Dan, can you hear me? >> Yes, mayor. We can we can do that. We'll we'll make sure that we reach out to each commissioner. >> Hey, great. >> Hey, Dan. >> Yes, sir. >> Hey, do you do you think you get more uh participation
with this method or do you think you have more participation with um like the one-on ones? Obviously, you know, I'm indifferent. I think this is a great more efficient way and you know really saves staff's time. Um I think sometimes
there are those opportunities where we do need to meet one-on-one and so you know I don't know if uh this is something you know is it should we keep doing this or you know >> I'm a I'm a 5050. I agree with you on wasting staff time because then now it's
what five times over. But like in all honesty, I I take this time off and I'm a real estate broker and I work at night from like 5:00 to 7:00, so I always block this time off. And if we know that it's just two of us, you know, and I
understand things happen, you know, um you know, both uh Amy and and Angela drive a long way in traffic at this time, so I totally get it. just if we knew if somebody was definitely not attending because the last couple times then kind of a moot meeting.
>> I mean I I can go into the the reasonings that we we have. Obviously you guys know it puts additional strain on staff um specifically meeting uh multiple times after five um throughout the week. Um we did this for efficiency
reasons but then also what was happening is we had some uh some elected officials that things would be explained and they were be explained in detail. the questions that were going to be asked weren't being asked um in a professional
manner and it was more from a gotcha standpoint to where they would purposely hold this information in order to essentially like make staff look uneducated. Uh and it was almost like it was used as a setup. Uh, I'm not going to go into
names, but that's why we did this more in a sunshine fashion versus having those one-on ones because the staff as a whole was being set up by the elected officials to make be made look bad. >> Yeah. No, and I uh I agree with that
100%. I I remember those days. Um, I just and and again, when all of us are on this and there's a lot of participation, it's better. Obviously, there's going to be nuances. there's going to be oneoffs. And the other the other thing too is like sometimes we have these conversations and we're able
to, you know, mitigate some dialogue that we would have on Tuesday with some agenda items. However, that is irrelevant if we don't have, you know, at least three of us, >> I would understand or assume, on the um
on the uh on the on the on the review meeting. That's a great point. >> Did you Did you want to talk? >> Yeah, that's a great point because I think that is one of the biggest benefits of having this meeting in the sunshine. We're able to talk about items that are upcoming on the agenda. Let's
just, for example, if there was something on here that you guys didn't want to talk about, we could then, you know, take it off the agenda and republish tomorrow. And that way, you're not dealing with it at the meeting. It makes the meetings run faster on Tuesday nights as well. And I do agree with you
that having all the commissioners here to get that dialogue and hearing it is very valuable to us. >> Yeah. >> Well, I just feel like, you know, we work for the public and there's people probably signed on now. We know we have
the people that really listen to everything and come on and here they're just waiting and then sometimes we're like, "Okay, well that's a wrap." >> Yeah, we got a total of 34 people on right now. Um, what I'll do is I'll assign a staff member to most likely the
commission aids just to preverify that they're going to be on the agenda meetings going forward and we can get a uh get a list and essentially it'll be it'll be in attendance >> and Commissioner Kelly's on.
>> Okay. And I think going forward, if that's the case, then you guys could probably u obviously you guys were each other's checks and balances. So, >> all right. Well, let's roll. >> Okay. We got uh we uh we have quorum.
So, we got three. Uh all right. So the um college football commission for the Boca Raton bowl, they want to recognize a city for um supporting um the Louisville uh University of Louisville. Um during
that Booker Raton Bowl, they used uh the Isel Hester football field, the Boon Bulldogs football field. Um this continues with uh last year when we uh hosted James Madison and um we're going to continue to do that. Um we've
developed a great working relationship with FAU with the uh with the bowl commission. So um they want to recognize and thank the city for uh for continuing that support. Uh 3B is going to be our uh annual 211
awareness month. Uh, Mayor Rebecca Shelton will me read the proclamation into the record. Proclamation will be the accepted by Elizabeth Burrow of 211, dire director of development and community relations. It's a 3C. Um, this
uh I I know there used to be a sleepin event and mayor, I guess maybe you have a little bit more information on this as far as is this something they're going to be moving forward and replacing that event at the Lord's place? I have not I don't have any information on that. I will find out. Oh,
>> okay. Yeah, I think they used to do a sleeping event. I think I believe this is going to be a uh March to end homeless homelessness awareness day and um they're reaching out to all municipalities to u to participate. So,
um, public audience, uh, 5A, um, this is one of our, uh, built-in, uh, waiver systems that we redid with the, uh, with the ordinance to give the commission a little bit more, um, um, authority when it comes to granting waivers for
individuals who live outside the city limits. There's a request for a waiver appointment for Don Casseri. Dan, real quick. I think I have um I'm sorry. Go ahead. I'm sorry I jumped again. Sorry.
>> Yeah, he's seeking a waiver for the crab board, the CRA advisory board because he lives outside the city limits. Um and this would obviously place him on the CRA board. Um if you can open up uh B
and Candace, um she can go into the uh to the appointees. So, real quick, I think I have um I think that I have the first one because the other two don't have um applicants, but for the CRA one, if it's okay um
with Commissioner Kelly and uh and and Mayor Shelton, since there's there's a a quorum here, I would like to postpone that item, Sean. I don't know if we have to wait until the meeting to table it or if there's a a mechanism to table that
to the next meeting. I have and the reason is I have someone that's interested um for this position that I would like to further entertain. >> Um we can pull it now if you're asking us not to go forward. We can pull it now >> and publish tomorrow without it on
there. >> Yeah. >> Or we can table it at the meeting, whichever is easier for you. >> Yeah. Yeah. We can um Yeah, I mean it's whatever there's consensus for >> just take it off. >> Yeah, that's fine. I'm fine with that.
>> Okay. So, this is part of the reason we do it now is Yeah. We can pull stuff ahead of time so we don't have to go, you know, go through it and waste time at the meeting. >> Yeah. And Commissioner, you're just looking to remove the appointments for the CRA, the crab.
>> Yeah. Just the one that I have. Yes. >> Okay. >> Not not not all of them. Okay. So, we had an applicant for the education youth advisory board. That's a non- studentent applicant. Um, so regular appointment there. Um, and
that's going to go to Commissioner Turkin. You have that vacancy at Phil. Um, we only the one applicant. We also have two uh applicants that are seeking positions on the senior advisory board. And so one seeking the regular board membership
member position and there's an alternate board member seeking a regular position. Mayor Shelton, you have one of the uh appointments and Commissioner Cruz, you have the other. >> I have a question about that. There's um what now? I've heard there's like four vacancies on the senior advisory board
and I see Mark Stevenson isn't but I like there's six open. I heard that there was four open. Okay. So Mark Stevenson's doing the alternate board member. Oh, he's seeking regular. Sorry, I just saw that. Great. Okay. >> Ignore that.
>> Wait. Thank you. >> Yeah. Can we um can we get some And it doesn't have to be tonight. It doesn't need to be, but if I could get an update, I there was a lot of from what I understand, there was four members of
the senior advisory board. I guess they all lived in the same neighborhood and they all resigned at the same time. I'm just wondering like how does that happen? if they're I I just feel that's a little bit crazy with sunshine laws and everything how
they all resigned within the same time period and and if there was a reason or you know if there's something we need to talk about or discuss to so I just >> yeah we'll commissioner with you we'll
get with you offline there's definitely a reason for it >> okay great thanks Yeah, I had the same question myself. That's why I uh >> that's why you know the answer. Okay. >> Yep. >> Thank you.
