from Grace Bible Church right here in Lake Placid. It's always a pleasure, sir. We appreciate you being here. >> It's a privilege. Let's pray together. >> Lord, we just confess that we have no business leading and making decisions with your stuff without your wisdom. So,
we ask for lots of it. I pray that you would pour your wisdom out on our town council and mayor, our town attorney and town administrator. And father, we just pray that you would go before us as we do our best to steward this land that you've given us and to serve its
citizens. In Jesus name, amen. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all. Clerk, would you please call the role? >> Mayor Hullbrook >> here. >> Council member Hayes. >> Council member Worley >> here. >> Council member Charles >> here. >> Council member Everheart >> here.
>> All right, we'll go to public comments on non-aggenda items. This would be a chance for you to get up and speak about anything on your mind that's that's not already covered in the agenda. >> I must have missed it. I I didn't see >> you didn't get a request. I understand
you didn't receive it. Hello, I'm Josephine Connley at 607 Sunset Point Tribe. I have a couple questions I've asked in the past. But my very first question is going to be is the audio and the video
being transmitted on YouTube and the it's turned on so my voice will be heard because last meeting >> well I'll let my IT person talk to that but we did have a technical difficulty. >> Well last meeting
>> thank you that's all I asked. Okay. I had a question um which you have said it was going to be at the next meeting then the next meeting. The question is do we have a general contractor for the pickle ball court
because it's not on the agenda today and it was supposed you had said it would be on the next meeting. So do we have assigned a general contractor? Anybody answer that? >> All of the piggyback agreements and
documents are with our town attorney and he is reviewing them at this time. And as you stated, it's not on the agenda because it's not it's not completed. So, it will be on the agenda forthcoming in February, assuming that the town attorney clears those documents. >> Actually, you pulled it from my purview
by stopping me working first week of December. I've got the email not with me. >> And there's one piggyback contract and it does not include the lighting which I think is part of your agenda item.
>> Okay. So now here I am. I'm the taxpayer. I'm asking is it a yes or no? Are we going to have a general contractor that's going to oversee the entire project? And the purpose of that, if I may,
who's if we do, that means that there's no exposure to the town. Okay. The general contractor takes out a whatever they need to take out a bond. Okay? So, that's my question. Are you steering in
that direction? because you don't want to have someone come in and they got to contract this person, that person, that person. That's not protecting the town. And I made this speech once before, but I don't know if the audio was working. >> Yeah. Who whoever we hire will be
licensed and insured >> and general >> capable of doing the job. >> Okay. But a general contractor, that's the question. >> Okay. >> There are two contractors. There is no general. They both will be bonded and licensed
and treated like a general. >> Okay. So there be no exposure to the town. If there was something that wasn't done right, whatever liability, that's all coming under that. >> Okay. Well, I didn't get this clarification before, so at least now I
have that answer. Um, >> time. >> Okay. Now, here's the other question. And my time is gone already. Okay. Is there a separate audio recording made of each meeting for the town clerk to the meeting to the meeting
minutes? Like for instance, last last meeting there was 11 minutes and 8 seconds. So whoever spoke, which I was the first speaker, uh my understanding was I was never heard. So do you have minutes of
that? So if I requested it, you could. There are not verbatim minutes. There's action minutes. You're notated in the minutes that you just spoke on a specific topic. We don't do verbatim minutes. So, it is an a it wasn't even an action agenda item. It was your
comments and it was very brief as an action basically as a summary of a brief when we have technical difficulties on our there's nothing to recoup under state statute. We are not required to record, but that is something that we do
in every city and municipality and county do recording, do streaming. Um, but it it really isn't required under state statute, but we do try to do that. The minutes were not their voice was not heard. We had a technical difficulty and
sometimes that happens and that can't be avoided. >> Okay. So, in that case, like last week, my minutes were not recorded. I had six minutes. I gave I gave a summary of it. There's like a brief summary of what you said. You you said no details. >> So if that was something I wanted to ask
for, I could get it. >> We wouldn't have it available. >> Okay. So when I come here, I don't always know whether or not I'm being heard. You're hearing me, but when people ask me that they can't hear me or I'm not there, but that's okay.
>> Okay. Time's up. >> Okay. Thank you. Good evening. Marlene Barter, 760 Sunset Point Drive. What I'm seeking tonight is some clarity. The minutes of the December 8th meeting under public comments on
non-aggenda item included Josephine Connley's statement that she was concerned about the police department and pickle ball court. No other details were given and it wasn't recorded. However, at the 10 November meeting,
Rose Heath made similar comments as did Margaret Deer. She made some comments too about concern about spending that was not recorded at all or even mentioned in the December. There's an inconsistency there. Meanwhile, council
member Charles expressed concerns about procurement and financial issues on the 10 November meeting. Yet, her comments were not included in the minute minutes for the November meeting, stating action items only. Yet, thankfully, the town
attorney expressed concerns about the D grant guidelines at the December meeting. Fortunately, those comments were included in the December minutes even though it was not an action item. So, there's inconsistency. So, I contend and agreed with the town
attorney's recommendation at the December meeting that it be restarted because there was no audio of it. Now, we're told by Florida regulations, you don't have to do that. We just heard that. The issue is however the history in the town of Lake Plen since I've been
here for 20ome years has always been detailed accurate articulated meeting minute meetings that is the one paper format that we have in the future if you don't have access to what to a YouTube so I would just like to have
some consistency in terms of what is it that we're going to do in one case we included another case was very simpler simple it's not included So, can somebody tell me why Colleen's comments weren't included, the attorney's
comments were, Rose uh Jos's comments weren't included, and yet two other members on the non-aggenda items comments weren't in it. It It's just a statement. So, I'm sort of looking for clarity and consistency.
May I um I did some research on the the format for uh municipal meetings and they have a the shortened action um thing and it specifically says not a narrative. However, I think sometimes there things
are said that need to be recorded for posterity. um particularly if there is something that is contentious um if a the person has a no vote I think for posterity for historical look back
the rationale should be recorded I'm not saying the whole verbatim thing just maybe 10 words and I also want to reference even the Supreme Court when they lend render a decision they document the rationale in their opinions
so if we could get a blend of the precise short minutes without the narratives and yet document ration. And I would agree particularly because the town has a history of this. We have a history of many years up until the
past several months of having clearly articulated meanings. But because somebody was upset because of a letter, then oh my god, we have to stop and turn everything upside down. Even though at that time what was in the minutes was not a complete story.
You put one portion in the meetings that was favorable to the town by people external to the town but people in the town who had opposition to it their comments weren't included. So I understand what what it calls for but I'm talking about we have a history. Are
we breaking the history? We no longer have the president. We want to do what Joyce said and that is have some clarity. Pam Pinterest 12373 Lost Lake Drive, Lake Placid. I attend almost every single one of these meetings, utilities,
LPA meetings. I can't even remember any time that my name has been included in any of the town U minutes. I'm not offended by that. I talk a lot. We all know that. You can't go verbatim on every single item, every single person.
The We're in the audience right now. It's our time, too. It's your time. It's I know there people here and it is unfortunate that the the audio and uh the video wasn't working at the last town meeting. I think that's a oneoff
type thing, but we cannot to list the minutes or have 15 pages of minutes and I think that's where you see a change. Thank you. >> I do think that this is everybody gets to talk. I'm just saying this is if we're going to do if you have a problem
with it, then we need to have a it on the agenda so everybody can participate. As a just aside, I do agree with with Miss Fentress. I mean, if my if my comments don't get in there, then I'm going to say, well, all my comments didn't get in there. So, I mean, it is
true. So that's why we're for efficiency and matter of fact that's why we went to this action type agenda. But this should be a different discussion where everybody's invited. >> But I I think sometimes the pendulum swings too far, right? Because I don't
recall we've ever had 15 page minutes. It's usually two or three. And I don't know that we're saying exactly the person who said everything, but we are capturing key bullet points of things that were said that then made sense when you look later on an agenda item that
was mo uh voted on. So I I just think that I guess I didn't see a problem we had before. Yeah, there's going to be some consistency because it's tough being the person to take the minutes, right? We know that. But maybe nowadays with AI tools and transcripts being
recorded, maybe it's not that difficult. But it does seem like we've gone to the extreme where we're not consistent. And that's what gets us in trouble. Then we pick and choose who we're going to add in there and who we're not. So maybe it does need to be, you know, we did it in haste that night. I mean, it was all of a sudden one night, maybe we should go
to that. Oh yeah, yeah, yeah, let's do it. And maybe we didn't vet it properly um when we made that decision to go to action items only. But it's not just action items. There's comments that being made, I guess, now that we're paying attention. Maybe we do. And I
think maybe we should revisit it just for consistency um and clarity because it is something that later we may refer to. We do refer to >> My name is Rosemary Heath and I live at 588 Sunset Point Drive. Um, there's a
rumor going around about Walmart being built in our city or our town. Is that true? >> No. >> Okay. Because it's been going a lot of people have been talking about it. >> No. That there was a letter that was received. I believe they were
asking for water and sewer >> capacity >> capacity, but they put this out all over the country. It doesn't mean they'll ever come here. It just means they're putting feelers out there to to see if there's a place
capable of them putting a new store. But no, we have nothing on the books for >> Okay. >> I want to thank you >> because we moved in this town because you had said that you weren't going to have any box stores here and I'm glad the rumor is not true.
>> And even at that, I'm not sure it was going to be a box store. They also have smaller stores that are like grocery stores. They they they would compete with the Wind Dixie, the Aldi's, and the Publix. It it would not be a a
full-blown Walmart, but we have no idea because nothing's happening. >> Okay. Thank you very much. And thank you for bringing that up because I've had four different people approach me saying it's going at H Heartland Boulevard like in 27 in that
big area that there's a discussions taking place to move Walmart in. Four different people have approached me uh the first of the year and I'm like I have not heard that. So I appreciate you know your comments that nobody's working on it. They just put those feelers out
to to see. A lot of times I'm just wondering if it's a test to see if there there's maybe a city there that wants to fight them. Uh I don't know. I don't know them that well. But uh I mean it could happen. Who knows? But at this
point, no. Nothing. All right. Anything else? Okay, we'll move on. Uh my mayor's report, I really don't have anything tonight. Um under anniversaries, we've got six this month.
Uh four of them have been hired within the past couple years. Uh there are two that I want to recognize. Harry's not here. He has really been sick, him and his whole family. So we've asked him to stay away because we don't want to get it. But uh uh Harry, I believe, is
starting his ninth year. And Mustin's here. Moslin, would you stand up? I think he's starting what, your 18th or 19th year? Yes, sir. >> Yeah. So, want to thank you for your service and your commitment to the town.
All right, we'll go to number four, consent agenda. Uh, and just a note underneath there, uh, under Robert's rules, I just want to state any council member may remove an item on the consent agenda and place it
on the action agenda for discussion following the consent agenda. I guess we had a little problem here once before that we just want to make sure that if if you're against something on the agenda that that you have it removed and
put on the action agenda so that we can discuss it. Okay. >> So, um I first I apologize for my tardiness. I have a sick cat who decided to uh show out a little bit. Let's leave
it at that. And u I got here as soon as I could. Um on the on the agenda, I have I have a question on I know that um 7C has been removed from the agenda, but if we remove that, can we can we still
discuss the process for um for choosing a town attorney or do we have to leave that put that back on the agenda in order for us to discuss that process? >> What what's that for? for um the professional legal services firm.
>> Oh. Oh, well that's the reason I wanted to make sure it was on there so that we could discuss it. >> Okay. So assume that's okay, >> right? So then it says it says it was removed from the agenda, but I want to make sure that it is still on the agenda though so that we can discuss the process.
>> Is that okay? >> Yeah. >> Okay. And the other thing I was just wondering if we might be able to um in the interest of time and in case something goes long, could we move the town administrator employment contract to the end uh or just before the
election stuff so that we could knock out the other stuff first and have time to discuss the the contract at the end? Just a change of order. >> I don't have a problem with that. >> Okay.
