it.

[1:02:10] So thank you.

[1:02:11] Thank you. Um, the short-term regulations are in our land development code.

[1:02:16] Is that where they are in all cities, basically?

[1:02:19] No, because even some of the residents last week, you know,

[1:02:21] that they referenced Pinellas County, and, you know, they,

[1:02:24] they like some of the language in Pinellas County,

[1:02:26] but Pinellas County's short-term rental ordinance is in their code of ordinances,

[1:02:30] so they feel that they're not maybe as restricted by Senate Bill 180 as we feel

[1:02:33] restricted by Senate Bill 180 as we feel we

[1:02:34] are.

[1:02:34] So has staff considered taking them out of our—

[1:02:41] Yes, we did consider that and did discuss it with the city attorney,

[1:02:45] and she advised that it should remain in the city's comprehensive development code.

[1:02:49] So that's why we're bringing it forward in that manner to you.

[1:02:53] May I ask why?

[1:02:54] Sorry, just to address—

[1:02:56] Just because it is definitively a land development regulation when it's in your

[1:03:01] development regulation when it's in your land

[1:03:02] development code, but there—

[1:03:04] that doesn't negate the argument that it's a land development regulation,

[1:03:09] even if it's in your code of ordinances and outside of specifically those

[1:03:15] regulations. If you're developing—

[1:03:17] if it's something that would affect the development of land, arguably,

[1:03:22] that preemption would still control.

[1:03:25] So it doesn't negate the preemption necessarily.

[1:03:28] It may be— it may minimize an opportunity for a challenge,

[1:03:33] but it doesn't necessarily make it ineffective against what is effectively a

[1:03:38] ineffective against what is effectively a land

[1:03:38] development regulation, just in a different section of your code.

[1:03:43] Okay, so the stuff that we can expect to see coming up soon,

[1:03:48] will be stuff that is not—

[1:03:50] that we're allowed to do under Senate Bill 180, right?

[1:03:55] Correct.

[1:03:56] And then so what is step number 2?

[1:03:58] I assume there's going to be a step number 2 that will be brought forward in October

[1:04:04] of '27 that will allow us to look at occupancy,

[1:04:07] some other things that are clearly issues in our neighborhoods that are not allowed

[1:04:13] to be changed right now.

[1:04:15] So what we did pledge to the community members that came to the planning board

[1:04:20] meeting is that we would evaluate the success and how the—

[1:04:24] if these proposed changes to the short-term vacation rental ordinance are

[1:04:28] short-term vacation rental ordinance are approved

[1:04:29] by the commission, along with the chronic nuisance ordinance,

[1:04:33] we would evaluate whether those are effectively addressing the challenges that

[1:04:38] effectively addressing the challenges that might

[1:04:38] be happening with short-term vacation rentals within the city.

[1:04:42] So we would do an analysis and evaluate whether we, from a staff perspective,

[1:04:47] whether we thought we needed to strengthen anything,

[1:04:50] or whether we thought that these 2 ordinances were working as they were

[1:04:55] ordinances were working as they were intended and

[1:04:55] designed. And so we would make that decision in the future,

[1:04:59] is what staff is proposing.

[1:05:01] Right.

[1:05:01] So, so currently, a 3,000-square-foot house could

[1:05:05] have how many people In a short-term rental right

[1:05:10] now?

[1:05:10] By the square footage rule, it's, um,

[1:05:13] 1 per every 150 square feet of air-conditioned space.

[1:05:16] But there is also the language for parking that you need to have 1 off-street

[1:05:22] parking for every 3 visitors.

[1:05:24] So you would actually be more restricted probably by the parking than the square

[1:05:29] footage on a larger property like that.

[1:05:32] Right, but there If it's a 3,000-square-foot home,

[1:05:35] they could advertise it sleeps 20 because that's 1.5 per—

[1:05:39] or 1 per every 150 square feet.

[1:05:41] And then parking would happen on Friday, Saturday,

[1:05:45] Sunday when we don't have people out there,

[1:05:48] at least code enforcement out there looking at how folks are parked.

[1:05:52] So it's really hard to kind of regulate the number of folks.

[1:05:56] I, I think that Well, 2 things.

[1:05:58] I think that regardless of how effective this is,

[1:06:02] there's going to be folks that are upset that there's short-term rentals in their

[1:06:07] neighborhood, even if they're,

[1:06:09] they're playing by the rules and they're doing the right thing.

[1:06:13] And we're not going to change that.

[1:06:16] We can't change that because of Florida state law.

[1:06:19] But I do think that we have to have a better number than 1.5 or 1 per 150 square

[1:06:25] feet.

[1:06:25] I think that's a good point.

[1:06:26] I don't— I think the county has a lower number than that.

[1:06:30] I think the county— I don't know when the county's number was put in,

[1:06:34] but I think at least residents were saying that their maximum is 10 in

[1:06:39] unincorporated Pinellas County for any size home.