>> Okay. So, moving on to uh consent. Uh this is a renewal letter with our ILA agreement between the uh CRA for funding on the on demand transportation service pilot program for a one-year period. Um, I I I I know we we we would like um the
coastal cruiser to uh to be working, but when I when I'm looking and I'm digging into the analytics to the price that we're paying per passenger to the beach, uh I don't think it's cost effective for the city. I don't see the the return on
the city's investment. And I know we did this as a pilot program. This is our second year that we're actually um moving forward with it. I would ask that the commission does approve this, but in the event that those numbers do not
improve, um it it's going to be a recommendation from myself and uh staff as a whole that we discontinue this program after the next year. And I know we were even looking at expanding it um but we're just not we're not seeing
that. Uh I mean for the price that we're paying some of the passengers could buy a car almost. >> And real quick with the um revenue so I think there's an alternative to that. I think >> maybe we increase because I believe they there's a cost associated to the
consumer. So maybe I I don't know the exact details of the contract, but maybe um obviously we'll have a year to do this since we're recommending continuing, but maybe the maybe now is this discussion if we're not seeing, you know, the ROI we want to or the
utilization that we discuss increasing the cost for the consumer and maybe we can recuperate that or or at the very least maybe that gives it ample amount of time to then help grow the program is just a thought that I have and I again I
don't know the nitty-gritty of the contract but maybe that's something we can look into doing and increasing the fee. Um you know and I think there was other opportunities too where we could partner with like local businesses. I
don't know how how far in the weeds circuit would go into with like a sponsorship program, but from my understanding it's like a pretty flexible like pilot we can do. And so, you know, maybe maybe it's uh just increasing the cost on the consumer. And
you know, I think the people who utilize it now, whether they're paying a dollar or $150 or $2.50, I don't think you're going to see a drastic drop in utilization. and then it gives it time to, you know, maybe gain a little bit more traction is just a thought before
we uh hit the kill switch. Yeah, that Commissioner Durken, that's exactly what I was going to say is that, you know, this was we we chose those fees to encourage people to start using it um during the pilot program period um with
the anticipation that we could, you know, increase that because I think it's $2 to go over to the beach. And so, um even $3 is still cheaper than paying for parking at our beach. So, you know, that was kind of the thought process was
let's keep it under what it would cost people to park at the beach so that it would encourage them to utilize that service as opposed to uh you know driving over there and and parking and then you know because we have seen a significant decrease in complaints and
issues with people finding parking. So, I feel like it and and maybe it comes down to we look at the dates also that aren't being or the days of the week that maybe aren't used being being used as much and maybe we you know cut out going over to the beach on a Wednesday or Monday through Wednesday and we leave
like the weekends and look at peak days and um so I think there's things that we can look at with the because we just had a presentation during the CRA meeting on usage and our usage is up by 75% in the last quarter. So, we're seeing an
increase. Um, so maybe maybe even reach out to Tim and get with Circuit and see if they have some ideas that that would fall within our contract that maybe we can test during this this next year to
see if we're if we if we do notice an improvement, you know, if that means, you know, we cut down on cars or we cut down on trips or whatever. So I think there's some things within our contract that give us some flexibility on that that you can probably try in during this
year and then we can decide. We'll have we will have tried everything or tried whatever we could within the scope of the contract and then go from there. >> So just to piggyback off of that, we have met with the CRA staff and that is what we intend to do. Um we're going to
do a slight increase to see if we can get the revenue up just like uh you guys mentioned. We're also going to see if we can get them the advertising. They've been a little bit unsuccessful um because they when they generate revenue for advertising, they that reduces our costs. So again, I do I agree with everyone that we should wait at least
another year. That's why we're recommending extending it for more year to see how it performs with some tweaks and then hopefully we'll, you know, the CRA is the one that runs this project. So we'll need to rely on them to give us some good quarterly information. We'll just make sure that we get it over to you guys as well on the commission side.
>> Yeah. And then maybe just make a note, Andrew, that before we have a discussion because this ended up coming before the CRA before it came before us. And so this might be a good um item to put when we have our joint meetings to have a
discussion about this in the future and as opposed to having them independently at our meetings. >> Yeah. What I'll do is I'll put it on my calendar as a reminder that, you know, we'll we'll start talking about this, you know, two or three months before we get to the point where we have to renew. >> Perfect. and and and maybe we can put
this on the the next joint uh meeting >> that way we have a productive one. I know there's a couple have already been brought up. So the last joint meeting, you know, although I think we did get a little bit out of it, I think if we're going to spend time, let's make it as productive as possible. >> Yeah.
>> Andrew, also um I want to add if you guys were okay with the next joint meeting, I wanted a discussion about the events and a discussion about the uh the CRA plan amendment. Yeah, I did ask for those at the CRA meeting to add those to the next joint meeting. And also, it was
events and it was also on um >> what was the there was another thing I asked to be added to the joint meeting as well because it it tracked with all of that as well. So >> there's I think um we there's a couple we talked about like the
>> why I'm going blank >> code enforcement >> like the code enforcement um be like uh >> like a the the housing program for aesthetics. >> Yeah, I know that the CRA code enforcement >> and then like I think the bond also
>> I think um there's a conversation there with like the overlap between the CRA plan and the strategic plan. with the land acquisition, all of it. >> Yeah. >> If you remember, Commissioner Kelly, just email me and I'll make sure I get it on.
>> Yep. I will. I I'll just have to look back. I have it in my notes. I'll look back at my note and and see what exactly it was. I have it written down. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome. So, moving forward with 6B, uh it's going to be approving the first amendment to the ILA uh for the public
safety radio system between the city and Palm Beach County. This is just some general housekeeping language that we had to clean up and uh include. Um no other changes besides uh some nuanced language items. Uh 6C is going to be a utility easement encroachment agreement
between the city of Boon Beach and Hyperion Development to allow a developer to install private water service lines within a 10-ft utility easement dedicated to the city of Boon Beach. You guys should already be aware of that. Uh 6D
>> real quick on that one. On that one, Dan, maybe this is an injured question. So, they're going to have a a private water line close to one of our utility lines. Is that am I understanding that correctly? >> That's correct. >> Okay.
>> So, one of this site is very tight. Um, so it was technically infeasible for them to get some of these. So, there's 4 in fire line and and then there's I can't remember the other line, but um we're putting it in in where a drainage pipe is. Um, so we're formalizing an
agreement with them. So if there is a problem, if something does happen, they're the ones that going to have to repair our cost. >> So all that is going to be put on the developer or the the owner of the property. >> Okay. >> We're just allowing it, but we staff does feel like it's it's it's fine. Um,
it's over a drainage pipe. If we ever had to do repairs, most likely would be done from inside the pipe. So it should be fine. >> Okay. All right. And so there's a there's a risk mitigation with liability for them. Okay. All right. Perfect. Thanks.
>> All right. So, I'll let Shauna take uh 60. >> I emailed everyone today about the settlement and I sent the police report. I think it's pretty self-explanatory, but this is a pre-suit settlement. So, if anyone has any questions about it,
uh, they should give me a call and I'll be happy to go over the details. >> You said you sent an email, Shauna. >> I did today, correct? >> To the comm to the commissioners. >> Yes, I did. >> I don't think I got >> I didn't get an email. >> I didn't get an email.