>> Okay. So, with that in mind, I would um make a motion to approve the consent agenda with those changes or exceptions, if you will. >> Second. >> All right, we got a motion and second on the consent agenda A through D. Any
other comments from the podium? >> I just have two questions for Rachel and I didn't get a chance and I think they're both good. They're like unbudgeted revenue that's come in. So on page six, it says a a grant FDLE came in of
$25,000 actual that wasn't budgeted. That's great. What was that for? >> That was a grant that I secured for a drone program for our department >> for I didn't couldn't hear that. >> A drone program for our police department.
>> Oh, I didn't know we submitted one. >> Yes, we did. Uh the the actual state offered all departments statewide the opportunity for them to fund a drone program for their departments. This 25,000 will pay for the implementation
of a drone at our department. >> Um could I get a copy of I'd like to see the grants that was submitted. I guess it's already submitted and we've got the money. That's fine. But I never knew it came to council. >> The contract and everything have already been submitted to the clerk. >> There's a contract, too, that we had to
sign for it. Yes. >> Has our Okay. So, our town attorney should Have you reviewed the contract that we signed? Who signs that? You or the mayor? >> I don't recall seeing that. Did you sign? >> I signed it. It was a simple um
memorandum of understanding between the FDLE and ourselves that we would use this money for the drone program and that we would provide proof that we are using it for that. >> So, so all this is good information. And I appreciate >> the proactive,
>> but I think those are things that need to come to council for resolution, and the mayor should be signing them after review from the the attorney. >> If we had waited on it, we would not have been able to get it. It was put out and we had less than a month to get it through.
>> Just saying what the process is. So, I don't know, Mr. attorney, if you have any comments on that of the chief of police authorizing authorized to sign a committing the town to something in a grant. Maybe you can get copies. You can
do that offline. >> Okay. >> If you'd like, we can always return the money. I mean, >> that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying the process, right? The process is that the mayor is the one that signs contracts. >> Okay. >> And can I'd like a copy. I don't know if
anybody else was, but that's a that's a good thing. And then >> I think that if you're going to get a copy, we all should get a copy. >> Well, that's I just ask. Sure. Sure. >> And I I also I mean this is not really an item for discussion, but maybe it should be put on a future agenda is the handling of grants because if every
grant we have a person out there looking for grants, and if every time they look for a grant, they have to come back to us, it's going to delay the process, and we're going to lose out. I I think right in as in this as in this case, but if it's an expenditure of money, I could
see it. But as long as we're getting the money um and you know, I I don't see an issue with that, but I don't see everything correctly. So, >> no, I think the challenge is is then we sign an agreement and what are we signing the town up for? So, so there's
ties to, you know, some we have to commit money, we have to do certain things. So it's it gets into the legal language with grants and that what did we just commit the town to do in order to get the free money. >> So could we agenda that on for a future
meeting to discuss that please >> agree totally? >> I can say that on the grants prior to we having a grant administ a grant coordinator that actually do all the grants >> the grant process fell within the department. So historically Mark the
police department always did their own grants. So but now that we have a grant coordinator he is working with other the grant coordinator as far as all the grants up under one person. So the process is has changed since we got that new position.
>> And then page 10 has miscellaneous revenue of $243,000 coming in with something we wasn't budgeted. So again, good news getting money, but just wondering what we got it for.
>> It's on page 10 of the expenses. It's just called miscellaneous revenue. >> That looks like the amount that the CRA carryover. That's what That's what I was thinking. It might be CRA money. >> I thought we usually would call it CRA then, not miscellaneous.
>> So it goes into the general fund and then it get transferred into the um infrastructure. I'm at the um CRA. I'm making sure here where he posted it to. >> Which line was it? >> I I meant to shoot you a note earlier,
but I didn't since I didn't get this till over the weekend. So, >> those are my questions. Other words, I'm fine with everything. >> Do you want just you just want to get that to me later? That's fine. Right. Yeah. Thank you. >> It was CRA.
>> Yes, it is a CRA. She said >> CRA money coming in from the county. >> Mhm. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> All right. Any other comments? We'll take it to the audience.
>> Seeing none, bring it back. Pull the council. Council member Hayes. >> Yes. >> Council member Charles. >> Yes. But I think it's Councilwoman Warly seconded. >> Yes. >> See you again. >> Council member.
>> Yeah. >> Council member Worley and Council Member. >> Yes. >> Okay. Uh on presentations, I have none tonight. I put one in. >> I never received it, but yeah, go ahead.
>> My name is Graale Scanland. I live at 26 Crest View Court South in Lake Placid. And my specific reason for being here is the Oakill Cemetery. There's a problem with the wild hogs
coming through the cemetery and destroying the grave sites. My husband's grave site has been destroyed three times. I've also had an incident with four-wheelers coming in there and I did call the Lake Placid Police Department
and I was given a case number. That was back in September. So, we this pig problem happened over the weekend and I mean it's a real mess. There are three grave sites that are completely torn up. Now, I looked at the problem is there is
no boundary fence across the back of the cemetery. There's a boundary fence on either side. So, maybe that would be the problem to put a new fence up. We've had a problem down there for years. We've had a gentleman come in and
trap them when he can, but they're they're just everywhere. Uh I don't you want to talk about it? >> We have set traps out in the past. I believe we caught a few la uh towards the tail end of last year
and uh in the meantime uh we we see them come out occasionally and we've spread human hair around the areas. It's supposed to deter them. Um there's at least two sections that they continually go back to and that's those
are the areas that we focus on trying to deter them from. As far as a fence along the back, the reason there hasn't been one put there is because we own all the property behind it as well. So at some point we may have to take down any fence that we put there if we're going to
expand. >> It's a mess. I'm sure. >> I mean, I have to clean it up myself. >> It's not good. >> I I I must say I was out there um Sunday morning as well, and the area of my
husband's grave in order for me to get to it. It was quite destroyed. And I meant to shoot you an email this morning, and I've been at work since 6:00 this morning, and I did not do that. But I don't know whether possibly your husband's grave. >> I have pictures >> in the area of mine. I have pictures of
the last time that it was done and they and they caught the hogs and got rid of them and now it's it just back. I saw it just Sunday. Had you seen it prior to that? >> I was there yesterday. Yeah. >> And I was called by uh Clarabel
Hernandez whose father's grave is right next to my husband's and she sent me a video and then I went out there yesterday and there's p there's droppings and everything all around. It's just really almost sacriiggious. >> Wow. >> To have this going on in there.
>> Yeah. I I don't think it's quite as bad where mine is, but Alan, you know where I'm talking about. So, >> okay. Thank you. >> I can contact uh I believe Bill Brantley was the one that um lended us some traps last time. I can have them put back out,
but as far as a long-term solution, I'm not sure what what can be done. I think it's a fence. >> I'd say we could open it up to hunters, but they would do more damage than the pigs. >> My husband would go up there, but I
think it's a f, you know, we had that problem in our subdivision 10 years ago. They were coming in from the orange groves just destroying. There was these favorite yards they had to destroy. And until we put up just a a perimeter like a cattle fence, we don't have that problem anymore. And and plus eventually
they got cleaned out of that. I got got some friends that live out on the back side of Placid Lakes by the uh wildlife sanctuary and there are times when their yard looks like a war zone. >> Yeah. I I just I would like to to see what more we can do and I appreciate that. You know, what more we can do with
a commitment that we've got to do something. >> I really don't know what to do. It's >> Do we Ellen, do we know um like what direction they're coming from? I can tell you they go back and forth between the cemetery and behind Harry's
building, but as far as where they're coming from, I'm not entirely sure. >> I mean, we have we have fencing on what, one, two, three sides. >> It runs threequarters of the way down both the north and south. >> Okay.
>> Direction. >> The south side. Okay. >> Col Councilwoman Charles, that was 10 years or so ago. Do you recall because you're treasurer? Do you recall what the price was per foot? >> It doesn't matter. 10 years ago the
price a lot. >> We can go. No, no, no. I know. But we can just take it from there and go up, you know. >> No, it wasn't. I wasn't the treasurer then. I think it's been 15 years that it's been >> um a couple years ago we paid about $5,000 for maybe 200 feet.
Oh, >> I mean, if it's the back side, you could go with and not knowing if it's permanent or temporary, you could go with something that's not quite as decorative as the front the other side. Just a thought. But I guess we'll just ask the mayor if it's okay to have, you
know, Allan look into it and can come back with what recommendations may be. >> Yeah. If you're okay with it not being chain link, uh, then we could do something like it would set the ball fields like like you say the American style large 4in square section fencing.
>> To the benefit of Allen's attention to this, he did put it in his director's report. Thank you, Alan. >> And I have to try to rake afterwards, and that is not easy as well. I can't stand them being there either because they root up the roots so much. It's
extremely difficult to rake back the land even. And then if I put sand back over it, then you're creating an ant problem. Okay. All right. We'll go to six. Public hearings. We don't have any tonight.
So we'll go to seven. Action agenda. First one I have is Lake Placid Chamber of Commerce. Um, just FYI, 10 years ago that guy trapping Lake Dpoint was me. The guy out there trapped was me. But that is not my profession. But I if you the council would like I
can put traps back out at the cemetery next day or two if they want me to trap those and try to get them. I will. All right. Um so my name is for the record my name is Bill Brantley. I'm with Lake Plastid Chamber of Commerce and then keep Lake Placid beautiful. The
reason I'm here tonight about a month and a half ago um uh Gibby from the chamber came in front of the town council to look at a exercise path around uh the main circle. Um, I think there were some questions as far as equipment, as far as far as how it's
going to be, I guess, how it's going to be used. Um, there are some locations where you could see the equipment. Highway Park around their field is equipment. Um, the stations we're looking at are probably nine stations. They would be concrete. Um, approximately 6 foot by 8 foot. Um,
they'd be poured in similar construction as the sidewalks. When we did the sidewalks, um, I think about 11 years ago now, they're all 6 in thick. So the ex the the pads would also be six inches thick. So if someone runs over them, they don't they don't crack, they don't get damaged. So with the nine stations,
so nine stations, there are actually um five of those stations that are just um concrete with a small little um placard that tells you what to do, whether it's bending, stretching, um item or a
station number one is to where you kind of warm up. Station number nine is where you cool down. the ones in between um will be uh altered or back and forth between the flat stations. The equipment there will be one chin-up bar which
would probably be about 5 to six foot high and poles going down. The other three stations will probably be less than three foot tall. There will be the three stations are first one's the chin-up station I mentioned, the dip station, the sit-up station and the push-up station. Um, so those three
items would not be higher than probably three to four feet. The only tall one would be the one um where they do pull-ups. Um, this project was supported through Lake Placid Chamber of Commerce, supported through Keep Lake Placid Beautiful and is also supported through
Advent event Advent Health and they even u are willing to sponsor it. So it will cost the town no money to do to do the work um or anything as far as maintenance or upkeep. you know, it it there are the three stations that might not might not might need to be painted
after 10 years, but that would be actually minimal. Um, as far as that goes, um, with Key Lake, Class of Beautiful, we don't think this will detract from the park. We think it'll add to the people that will go to the park and use it. Um, I didn't know if the council had any other further questions.
When when this first came up, my question was I I just wondered if it was going to interfere with our events down there, but I mean the chamber is sponsoring this. So I'm I'm assuming that that it's not going to affect what you're what you want to do or have been
doing for the past few years, >> right? So the nine stations will be with on the inside of the sidewalk going around the perimeter. So no, they're not going to affect as far as booths or or accessibility or anything like that. And I I will tell you since that first meeting, I've I've been watching the
park and there are a lot of people using it more and more every day and I have noticed people using the benches, even trees to warm up with just doing different exercises. So, personally, I think this is a great idea and and and I
definitely support it. So, that's I'll turn it over to what what do we need? Well, I've been it was on my wish list to put an exercise circuit in one of our parks. So, if um I can make the motion as written here.
