[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.
[49:54] 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