>> I don't I don't think you sent it to the commission. I think you only sent it to uh me and >> No, I sent it to city commission and then I copied them. >> Oh, that's not an email address. I don't think That's an old one. >> That's for a calendar.
>> Oh, shoot. Okay, I will resend the email. I I can tell you generally this was a um t-bone accident with a police vehicle and we are settling it pursuit for $75,000. And if you have more questions about
that, give me a call. >> Perfect. Thank you. >> You're welcome. Sorry, I will uh try to fix that. Not sure what happened. Is there any want or need to do an overview of the January 20th meeting minute meeting minutes?
>> No. >> All right. 78. Uh approving a soul source purchase of software licenses and Paragan Technologies in the amount not to exceed 370,000. This is a three-year contract. And this is uh just continuing
with our um technology enhancements over with our public safety. uh what this is going to do over the last probably 20 or 40 years, you've had a a plethora of different record management systems and
pretty much to kind of create lay terminology for it. Any sort of contact that police officers have had over the last four or five decades with individuals gets inputed into a computer database. What this does is instead of having to go back and run all that
information through the different databases, it's essentially going to be a culmination of everything, it's going to bring all of that data, that dirty data. It's going to clean it and it's going to allow the patrol officer in real time to look up individuals by
tattoo. It's going to allow individuals to be looked up by first name, last name, any sort of identifiable marks on their vehicles. It's really going to enhance the investigative uh options and it's uh not going to be any uh hit towards our um general fund. It's not
going to be a hit towards our capital improvement um funding, anything like that. It's going to be coming out of law enforcement uh forfeite funds and also um the uh 103 traffic fund. >> Dan, on on that one, is there a
is there a recurring cost? Uh it's a three-year contract and the contract is $120,000 a year. Okay. >> So at the at the end of the contract then we it'll be up for renewal and then we'll have to renegotiate the terms. >> Is there a way
>> can it be used for Go ahead. >> I I was just going to say like is there a way to track the utilization? >> Um >> because we buy the fancy stuff and it's like you know 10% of the police department's using it, >> right? I was going to ask, does it go
back into other cases that haven't been solved? Like, can it be utilized? >> Yeah, they can use it for cold cases and all that. Yeah, >> I I'll uh I'll defer to Assistant Chief J. Jack Dale. He's going to be the uh subject matter expert on this, but I'm
pretty sure that the unequivocal answer to your question, Mayor, is yes. And Commissioner Turkin, I can assure you that this is going to be an invaluable tool to every patrol officer. So, you'll probably have about 100% utilization.
>> Okay. Yeah, that's the only it'll be a daily database system that every officer's going to log into, especially from the detective bureau and the investigation side. >> So, so Dan, you did a pretty good job there explaining it. Um, we we actually
sat in on some crime meetings with other police departments and it's pretty much the backbone of all their meetings. Um it would take we have we have three former record management systems that go back 25 years. So it will bring in all
the data from all the past records uh along with all the computerated dispatch records and our digital evidence records and they'll be able to search in a single search bar as opposed to logging into each separate system. And we're running into a problem now is that half
the officers have less than three or four or five years on. So they have no knowledge of how to use these old systems and uh and some of them have difficulty even logging in. So um allowing them to search across multiple silos in one shot is a big timesaver. Um
and it allows us to also use the data from a management standpoint to see crime trends over time and heat maps. Uh so it's a very powerful tool. It's it's in place at PBSO now and uh in Broward County as well. So, we'll be able to um
maybe in the future uh share some of our uh crime trend data to each other. And this is just aligning with the city strategic plan going forward. I know the two uh the two major topics is public safety and cleanliness in the
city. So, it it it it's it's definitely going to be a uh technology enhancement that the the overall officers are going to benefit from. And you'll probably and and I think what I would like to see is how and I don't
I'm looking at it from the standpoint of investigations. Uh, Chief Dale, and I'm thinking if it is used to solve a crime or how a detective is using it on a day-to-day basis, maybe we can kind of revisit this um in 12 months and see
what kind of uh return we got as far as like the utilization of it. >> I I remember databases like Smart Force and things like that that came and went by the wayside. So >> point taken and uh you know just so that
the group is aware you can have things that are in multiple databases separately and it could be something like I'm looking for Jack on Five Street and he goes by this nickname and it'll search across all of them and come up with the possible. So it's a big
timesaver. It would take detectives uh a long time to sift through those records and and maybe never make that connection. So there'll be definitely be crimes that will be solved as a result of it and it'll be done in a much much faster way. >> Yeah. One other question. Is this a a
one-year contract with two one-year renewals? >> Uh I have it down. I believe it's a three-year contract. >> Okay. All right. All righty. Uh Andrew, you want to take 7B? >> Sure. >> So, we recently Go ahead.
>> And also take uh 7B as well for the F DOT project. >> Sure. >> So, um a while back we upgraded or re redid the parking at the beach in Oer Park. We went away from the kiosk system
that we had there before. We kept park mobile. This is the new kiosk system. We're doing amendment. Unfortunately, the staff member who uh initiated this project is no longer works for us. Um missed the the part that was acquiring
the kiosk. They got the service, but we ended up installing the kiosk and didn't find out till later after the employee is gone that that was not included. Um so this is just amending that so that we can pay them for the kiosk which was already budgeted for and everything. We
just it got missed in the contract language for some reason or in the approval. So, this is just rectifying that after the fact. Um, any questions on that? And the kiosks are installed. They are they're working very well. They're much better than what we had before. Um, we've had a lot of
compliments on the new technology for sure. Item 7C. Um, this is related to our Southeast First Street skate project. This is the project that we got the TPA grant that run from Second Street all the way to Wulbright. as a part of that
project and going through um because we federalize that project, there's a lot of really um specific rules and requirements that we have to do. Um DOT typically wants us to outsource that to what we call as construction engineering
inspection um compliance and that is simply what we're doing here. This is the engineering company that will be doing that work for us there. Um we also are needing to pull 283,000 out of the fund balance. Um, this
project was skated to start last year. It didn't start last year. Um, so that project didn't get the funding didn't get rolled over, but it did go back to the fund balance. So, we're just reallocating it in the fund balance. Um, and I believe this project is going to start within next 30 days, I believe.
Um, I don't I don't remember the date Kevin might be able to on or um will. Yes, >> William. The notice to proceed is March 1st. >> Perfect. Excellent. And then what is the time frame on that project, Will?
>> Uh, you know, it's 270 contractual days. So, I think it's scheduled to end right about the first of the year of 2027. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah. So, the majority of Southeast First Street, and that's the uh road just behind City Hall to the east of us,
that that that road is going to be essentially uh you're not going to be able to um to to transit that specific portion for probably about a year. >> That's for all the individuals.
So, um, we'll probably have to do some, uh, social media posting so people are aware of it >> before we actually get signed up. We'll do a live project started. >> Signs. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Right. Um, is Amanda Ratigan on? >> I am on.