[1:06:42] So that's going to be the most complaints I think that we hear are in neighborhoods

[1:06:48] with larger homes. Because if it's a little 1,200-square-foot bungalow, um,

[1:06:53] little 1,200-square-foot bungalow, um, the,

[1:06:53] the hosts are only advertising that for 5 people or 6 people or whatever, and,

[1:06:59] and it really just— it's a family vacation to, you know,

[1:07:02] see the beach a little bit and maybe go to a conference or something.

[1:07:07] But, but, um, it's the folks that are having tens of people there, uh,

[1:07:12] for a party over the weekend where the problem— so we need to get around that.

[1:07:17] But I understand that's going to be In October, I would not wait to see that.

[1:07:22] I would just plan on that to bring back something about the number of people that

[1:07:28] are allowed. I know there was some discussion or some suggestions about

[1:07:33] discussion or some suggestions about making sure

[1:07:33] that you know VRBO, Airbnb, and or hosts are kind of in the conversation.

[1:07:38] Have we been able to reach out to any any hosts and By that,

[1:07:42] I probably mean hosts that are doing it right.

[1:07:45] It may be folks that went through the process and had the fire inspection and,

[1:07:51] you know, maybe had some issues and corrected and everything's good.

[1:07:55] Those are the type of people that I want to— I would like staff to talk to about,

[1:08:01] listen, this is our plan.

[1:08:03] Is this— is this going to— I mean,

[1:08:05] they may not be happy with the $700 it's going to cost them.

[1:08:09] But aside from that,

[1:08:10] does this sound like something that that makes sense to you as a host.

[1:08:15] And I'm not saying we do everything for the hosts,

[1:08:18] because the reason we're doing this is for our residents.

[1:08:22] But I think it's important to talk to them too.

[1:08:25] Yeah, we actually did forward the proposed ordinance to the—

[1:08:29] he's basically like the liaison for Airbnb between Airbnb and the host.

[1:08:33] And for the most part, they didn't have any objections to The registration,

[1:08:37] the registration fee.

[1:08:38] They did have some questions about, um, like the follow-up inspections.

[1:08:43] But as we've seen, you know, the fire department has issues right now, um,

[1:08:47] getting those annual reinspections because there's really no requirement or

[1:08:51] enforcement mechanism.

[1:08:52] But now requiring that as part of your annual renewal,

[1:08:55] it'll be a little bit easier for code to get in there and then for fire to get in

[1:09:00] there.

[1:09:00] Okay. And my last question was around, um,

[1:09:04] the Vice Mayor Johnson's suggestion about kind of 3 strikes and you're out rule.

[1:09:10] Do we plan on having—

[1:09:12] I know we've talked about several things as far as if there's so many violations,

[1:09:18] can we do something like that? Is that feasible?

[1:09:22] Could we ask city attorney maybe to address that one?

[1:09:24] Because we did discuss that at length.

[1:09:26] So essentially, the street 3 strikes and you're out works for a code violation.

[1:09:32] It potentially could work depending on what the violations are,

[1:09:36] but it would have to rise to a level to be so egregious to shut them down.

[1:09:41] That is possible if there's, you know,

[1:09:44] such an extreme number and they're disruptive enough, and that would—

[1:09:49] we would proceed through the chronic nuisance and through an injunction

[1:09:54] nuisance and through an injunction process.

[1:09:55] But essentially, just because they don't necessarily register and fill out all the

[1:10:00] paperwork, if it doesn't rise to a certain violation level,

[1:10:04] you can't just shut them down. These are protected property interests.

[1:10:09] So, they are— they do have some due process requirements.

[1:10:13] So, just because there's, you know, a series— if there's litter,

[1:10:18] maybe they don't register in time, and there's a noise complaint,

[1:10:22] although that's 3 strikes,

[1:10:24] that isn't necessarily going to rise to the level where we can shut them down.

[1:10:30] But there are other variations, other avenues we can pursue.

[1:10:34] One of the things that is permitted,

[1:10:36] and this is allowed through the chronic nuisance ordinance,

[1:10:41] is the nuisance abatement plan.

[1:10:43] And so that would give us alternative options for enforcement in terms of

[1:10:48] potentially requiring security, requiring—

[1:10:51] maybe they have to have certain pickup or property management that has to come

[1:10:56] through. So depending on how problematic some of the nuisance behavior is,

[1:11:01] we will have some options through that enforcement methodology to address some of

[1:11:07] those and mitigate some of those impacts.

[1:11:10] So I think the strength of what is done in the town that Vice Mayor Johnson was

[1:11:16] talking about, is the owners know that if they're a bad actor so many times,

[1:11:21] they're going to have no income property for 6 months or a year or whatever it is.

[1:11:27] And that's the strength.