>> Yeah. Then so I move to authorize the town administrator to work with the Lake Plaza Chamber of Commerce director to develop the detailed scope placement and maintenance plan for the proposed outdoor workout equipment stations at Devain Park and to bring the finalized proposal back to town for further
consideration and potential approval. >> I'll second it. >> All right, we have a motion to second. Any other comments from the >> I support it. It's just a quick question. And I don't think this would have any impact on our insurance going up, right? Because we already have insurance in the park for whatever
happens. And so this isn't going to add to any insurance costs for the town. Thank you. >> I would encourage the town administrator to submit that very question to our insurance underwriter with the plans Billy submits.
>> I I agree and I understand your question. I I also had that same question, but I'm thinking that it shouldn't be viewed any different than uh climbing walls or play stations or anything that would be in any other park for the children. So, but
>> then again, I think it it should be um just brought up to the liability insurance people and make sure that they're aware of. >> Definitely long overdue. Great for the town, great for the people, and great for
>> make America healthy again. >> I used to walk at the park. I've joined the gym since, so I walk inside now because it's too cold. But when we when we were walking, my girlfriend and I, we stopped some of the regular walkers and mentioned that this might be coming and
they were ecstatic. We're just really excited. >> Okay. Any other comments? Not. and we'll take you to the audience. >> Okay. See you down. Pull the council. >> Council member Everheart. >> Yes. >> Council member Charles.
>> That was H. >> That was Hayes. It's >> I'm going to be second on everything. I approve. No wonder they put your stuff in. >> Council member Hayes. >> Approved. >> Council member Worley. >> Yes. >> Council member Charles.
>> Yes. Um, the only other comment real quick as far as the lighting down there at the park, if you would next time at nighttime drive around. The lights that we have there are very nice. They're very attractive, but they do not put a lot of light out. Um, I think in the future we need to look something whether
we do LED lights shining out from the pavilion or even something around the perimeter to try to light up a little better because it is dark with which we have beautiful oak trees. Unfortunately, those beautiful oak trees block the lights from being able to light up the entire park. >> I was going to bring that up. I didn't know if maybe there were better light
bulbs we could put in there. >> Isn't that a CRA item? I mean, that's on our CRA project list. May Mr. Mayor, that's on our CRA project list. The whole lighting um >> lighting of the whole downtown. >> The whole lighting of the downtown,
including Deain Park, I think was in >> We currently use 100 watt bulbs. Uh we could increase it to 250, but my concern was distracting or blinding drivers. uh as they're heading around it or towards it at night. Uh but we could test it
with a with a few and see if it helps temporarily. >> Okay. Next is town administrator employment contract >> that we were >> we're going to table that. That's right. We wanted to go to
>> Okay, we'll go to 7D. C Co Coast loan renewal. >> Don't we do C >> because you put C back on? >> Yeah, we got to go to C. >> C. >> C was put back on. Professional legal services that was put back on the discussion
because it's not an item that's on the consent agenda. I didn't hear what I didn't hear what you said. >> I defer to the attorney. >> I thought the decision was to leave the uh attorney solicitation on for
discussion of the process. >> That was my intent when when >> that was the motion that was improved that I heard. >> Right. >> There's no supporting document because we pulled it off. There's nothing there. >> Oh, okay. Which one's that?
>> Seven. >> Seven. >> C. >> Oh, okay. >> But there's no supporting document because we pulled it off. >> Okay. >> Well, it's kind of an interesting dilemma because it was posted to the public
and then it was pulled off, but yet it's still on the agenda as pulled off, but the materials aren't there. So, it's an interesting situation that it has been made public, but then the materials were pulled off. >> I have materials.
>> I do, too. >> Oh, it was pulled off the website or whatever. >> Yeah, >> cuz that's what I got to call. Something's on now. It's off. What's going on? >> Um, I'm I'm not My intent was not to discuss
any of any of the um submissions that we got. My intent was I was told at the last meeting that I couldn't discuss the process of solicit the process of receiving and evaluating the
solicitations for the legal services because it wasn't on the agenda. So I wanted it not pulled from the agenda pull for the fact that we aren't going to discuss any submissions at this time.
But if it's still on the agenda, then I can and we can discuss uh the process and these these applications that come in. Um how are they reviewed by whom are they reviewed? Um how how if council my
opinion should be able to approve these or look at these and write what we think of this is this is one I'd like or not or grade them or score them or whatever. um and then we can bring it up and decide. But I think to bring it all to a
public forum here and have maybe two or three uh attorneys and then ask you the questions in the in the total public forum, I think it number one, it might take all night, but number two, I think it's more efficient if we can each look
at who has put information in and then fill out maybe a sheet similar to the way we did when we were determining a town administrator. And then those sheets would be evaluated and the results brought back here. And so just to clarify that, so this is
the RFP, the request for proposal for Birch replacement. Um, and I appreciate let's determine what the process is versus jump in and make a recommendation of of who to have when I didn't even know who posted, you know, for that. So
that RFP went out. It was due back what the end of December. Um I understand two people have applied. I I agree. I I think the process we did with the town administrator where we interviewed them and then we had a grading system and
then we made a decision from that is I mean be maybe both of them are qualified then how do you determine one over the other? Maybe neither are qualified. You got to go back out again. So um you know this is big shoes to fill here for certain you know 40 years of
the knowledge that we have. Um, I I agree. It's the process that we we I guess I just assume best based on how we did with the town administrator position >> and it's it's my understanding that there are two positions that council
fills, town administrator and town attorney that we these are the two positions that we have the input on and we can we can make our recommendations on these two. And so to just skip through any kind of a of an evaluation like that and bring it bring everything
here. I think we should go through um a similar process because we have town attorney, we have town administrator. Well, we did this for the town administrator and evaluated those uh applications and I think we should do the same for town attorney. >> It's actually the man code says four.
The town clerk, the chief of police, the town attorney, the town administrator. So, it's the four key positions. >> Yes, you're right. >> Yeah. >> So, do we just need a motion on that >> on the process? Because that's what we did at the end for the town
administrator with Kevin. We just made a motion to, you know, that we would um get the applicants that did apply and town council would set up an hour meeting and then the next meeting we made the recommendations. We gave our grading sheet back to Eva, I think it
was that day and then Eva compiled them and then we had that decision at the town meeting and congratulated the at that time it was uh Charlotte who had came. We would request for some direction on how to handle that because we did go out
for an RFP and based on RFP qualifications only one was substantial and one was not. There were requests in the RFP for specific items that were not provided by one firm and then the other firm did provide it. So that's the
reason why there's only one that is considered an eligible candidate. >> What was missing from the other firm? >> They did not provide references. They stated that they could be provided upon request. They also did not provide their
articles of incorporation or proof of their liability insurance. And those were all requests from the request for pro for proposal. And to accept that would our procurement policy and process would be at risk for the legal efficacy of not
just past RFPs that we have accepted but any going forward. So basically whenever it's not it does not meet the requirements then we push it to the side and we do not review it. And was this firm notified that they were not that they did not re meet those
requirements and their application would not be uh would not be considered because of that? >> It's all in the RFP. So it was already outlined in the RFP that it was a requirement for it to be a substantial RFP. So yes, it was in the list and so they >> Yeah, but they weren't notified that
they didn't meet those. >> It would have been in the RFP, Councilwoman Hayes. It would have been >> figuring that they should have known that. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Okay. Um >> maybe if they can't figure that out, maybe we don't need them. >> Yeah, maybe. Yeah, I got you there. Um the articles of incorporation are on
public website like Sunbiz. So I don't know that that's um really an issue because that those can be pulled up quite quickly. >> I think when you're applying for a job and that's a requirement to submit, I think you should submit it and it is easy to do and I don't understand why
that wasn't done either. I I don't mean to disparrage the one person that did fill it all out, but let's say for instance that they were not qualified, does that mean we're automatically taking them? I think we should do it again.
>> I think we should do the whole process again. And now that we if we can agree this evening to have what to exactly what the process for review of these applications is going to be once they once they are vetted by by staff that
they have checked off the boxes on the RFP uh and these are available for consideration that they would then be um interviewed by each of the council people and and then scored and then brought back to council. So, I'd like to
go just start over and offer this person that did put an application in, offer them the opportunity to keep their application on file because it it met um it checked the boxes of what was required in the RFP and should then be
considered if unless they decide they they want to pull it. So, what what we what you'd like to add because they didn't check the boxes. So, okay. So then if if there's only one person, you still you want to go ahead
like and I don't that's fine. You want to you want to interview them yourselves. So you want to have the them fill out the RFP the people that do it correctly then come to us and then we do just the same process like we go and we each talk to them and then we make a
decision, right? We fill out the form, you know, we fill out an evaluation form like we did for the town administrator and we give it to Eva and she scores it and the scores are then brought to council and I would rather see well I guess
those are submitted. I don't remember to be honest with you whether we got how people scored them with the individual pages and that because I understand the comments and I understand the scoring but I don't particularly like the idea if somebody gets a high score and maybe
they're not the nicest person in the world then we just go like oh just give that to them. I don't know. I just think maybe there should be when it comes back on the scoring then we should still make a decision. But so we're adding we're doing the RFP. They're filling it out.
Who doesn't do it properly doesn't get to go to the next step. But the people that do it properly come to us. We set up interviews. We interview them and then um if you want to do a scoreeet that's fine. I don't think it should just depend on a score sheet, but that's
me. Uh okay. So that would be our new process and we would do it by next meeting. >> Is that correct? >> I don't think we can do that. I I don't think we can do that by next meeting, meaning meeting the 19th of January, but I think we could put the RFP out again
and um be a little possibly more clear in the RFP as to what the vetting process is going to be and uh then see if we get any more applications other than just one >> and if >> So, you're saying we review the RFP
before it even goes out? Is that I'm sorry, I don't understand. No, I don't think we need to review it as long as we set now tonight what we want the RFP to say. I trust that we set what it's supposed to say that it'll be done correctly. >> I just don't want to delay it. That's
all. I just think we need to move on. I'm sorry. We need to get going with this thing. We need to get >> So, you want to look atward So, you want to look at this one application at the next meeting and and and that's it. So, we should we should interview this
person I'm not arguing with you. I'm just >> No, no. I'm just trying to get clear in my head what you want us to do now. >> Well, I don't mind doing the process over again, but I just don't want it to just go on and on. And I I don't I just think we need to move forward. That's all.