>> All right. There you go. You got A, B, C, and D. A and B are related. C and D are related. Correct. >> Uh, A is standalone, B is standalone, but C and D are related. >> Okay. Okay. So, item A uh this is related to
the streamlining of the development process. This is specifically uh an LDR amendment for community design appeals. Currently, community design appeals are a major process which means they go to the commission for approval. Um the
commission historically has approved just about 100% of these approvals. And the other thing about the way it's written right now is even if a project could be approved administratively, if they need a community design appeal, the
entire project goes to commission. So in an effort to streamline that process, we are creating two tiers of community design appeals. Uh when they go with a minor project, the community design appeals are minor and when uh a project is major, the community design appeals
will go major. Is there any questions on A? Okay. Item B is actually a comprehensive plan text amendment. Um, this is a policy item. It is not a regulation
item. Um, so it's much briefer. It is basically the addition of a policy that allows the city to create an payment in lie of conservation program. um this and it doesn't create the program, it just allows us to possibly
create a program. The creation of the program would require an LDR amendment. Um but the idea behind this policy would be to create a funding stream for maintenance of environmentally sensitive lands. Um currently the city doesn't have a dedicated funding stream and this would be one way that we could do
something like that. Um there are a couple of examples um of cities and Palm Beach County that have very comparable policy and programs. Are there any questions on B?
>> And up uh real quick for the um so so because we don't have like that plan and my guess is that that funding source would go into a pot of money for this purpose. Where are those funds allocated
in the meantime or are they just held as a line item or placeholder and can't be kind of touched until we develop that type of thing and exactly >> that wouldn't happen >> like >> um and again this is just a what if what
happens to those funds? >> Yeah. Right. So this actually just creates the policy. It doesn't create any regulatory framework. So, we actually couldn't collect that these funds just based on this amendment. The next and once the city commissioner
approves this, staff will work on creating the actual program and the regulations that would govern um how that money could be used and what happens with that money. Essentially, it would be maintenance of um environmentally sensitive lands. It
could be the purchase of environmentally sensitive lands and any kind of related items to uh further conservation. Uh now it would be broad like that and you would budget that money the way we budget all other dollars and cap dollars through the budget process.
>> Okay. No, I think that that's great. I think having that broad scope has uh been helpful and I know you've been you've been great and done such a good job with some of these similarly related uh fees and assessments, you know, with with other categories. So, I think this
is something exciting >> trying to bring in that revenue. >> That's right. >> Okay, if there are no other questions, item C and D are related. Um, this one's a little bit of a story. So this has to do with an existing uh multif family
development called Estansia. Um they were built and the approved plans show a wall which is required to separate multifamily from single family. Um the owners are claiming that the wall was never built. Um staff has found records
of a wall on a survey. Um in any case they are requesting a variance from having that wall. Um, this did come to the city's attention through a complaint of the neighbor. Um, the single family homeowner is claiming that they are
getting a lot of water runoff from their site to the single family homeowner. Um, so unfortunately for this item, you know, if we apply the strict rules of a variance, um, staff isn't recommending approval of the variance. Uh they are
asking for complete removal of the wall but are requesting to do a 6ft solid fence instead. Well, I mean, are we >> That's not gonna right, but that's not going to solve I mean, is there a viable
complaint from the neighbor that and and would a wall really even solve that or are you are they better off with more landscape? Like what? >> Semi-related. It's a pretty convoluted history and I'm not even sure I have all
of the details accurate. Um, and I'm we're obviously getting different stories from the different neighbors. Um, an interesting fact though, the single family homeowner actually received a variance to build his home closer to Estansia than typically
permitted. So, they are actually very close to that site. Um, a wall may help with some drainage. I'm not sure it's going to fix everything. I mean, it will definitely help because it's not going to be able to flow straight onto their property the way it is right now,
>> but the >> but the person that purchased it this way what 20 years ago, >> correct? >> Well, yes, that's right. They purchased it and they got a variance to I believe it was to add the garage to be closer to
that property. H yeah, this is um a difficult one. I will say that there is a valid case for a variant if we apply the strict rules and criteria. It it's not um we wouldn't consider it a non-self-imposed hardship
since it was required. Um and it was on the approved plans for the site. That's really the basis of staff's recommendation for Data. So, so there we haven't been able to confirm whether or not a wall was was
ever built or it was built and torn down or what? >> It depends. It depends who you ask. We do have a variance. I'm sorry. We do have a survey that shows a wall on it. Um, so we were saying that there absolutely is evidence that there is a
wall and it was built. uh the applicant and the attorney for the applicant has been adamant that it has never been built and it was a mistake on the surveyor's part. Um and they are saying that it was actually seeded and final
without a wall being built. >> Now that in of itself doesn't mean that a wall is not required. Um but it is it does support their argument if it never was built and now you want a wall. This is a little bit of a middle ground and they're not requesting to remove
everything. They will install a six- foot solid fence. Um the wall they are claiming is cost prohibitive since it is an HOA. Um and unfortunately again just with the criteria for a variance finance isn't uh
one of the criterias that we can account for. >> All right. Maybe you and I can talk offline and not hold everyone up today because I >> I am Yeah. >> Yeah. I know this one's a little bit of a story time. And item D is the site
plan amendment that would because remember their site plan does show a wall. So for all intents and purposes, a wall is required right now. So item D is a major site plan modification that changes the required wall to a solid fence um and some plantings on the
inside of that wall. Our recommendation for this is denial if you don't approve the variance, but we could recommend approval if you do choose to approve the variance. Um we are okay with their alternative design. Um, but we just
can't recommend approval until we have a result on the variance because that is the only reason that we would recommend denial. >> How is this over two and a half decades later? That that community has been built for freaking 20 years, Amanda. That doesn't make any sense. >> Yeah.
>> I feel like this is like a hardship towards that community overall. >> That that is that is exactly what they're claiming, Dan. And this is why we're bringing this forward. Per code, it can't be a non-self-imposed hardship. And since we have records showing that it exists and it was required, um it's
kind of like we're being a stickler for the rules, but we're pushing it forward. If they have a compelling argument, the commission can approve it. >> And this is a one one per one person. >> Sorry. Yeah, this seems like a developer should have put that in there, but
because they didn't, now the community as a whole is being punished because they took ownership of that community. I know there's a transfer of ownership after 24 months and this should have been addressed originally and now I feel like we're going to be punishing the the the community overall and I
>> correct and the attorney is saying that it was coed that way. So they're also blaming putting some blame on the city. Uh you know correct or not correct is a different a different thing but their argument is the city final the site that way. Yeah, that's what we we need to get
blamed for mistakes that were made like 30 years ago. >> Yes. >> Here we we're fixing the mistakes now. We're bringing a variance to correct the issue for them. >> And and Amanda, this is one homeowner adjacent to this area. Correct. Just that one homeowner.
>> There is just one homeowner. >> Yeah. >> Very unique situation. >> Yeah. This isn't a a lengthy fence. Um we're talking about I think it's like a two 15 foot sections. So this isn't like an ent this doesn't go the entire length of of the community. It is just a small area.