[1:11:28] You know, so in the registration process,

[1:11:31] if it's very clear that these are the rules,

[1:11:34] and if you violate the rules so many times in a certain amount of time,

[1:11:39] You're going to lose the use of your Airbnb for a certain amount of time.

[1:11:44] And if that's defensible, I think that would make a lot of sense.

[1:11:49] I think it seems very effective there. They don't have a lot of issues.

[1:11:54] And that's— those are the type of properties that we really want to go

[1:11:59] properties that we really want to go after,

[1:11:59] is the people that don't really want to follow the rules.

[1:12:03] So we can certainly consult with the city attorney on that.

[1:12:08] Mayor Brown, I think you know, we could definitely make it very clear what the

[1:12:13] definitely make it very clear what the code—

[1:12:13] if you are operating a short-term vacation rental, and if you have code violations,

[1:12:19] these are the ramifications if you violate the current code.

[1:12:23] And we could also talk about the fact that the city does have a chronic nuisance

[1:12:29] ordinance and what that means.

[1:12:31] So I think we could,

[1:12:33] we could have some wording that addresses what you're asking for there.

[1:12:38] All right. Thank you. Vice Mayor Johnson.

[1:12:40] Yeah, I just want to thank you, Mayor. You addressed a couple of my points.

[1:12:44] I do think, um, you know, it's— the key is, like, I rented a— also rented a home

[1:12:49] is, like, I rented a— also rented a home in,

[1:12:49] uh, short-term rental in Putnam County. And so I was amazed at how—

[1:12:53] Is that how you met the code enforcement guy who came to your house?

[1:12:56] No, no, he broke up the party. Maybe, maybe different guy.

[1:12:59] Uh, no, that was the police. No, I'm just kidding, the sheriff.

[1:13:03] No, but it was really, it was amazing how you could tell that they had that,

[1:13:08] 'cause they said it in their paperwork that they could throw you out of the house

[1:13:12] that they could throw you out of the house if

[1:13:12] you violated these rules.

[1:13:14] They would come and boot you out and they wouldn't be responsible.

[1:13:18] So, I mean, it was very,

[1:13:19] you could tell the difference between a community that has standards and,

[1:13:23] 'cause the language of the, Agreement is different,

[1:13:26] and you could tell that they were like, "How many people do you have there?

[1:13:31] Do you have?" You know,

[1:13:32] they were asking follow-up questions to make sure because we were coming with a

[1:13:37] large party as my whole family,

[1:13:38] and they were making sure we weren't like a you know college fraternity gonna like

[1:13:43] you know haze all our new new recruits or whatever.

[1:13:46] They were making darn sure that we had problem for that neighborhood with the

[1:13:51] problem for that neighborhood with the number

[1:13:51] of people we had coming to this home. So I think it's.

[1:13:54] I think if we have some teeth, and again, I think it should be serious.

[1:13:58] We shouldn't let it be frivolous.

[1:14:00] It has to be real issues and repeated bad business practice.

[1:14:04] Because again, anyone can rent to a bad— someone who shows up and is bad,

[1:14:08] and they take care of it.

[1:14:10] But if they continually do that, then that shows a willful bad citizen,

[1:14:14] bad neighbor. Business ethic, I guess.

[1:14:16] So I just, I just can't say that, you know,

[1:14:18] that was the one thing he said that mattered.

[1:14:21] And so I think that's something we need to really think about, is having teeth.

[1:14:26] And, and I did read through the teeth of this, and it's great that we have some,

[1:14:30] but it sounded, you know, like we can go back, you know,

[1:14:34] we can make them install cameras, we can make them do some other things,

[1:14:38] but like we don't have any way that's—

[1:14:40] we don't have anything that says you don't get to do business for the next 6 months

[1:14:45] or 90 days If you don't, and then, you know,

[1:14:48] because you're going to have to go on a pause.

[1:14:50] And I know, I know that's very impactful for these businesses because they book out

[1:14:55] years in advance or months in advance.

[1:14:57] But at the end of the day, without some sort of a, you're out of business, you

[1:15:02] sort of a, you're out of business, you know,

[1:15:02] we don't really have what we need, you know,

[1:15:05] unless we really fine them out of business, you know.

[1:15:08] And I don't know if we want to do that. So—

[1:15:10] Can I just ask you, so when you stated that state, that place,

[1:15:15] they gave you paperwork that said this is what you can and can't

[1:15:19] do?

[1:15:19] Oh, very serious. And they were not joking.

[1:15:22] So it was more directed at the person staying there than— I mean,

[1:15:25] I'm sure there's the rules for the people that own it as well, but—

[1:15:29] But it was the owner that gave you those?

[1:15:31] Yeah, they made me put the relationship of every person that was in that

[1:15:35] house with me. And they did a follow-up because I had different last

[1:15:39] names.

[1:15:40] So the host is clearly saying this community has standards,

[1:15:42] you have to abide by them, otherwise we're going to come and kick out.