>> I won't do it with one. >> I >> I I won't I won't just accept because there's only one. >> No, I'm not saying move forward with this one, but how long Okay. So, next meeting we're going to talk about the RFP and then we're going to talk about the scoreeet. I mean,
>> no, we we're talking about the RFP right now. We're talking about the RFP right now and and creating a score sheet. We don't have to talk about that again next week. >> Okay. But I don't I haven't even seen the RFP. So, >> I think you do. I think you're asking to
change it. >> Change the RFP? >> Yeah. >> I've never seen it, so I don't I mean, we had we had two companies. >> I don't even know who they were. >> Both of them were qualified. >> Okay. >> Very qualified. >> We had a RFP that stated all and I had a
lot of questions about the RFP and and I went back to it because I I wanted to make sure I understood what was going on. >> And the RFP was very specific in what we asked for and what we wanted. One company did it,
>> the other one didn't. >> Uh, and and frankly, I was I was in in favor of the company that didn't, but if if there, you know, there again, these are
very professional companies and and and now because they didn't follow the rules, we want to change it. I I just don't want to do something that's going to put mud on our face. I don't I don't I'm not >> I mean maybe we're not I'm sure RFPs are
changed all the time but uh we we've done this with the accounting firms uh with RFPs we've done it with others uh on the accounting firm we only had one so that was >> I I don't think we I don't think we need to change the RFP what we need to do is
establish the process by which the candidates are going to be vetted um and the RF RFP is fine. I would I would extend the date. I would leave it the same and extend the date uh to see if we got more than one application because I
think we I I would like to see more than one application here. So, um and and again, I don't want to discount the person that put in the firm that put in the application. Allow them to say, "We're not we don't change the RFP. You
met these requirements. We're just going to move the date along a little farther down the road um where we're going to uh to vet the candidates. So, if if you don't mind hanging in there with us and we'll set you a date for an interview and your your application will be will
be considered. And in the meanwhile, we're going to keep the RFP out for a little bit longer to see if we can get any more applications. Then the other thing concerns me, if we do this, the the company that did it right, they may say, "Well, I don't want to go to work
for these clowns. If they're going to open it up again to to everybody else, you know, they followed the rules. Nobody else did." I'm, you know, I'm just talking. Okay. I'm just talking. >> Uh I I really don't care what we do. Both of these companies, like I said,
were very wellqualified. Uh they they come with good credentials. It's it's just one followed procedures, the other one didn't. And that that's that's what it came down to. >> So, I mean, I agree exactly with what you're saying. Um, and I would like to
interview. Um, I would like a copy of the RFP because and and I get it. We told people to do this and they said references upon request and they didn't submit their insurance policy. We know they've half insurance
policy. So there's weight of what was missing or was was not not to be debated here. But I I agree we should get all just like we did with the um administrator. What we interviewed three of them, right? There was a lot of people that applied. We
>> Yeah, there's three three that we interviewed. And I have a copy of the scoring sheet if somebody needs that. I have all that details. I also think the town attorney should interview the people who are submitting applications for his job. He's going to be in the
better position to be able to also weigh in on is this somebody that is going to really um protect the town. So, and that's what we did before. Kevin, the town administrator, interviewed his replacement. So, I think it's just a consistent process that we should follow
that that worked out well. >> I'm going to say it one more time. somebody can't fill out a form properly. I don't know that. But that's just me. But if you want to have more interview or something like that, but I mean I think getting in the weeds on the RFP
and all that. I mean, we do this all the time. Now, interviewing, I get that you get a feel for the person, but I don't see, you know, I'm just sorry, and I don't mean to disparrage the person that didn't fill out the form, but you know, if you're applying for a job, any job,
if you can't fill out the form properly in the application, you probably aren't going to make it to the next step. That's all I'm going to say. So, will you send us um Charlotte a copy of the RFP? So, the job description that we know went out and then I also would
like a copy of the other person who applied application. We have the one that was being recommended, but I'd like to see um the other one um that we're saying that didn't have um the credential. >> I thought that I had sent that out. So, I was going to say I did send it out.
So, you have the RFP. I sent it out as soon as it posted. It went to all of council. So, it's in your email. >> Have the RFP. Why don't just resend it with that second applicant's information? Thank you. >> Yes. >> So, um
just for for clarity, we've had this lovely discussion and where are we? So, now we have one applicant that that checked all the boxes. We're going to look at the other applicant even though he didn't check all the
boxes. And are we going to interview trying to set up interviews with these at least one candidate for each of us to interview them within the next week before the next meeting? I
mean, that seems like an awful strain on them and on us. I mean, it's it's on an hour or so for each of us, but it's five hours for them. So, I mean, I think we probably need a little more time to interview them for to schedule those
interviews than just a week. Don't you think >> you'll push it to next month? >> I'd like to I'd like to push it to next month. And I'd still like to see the RFP stay stay viable uh just to put the extension maybe till the end of this month and
move it to next month's meeting. I don't know. is a motion in order to move office dead center here. It >> it's it's a it's a procedure discussion. Do we need a motion to that effect? >> Yes. Someone should make a motion.
>> Are you willing to stay on until the point that your replacement is in and trained? >> Don't want to put us at risk, but at the same time don't want to just select one person. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Okay. I said I wasn't going to say anything
else, but um one of the problems and I've talked to several attorneys in business. I worked with a lot of different attorneys. One of the problems we're going to have getting enough, you know, a real broad a lot of attorneys applying is that um there's so many
conflicts and um it puts an office to me in a bind because they can't it it if you have a we're a small town and if you have um clients that you feel you won't be able to service anymore or you
already have them and you know I'm saying it just to me I think in a small town it's a lot harder to to do this. I really do. And there's not very many large firms. So, that's I think that's the biggest issue with the applying. I'm
not sure, but that's what I understand. So, um I would I would make a motion that we have a procedure in place for vetting the candidates for town attorney that includes each candidate, interviewing with each
council member and the mayor and the sitting attorney. And each of those folks would fill out a scoring sheet. That scoring sheet would be turned into EVA for compilation and
summary. And then the candidates would be determined from the results of those scoring sheets. >> Is that a motion? >> That's a motion. >> I'll second it. >> Did you want to readvertise? Uh, I heard
I heard you mention reopen and I heard you not. >> Um, I think Councilman Worley had some heartburn about re reopening. Um, but we only have one we only have one
um applicant that checked all the boxes that you know did everything that they were supposed to do. So, if we if we were to extend the date in an effort to get more applications,
would we extend it a month and then we probably wouldn't be able to schedule interviews and actually come back to this board until March? >> Do you think that's a town attorney question? Can we
Can we RFP for two weeks? >> This this RFP is done. So, I think >> we'd have to redo >> I think you're doing you're going to have to redo the whole >> redo the whole thing. >> You you you can reopen and readvertise for town attorney. You can use the same
RFP or you can make changes to it if you send it out. Uh again, um if you want to readvertise, I would suggest the motion would be to readvertise for town attorney using the same I haven't even seen, by the way,
the um advertisement that was prepared and sent. Um but send it out again uh with a time certain to respond. that will allow the one that Charlotte thinks didn't comply to comply. Um
that all applications would be auto I would say all applications would automatically be included um the past ones in the next resubmission that the town administrator set up interviews of each applicant with the mayor, members
of council, with me if you would like. >> Yes. um soon as possible and that the matter be placed on the next agenda promptly after interviews are completed. If you readvertise the one that Charlotte thinks did not comply could
correct any deficiency and others could add their application um to the process. >> Can can I make a comment please? This was not only reviewed by myself. It was also reviewed by our our clerk and
it was also reviewed by our HR director. We also had discussion with our directors in our director's meeting to discuss the RFP process and the legal ethicacy of how this would affect us because if we make an exception on this one, there have been other cases where
we have been asked and others companies have submitted on projects that we have said no, we will not accept theirs because they did not complete it in its entirety. So, it was not viewed or looked at. So, it does bring alarm and I will defer that to the town attorney,
but it is a true concern for the town staff. Okay. So if we if if my motion then says chapter two
to readvertise using the same RFP with a new end date and that all excuse me all applications s
included in the next submission would be set up for interviews. And once those interviews are completed and the score sheets are completed, the item would be put on the next agenda after that process is complete.
I'll second. >> I'll second that for discussion. I would like time is is of the essence. Um and I added to your motion. >> Pardon me. Is that amended an amended motion? >> Who did the first and second on the first motion? You did. Okay.
>> I did the first. You did the second motion. Deborah, there she needs to have to amend. I'm actually I'm adding to it, but yes, I'm amending it because with the process and I'm amending it. >> Council Charles the amended.
>> That's Colleen. Charles. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> We have a motion and a second. >> You You second it, right? >> No, Colleen did. I'm trying to tell you that. >> Yeah. The only thing just for discuss >> could you add time is of the essence so
we don't >> well I think we can say time is of the essence by putting the proper the the new uh completion date the new due date um that would that would indicate that time is >> but that could be a year from now.
Um shall we shall we make the shall we give them a month let's to like today's 12th January we like 15 February to give is that enough time for another you think
>> it goes out this week sure >> it goes out if it goes out this week make it put the end date of the middle of February that would give us time to interview and come back with the decision for the March council meeting.
So that would be a a due date or a date, what do you call that time certain of February 15th with the expectation that the interviews would be conducted between that date and
before the packet would be completed for the next council meeting. That would be the one in March. >> Second again, Colleen. Again. >> Okay, we have a motion in a second. Okay. So, I'm going to open it up to
discussion on the podium. And I'm going to go on record stating that I think this is a bad idea. Changing the rules in the middle of the game is never good. I think I've always been a a just and fair mayor. I've
always tried to abide by the rules. If you want to change it, that's fine. You change it. But I think doing it now in the middle of the game is the wrong president that we're setting.
And that's all I'm going to say. All right. We'll take it out to the public. Dustin Woods, 179 Huntley Oaks Boulevard. I uh I commend the council for wanting to be cautious and thorough. I do suggest that it's not the right
move for several reasons for us to change the rules in the middle of the game. We've already opened the RFP. Two qualified candidates have already applied. Just like when you run your company, one of them one of them followed through and one of them didn't. So, I don't even know who the two
options are. So, I don't have a particular persuasion as to whether that candidate's a good one or not. But from a policy standpoint, we need to see that through to the end. I recommend that that company has already earned the right to be interviewed for that role.
It's theirs to lose. You can still not like them and not hire them. >> That's right. >> And then we change the policy or and then we open it back up and decide, you know what? Let's approach it a different way. But I think we're just sending a message to the community. Lake Placid doesn't mean business. If we don't like
the way it's going, we'll just change it in the middle of the game. But I also think it sends a message to whichever company that is, whatever attorney that is, is that we already don't like you. Uh so we're going to just go look for somebody else. I I would I would
recommend to the town council that we reconsider our direction on that and let it be that companies to lose. And if you don't like them, then we'll take another approach. >> I agree with that. And and I would like
to say when I said that if we get this one person by default and I I said I didn't mean to disparage them but if by chance there was somebody who was not qualified I didn't want to have them by default but now if we have the opportunity to do the interviews
um I would feel more comfortable in going ahead with the one candidate left if we can reject them if we find them unsuitable. When I said that it I felt like I didn't have any uh any say so that it was a done deal.
>> So you would be happy if we went ahead with the way we did the town administrator take the one candidate that completed it interview them. If we don't think that they're qualified then we go back out for RFP. And I think that's
>> Mr. Woods was saying he's saying that's the process. We should stick with it. And I I do agree with that >> to interview to interview one >> or both of the applied. >> No, they're going to interview just one because the other one the other one
didn't check all the boxes. >> They're no because the one didn't didn't complete the paperwork properly. So really, we only have one applicant that's >> that's provided the required information. If we if we do interview them and we don't like them or you
decide, no, we need to go back out, then we go back out. Mr. Woods is saying instead of changing it and saying, hey, we're going to help you because you couldn't finish your homework, we'll just change the rules. So we go through the process, we interview the person that did it properly. We only have one.
And then if we don't like them, we go back out again for RFP and that's what we do. And that way we could get the interviews done quickly. Um I I would like to meet them. I I would like to leave have at least them come here so we
could ask questions. But um if personal interviews are better than a public forum, I'm fine with that. I'm I'm kind of at a loss because I don't know what the requirements were and I don't have the package of what the
person turned in and again, you know, did it actually say if you don't submit all of this document including your insurance certificate, which we know everybody has. We know. So, I'm just kind of at a loss where coming in on
only getting one person that applied that's 400 miles away. I'd like somebody local here, but I don't know who the other person was and and I get it if we have these are the requirements, but there's certain requirements that are kind of moot depending on the
qualifications of the person or if we think that they don't have any references. I don't know any attorney that doesn't have references. I don't know any attorney that doesn't have insurance certificates. So maybe I'm just kind of thinking those are kind of minor things that they have and they would provide.
In fact, the one said they would provide upon request. >> It wasn't they didn't have references. They said that providing references was um was was against attorney client privilege. >> Yes. >> Oh, okay. Wow, that's an interesting.
>> Now we're into a >> interesting on that. >> Well, I'm looking at this and it's what was sent out and advi advertisement date February 24th, 2025. Uh submission due date Monday, December
22nd, 2025 at 3 p.m. Um anticipated meeting agenda January 12th. So, we're we're out to the public, so we should talk to the public.