>> And in any in any event, >> you know, the we we can address if I don't believe we've we've verified um the runoff water. Um but should in the future, whether there's a wood fence or a wall there, we would require remedies
there, whether it be a burm, something, all properties need to retain the water onto their property. So whether this is approved or not, um that issue can still be addressed. >> Okay. Okay. That was kind of one of my concerns was if there's truly a a runoff
water issue, you know, are we are we causing I Okay, thank you. If no one has any questions, that is all of the public hearing items. >> Um Dan, real quick, um do we have an
update on some of these uh future agenda items? >> You're still on. >> Sorry. And uh here, take take it away and then I'll I'll start on my second thing I got for you. second and last. >> Okay. I uh now if we have no other
questions um involving anything Amanda related, I kind of want to get into the future agenda items because I know there are some questions. Um I want to go over and see if there's an appetite for maybe removing some of these items that I uh I don't feel like we've been given
appropriate direction on. um some of the things have lingered out there with no real course of action and some of it's monetary related that it would cost millions upon millions of dollars to try to get some things done. So, I'm going to um go through each item
and if you guys want to stop me at any point, just like like stop me and we can go into a little bit more uh in-depth discussion. So, with 11A, I'm not going to really go into that. We just gave Andrew quite a bit of uh content that we
want to discuss f in the uh future. Uh so item 11b um we've had some interest from a developer on combining some of our properties and I know kind of a source spot and mayor you had brought this up and commissioner Turk and it is
it's east side district 3. So what happened was is the CRA was so polite to give us the women's club and not enough money to appropriately repair it. So we've had the women's club now for quite some time and we just didn't have the
actual revenue and the funds to do the appropriate repairs to make that a a viable uh venue space for events. And what we've done is is we've we've got some interest from a developer uh as far
as like maybe exploring a unsolicited bid with a P3 with a P3 option um and having a public private partnership to where there is going to be a public use for the space. And there's two aspects of this. One is going to be the
revitalization of the women's um center. The second is going to be um the complete um demo and remodel of the senior center. So those seniors out there that don't have access to an HOA like you see in Sterling Village and
Leisureville and things of that nature, those that live in single family residences, they'll have a place to go. And I don't know, those of you have visited the senior center, it's in a dilapitated condition and it does need remodeling. And what we were looking at
is maybe um incentivizing some um some workforce housing or some senior housing and combining those two properties to kind of uh go forward with that. And we haven't presented anything um as far as like to the public, but that's just something that we have had interest in.
Andrew, do you want to kind of chime in here as far as any of the uh in-depth detail that you've had regarding that project? >> Yeah, so we we did meet with the developer. They asked us for a scope um of what we would like to see in the project. Um they are actively working on
it right now. So we're open to see some some kind of a concept drawing. Um and then we're expecting them to probably submit an unsolicited proposal to exactly what Dan said is um basically renovating what we have there and then combining some type of uh housing on
site. So um that is we're waiting for hope to have it very soon. Um, yeah, I remember us buying that property with the CRA hats that's adjacent to the senior um center. So, it makes me like think of something else
and maybe we incorporate that into the uh the joint session is um like the properties that are under different ownerships between the CRA and the city. If we want to maybe look at those that are adjacent to each other and want to
start any potential transfers or anything like that, I feel like we could help mitigate time on any projects by having those properties under the same um I guess the same ownership whether it's the CRA or the city. I know there's
been quite a bit of historical context of transfers between the city and the CRA and so maybe it's a it's a it's a good practice beforehand to take a look at some of those properties on and get
that conversation going as we move into um you know really like a comprehensive plan of any LDRs and uh you know the uh you know anything that we'll do on the CRA
I think it's important too because in my opinion up until recently the CRA and the city were at a Y, you know, operating at two different directions and not parallel enough to benefit from each other. So I think that this is the time that we start aligning a little bit
of the vision of the city collectively. >> I agree, Mayor. Um there's no other questions. We'll move forward to uh 11C. And what this is is this has to do with
some projects to where you have and obviously anyone who's seen the city, you've seen cranes in the air, there's a high desire by developers to come in and do projects in Boon. Um, and that that's partly obviously due to you guys and
like the kind of atmosphere and environment you fostered and and you you you created a an environment to where there want that there's a need and a want to invest in the city. And so some of the uh issues is is
there's always short-term pain for long-term gain when it comes to doing these big projects. And a lot of the times it's these the the early morning cement pores with the vibration and the noise and things like that. We've all got complaints from the residences and I
feel their pain. But again, once those projects are completed, then it's going to enhance the area. It's going to enhance property values. And this is one of the items that I would like to see the commission remove. Um I don't think that it's fair towards developers as far
as having to develop an alternate plan to come in and do these early morning concrete pores and things of that nature. I think that um talking with Adam, talking with the building department and staff that their
recommendation is is we're we're mirroring other municipalities in the way we do things. And if we upset that, we we do risk exposure to uh litigation by some of these developers and things. So, I uh it's one of the items that I
want to see removed. >> Yeah, I think I'm I'm okay with that. I thought we took care of it. Um that this is only going to create a headache and deter investment in the city >> if it were to move forward. >> I would also mention that it also
extends >> you can't do it in the middle of the day with the with the heat. >> Correct. >> Correct. >> So, I think that's not that's out of our hands. I think that's some like state thing. I don't know. And I and I think I think we learned I think the between our
team and the developers team and even the villages, you know, having that open line of communication, having somebody on site, having the city have a hotline and the developer having a hotline where residents can reach out if there's a an issue that can be immediately resolved
or addressed or looked into, I think has really helped. You know, we've I I get the emails, too. I don't think I get them to the volume of maybe some people, but I don't think we've gotten the the complaints that we would have
gotten if we didn't have those things in place. Um, and so I am comfortable with I I don't remember if this was like if the original because we did have like a we did have a very basic noise ordinance
and then it got revised and then it got revised and then at the last minute it got revised by one commissioner and that's when I was done with this because I felt like it put so many restrictions that nobody could get any work done and so that's I think what led to it being
tabled and so I'm fine. going back to how it was or whatever we had in place. And if there's anything that staff actually recommends that's helpful and efficient, then I'm comfortable to revisit that. But going down this rabbit
hole of it has to be a certain way. It's just it it was it's not efficient at all. So >> D originated. >> Okay. I appre So we got consensus to remove uh C. Um 11D this originated from
a complaint I want to say from Golf View Harbor and Andrew you can kind of speak on this project. I can't really remember what it was. Do you remember? Yeah, it was an addition to a single family house um or new h I think it was addition. And as a part of the code when you're doing an
upgrade like that, you're required to put in a sidewalk adjacent, you know, and it's and it's a way for us to add missing segments within neighborhoods as we're building sidewalks. Um this particular area, um she wanted to have the sidewalk removed and she was trying
to get her permits issued. Um, so we obliged, you know, we allowed her to delay installing the sidewalk to give her time so she could start the project. Um, and then ultimately she's the person I say the the residents not building that addition anymore. So, uh, um, this
is something that we already have in the code that if they decided they didn't want to build the sidewalk, they could do the inloo fees, um, and then just pay in the fees and they don't have to build the sidewalk and then we would use those fees to build sidewalks in the other places or in any other missing areas.