[1:15:45] They were, yeah, because they, because we had, you know, whatever,

[1:15:47] 20 of us showing up at this house.

[1:15:49] And so that, you know, it held, I think it held 16.

[1:15:51] I'm sorry, it was 16 of us, but it was like, that's a lot of people.

[1:15:54] So they were asking a lot of questions.

[1:15:55] Half of us and family, it's barely.

[1:15:57] Yeah, and that's not even all of us, but you know, half of them.

[1:16:00] We're good neighbors.

[1:16:01] But yeah, it was, you know, that you could tell the difference.

[1:16:04] And that's, you know, that's, I just, I'd like us to be that kind of community.

[1:16:09] I agree. I love that you said standards too, because that's,

[1:16:12] and that's what we're talking about is Community standards, we have them,

[1:16:16] we should enforce them. Commissioner Holmes.

[1:16:18] Thank you.

[1:16:19] How are you going to get the word out on this?

[1:16:22] There has to be thousands of vacation rental places in the city of Largo right

[1:16:26] rental places in the city of Largo right now.

[1:16:26] So, um, we're demoing different softwares, and once we choose a software,

[1:16:30] they pretty much all have the capability—

[1:16:33] they scrub all the different vacation rental sites,

[1:16:35] we'll get an as robust list as we can.

[1:16:37] And we'll basically send out a courtesy letter saying, hey, you know,

[1:16:41] the city will be implementing a short-term rental registration program.

[1:16:45] We're aiming for, you know, a January 1st, 2027 launch, give them, you know,

[1:16:49] hopefully a couple months to get ready.

[1:16:51] And then, you know, get our staff trained up,

[1:16:53] get familiar with the software and everything like that.

[1:16:56] And, you know, hit the ground running come January 1st,

[1:16:59] get the program up and running.

[1:17:01] What's the downside if they don't pay the $600?

[1:17:05] they'll be in violation of the code of, you know,

[1:17:07] operating a short-term rental without the registration.

[1:17:09] They'll be standing before the code board.

[1:17:11] I understand it, but what's the downside?

[1:17:12] $200 a day.

[1:17:14] Well, there's— are you going to put a daily fee, fine on there or something?

[1:17:20] Yeah, that would be a violation of a code.

[1:17:22] So like I said, they would— if it's a code violation,

[1:17:24] they would go before the code board.

[1:17:26] The code board would, you know, listen to the case, issue a potential fine,

[1:17:29] and then like any other, if the fine accrues for more than 90 days,

[1:17:32] we do have the option of, um,

[1:17:34] seeking foreclosure action if it's non-home-sited property.

[1:17:36] So that's always at least something we can threaten if, you know,

[1:17:40] they're still non-compliant.

[1:17:41] Okay, thank you.

[1:17:44] Thank you. Uh, Commissioner DeBreezy— Commissioner Holk, I'm sorry.

[1:17:48] Um, Chase, when these calls are, um, called into Community Standards,

[1:17:52] are these also anonymous calls, or, or do they have to give their Wait,

[1:17:56] now we have to give— they have to give their name, correct?

[1:17:59] When they call in a complaint?

[1:18:01] State statute that passed back in 2021, we cannot receive anonymous complaints.

[1:18:04] Okay. And do you ever notice that some of them are like the same people calling in

[1:18:12] continuously? Or is it— is it varying?

[1:18:15] Like the call volume on Fridays and Saturday nights?

[1:18:20] Chief, Are they— are there a lot of Airbnb complaints that are called in,

[1:18:27] or are they—

[1:18:28] I don't have the number, but it's not anything that—

[1:18:31] It's not like standing out going, oh, it's another Airbnb.

[1:18:34] I mean, for years we've had party complaints, house parties,

[1:18:37] and whether they're at Airbnb or not, it's just a routine call for us.

[1:18:41] All right.

[1:18:42] Um, but so yeah, I was just wondering, like, um, when, when they're calling in,

[1:18:47] since it's not anonymous anymore, are you seeing like the same people calling in?

[1:18:51] There's a few obviously that, you know, are repeat, you know,

[1:18:54] complaints and things like that.

[1:18:55] And one of the most frequent— we do have actually 2 running, um,

[1:18:58] now 3 running code cases accruing fines that, you know, like I said,

[1:19:01] we will potentially have that foreclosure discussion on that potential property

[1:19:05] because of the issues we've been having at it.

[1:19:07] Thank you.

[1:19:08] Thank you.

[1:19:10] Commissioner Dorese.

[1:19:11] Thank you. Um, I remember back to the work session when we first talked about this,

[1:19:16] and I know there was a conversation about putting a maximum—

[1:19:19] call it a 3-strike rule or whatever you want to call it.

[1:19:23] I know that was some of the direction we were given.