>> Ken Leblanc 120. Yes, your lane. Um, yeah, as a builder, I've put in RFPs before and um and if you didn't have something in that RFP, you were not going to be the builder. If I couldn't follow basic instructions to put my insurance certificates and my references and my, you know, uh, articles of
corporation, all those things are things that I have to put in every RFP. then you weren't, you know, detailed enough to be the builder on that job. And I got that, you know, um it's basic simple instructions. Um what you guys are talking about, it sounds like you're trying to interview this person as if
they were a town employee. But the reason you're doing an RFP is because they're not a town employee. They're not town administrator. So you can't you you shouldn't be treating everybody as if they are a town employee. You got to you got to treat it through an RFP because they're a contractor um to the town,
right? So um you know I think in this case you know you you went through the process you one person gave all the information and that person deserves the right to come in and sit in front of you and you guys ask him the questions and
determine if he's capable and if he's capable then he ought to have the job and I mean it seems a little bit like a banana republic to change the rules of the game you know after the game's been played and um you know I mean that That's that's you know that's I I don't
think that's the kind of thing we ought to be doing and I don't think it's fair. I agree with John. You know we set the rules. It was very clear. It's very basic, very easy. You know get insurance certificates takes you all of 10 minutes. You know all of these things. It's basic stuff and I just don't think
it's fair. So I think you ought to be following through and interviewing this guy. give them the right and you know and I don't know um what your abilities are to hire them not hire them you know but if I was putting an RFP in and this kind of thing happened you know and I
was the qualified bid bidder and they said no we're going to open it back up again you know I'd be talking to my lawyer about suing you know and what are my rights in this situation you know so you're dealing with a law firm here who knows their rights and understands RFPs so it just doesn't make any sense to me that you're changing the rules in the
game in the middle of the game after the games have been played, right? And um so it just it doesn't make sense. I think you got to give this guy the chance, you know. Um and I don't know either of these guys. I have no idea. I'm just talking procedures here, you know. I
played this RFP game before. I mean, I'm doing a project in Sebring that I put an RFP in and um you know, it's there's there's rules. I had everything in there, you know, and and I was chosen. But um in this case, you know, the person who couldn't follow basic instructions gets a second chance when
the first guy who actually followed all the instructions isn't even going to get interviewed. Shoot. I mean, that sounds like you're setting yourself up for a lawsuit, you know. So, um I think you need to do the right thing here. You need to see this guy and see what they're all about. So,
>> I I have to say it one more time to make sure it's clear that when I said I wouldn't accept one, that was before we talked about doing the interview. So, I'm I understand what you're saying. And
now that we're interviewing, I'm content to take one and have the opportunity if they don't work out, we can then we can go out again if they don't meet qualifications. I just want to make a point that I think your decision sends a message that we're
being more thorough and we're putting forth more effort into this town and into the processes and this makes us transparent because we are not transparent at all. Thank you. Marlene Berger again. I have two quick
questions. Did all council members see the RFP? >> I don't remember seeing. >> Was the RFP sent out? >> They they all had it, but rather that I guess some of them haven't seen. I didn't read it, >> but they were all furnished with it. >> I didn't read it. >> Have you all seen the RFP?
>> I don't. Have you seen that? No. >> I think I believe I got it, but I didn't read it. >> Let me let them answer for themselves. Has everybody seen the RFP? And I'm stunned that the attorney for the town who's been here for 40 years didn't see
the RFP before it was sent out. Why was that? And nobody's saying anything negative about the one applicant who had all the boxes checked. Nobody's saying anything negative about that. It's the process. The town council is the the body, the
governing body. You guys should be able to see the RFP before it went out so you can make comments on it or suggestions. And certainly the town attorney ought to have seen it. If that didn't take place, resubmit the RFP. No harm, no foul to
the one attorney. It's our fault because we didn't have a correct process. I just want to state for the record that the count I mean that the town follows all RFP processes the same and it doesn't come before council. That's not
typical practice. >> Okay. All right. Any other comments? Go ahead and bring it back for the council. >> Council member Hayes. >> Yes. >> Council member Charles. >> Yes.
>> Council member Worley. >> No. >> Council member No. >> If it's in the motion to extend the RFP, send it out again. >> That's it. >> Then I will have to vote no. >> It is.
>> Mayor Hullbrook. >> No. >> Okay. So, where are we? I'll make a motion that we move forward with the applicant that we have that completed the the RFP properly that we set up interviews as quickly as possible
and um move forward. >> The only person that's determined that the other one did not comply as the town administrator. >> That's an >> who evaluated then. Eva, our town clerk, and also Rachel,
our HR director, which is typical practice, and also our mayor, who has sat down with us three times and looked at it, including this morning at our director's meeting. >> Well, why don't you send the other application to all of the council, the one that your committee determined had
not complied. >> Mr. Harris, you are um I'm sorry. you know that I respect you, but you're you're getting into the integrity of our employees. And I don't I don't think that's correct. If if they say they did it, which they have said that, then
there's no need to go do an investigation. I don't believe I think that we should accept it. But if you want to, I mean, you can do we can do a public request for information and that's what you want to do and can investigate it yourself. When I think
that's happened sometimes is that not realizing that you're trying to do the right thing. We're all trying to do the right thing. That sometimes we question the integrity of our employees and they're working really hard and I I I believe them to be trustworthy. So I I
think it's hurtful. But I'm that's all I'm going to say. I keep saying that and I keep saying more. But anyway, >> may may I add a little bit then Deborah and explain why? >> Well, I understand that. They're saying they did it. Now you're saying that we're going to find something conspiracy
theory that they they're not being honest and truthful. >> Um I'd let council make the decision about honesty and integrity. Have you uh at one point the nominee brought forward by the committee,
the name was published. I looked him up. I'll be shocked if he gets one the support of one member of this council. His record is his public record is shocking. >> Well, that's why we vet them out and
we'll continue the process and through that process we'll find. >> Well, that's why I think it's fine if y'all want to interview that one candidate, bring him forward and then you can consider the judgment. >> Exactly. That's what I think we're talking about doing. That's a fine idea.
>> And then I'm going to be devil's advocate. Was the same process done on the one that didn't comply? I never got anything from them. Uh and and yeah, that listen, we can go back and forth on this all we
want. >> That's my point. I don't think you did get anything on the one that didn't comply as a pro as determined by the committee. I was rather impressed with his application. Their application. >> How did you see that?
>> Pardon me. >> How did you see that? >> I called him and got a copy. When I saw who you brought forward, I was shocked. Shocked. >> I didn't bring it forward. It followed the procurement policy of an RFP. >> You're the administrator. You brought it forward. Made the recommendation to the
mayor. Did you not? I brought him what was a legal RFP response and by Florida's statute this did not have to go out for RFP. It is it is exempt from having to go to RFP and our mayor wanted
to reach far and wide and we did do that and we had two responses. >> Let's announce the name of the person you recommended and let the public look him up and make their decision as well. >> Mr. Mr. Harris, I think that this is up
to council's decision. And ultimately, by Florida statute, the mayor could have did a direct hire. He did not have to do an RFP. He chose to do so because he wanted to make it fair and consistent where it went far and wide. >> The mayor certainly has the discretion
to do a an RFP. Absolutely. The council has the discretion to read all of the applications and to interview the applicants. I welcome you bring that one guy forward. Let's see how that works out,
>> but I suggest you tell his name. Why keep it a secret? He's going to be representing the town. >> My my problem with the whole process was that we council members were not allowed or did not appear that we were going to be allowed to interview any of the
candidates before they came uh to town council. and any questions that we may want to ask those uh those candidates would be asked in this form rather than on a oneon-one basis like we did the town administrator and that was my
reason for bringing up all this consternation because I the town attorney and the town administrator are two offices that we have a say in >> well I think we've decided through my motion that that we are going to interview so that takes care so And I'm
okay with that. I'm okay with leaving it where it where it is. We have one applicant. I don't know if that person has appeared tonight or not. If so, I'm I'm sorry. Sorry they didn't get the the memo that it was pulled from the agenda
tonight, but we can move on forward. And um I'm okay with that. If we can interview uh individually interview this person before it comes before council again, then I'm okay with leaving the RFP process the way it is. Determine um
as was brought up by the public, determine whether this candidate is going to fill our bill or not. And if they do, fine. And if they don't, then we're going to have to go out for another RFP, in which case we can possibly be more specific.
Okay. >> Okay. All right. Let's move on. >> Is that a motion? >> Oh, no. We got it. >> I have Did somebody second Deborah's motion? >> What was Deborah's motion >> to set up an interview? Mo, Deborah,
your motion was to set up an interview with the one candidate. And then >> and then bring >> as soon as possible. >> As soon as possible. Um so I would need a second on that. >> And that's for the five council members and our town attorney to interview.
Correct. >> No, I think we never do that. Not the town attorney. He's It's almost like a conflict. I think we should interview him. Council members should interview him. The mayor should interview him. And then what we decide is what we should do. >> I think the town attorney should
interview him as well. the town administrator. >> Well, he obviously doesn't like them and it's going to be a free-for-all. The >> then then it's one vote. It's one sheet. >> It's one evaluation. >> One evaluation. >> It it's one evaluation sheet. It doesn't hold any higher value than any of ours.
But the previous town administrator uh interviewed the candidates for Charlotte's the position that Charlotte now now holds. So why wouldn't the previous attorney be allowed to interview the attorney? >> Yes. If he can be respectful and he can and interview them properly. I mean he's very upset.
>> I think he can be respectful. >> Attorney very upset. I mean I don't want him to run off. >> I'll be nice. Deborah >> promise. >> So I I would second that motion. I'll second Deborah. >> I have a question. >> I have a motion to second. Any other
comments from the podium? >> Yeah. I have a question. >> Just a minute. I I check up here first then I'll come to you. No comments from up here. >> Okay. Now we'll take it to the audience. >> Josephine Conley at 607 Sunset Point Drive.
>> We the taxpayers pay our attorney for his legal advice. I'm sitting here listening the attorney administrator. Why do we pay the attorney if we don't listen to him? He's making perfectly good sense
and we're ignoring it. That's my opinion as a taxpayer. That's why we have an attorney to protect us and you do a good job also. But I'm just saying listen to the attorney. For 20ome years he steered us in the right
direction. Thank you. My name is Rosemary Heath and I live at 588 Sunset Point Tribe. Um, why do we have an attorney and we ignore his advice? It
we're totally ignoring everything he's saying. And this isn't the first time. This done for several times now. The attorney's made a suggestion and someone doesn't want to listen to it or argues with him. He's our attorney. He gives us
our advice and we should listen to it. We the citizens want that. Pam Pinterest. Um Friday morning I read the uh 90page original agenda packet which included
this Anthony Sabatini law firm. I read the packet. Um, I Googled his name. I looked him up. Wasn't thoroughly impressed about it, but I read it and I was willing to listen. Um, by around
3:00 that afternoon, I had a question on some finances. I went back to see the whole report and now then the agenda packet had 105 pages and the attorney had added Lake Placid Camping Conference Center, the bulkwater agreement. Yesterday I was in Publix and someone
approached me saying that the agenda had changed. The legal attorney service has been pulled. I told them no, they were wrong. This morning I went to the agenda packet and the agenda packet it was now 79 pages. It matters the policy, the
process, it matters to the public. We're trying to keep up with what what the town is doing. There's an obvious conflict right now um that's happening on the dis. I would agree with Mrs. Worley's comments about the integrity of
the staffing question. Um I think you have a compromise that you're working on now to interview the person the the attorney services that has met the RFP that that has been submitted. If you don't like them, then you say and you
regroup and go again. And it is a big decision. You've had somebody for 40 years. It is. And it's going to be it'll be tough to let that go and to find you're not going to find a Bur Harris. Thank you. Okay. Looks like that's it. Bring it
back. Pull the council. >> Council member Worley. >> Yes. >> Council member Hayes. >> Yes. >> Council member Charles, >> can you read the motion? Just because we've gone back and forth, back and forth. >> You're setting up an inter an interview with the one candidate
>> with with the council >> as soon as possible >> and the town attorney >> and the town attorney. >> I Yes. >> Is that correct? Your motion? >> Correct. >> Deborah. >> Okay. >> Yes. >> Council member Charles.