So, I mean, we have a mechanism for for doing inloo fees. Um, this was very specific to one one project. It was just an addition to a single family home, but >> now it's moved. So it's at this point >> pretty much. >> Yeah. So
>> do we have consensus from you guys to remove uh D as well? >> Fine by me. >> Yeah. I mean it's not my item. So I don't know if you want to check with the commissioner whose item it is and just double check. But I mean, if it's moot,
then it doesn't I mean, it it's doesn't it's not applicable. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I think courtesy call is good. >> Okay. Um Andrew, can you reach out to Commissioner Cruz tomorrow? >> Yes. >> Now, if that commissioner is fine with
it being removed, do I have consensus to remove it? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Okay. All right. >> But don't you already have it? That's >> Yeah, >> we do. But I'm just we're just gonna be respectful and I I'll give her a ring. Um and and just let her know
>> because it was an isolated complaint, >> right? >> Um so the next one is a beautifification board. And I kind of want to keep that item and I want to bring it later on for a discussion from the uh commission. Um I know when we started the beautifification department I want to
say two years ago it massive success and we we we've seen a return on that. So the the issue is is when we we create a beautifification board a lot of times we're constrained
monetarily from what we can and cannot do. But some of that if you have a dedicated board that can kind of brainstorm and create maybe some ideas that we can go out and we can look for grants and things of that nature, especially since we we have a Thorn Run, which is our federal lobbyist. There's
no matching funds to that. Those funds are 100% funded. So, we could actually look for some sustainability grants and things like that if we get some ideas from the beautifification board. I uh I'd kind of like to see that one stay. >> Yeah. Um, and also I mean I envision
like that beautifification board could plan cleanups and and do things like that that are more you know I mean it is voluntary but at the same time like if that beautifification board those people are going to want and be you know be
those kind of cleanup people. So, I mean, that's what I envision is that if we have a beautifification board, it's not just somebody who wants to sit inside and and talk about what we can how we clean up trash. It's going to be people who want to go out and pick up trash. So I envision that that board
would plan different cleanups in different districts and rotate and look at problem areas and you know so I think it's I feel like that board is more going to be more of a hands-on board than just um sitting there meeting once
a month and talking about um what the city can do because we're we have a we have code enforcement, we have our beautifification team, we have staff that's doing that. We need other people to to to support us and staff with with
really doing those enhancements. And like you said, looking at grants and looking for those different opportunities that are out there, looking at different organizations that like the garden club or somebody else that would donate to plant some bushes and plant a butterfly garden and things like that. Like I that's what I envision
this board to to kind of spearhead and really be a supplement to what we are doing as as a city. So, let's iron down a a specific meeting to bring that discussion, Andrew. Yeah. >> Tonight. Um what what ideally like would
you guys want to see this come sooner um before the summer legislative break? >> Um you know, would have liked it to see, you know, have it come before six months ago, but um you know, here we are. So, I >> got a lot of things going on.
>> Yeah, I know. I know. It can be done before the legislative break. >> Yeah, for sure. >> Um, I think Commissioner Kelly brought up a couple really good points. And one thing is like I know a lot of times with some of these boards like we we set like
requirements, right? And I'm not, you know, really focused on the individuals that sit on that, but maybe there's a requirement where we have, you know, um, a nonprofit that we've had, you know, pretty good faith in collaboration with like Habitat for Humanity or another
nonprofit sit on this board to help, you know, essentially maybe fund uh, coordinate some of these quarterly cleanups, something like that. you know, we talk about um Tommy Isabella. He's done a lot of stuff with the parks here in Boon, you know, just straight volunteer work. And I think this is a
way to um like personify the uh the initiative we're trying to do here. >> And then um is it Jay Yun that's the she's the she's in charge of the team. Yeah, Jay Yun's awesome. And so, you know, I don't know, she sits in on this too, you know, and and maybe and like
obviously the thing to consider too is like it takes staff time. We have to publish it, all that. I'm mindful of that. So, I don't know how often they need to meet, but if there's um you know, super engaged residents like Tommy or Miss Hawyer, you know, that have a lot of good feedback, you know, maybe
it's scheduling those meetings, you know, in lie of or in addition to, you know, this board with uh you know, staff members like Jay Yun, right, and get that critical thinking to the table. Um, you know, I I just think that I want to
be mindful of like another board of course, but I think there's a lot of opportunity. I just got a message while we were on this on this call about um like having staff do like a quarterly or a monthly run through either in the
morning or in the evening of lights that are out with FPL. So like Commissioner Turkin doesn't have to do it all. And um you know, you could have someone just go around Chapel Hill or the west side, you know, anywhere where there's there's street lights out, they can just do a
patrol, take an inventory, right, and then submit those tickets, right? Because I've been doing a lot of that because a lot of people don't know how to do it. So if we could have that as a part of the beautifification team's tasks, I think that's a very simplistic thing to add to that role that would
make a huge impact and then also lessen up the burden for our residents. And then you know I don't mind doing it but I can only do so many and they are doing some of that now. I don't know how regularly we're doing it. I know that they they do it they have done it and they've been working with
FBL. I've seen it. Um but I don't know if they're going out, you know, weekly or monthly. So, I I I'll circle back down with Jay. How about the first meeting in May for the beautifification board? That gives us time to bring back some um how some how it would look and how it could operate with some, you know, highlights.
>> Maybe we can add that to the joint meeting >> in April >> since those things kind of overlap. Yeah. >> Okay. >> I think >> I think we could do it. It wouldn't be a bad idea >> when I'm sorry. Go ahead, Mayor. I'd like a timeline of like when what the light up
um timeline is too because I know if you say people are checking on it and this is more of a question. Are they out you know at night? Are they out at 5 in the morning? You know, are they working those hours to even assess this problem? >> Yes. Yes.
>> Yeah. So, typically typically what we do in the morning. >> Yeah. Typically what we do is we'll have staff either stay late or come in early and flex time and then have them tag it with with caution tape and go back and get down the polls. We do have an app on FPL that if you're there with the app,
it can actually tag it with the geoloccating. >> So that is stuff that we have. Um the I can tell you one of the problems that we have is FPL has 40 days like typically when you put it in you'll get a email back saying you know within 40 days this
will be repaired. Um, so that's part of the delay. And I've had conversations with FPL uh about it. Some of the light fixtures that they put in when we converted over to LED were from China and they they they've been failing. Um, just the plain and simple of it. So, um,
it is a problem in the city uh that we're working towards and I'll get with Jay and then maybe we can like I think maybe we do it at the joint meeting. I think that's a great idea and then maybe we'll have Jay come to the meeting and can talk a little bit about the lighting too. Yeah, she's a hard charger. She's she's great.
>> So, does is the 14th joint meeting worth everybody for the discussion? >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> All right. So, uh item I want to stay. It's uh >> staticky.
Start talking now. >> Can you hear me now? It's all staticky. It's all weird. >> Breaking up. Huh? It's been fine until just now. Maybe mute and unmute or something. >> Got you got any metal on your wrist.
>> Um, can you guys hear me now? >> Staty. >> Andrew, can you take the rest then? >> Sure. You want to come in my office? I'm >> Yeah, I I'll step over to your office. >> Watch it be still staticky when he goes
to Andrew's office, >> right? See, it's even he should have muted his mic because it's still staticky. >> So, the next item that um I think that's on here that Dan wanted to talk through was the um uh the discussion regarding
the additional um for future cemetery. This item I do want to I I think Dan would like to see this one still on here. Um we are working towards that. We're going to we're hopefully have the Sarah Sims project come to you with either the first or second meeting in
March um for approval so that we can start that project. Um we still are looking at it. I know that the incoming commissioner this is a very hot button for him as well. So I you know I do think that it makes sense to leave this on there. Um I would like to change it from a discussion item to more of a you
know we'll bring back some kind of a plan or like some kind of idea how we're going to accomplish it. Yep. Leave it on there. >> Yeah, that's fine. >> Item G removed. Item G, we we're going to rem wanted to remove that item. >> Yep.
>> That was resolved, right? Yeah. >> Yes. Correct. >> That was an isolated incident. Yep. >> Yeah. >> Uh item H, the code, we're going to keep that before and we're going to reach out to Commissioner Cruz on further direction regarding that specific item.