[1:19:26] You know, my feeling about this has evolved,

[1:19:28] and I think I want to lean towards the aggressive side,

[1:19:32] right up to the limits of what we're allowed to do and to the comfort of

[1:19:36] allowed to do and to the comfort of Attorney

[1:19:36] Allen and maybe a little bit to the discomfort of Attorney Allen.

[1:19:40] Attorney Allen.

[1:19:41] You know, and, and, you know, see what we can do because we've heard enough about,

[1:19:46] you know, our residents' complaints and, and, you know,

[1:19:49] because of the cities around us, they seem to be, you know, congregating in Largo.

[1:19:54] So, you know, I want, I want to push this as much as we can.

[1:19:57] And I think the 3-strike rule or some effect of that is pretty good.

[1:20:01] Specific question, though, regarding parking.

[1:20:04] So if there's a house that's got 12 people in it, 8 cars, and there's, you know,

[1:20:08] the rule is you have to have the one off-street parking.

[1:20:11] But those 8 cars are legally parked on the street in front of other people's houses.

[1:20:16] Is that a violation?

[1:20:17] That's more of a police issue than code.

[1:20:22] You said legally parked. So no, it's not a problem.

[1:20:25] So that's the thing that defeats the—

[1:20:27] the code says you have to have so many off-street parking for per person.

[1:20:32] So if they legally park somewhere else, then we might as well not have that,

[1:20:37] that—

[1:20:38] Right.

[1:20:38] Yeah, I live in a cul-de-sac.

[1:20:40] I have 20 homes on there, and I have an Airbnb across the street from me.

[1:20:43] Never been a problem.

[1:20:44] But if they have a big party one night and there's 8 cars,

[1:20:47] they can only fit 1 in front of their house,

[1:20:49] and the other 7 are parked in front of all the other houses,

[1:20:51] they'd be illegally parked, then we have no teeth.

[1:20:54] So they're not violating anything at that point.

[1:20:56] We can't, because like I said, there is the code that says, you know,

[1:20:59] you have to have the off-street parking. You can't include on-street.

[1:21:02] So if we can prove that yes, these were vehicles parked at the short-term rental,

[1:21:05] and they're not in a, you know, approved off-street parking, then yes,

[1:21:08] we could cite them under the parking code.

[1:21:10] So what's approved off-street parking?

[1:21:12] As I'm saying, is if they park 2 houses down in front of my neighbor's house,

[1:21:15] and they're legally parked on the street,

[1:21:17] not blocking a fire hydrant or anything else like that, you know,

[1:21:20] would that be an unapproved—

[1:21:21] You know, it's going to be problematic.

[1:21:23] So they do— they are required as part of the or in this ordinance,

[1:21:28] it has them required to submit a parking plan that actually shows the number and

[1:21:33] place of parking. So if we're there for enforcement purposes,

[1:21:36] and they're able to identify people coming and going from this residence,

[1:21:41] and they're parking there, that's a potential violation.

[1:21:44] But we also have to think practically, you know,

[1:21:47] you're wanting to treat one particular person very differently.

[1:21:51] Right.

[1:21:51] But what if you, as a full-time occupant of your home have a party,

[1:21:55] and you have people parked legally in front of other people's homes.

[1:22:00] So, um, you have to balance that.

[1:22:02] And so I understand it's an imperfect solution,

[1:22:04] and it doesn't immediately address these issues.

[1:22:07] These are practical enforcement concerns. And so we do have it in there.

[1:22:12] So to the extent we're, you know,

[1:22:14] in a situation where code or police feel comfortable enough that they're able to

[1:22:18] identify that this is a violation, it's in there so they can address it.

[1:22:23] Technically, there is language that if there's violations and they're not in

[1:22:27] compliance, they can't register or they're not able to continue to operate.

[1:22:32] But we also need to— I need to make it clear, you know,

[1:22:35] because I have been communicating with a lot of these residents, that doesn't—

[1:22:40] just because if they're operating in violation of the code,

[1:22:43] we're not going to go and You know, somebody raised the issue of red tag,

[1:22:48] that we don't have that authority.

[1:22:50] So yes, they'll be act— they'll be acting in violation of our code.

[1:22:54] It'll continue to accrue violations, potentially repeat violations.

[1:22:58] Fines will accrue, which goes to the issue of short-term rentals.

[1:23:02] If they're for profit and we're cutting into your profits and we continue to do

[1:23:07] into your profits and we continue to do so,

[1:23:07] it becomes problematic. And generally what happens is you have—

[1:23:11] I'm sorry.

[1:23:12] Like what Commissioner— Vice Mayor Johnson experienced.

[1:23:16] It's a much stricter process in terms of renting it, getting into it,

[1:23:21] and it becomes more cost-effective for them to comply rather than not comply.

[1:23:26] So let me take that a step further. Because you mentioned a parking plan.

[1:23:31] So, you know, one of the Airbnbs in Carleton Estates, one of the larger homes,

[1:23:36] you know, advertises 15.