>> Yes. >> Council member Abber. >> Yes. >> Okay. Now, where are we? >> 7D. >> I think we're on D. Yes. >> Okay. C Co Coast loan agreement. I think I
have something on there. >> Do we have a resol? We have a number on that one. >> That didn't get a number signed. What will be number? >> Okay. A resolution of town placid approving and authorizing the execution the delivery of the loan documents with
C Coast National Bank to fund certain improvements to the sewer system. Which one did we read? Did you >> read the one on the suggested? >> Oh, on the right. >> Can you see the suggested
>> Mayor, this is a request to get the loan renewed. Um, this loan came in came in effect maybe like 2022 and so for every year we have to renew it. um submit our financials and the bank renew it. So, it's just a request
for renewal. >> Okay. >> Have we looked at other banks for different interest rates? >> So, this is a renewal of the line of credit that the the town is already you they're using the line of credit. So,
the town is have not >> but we could go to another bank, take out a new line of credit or loan and pay this one off, maybe get a better interest rate. >> So, I did talk to Andrew Bible this today and he said it's prime the prime
rate which is pretty much going to be six and a 6.75 to 7% interest. No matter where you go, it's going to be the same amount. Thank you. Um then the uh the payments itself uh we're
paying quarterly rather than monthly. >> Correct. It was set up as quarterly. >> So we are paying with the crude interest another $3,500 a month or a quarter that we wouldn't have to pay if we paid
monthly. Well, that's how it was originally set up. I haven't I didn't set up the original contract, but that's how it was set up in quarter. We can ask if he wanted to do it monthly. Um that could be a term. >> So if we are renewing, let's for 3500 or
355 a quarter with the compounding interest, it we really should be paying monthly. Um then um I have a question too about um you have said estimated cost of
interest of 398,000 for 2026. Um and I don't understand that because um even if we paid quarterly the 71,000 that's only 284,000 in interest a year.
>> That is for the whole year. >> Pardon? >> That's an estimate for the whole year. >> Yeah. our estimate if we're paying the same or are you saying the U prime rate is going up and that's why your estimate went up? >> Well, it was based on an estimate the amount that you're looking at. So, I
don't it could be more, it could be less, but it's just a SMS estim how much the town been paying in quarterly which is about 72,000 every quarter. >> Okay. But the 72,000 71,000 a quarter comes to 284. So, well, the one that you're looking at
then was we didn't uh have the whole 4 million. It was like 1 point one and a half. So, then we um draw down the whole 4 million. So, the interest that you're looking at is based on the 4 million, >> right? >> Not the right. So, the interest on 4
million at 6.75 is 284,000 a year. So, um, you're but your estimate is 298. I'm just
it's a it's a really padded estimate then. >> It is. It is. >> Okay. Um, >> and I did talk to him today about that and he do break it down the interest on a monthly and a daily basis. So, that give you a better idea of how they're
calculating it. But I just took simply four four million net 6.75 and got the much lower number. Um all right then and let's see. So in other words, we have absorbed the full 4
million on the line of credit paying >> Yes. >> bills. >> Yes. Because right now the we get invoices every month from for the construction and that is running like one and a half to about $3 million every month for the invoices. So basically that kind of
absorb that it floats that invoice until the state reimburse the town back. >> Okay. Um, and then on the whole cost of the treatment plant, what I'm trying to get at in my mind is when the plant is done and fully running,
how much are we going to owe the bank? Are we going to run over what we had >> over all or just >> over? Yeah, with everything with the lift stations, with everything. How much are we going to owe the bank when it's up and running? So about 4,750,000
is what we have to well the 750,000 is the quarterly payment. So we have to pay the 4 million back. >> So we will owe have to pay down 4 million and the interest kind of calculated about 750,000 for the whole duration of
the town using it. Okay. >> Which should be by the end of this year was when the when the grant finished on December 31st 20 26th. >> Okay. And then is there any portion of the invoices that we've submitted that have been denied?
>> No. >> Okay. So, so far we've we've met everything all their requirements. We're not on the hope for any more >> for the grants. Yes. >> Okay. I'm going to go ahead and make the recommended motion authorize the town
finance director to continue working with C Coast National Bank to provide the required documents for the loan renewal of $4 million and obtain the loan contract for the mayor's and clerk's signature signatures. The terms
of the loan will be the same as those of the initial lines of credit for one year, two if possible. John Hullbrook, mayor, Deborah Worley, vice mayor, and Rachel Osburn, finance director, have the authority to draw down the funds.
Collateral will continue to be the assignment of grant proceeds from the Department of Environmental Protection. I guess we amended that we're going to look into maybe a monthly interest instead of the quarterly as the same.
So, and also direct the fine town finance director Rachel Osborne to investigate if it's possible to pay the interest payments monthly. I guess I might as well second. I'm the only one making seconds lately. This
would be now. Um I just want to bring to your attention that on page 76 where it is the resolution itself um on item one it said the loan documents for the renewal of the line of
credit. It appears that C Coast National Bank does not want it to say line of credit. They want it to say loan. And I think what we are um what we are approving is loan. So, I think that that might be a typo or that we probably need
to change that in the resolution to say loan. >> Yeah, cuz it started out as a line of credit, then it went to a loan once it went from Heartland National Bank to C Coast and now he's talking about a promisary note. So, I'm not sure. >> So, should it say loan or line of credit?
>> The loan. >> Okay. It's just a typo, not a different motion. Here's a typo. >> So, I'm seconding. Okay. We got a motion to second. Any further comments from the podium? >> I do. I had some questions. Well,
Deborah um you know gave the motion so I wasn't able to give them. Um but just after a lot of the questions that Joy asked, can I just clarify? So this we've maxed out at 4 million, right? What was it three years ago? We applied for this for a line of credit knowing that we had
to have cash flow. So this is what we're using for cash flow for the new sewer plant. Is that correct understanding? Correct. >> Okay. >> And at that time it was with >> what did you say? H heartland bank >> and then at some point we transferred it when you did all the bank bank changes
to C Coast. Okay. >> And so at this point it's maxed out, right? We we have $4 million we've borrowed from them because I agree it's not a line of credit. It's a loan, right? In fact, the documents um I asked for a copy of the loan
documents because it's saying that we're approving the loan documents and I don't have any loan documents to even read to know what are we approving. So, that's a concern I have. I don't like to approve anything that I don't see what I'm approving. So, it's asking me to approve
loan documents. Um but right now we're at $4 million, right? We've borrowed $4 million and the way the cash flows are coming in, right? D reimbures us. I'm going to make up some numbers. Half a million, but in the meantime, you're paying another half a
million. So, you staying right up at the four million max. >> Um, no. Maybe like three and a half. >> You're at three and a half. So, so you haven't had any risk with this last big push to get that plant up and running. >> No. >> You know, the end of next month that
we're we don't have enough money to borrow from. You haven't had that risk yet. Do you see that risk coming up with the last influx of invoices coming in that we're going to need to pay to get that plant? I think it's February 26.
What's the estimated date? >> It's got a little bit March from March. >> So, so first week of March it will be done. We anticipate then the last bills will come in. And is it fair to say by
the end of April? When do we think all of the bills related to the new sewer plant that we're using this loan to pay would all come in and then typically it's 90 days D is taken to reimburse us.
Is that fair comments that I'm I'm just trying to get my fair head around the financial process here of what where we at what the risk is and that um >> it's kind of hard to estimate what their invoice is going to be right because I
guess they depends on whatever work they do whatever construction or whatever supplies they use during that term which is every month. So but they've been running like one and a half to three million invoices every month. So, how long of a period do you think this 4
million is needed? I mean, we're not not talking a year. Are we talking six months? What What are we What are we thinking? Because if D is running 90 days and the last bills come in, let's just say in April,
we pay him, we submitted, by July, we no longer need this loan. Well, um, he's going to do a term for a year, so it could be paid off before the year. So, that's the that's the hope that I >> mean, our goal is to pay it off as soon
as D gets us some money, right? >> That is correct. >> Is there any money that we've been borrowing that is not reimburseable by D? >> No, because well, there was some expenses from Lake Placid Camping
Comfort Center, but they paid reimburse that back. So, there's none. Every time we submit the invoice, it is eligible expenses >> 100%. >> So, is this loan just for the grant to build the $40 million grant or can it be used for
anything in wastewater >> only only the sort of septic projects >> projects which would be and and again this can be a whole temp in fact I I we need to get a complete update
including the financials. I mean, where are we with the 40 million? Are we going to be under? Are we forecasting to be over? >> Well, there was a a a change order that was put in for construction of the wastewater treatment plant and it was a
saving because the town did a direct purchase. It was like 3 point I put it in the in the email today. It was like 3.4 million savings. And so when once the pro project is done um we're kind of expecting like 1.1 million left over for
>> under spent under under so 39 million of the grant overall. And when was that change order? You said there was >> the direct purchase where the town did the purchasing and then >> um the contractor didn't have to buy it for tax savings for tax exempt.
>> You don't pay sales tax. >> Right. Right. Right. Yeah. Okay. Um, so, so you want to take this out for a year, but if D pays us our money, >> we could correct. >> We should be paying it off as soon as we get that money, right? Because Yeah,
this is a high interest. I think it's a high interest rate, almost 7%. And and I'm I'm not clear on the interest because you were saying 3,500 a month and I'm reading 70,000 a quarter. Then I'm reading on the statement that we've
got that we've paid interest of 221,000, but that's year to date. So that would be for 2025. And if we've had this for two years, so do we have a number and interest that we paid and we anticipate
for this $4 million loan? >> As of now, it should be like 750,000. So the 200 >> interest is 750,000 >> total. >> Who? until the end of this calendar year.
>> And does DP reimburse us for that? >> No. >> So where is that funded? >> Threequarters of a million dollars. >> The sore >> where >> the sewer fund. >> Sewer fund. >> Oh, the sewer reserve.
>> The sore fund operating. >> Is there enough money in there for that? >> Yes. is out of the service fees. >> U Rachel sent out a um email just late this afternoon. She somebody must have
requested information. It says on as far as the change orders regarding the change orders, I am aware of several that have been issued. The most significant change order resulted in tax savings of approximately 3,397,2481 cents due to the direct purchase of
supplies. And then she put in all three of the change orders, but that was the most significant one. It was a savings. So, do you have a copy of the loan? I mean, I'd like a copy of the loan that you're asking me to sign. Is it the
same? >> It's just an extension. >> The first one they put in, they did by resolution. There was just a form that the mayor signed that Yeah, I'm taking out the lo the loan, but it was not loan documents. It was just a one form and he's working on that now to get that to
us. And just as soon as that document available, I will send it out to everybody. >> But but it's asking us to approve the loan. >> Well, >> and they're working on revising the loan documents, >> but the motion is for me to just move forward as far as getting everything
straightened out so it can be a loan. It'll it probably going to be back next month anyway for final. Oh, then I'm confused. I mean, I'm reading this as we're authorizing you. So, this is just to I mean, what choice
do we have except for have we shopped around to see if there's something at a better rate? Um. Oh, well, it's just it's a lot of money. So, bank is currently asking for it right now.
Yeah, I was looking at this. It looks like we got this letter September 10th. So, what what's causing the delay? >> We got the letter on December the 29th and that's probably one of the older letters, but the one for this last um
interest payment we got on the 29th and it was due on the 30th. No. Um this letter from C Coast to the mayor and to Eva is saying, "Hey, your note is coming maturing on December 30th, 2025. And so I noticed that too, but when I
called him on December the 30th, he said he was going to send me a letter and then that was the letter. Okay. >> So this motion is just to authorize you to continue to work with them and then you'll come back to council with the loan documents that we
need to sign. um are are the three and I think those were the three people who can draw down um the mayor, the vice mayor, and yourself. That that's just a carryover. That's what we have now. Is that correct? >> Yeah.