I know um both Adam and Amanda has requested additional discussion. Um that seems to be a scheduling conflict. So I'd recommend leaving that item. Uh item I the task force regarding the building and code requested by Commissioner
Turan. I want to say that's a fairly recent item. Um that's going to be it requires some uh in-depth discussion. um maybe even a workshop to try to get through some of those because we're talking about peeling back some of uh
some of those um sustainability um requirements that businesses are being forced to enact. And I I can remember the um the plastic molding business that we helped over on Industrial A. One of their things where they were being required to put in
bushes that cultivated butterfly reproduction. and you you you gain so many sustainability points and businesses are having a tough time trying to navigate things like that. So, we're definitely going to need that that's going to be a
robust discussion that we're probably going to have to have a maybe a workshop to uh to get through. >> Well, I I think I I think um like what would that workshop look like? like I think the workshop looks like all right who do we want on the uh on the on
the on who do we want on this task force I don't think that's going to take a few hours I think it's just key stakeholders and I think the other thing to think about too would be you know and I think this kind of goes into our comp plan and LDRs and everything else we plan on discussing is is like the key like you
know there's obviously a healthy balance of sustainability right I think the key here is not to mandate but to incentivize and so the big consistent piece of feedback I get is like, gosh, I have to do this. I have to do this. They won't give me a CO because I didn't lay
down one, you know, three foot, three, you know, six foot uh square foot sod, whatever. And like there's these little nuance things that are holding projects up, right? And again, this goes back to staff is just following the instruction manual. We just need to rewrite that
instruction manual and we need to look at um and again Adam Manda you guys have been really good at this. So I don't want to I don't want my tone to be like there this hasn't been done. You guys have done great job on this. And so I I really I think it's really just about
like transitioning some of these things. Some of these things we probably don't need. Some of these things that maybe they're great but let's not mandate it and hold people up. Let's incentivize it. what that incentivizing is, I don't know. I think that's a conversation for
that potential task force. Um, so, you know, I I would I would I would maybe maybe the the the action item is like looking at staff to look at other cities, you know, what are they doing? You know, maybe talk to um you know,
some of our private sector partners, see if they'd be interested in this. you know, kind of do a little bit of homework before we go into a workshop because I I think we have a outstanding five-star staff. I think we're probably
best in the county. And so, you know, I rely on a lot of my decision making and instruction with staff because you have these these subject matter experts in their field that at least for me, I I I trust to be
autonomous. And you know you have the private sector who do you know um projects some similar some different across different municipalities but can see the differences with the code and
how other cities um you know collaborate you know or cooperate with them. And so I think that feedback's important too. So maybe maybe the action item is a little bit of leg work, some homework, and then come back before us as far as what the formality looks like for this
uh task force. >> Commissioner Turan, you mentioned something there. I just want to get clarification. Is it something that you're seeing the commission as a task force or we're actually engaging with some community members, businesses, >> working with staff, coming up with a
plan, and then they bring up the the fix and we bring it to y'all at a meeting and then discuss it. Yeah, I think that's great. Like doing that. >> Well, then we don't need a workshop then. >> We don't need a workshop. Then we need to talk about creating the the actual committee or task force >> and then what that rules and meeting
looks like and that's something we could bring back to you pretty quickly. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Or even like let's talk to these people. Hey, they're interested. >> Yeah. >> Hey, here's what we think and give us options. We vote. We or we or we don't vote or we, you know, provide some feedback, move forward, and then boom.
um you know they have a lot of good feedback because I hear a lot of stuff from smaller contractors from developers from people just doing these simple easy uh improvements on their house and so I think when you have a stakeholder from each of those categories that's where
you're going to be the most effective and I think there's a lot you know we get a lot of like concerns or complaints so to speak and so I think there's a lot of people that would love to share some feedback >> okay what I'll do is >> yeah we have >> go ahead go ahead
No. So, so we I already have a a list a personal list of of of some of these regulations. Um I think you know what I what I would recommend is is maybe changing some of the verbiage um on this future agenda item. Um to make it more
uh focused on land development regulations which include like our engineering standards, our planning planning and zoning standards. um because how it currently reads now it you know it it appears like we're we're going to create a task force to address building code issues which is not something that is is necessarily within
our purview. Um so I think we should we should probably update that language and you know there is going to be some stuff that's going to be coming a little bit a little bit ahead of probably when we meet um because we are currently revamping with a consultant some of our engineering uh standards that uh that
have been painful for us. >> Awesome. And again, and like maybe um maybe like maybe that's like staff too, right? Like maybe there's someone, you know, mid-level management or, you know, in in building and development that's
like got a lot of good ideas and you know, this is something they want to get involved in too. >> Uh any other comments before we move on as far as the task force? >> No. Uh so 11J
uh that's going to be a recent one. We uh we just sat down with a consultant that we have and we're in the process of building a deck. This is going to kind of spider out into a lot of ancillary aspects that
um that could impact the city as a whole. I wouldn't want to bring this back towards the commission before May due to the fact a lot of the implications involving this specific uh item are going to essentially be beholdened by both the House and the
Senate and the state until session gets out and so we can get a little bit more clarity on what the overall property tax uh I guess ideas are that they want to push towards referendum. Yeah, I think the strategic
>> timeline for this would be after that before budget, >> correct? Yeah, I'm thinking May. May May time frame. >> Yeah, that I think that makes sense. >> So, uh K, I just had a conversation with
uh the fire chief, Hugh Bruder. Hugh, are you on right now, Chief Brutder? >> Yes, sir, I'm on. Hey, um can you uh highlight any issues on 11K as far as the pantry aspect and the food aspect of this is concerned
with your conversations with the fire marshall? Uh the the the main concern I believe was just you know between the building department and the fire department there are code specificity and you know we just I mean some some things can be
erroneous and we know it and some things we can take a hard look at and see if we can you know obviously work with people on but I think the concern you know besides how big it is is the food prepared if it's it is prepared anywhere on site there are codes and things that
relate to that and um and then also the fire marshall indicated that you know there's there's numbers associated to the codes with respect to how many people may be there uh or maybe utilizing it and then there's other safety regulations that come up based on
the number of projected people. So I think we just need to have some more information I think before we can move forward. That would be my recommendation. >> Yeah, I don't think there's an issue with the the the library aspect of this. just the food aspect. And um what I'll
do is over the next few weeks I'll get with uh I'll get with the fire chief. I'll get with Candace Stone and uh John Bonafair and we'll see what we can and cannot do. If there's a work around, we'll do a workaround. If not, then we're going to have to shut down the uh
the the pantry aspect and the food aspect of this uh of this um both the little library and the little free pantry. So, and I think that's a that's a compromise of living because I live in uh I live in the city. I live in over in Chapel Hill and we got a couple of
little free libraries and people take ownership of these and they they they decorate them. They put their own flare. People utilize them. But I haven't seen a little free pantry anywhere because obviously there's a liability aspect to this to where if someone takes an item
and that that item end up ends up it has a contaminant, someone gets sick uh something like that then it it there's a there's a inherent risk to that that portion of it versus the library aspect.