[1:23:38] and they submit a parking plan that says, I've got 2 spots in front of my house,

[1:23:43] I have 2 spots 2 houses down, there's 3 spots at this house down the road,

[1:23:48] legally on the road, um, and that parking plan gets submitted,

[1:23:52] would it get approved?

[1:23:54] If it's on-street parking,

[1:23:55] it would not get it because it's got to be off-street parking on that parcel.

[1:24:00] So they would have to have, for that particular one, if it's advertising 15,

[1:24:05] they would have to have 5 off-street on their parcel.

[1:24:09] Okay, can we specify that in the ordinance so that it— so that doesn't get approved?

[1:24:13] So that's one way to, to address this is, you know,

[1:24:16] if I operate a 15-person Airbnb and I submit a parking plan and I've only got 2

[1:24:20] spots in front of my house and I've got, you know, and I'm going to list, um,

[1:24:24] I got 8 other spots on the street that are not my house and we would deny that,

[1:24:29] then, you know, that gives it a little more teeth.

[1:24:31] It's in there.

[1:24:33] Yeah, and, um, on the registration, will it say the number of park— like,

[1:24:38] the number of people that are allowed there based on— I mean,

[1:24:41] parking could be the limiting factor on a lot of these properties.

[1:24:45] Not all of them, but a lot of them.

[1:24:48] That's something we may not be looking at closely right now, but we'll definitely,

[1:24:52] since we're sort of revamping the whole program,

[1:24:54] make sure that the officer handling short-term rental,

[1:24:56] when they go out to do their inspection, is documenting, okay,

[1:24:59] there's 4 off-street parking, So they can have up to 12,

[1:25:02] and even if the house is big enough to, you know, rent to 15,

[1:25:05] they can only advertise to 12.

[1:25:07] Right, right.

[1:25:07] Unless they have a garage spot, I guess, right?

[1:25:10] So, well, and I guess that's the question.

[1:25:12] When, as part of the registration process,

[1:25:15] are they declaring how many people they're going to advertise for, or is that—

[1:25:19] Yeah, so actually the software,

[1:25:21] what it does is it will scrub the listings based off the occupancy rate.

[1:25:24] So then if the parking is lower,

[1:25:26] we will have to manually do that during our inspection.

[1:25:29] But like I said, if it is right now a 1,500-square-foot house,

[1:25:32] so they would technically be able to have 10, if their listing says 15,

[1:25:36] our software, all 3 that we have looked at so far,

[1:25:39] they would actually flag it and say, hey,

[1:25:41] there is a potential violation here because they are advertising over the

[1:25:45] because they are advertising over the occupancy

[1:25:45] limit.

[1:25:45] Good.

[1:25:47] Appreciate it. Vice Mayor Johnson.

[1:25:49] I will just point out one other thing that was amazing at that house I rented They

[1:25:53] also asked if you're going to have guests, and you couldn't have more than 2 guests.

[1:25:58] So, I mean, it was like serious business and no party.

[1:26:01] So, you know, it was— and it wasn't like a house wouldn't be great for a party.

[1:26:05] It's just they didn't want to have it. So I just wanted to point that out.

[1:26:09] I thought that was amazing.

[1:26:10] And it had to have something to do with the parking issues.

[1:26:13] And I will say we've seen similar things with some of our more responsible hosts

[1:26:16] where we actually had one recently show our officer during the inspection,

[1:26:20] they have noise meters throughout the property and they have an app.

[1:26:22] So if it goes off, they have language in their lease that says, oh hey,

[1:26:25] you've now violated your lease, you're out of here.

[1:26:27] So, wow, some of our more responsible hosts are already taking—

[1:26:30] Can we require that?

[1:26:31] Potentially is the nuisance abatement plan— Okay, that's something we could look

[1:26:38] plan— Okay, that's something we could look at.

[1:26:39] That might be something.

[1:26:40] That's our avenue to get things done here is a nuisance, you know,

[1:26:44] we can make that You know, as aggressive as we, as we wanted,

[1:26:48] I guess.

[1:26:48] Yeah, I like it.

[1:26:52] All right, I appreciate all the work on this.

[1:26:55] I'm sure we all do, and the neighbors do as well.

[1:26:58] And, uh, you know, I think our intent is to, um, make it,

[1:27:02] make it not difficult for the good actors, the people that are good hosts that are,

[1:27:08] you know, silently in neighborhoods and just bring people to the county or

[1:27:14] just bring people to the county or whatever,

[1:27:14] and, and then encourage good behavior from the people who are just absentee hosts

[1:27:20] who aren't really paying attention,

[1:27:22] and make it so they feel like they need to pay attention and,

[1:27:27] and let their guests know that, you know,

[1:27:30] the city has standards and you have to abide by them.

[1:27:33] And, and in turn, the hosts have standards, right? So, so great. We

[1:27:38] standards, right? So, so great. We appreciate it.