>> What options do we have to not authorize it? >> Just authorize it. Just move forward with it. Brought it to you guys to let you know that there is a loan and we renewing the loan. So, it's it's a courtesy as far as that we're not just renewing the loan without council
knowing. >> And you you have looked at other institutions to see if there's a better loan rate that we could get with them. >> I would do that. I I would be I mean that's what we would do in our personal lives, right? We would be looking
around. Is there anything else? I mean, of of course, dealing with the same bank that you did for probably the next 6 months or whatever makes it easy, right? But at the same time, if there's a better interest rate on there,
>> save the taxpayers a lot of money. >> And if nothing else, if they come in the same or higher, at least we can all be satisfied. It was the best rate we can get. Well, historically the town always did business with the bank, one bank and not
funds all over to different banks. >> I you weren't clear. The microphone didn't >> Historically the town always dealt with one bank and so that's why they move from South State to Heartland National Bank. They move everything. So normally the loans whatever carries through
>> and that's fine for your day-to-day banking. I get that right. You're checking your savings, your fund reserves and that. But this is the specialized. This is going out to get a $4 million loan at a 6.75% interest
for up to a year. Hopefully sooner if D can pay us off faster. >> Okay. I will look into it. He did say that six the prime rate is what's any bank going to give you, but I will definitely confirm that. >> Okay. >> He is who? >> Andrew. Um
>> I don't know that name. >> Andrew. He's the I I know him. >> Oh, sure. He's going to tell you that, right? >> He was He's a market president of >> I've worked I've worked with Mr. Bible. He's very honorable.
He's he he I'm having he works with me in my business. >> I'm not saying he isn't. I'm saying any bank's going to tell you with the risk of losing a loan with them that this is the best rate you're going to get. >> I don't think Andrew would say that without having it be the truth. He's not
trying to blow smoke. He's He's going to tell you the truth. >> Andrew's been around a long time. I'm sorry you haven't known him. >> That's that. Thank you. >> Any other comments from the podium? >> All right. Hearing none, we'll take you to the audience.
>> My name is Josephine Conley at 607 Sunset Point Drive. I just want to make sure I'm understanding this, which I had no idea we had a $4 million loan out there. Obviously, it's coming up for renewal. Um, that's a surprise to me because
we're looking to spend close to 700 $800,000 and then 2300 2,000 2 million3 for the pickle for the police department in cash. Okay.
I don't know how we come up with these figures. So, we're looking at cash monies. We're going to initiate new projects and money that we've already been on the hook for, but we're supposed to get back, now please correct me if I'm wrong, we're supposed to get back
this loan of $4 million except the interest. Is that correct? >> That is correct. >> And that's absorbing it. What the interest is. So, we the taxpayers are eating what was that figure? 700. How much was it a year for the loan of
interest for the four million? Was it 7 >> 750 is total? That's the total over the threeear period. That's that's a total over three years. >> Over three years. >> Yeah. >> That's a lot of money. And I'm like saying we're taxpayers of 1,000 people
in these figures. And are we guaranteed this $4 million back? I mean, is that a guarantee? >> Somebody's the EPA, whoever's giving it back to us, is that a guarantee that we'll get that money back?
>> So, the 4 million is based on a $40 million grant. So, of course, the the four million is going to come back. It's going to get reimbursed, just not the interest. >> Okay. I I just never realized that with all this other expenditures that we're
going through right now with laying out close to $3 million cash out of our reserves. Okay. So now I understand it. So someone asked me and I can explain it to them. I I didn't know any of this. Thank you.
>> Rachel, what are we collateralizing for this? Are they asking for some collateral if they're calling it a loan versus >> No. No. It's just one of those renewal. Every year they check the financials, make sure that everything is >> so the the financial strength of the town.
>> Marlene Barker 760 Sunset Point Drive. I'm just concerned about the financials. If you look at the audit that was done, which is which I have in my hand, there were a lot of misdates, a lot of bad information. And the question is as
you're proceeding this program, when do we start getting some reimbursement from DP? As we go along, is there no reimbursement as you go along? There should be. And and has there been any reimbursement?
Secondly, the letter that was sent on 10 September, that's probably the most convoluted letter I've ever read. If somebody could explain this to me, coming from a professional organization, this is not very clear. Secondly, the thing on the loan statement that comes
in has the the statement date is 121925. The officer is David Gibson, who doesn't even work for C Coast anymore. So, they're not they're not doing any details to attention. I think we would be looking at another bank and see what
kind of an interest they would be giving us. But I think you mentioned on the financials, what did we paid out? What did we miss? What did we not get right? Just go back and look at your audit on everything dealing with septic. This is this is almost criminal in terms of
everything that's been missed and done incorrectly. Just saying we got to do our job right. Okay. Any other comments? Bring them back. Pull the council. >> Council member Worley. >> Yes. >> Council member Hayes.
>> Yes. >> Council member Charles. >> No. I' I'd like to look at another bank. >> Council member Everheart. I thought the motion was to You did agree to look at other banks. >> Yes, I am.
>> You You did look at other bank. No, you will. You said you would. >> Do you want that included? Does Deborah want to amend her motion to include looking at other banks? >> I'll amend my motion to say that. Um, okay. Okay. So, it says the terms alone
will be the same as those initial lines of credit for one year or two if possible. Also, we authorize the town finance director to explore better interest rates,
better financial incentives. >> Okay. And and we had talked about moving to monthly payments. That's already in the motion. There she added that. Do you want to mention >> I would do favorable interest rates. You
don't want financial incentives. That's not the proper terms. >> That's fine. >> Could Could I add a thought? >> It's looks to me like the loan has matured and we have to sign renewal documents >> immediately.
>> No, they've extended it until March. They they they have it did expire, but they extended it. >> Fair enough. Um, I was going to suggest there really no costs involved with a loan to a public entity. Have they disclosed to you any points or advanced
charges at all? If not, there's no harm in renewing and continuing to look for a better rate if you want to move the business if you find a better rate. But I wouldn't want to be in default. >> Yeah, I agree. >> And I I take your point about March. I'd forgotten that.
>> Um, but it's interesting because this really is a revolving line of credit. because you're taking money out and then you're borrowing more. So, it's back and forth, right? Where the loan is usually a fix. That's why I'd like to see a copy of what are we talking about? Loan is
usually you go out and you borrow $4 million and then you just pay principal and interest. This is D's paying you. You're I'm assuming, right? You're you're paying the bank and then you get new bills and you have to to um to draw
on them. >> Correct. So it sounds like we originally set it up as a revolving line of credit with H Heartland and somehow when it got scooched over to Sea Coast, it became an interesting type of loan. >> Correct. >> Because everything we're talking is a
revolving line of credit which typically has different interest rates. So there may be a nice opportunity for the town to go back to see who offers revolving lines of credit because that's all this is >> the way we're using it. That's why I ask
what are we collateralizing because that's what a loan is. They want some collateral, right? I mean, I know I'm out of order, but that's a good point because re revolving line of credit interest is only on the actual balance, not the total for a
million. So, we would get down to 3.8 or 3.7, we'd be paying less interest that way. Okay, where are we? >> Um, Council Member Ebahart. Yes, we needed a >> Yes, as amended.
>> Okay. >> Yes. One more question. >> All right. >> We have to vote. >> We did vote. >> We did vote. >> We did. >> I don't know what you voted, but we voted. >> Yeah. >> Oh, then I voted no. They just said what they voted yes but
then she revised it. That's what she just said. >> She just >> I believe I voted yes on the amendment >> which is right now. >> So >> I didn't second the amendment. >> So Deborah Deborah >> and Nell amended their motion. Do you
want me to do a new vote? We can do that. But >> on the amended motion, >> I'll second the amendment motion. The amended motion. >> Okay. And and I'll redo the roll call vote.
>> Council member Hayes. >> Yes. >> I'm sorry. Council member Worley first. >> Council member Hayes. >> Yes. >> Council member Charles. >> Yes. >> Council member Everheart. >> Yes. >> Okay.
>> All right. That will now go to E. Budget amendment consultant services. Yeah. Bert, you got your Okay, you're ready. >> I know it's hard to see. Do you want me to read it in, Bert? The town requires specialized
professional engineering utility consulting services to support ongoing and upcoming utility planning efforts. The proposed consultant, Mr. Frederick Gloer, PE, through public utility management and planning services incorporated, possesses specific expertise in municipal utility systems,
regulatory compliance, and strategic utility planning. This agenda item requests approval of a budget amendment to fund these professional services. budget amendment in the amount of 18,125 for professional consultant services with public utility management and planning services incorporated provided
by Mr. Frederick Bloer. Under Florida law, professional engineering services are governed by the Consultants Competitive Negotiation Act, CCNA. However, the CCNA and related procurement statutes expressly allow municipalities to exempt small dollar
professional service contracts from the formal procurement requirements when the cost falls below below the statutory threshold. It references the statute pursuit to Florida statute 287.017
and 287.055 055 professional engineering services under the applicable cost threshold may be procured without a formal request for proposal or request for qualifications. The proposed contract amount of 18,125 is well below the 35,000 threshold and
therefore qualifies for this exemption. Additionally, Florida procurement statutes allow for direct selection and piggybacking or negotiated professional services under this threshold provided that the governing body determines the services are in the best interest of the municipality.
Mr. Warner's available for questions. Is this an immediate need? Well, first of all, it because it's a budget amendment, I'm wondering if this is an immediate need or if we can put it off, let's say, till the fall semester.
I I wish time we would know better how the town finances are. >> Basically, if we can get this moving now, this gives us a a better spot when we go apply for grants because this is for a a master utility uh program. Uh
so that gives us extra uh points for positioning for grants. Um Fred here is uh been in the business over 30 some years and he's graciously said he could do this for $18,000 where
I was told by our engineers that it'd be up to $700,000 and done over many years. Sure, this is probably going to be just a basic one, but this will give us the opportunity to get our foot in the door with for grants. Um,
this will be a a just a line adjustment. You'll come on in engineering at the end of the at the end in the budget and uh Rachel will make the adjustments. The sooner we get this going, this gives us a better uh
footing with the D and grants and the windows probably be opening here up in I think it's what March, June, something like that for our next opportunity for grants. Um I see that the total that the first part is kind of like a um
uh a serve not I want to call a survey but like a preliminary um a groundwork type uh but the total project if uh is like 35
where is it I have my numbers here somewhere 35,000 this is for only phase A and the total is 35,000 and kind of I don't know if it's correct proper to um get under this excuse me
that isn't the total but anyway the total comes to more than 35,000 so I'm wondering if this is proper to um split a project just to get under the limit >> my understanding the 18125 is for the whole project I don't I didn't see
anything that's saying it's it's part uh part A or part B, but any any uh uh utility master plan is in phases down the road. Um it takes several years to get one going. Uh but the cost is up
there $500 to $700,000. >> Okay. >> He's put he's putting this together for under 20. >> Okay. I'm trying to find where I saw the rest of the numbers there. I I think if you do the math, it says 350 hours. >> That's what Yeah.
>> And then you take that, but the 18,000 is only 145 hours, something like that. >> This is what the Fred told us that he'd have it the the 150 hours or whatever. 450 hours. This is the cost. >> Yeah. Okay. That's where I get it. He
has that it anticipates a total of 350 hours to complete the project. Um, and this is for only 145 hours. So, it's actually 350 hours
time 125. I'm I'm reading it that um it's 145 hours for $18,125. And what you get for that is your facilities plan. any of the rest of it is going to be 350 hours of time. In
addition to that, which if you charge at the same $125 an hour, it's $43,750, which is over the 35,000 applicable cost threshold, which means we probably would have to go out to bid. And also, if we
take this facilities plan for $18,125, does it obligate us to use this public utility management and planning services, Inc. for the 350 hours or can we go out to someone else? >> We can go. This is just the preliminary
that gives us our our foundation for utility uh management plan. Um there's no obligations to continue with them or anything else. Just like if we went to Kimy Horn or we went to Penoni or Pulse, you know, we just want to get the
preliminary plan done for future grants and then we can expand on that in any way we want to. >> Okay. >> So, mine's a little different. I want to step back and I'm trying to understand what is the issue we're trying to solve
here. Because when I I start reading some of these deliverables is I mean it some of the deliverables right the growth plan the facilities plan
piping systems mandatory connection pre-treatment ordinance because two years ago right we had the public tell us quite clear that there opposition to the grinder pumps
and and there was there was a lot of feedback that we got, right? The prior town council got a lot of feedback at a meeting in this room and what was committed to them was, "Oh, we're going to have more meetings. We're going to bring you up to speed. We're going to
work with the subdivisions." And then I think I think um Councilwoman Warley in one of the first um meetings that I knew was at actually made a motion that you weren't going to
have to pay for something. I mean there was motions that were made. So I'm I feel that a lot of this is overdue because we've had this big void with had this big meeting riled up everybody that was impacted told them we're going to
have meetings and here we are two years later now we're going to hire a consultant to come in and tell us what we need to do. So I'm still trying to figure out what exactly do we believe the deliverable of these people are going to to do? What is the issue we're
trying to solve? And then second is we typically have Penoni that's been guiding us on a lot of that as an engineering consultant that even knows the plant, knows the town, knows everything kind of what's their involvement. So that's kind of where I'm first at this and I didn't I didn't
realize this and isn't this something that should go to the regional utilities commission that should bubble up from them? And I understand they were told this is what we're doing and it's coming to council. But you you've heard me say before and
I'm going to continue to say when we have the local planning group, we need to let them funnel through what they recommend for council. We have the regional utilities, we need to let them work through what is the issue we're trying to solve, what are the options, and then they I guess they would
recommend to council, yeah, this is this is the path we want to take. So, let's just start with what is the issue here that we're trying to solve and and even the urgency because I am concerned about cost. >> Well, the urgency is we like to apply
for future grants and they're asking for a utility master plan to see where you're moving forward with this. I talked to Roger uh from Penoni. He said that they're swamped with work and they wouldn't be able to start this. He recommended I went to Kimbley Horn.