>> Okay. So, uh, probably gonna need at least an additional month or so to look at that. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Hopefully I cover. >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> We're just going to add a few Can we add
um a discussion maybe at the end of March, beginning of April to talk about um a legislative break in the summer? >> You got that, Andrew? and hammer down on those hammer down on that time frame or do we just Yeah. If we need to discuss
it in front of them, >> what we'll do is we'll we'll try to get with you guys individually because I know some people take trips with their families and things like that during the summer when the kids are out of school. So, I I we'll also go back and we'll
look at what last years are, but people's um planning plans change. So, um, we'll get with you guys individually and try to iron down some dates because I want to see overall maybe if we can get everyone on the same page to where they're actually going to be traveling
or going to their destinations with their family at the exact same time, then that'll probably be a little bit more palatable. We can bring that back. Yeah, I think it'd be helpful to if we already have the um budget dates hammered out if those get put on our calendars too and that we know about
that because that's probably one of the kickers. We end up having you know three budget meetings in the month of July and we need to know those um you know as in f as far in advance as possible to have this conversation. So,
>> if we already know those dates, then we need to >> put them on our calendars. >> Yeah. I'm gone the 19th to the 1st or 2nd already >> in July. >> Yeah. July. >> Did Didn't we do um didn't we do like we
we we didn't do anything last half of June >> first half of July? I feel like that's pretty consistent. >> What do you guys think about that? Well, the mayor is out the last half of July into the first part of August is what she just said. So, >> okay. Sorry. I thought I thought she
said June, July, people. I you know, but I canceled the trip last year, so now I'm going this year. >> Yeah. So, and budget meetings are all in July, so we need to hammer out all this sooner rather than later.
>> Yeah. Yeah. What about um I know historically I mean can we do our budget meetings like like mid to later July before the mayor leaves and then open up June and early July? I mean to me it doesn't matter. I I'll do whatever
you guys want. >> Is Allen on? >> Is Allan are you on CFO? >> He was. >> Okay. I don't I don't hear him uh chiming in. So, what I'll do is I'll get with Allan and I'll see what it looks
like. Um, I know we're doing our kickoff session next week >> um for the um budget year for 2627. >> So, once we uh once we get through that, we'll have a little bit more uh information. I know we got to get you
guys your u annualized budget books and want to give you guys make sure you have enough time in between um our workshops that we plan. So, we'll uh we'll make sure we get you that information as soon as possible, though. Oh, yeah. Never
mind. Hold on. We pulled up the uh he sent a draft already. So, it looks like Monday, July 6th, 2026, that's the first opening workshop. Um Wednesday, July 8th is going to be the second and Thursday, July 9th. Now, here's my ask of you
guys. Um >> you you know that >> Yeah. Hold on real quick. Wait, what were those again? >> For clarification, I had July 6th, July 8th, July 9th. I'm assuming we left July 7th open because there's like a CR CRA
meeting. >> Are those four meetings in a row? That's insane. I can't >> Are we um I I feel like last year we crunched it into uh a day and a half. Yeah. >> Well, we did that. We we we we did that
because Can you pull the meeting back up for me twice? >> We did one day and one night. We we we did that because we didn't do the evening. We did did a full day session. If you guys remember, >> it wasn't just how we did it in the evening. So, if you allow us to schedule
things during the daytime and you can make yourselves available, we can get through it in probably a six to eight hour session. >> Yes. >> I'm uh >> Hey, Ellen's on the call, by the way. I'm I'm here. Huh. >> I mean, I'm fine doing a one all day and
then we did one at night and that was >> plenty. >> But I can't I mean to have a Monday all day, a Tuesday night, and a Wednesday night or a Thursday night, that's a lot in a week. >> Yeah. And I miss a whole week of night showings.
>> And yeah, the way we did it last year is we scheduled one full day and then we scheduled two additional evenings >> and we didn't use the second evening. We only >> we did not you we we we were able to get through the budget year in one session. Correct. >> That that is correct.
>> So is that the same thing here? And Mondays the full day and then the other two are the evenings. Okay. It's the same thing. Got it. If needed. All right. Yeah. Okay. >> Yeah. The secondary days are as needed. >> Yeah. I think that was three full days.
Like I know we did this better before. >> All right. So, so like um what do you guys think about >> I I Yeah, I'm flexible. I'm I'm willing to work with my colleagues. So, I don't
you know, I'm >> Monday's good with me. >> Yeah. I mean, the all day Monday is fine. It's just I It's a lot all in one week to do all that. But we'll figure it out. >> Maybe. >> Yeah, that's a that's a worst case scenario.
>> Yeah, but do we have the ability? Because I'm just thinking like the mayor is leaving later in July and if we wanted to, and quote me if I'm wrong, I think last year we like didn't do much in June and
>> maybe we push back July to more mid July. Then that allows for a break in the summer a little bit and then or or we just, you know, push things in the middle and then we open up that break for July, end of August. I'm I'm just trying to
>> Andrew had an idea. So that that that would work. I just mentioned to Dan, we could you have a CR meeting the 14th. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> So we could start the 13th CR meeting the 14th, 15th, 16th instead do it in the week of the 6th and then you could take the last meeting in June off and
the first meeting in July off. >> Well, could we do could we do though Well, but that doesn't help Rebecca because Rebecca's gone the 19th of July through August 2nd. So really we would be missing we would be not having the
second meeting in July and possibly the first meeting in August would be then the meetings that we would end up not having. My thought would be and this is my concern with doing them back to back to back is that depending
on and maybe we may have this discussion after session because then we'll know what we're talking about. My thought is we're going to have an all day budget. Are we then going to have enough time if we're really having to cut things and really have discussions on what's important and and what's not and
revamping our entire budget, you know, are we going to be able to to go from having an all day conversation on Monday to then having a revision or amen changes or anything two two days later after we had a meeting on Tuesday night
for three hours at a regular commission meeting. So, I'm wondering if maybe the second meeting could be on, you know, the week of the 13th, you know, either on Monday night or Wednesday night, >> you know, to give that week if we needed to have other meetings or we needed to.
It wasn't like it wasn't like we're going from an all day meeting on Monday to a Tuesday night commission meeting to a Wednesday night budget meeting when we have there's so much uncertainty with the budget. We could do the all day on the sixth and the evening hold the evening for the 13th,
>> right? >> Okay. >> Is my thought. But that's but we can talk about maybe >> and then take off the second meeting in July and the first meeting in August, >> right? >> August. Is that going to work for you guys?
>> I I mean, can we frontload the budget workshops to the end of June? Does anyone have anything going on end of June? It's a little bit tight of a window to get everything done and ready to present to you guys and give you time to go through the budget books. And >> that's why July is picked.
>> Okay. >> All right. >> Let me have a meeting with Allan and see what we can come up with. If we can do that, that's I think that's more ideal. Yeah. Commissioner Turga, >> I have the budget calendar worked out. Dan, I'll I'll get with you tomorrow. >> Yeah, the week. >> Yeah, because that's essentially
shifting probably back two weeks. Yeah, if we can shift back a week and then maybe we just have one meeting in July and then the rest of July and then uh beginning of August is summer legislation or something. >> No, I actually like that idea better
>> because I'm looking at like July 6th is that Monday. Like we can't go back a week, >> right, to June when we don't have a commission meeting. Like we don't have a commission meeting the last week of June. Right. Correct. Right. Okay. Yeah, let me get Yeah, come up with some dates.
>> Yeah, let us let us come up with some dates. But I like that idea. I think that works best for everyone. >> Okay. >> Yeah, like the 29th. >> That would be good. >> Or even the Tuesday, you know, Tuesdays, right? >> Whatever that week is. Yeah. >> Yep. >> Okay.
>> Sorry to put a wrench in everyone's lives, but I'm glad we're talking about it. >> Yeah. Better now so people can plan. >> Absolutely. >> Yeah. No, absolutely. Yeah, I agree. Okay. All right. I think we got a uh I think we got a plan. We'll uh we'll be reaching out to you guys. >> All right. Thanks everyone.
>> Thanks everyone. >> All right. Thanks guys. >> Good night. >> Good night. >> Night everyone.