[1:27:39] Thank you.

[1:27:40] Any other comments or questions? Thank you so much.

[1:27:43] Thank you.

[1:27:43] See us in September.

[1:27:44] All right.

[1:27:45] Thanks, Chief. Let me see. See, Attorney Allen, anything this evening?

[1:27:52] Actually, let's do board committee reports first.

[1:27:56] Anything from Ford Pinellas?

[1:27:59] No, we did not meet. I do have a training for the state training session.

[1:28:05] tomorrow in Gainesville for— or yeah, MPOs. So looking forward to that.

[1:28:12] Thank you. Suncoast League of Cities.

[1:28:16] There, the Suncoast League is having their business meeting on Friday morning, 8:30.

[1:28:22] I believe Carson sent that out to everybody who's attending.

[1:28:25] Also, they're doing the Super Regional brunch breakfast on Saturday.

[1:28:29] So please attend and Look forward to seeing everybody there. That's all.

[1:28:34] Thank you. PSTA?

[1:28:38] Nothing. It's been a little while since we met because of the way the weeks work

[1:28:41] out. So it's time.

[1:28:42] I've got just a couple things from Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council.

[1:28:47] We met yesterday. There is a date for the next annual Regional Resiliency Summit.

[1:28:53] It is on May 6th and 7th, Thursday and Friday of 2027. 2027, actually.

[1:28:58] It says '26 on this, but it should be '27. I'll have to tell them that.

[1:29:03] It's going to be over in Tampa, over at International Mall,

[1:29:07] so at the Renaissance there.

[1:29:09] Mm-hmm.

[1:29:10] Then we had 2 presentations.

[1:29:12] One was on Senate Bill 1134 regarding county and municipal official actions

[1:29:18] county and municipal official actions relating

[1:29:19] to diversity, equity, and inclusion,

[1:29:21] and the executive director and the general counsel have worked closely to look at

[1:29:28] everything in the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council to make sure that they

[1:29:33] Planning Council to make sure that they don't

[1:29:34] have those 3 words in there, and so everything's good.

[1:29:38] And just look at it, you know,

[1:29:40] they've done some federal grant work that would be in violation of this if it wasn't

[1:29:46] already completed or pretty much completed, which is interesting.

[1:29:51] And then we had a presentation understanding data centers and their

[1:29:56] understanding data centers and their regional impact.

[1:29:58] The 2 main presenters on that were somebody from Tampa Electric as well as

[1:30:03] somebody from Tampa Electric as well as somebody

[1:30:04] from Loudoun County, Virginia,

[1:30:06] which has more data centers per square mile than anywhere in the world,

[1:30:12] mile than anywhere in the world, apparently.

[1:30:12] Hmm.

[1:30:13] Their first data center was AOL.

[1:30:16] A little while ago when they used to send out the discs, the CDs.

[1:30:20] But they talked about several things that people bring to us as far as concerns,

[1:30:26] including water and electric.

[1:30:28] And then they talked about, you know, both the negative and the positive aspects.

[1:30:34] I think in Loudoun County,

[1:30:36] just due to property taxes And it's mostly like the servers,

[1:30:41] the cost of the servers, because those things are replaced every few years.

[1:30:46] The property taxes paid on the land that has data centers is about 3 to 4% of the

[1:30:52] land pays 30% of their property taxes. And so their tax rate has gone down by 50%.

[1:30:58] Average tax paid per household has gone down by 50% in the last 10 years.

[1:31:04] So, so I, I gave some of this information to, to Mr.

[1:31:08] Kerp earlier and just said, you know, if, if we look at conditional uses,

[1:31:13] I think that we should look at some—

[1:31:16] somebody like Loudoun County who has very strict standards for, for data centers.

[1:31:22] They do things like they don't, they don't, none of their data centers use

[1:31:27] don't, none of their data centers use water.

[1:31:28] They're all closed system cooling, so they use glycol.

[1:31:32] So their water consumption is less than a similarly sized office building,

[1:31:37] actually a lot less than that.

[1:31:39] And, and then they do stuff like if you have an emergency generator for,

[1:31:45] for if the grid goes down, they're required to attached to the grid as

[1:31:50] required to attached to the grid as opposed to,

[1:31:51] um, as opposed to like gas-powered turbines because they're a lot louder.

[1:31:56] Um, and if you have an emergency backup generator,

[1:32:00] they have to be in a sound closet.

[1:32:02] They have site plans with significant setbacks and then like aesthetic things on

[1:32:08] setbacks and then like aesthetic things on the

[1:32:08] buildings too. So a lot of kind of good stuff.

[1:32:12] I'm not saying that You know,

[1:32:14] one of the challenges that both of them mentioned in Pinellas County is land is

[1:32:20] mentioned in Pinellas County is land is too

[1:32:20] expensive for data centers.

[1:32:22] So I don't think there's going to be a whole bunch of people trying to put data

[1:32:28] centers in Pinellas County.

[1:32:30] But if we are to allow those uses as a conditional use somewhere in the city,

[1:32:36] we think we should look at some of those standards that allow in county.

[1:32:41] But there's a data center hub on the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Center's website

[1:32:47] that you can get the information that was given in that presentation.

[1:32:52] It was, it was actually really interesting.

[1:32:55] Um, and none of the—

[1:32:57] he said they were saying that none of the data centers in Loughton are used for AI.

[1:33:03] I'm not sure where those live, but, but, um, that's all I have in that report.

[1:33:09] Sure they're not.

[1:33:10] That's what Skynet's everywhere. That's what ChatGPT told me.

[1:33:17] Um, let me see.

[1:33:19] City Attorney Allen, anything to see evening?

[1:33:21] No, thank you.

[1:33:22] Thank you. Thanks for your help as well. Vice Mayor Johnson.

[1:33:25] I just wanted to say how much I appreciate our citizens and our, and our staff,

[1:33:30] all the time spent on this short-term rental issue.

[1:33:34] I, I've been really happy with just the engagement of everyone, and it's—

[1:33:38] I learned a ton. And I mean, I can't believe how many—

[1:33:42] feels like we have attorney citizens that are really researching through you know,

[1:33:47] poring through all kinds of different counties and cities and what they are

[1:33:52] counties and cities and what they are doing.

[1:33:53] And I think that's been helpful to spark our own research.

[1:33:56] So I do appreciate the feedback we've had.

[1:33:59] And I thank our team just for doing such a great job presenting, preparing,

[1:34:04] and looking at the pros and cons. So it's been fantastic. Thank you.

[1:34:09] Thank you. Commissioner Smith?

[1:34:11] I have nothing.

[1:34:12] Thank you.

[1:34:12] Thank you. Commissioner Lauser.

[1:34:14] Yeah, uh, so ditto on, on what the Vice Mayor said.

[1:34:18] And I think, um, my, my point is, uh, it may not be perfect, and I don't,

[1:34:22] I don't think we can get to perfect with some of the preemptions and things that

[1:34:27] we're stuck with. But I'm excited that we've, we've put some thought into it,

[1:34:32] put some work into it.

[1:34:33] I'm excited to get it, get it passed and, and, uh, into practice.

[1:34:39] Thank you. Commissioner DiBrizzi?

[1:34:40] Nothing tonight, thank you. Thank you.

[1:34:43] Commissioner Holk?

[1:34:44] Um, just the ditto from Vice Mayor Johnson and, and, uh, Lauser,

[1:34:50] our staff, the, the citizens that have been, um, educating us on,

[1:34:56] on, uh, doing a lot of research and for us and for our staff,

[1:35:02] but Also, Mayor, I just want to say I hope you had a really good

[1:35:08] birthday too.

[1:35:09] Thank you.

[1:35:10] That was good.

[1:35:10] And, um, that's it. Thank you.

[1:35:14] Thank you.

[1:35:15] Commissioner Holmes.

[1:35:15] Well, I would sing happy birthday, but the last time I sang,

[1:35:19] some people thought I was summoning demons.

[1:35:22] But anyway, um, it's nice to see that, uh, the, the light in the tunnel,

[1:35:27] predicated on the conversation tonight.

[1:35:29] It looks like there may be a a light at the end of the tunnel,

[1:35:33] and it's not the train going to run us over.

[1:35:36] I think there is an avenue to solve this problem. But anyway, that's all.

[1:35:41] I will sing if you want me to, though.

[1:35:43] Thank you. No thanks.

[1:35:45] I just wanted to echo, appreciate all the work,

[1:35:48] and I really think it's going to be very beneficial.

[1:35:51] And, you know, I think in hindsight, talking about the parking,

[1:35:55] the parking may be the solution for the occupancy rates before October of '27.

[1:36:00] So that's great, too. And that's all I had. Thanks for everything on that. Mr.

[1:36:05] had. Thanks for everything on that. Mr. Kerb.

[1:36:06] Thank you, Mayor. I do want to acknowledge the retirement of one of our important

[1:36:10] team members. Chris Hawks, our intergovernment relations coordinator,

[1:36:14] is retiring from city service after 5 years.

[1:36:17] And he's going on to— I think we'll still see him around.

[1:36:20] I think he's going to be involved with Florida League at a different level.

[1:36:24] But do want to acknowledge his service to this commission and to our community.

[1:36:29] And I'm sure we'll see him around. He's a Largo resident.

[1:36:32] So we're very proud of him.

[1:36:33] Fantastic.

[1:36:36] Very good. Any action items?

[1:36:38] I had none.

[1:36:39] In that case, meeting's adjourned.

[1:36:41] Appreciate it.

[1:36:44] So, so Woody, just so you know, Loudoun County

Largo City Commission Work Session

Transcript