Charlotte did some investigations and found this gentleman and Penoni and and uh Kimberly Horn were in the hundreds of thousands of dollars to just get us started. So this this is the opportunity
at at a a very very reasonable rate to get our uh our facility uh utility master plan in place. So when we go to apply, it moves us up on the grant list because we have a plan. It's not going to give us a total plan. It's not going
to give us where we're supposed to start. It's just going to give us a basic footing uh foundation so that we can move forward. >> This what we have here. Do you have one of these? This is an example. >> You have, >> but that was laid on our dis tonight. I
haven't even had a chance to look at that. But it's and I understand that but it's it's an kind of an example just what you're getting for the you cannot get grants without studies. The problems with the lakes is is by the time you get the study which is a million dollars
you can't you don't have any money to finish the lake. So I'm just saying that if this is a is a good >> Yeah. That's that's that's an example. >> So this is a master plan >> from Highlands County before we bought Tamoka. That's that was their master plan.
>> So, we're hiring this guy to do a utilities master plan. That's >> for the loop reg you know, regional utility area. So, this this will be able to, you know, it makes us a better chance of getting the grants um because
we have a plan. >> And how did we find this guy? >> I'll be happy to answer. >> Yes. >> Rachel and I had a conversation with Mr. Ken Small who attended the strategic planning workshop. Mr. Small has a history with the town. He um previously
in 2012 he was here when Miss Arleene Tuck was here. They have a very cordial relationship and he worked closely with Arlene and also with Rachel and they established our communication tax. In that conversation, he had reviewed all of our financials and he asked Rachel because he was alarmed of the money that
is coming in and out of our utilities and wanted to know what was happening. And so we had a discussion with him. He put us in contact with a board board certified city and county um local government attorney who specializes in municipal um utilities Mr. Mark G.
Lawson and Mr. Lawson suggested that we get in contact with Mr. Blower in your packet on the dis you also have and you you were not present at the regional utility meeting however this was passed out to all of them so that they were aware and it goes through his
credentials. He is also an FAU attorney, I mean a FAU professor. He has research interests in water and wastewater technology, groundwater wells, flow and contaminate transport, wastewater disposal practices and risk assessment, sustainable water resource planning and
management, environmental engineering, utility management and finance. His curriculum vite is is attached as well. As you will see, he has extensive background. There's several pages here for you to be able to review of his credentials and his expertise.
He's also served as a city manager and he's also served as a regional utilities director as well. And and just to clarify, the reason I didn't go to the utility the regional utility commission is because of concern
of violation of sunshine law having all of the council be in at that meeting which was just the regular meeting. So that's why I wasn't there. Um but but I want to go back to is it 18,000 or or 30ome,000 because public utility
management planning services anticipates that a total of 350 hours of time will be required to complete the project. So even though down below it says a summary hours 145 hours is going to cost
$18,000. If I take the same rates times what they're saying, they're going to anticipate 350 hours. That's over $43,000. So, I'm trying to >> we can we can cover that in the motion. We can approve the budget amendment in
the amount of $18,125 for professional consultant services with public utility management and planning services, Inc. and authorize the town administrator to execute the necessary documents consistent with Florida law
after with the contract of 18,125 for the professional services period. So my concern and I don't know this
Florida statute. I would defer to the town attorney on this pursuant to Florida statute 287. But if it's under $35,000 threshold, then it's saying we can just go ahead
and do it. But if it's over $35,000, we need to bid it. And what I don't like is parsing it out that we know it's going to be 43,000 according to what they've told us. But we only want to give them 18,000. It just sounds like we're just doing that to stay underneath. So I
that's why I said I'm kind of confused as to what is the issue, what are we doing? And when I read this, >> the numbers aren't lining up >> right for that $18,000 you're going to get that scope of work for that amount of hours. And that's all we're contracting out for. And that gives us
the start of a foundation for a utility facility master plan. If I could draw your attention to I'm sorry. If I could draw your attention to I'm trying to see which page this is. The second page under estimate of cost
to complete one two three four down to the fourth line. It says, "Therefore, the cost shown in the table in the summary hours below will be build on a lump sum basis upon completion of the task accepting the facilities plan reports which we build as progress occurs to a maximum of 18,125 which does
which does not include applications for SRF or other funding options. In all of our conversations, he has said that this is the amount he charges all municipalities. So, if it's something that we need to have clarified, we can do that. Um, I defer to the town
attorney, but in past we have said that make the changes and authorize it to go through uh assuming that it's at with those agreements and the parameters based on council >> and and maybe it's how they've written this document because what you just read
um is under the so there's two things. One is a project list in order to do all this project list that we're ask them to do is going to be 145 hours. But then if you want us to complete the project, it says estimate of cost to complete. We
anticipate a total of 350 hours will be required to complete the project and deliver the prerequisite documents to the town. That's where I'm confused. >> But we're >> I get it. Down below it says summary of hours, 145 hours for $18,000.
And then I get it. It says, "Yeah, we're going to bill you a maximum of $18,000." But I preference that to say, but if you want everything and it's going to be $350, >> but we're only asking for that scope of work for the $18,000. >> Are you asking only
>> we're only asking for that $18,000 worth of scope of worth of work. We're not asking for the other part. He put that in there um >> for future if we want to do it do it in no a year or two from now that he's just
telling that's the next phase or project that he can do for us. >> But that's not how this is written. This is written to say the f you know we need the following things from you and then we're going to deliver all of this for.
>> So maybe this is just written confusing. It could be that's or being interpreted, >> but I can't sign I can authorize as it is because it's almost almost one of those that >> yeah, this is we're saying, but this is exactly how they've written it. $18,000
for 145 hours, but 350 hours. >> It can be it can be authorized and then we can get get it clarified and then have resubmit it before for before signing. I I'd like to see it come back clarified, but I'd like to see it to go to the ret utilities commission first
with their >> It was brought to the utility commission telling them that this is our plans on going forward >> and and they did approve it. >> They did approve it. >> The 18,000 >> 18,000. Yes. Thanks, Joe. >> Was there was there a mo it wasn't on the agenda?
>> There was a there was a verbal this is what we're doing and it's going to town council. There was there was a vote by the uh loop to motion to move forward. >> There was a motion >> yes >> to bring this forward to town council.
>> Okay. So I mean it's just written very confusing if this is a contract. It's written very confusing and then the the contract behind it is a Terra Kinetics Incorporated. I don't know who that is.
>> So, >> I think that's a piggyback contract. I think that's an example of the contract that we're going to be under with our with our name substituted for Terara Kinetic or whatever it is. >> That's that's just their partner. That's all that is. >> It's a what?
>> That's part of it's one of his part is his partnership is Terara, which is Earth and then everything else. That's just that's just the company. that. No, it can't be that because the numbers aren't right in the contract that's there. The numbers aren't right. >> Like I said, I put a call in the day. He
never returned my call. >> So So you think this guy is public utility management planning services and the contract here is between Terara Kinetics at Steuart,
Florida, >> known as TKI, and public management. That's why I'm saying I'm very confused on all of this documentation. >> No, no, please stop. Please stop. >> Sure. >> Um, if you read the contract that's that
says draft here that this appears to me to be a a contract that has nothing to do with us that we are piggybacking on another contract to to come up with this $18,125. Okay. Right.
>> That's what I was thinking. >> Am I right? But it >> this does not appear to be a piggyback contract to me. It's between appears to be between two private entities. I've not reviewed this contract for this issue before tonight. >> Well, if it's two private entities, not
neither of them are us. >> That it was kind of my point. >> Yeah. >> Mine too. That's >> Yeah. So there's I have a note on my here my thing here. Where are we in this contract? Because we are not in this contract. Um, it says nothing about the town of Lake Placid or the or our
wastewater treatment plan or anything. I understand scope of services. That's clear to me. Um, and when you go over turn the page over, you have deliverables, facilities plan, that's all we're getting. We're not getting any of the rest of it because the growth plan, etc., etc., etc., is going to be
under the 350 hours of time to complete. Okay? All we're all we're bargaining for is the facilities plan for which we we have these are the components on the front page and then these are the documents that we have currently available for them to work with and from
that we're for $18,000 we're going to get a facilities plan. Um but the contract that's in here >> is has nothing to do with the price of salt at all. So basically, we need to get a hold of him, get it clarified, and we can
probably bring it back to you next Monday, you know, clarified contract because I think that was a draft and it might be a typo. I'm not sure on that part, but I put the call in today and didn't get a response.
>> This is more than a typo. It's the wrong contract. >> Well, the first part's correct. It's the second part that seems to be part of another contract. I think it was an example. >> This is the only >> I assumed it was an example. >> That was like Charlotte. What was that he put in the top?
>> I thought that >> was that was that an example? >> An example. >> It's an example. So, we actually don't have the contract that he's writing for us. >> Okay. >> So, if we can get that final draft and then bring it to you next Monday,
then then we could have you guys vote on it to sign. Well, then I think we can look at it. >> Okay. I'm going to make a motion that we um table the approve it approval of the budget amendment in the amount of $18,125
until next Monday. >> And Mr. Harris advice that we're not circumventing the 35,000. >> I can't hear you. We can't hear. >> Okay. We we were just discussing do we need to add we don't circumvent the over
35,000 but I think if the contract's 18125 then we have not a problem. So I mean I can put it in the motion but if it's if the contract's $18,125 and the threshold is 35. I think we're
done. What if you want it in there? Okay. So I'll just add that to my motion. This is totally out of order for Robert's rules, but uh Mr. Harris, when are we circumventing the 35 just to make
sure maybe we're okay? Are we okay by knowing that eventually we're going to spend 43,000 with him and the limit is 35,000. Are we okay by doing it in two parts? >> I am concerned about that. Again, this was not given to me to review, so I have
not done the research to look, but I would definitely be concerned about that. >> But, but my point is is we're only approving a contract for 18,125. I can see that if we continue on and then it's more and more and more, but that would be a different contract.
>> But Bert's point is we need a master plan for the grants. So, that's the that's what we're looking for. The 18,000 is for a facilities plan. This basically tell us what we've got in the ground today. >> I would also, if I may point out, if you
look under project list, >> that first sentence everybody's needs to kind of focus on. He needs from us a list of all projects anticipated by the town for inclusion into the consil facilities plan. That is no small
request. That's what really needs to be looked at in my opinion here in addition to clarify this. Are we 30 or are we looking at two contracts, one contract? What are you doing? And let's get the contract attached uh and and not just an
example or whatever that other thing is, which makes no sense. >> And that's a good point and and that was kind of where I was going is what are we trying to solve here? And so what what exactly is the deliverable? Let let me
finish please the deliverable for grants right because what I heard is okay our priority is to try to get something so we can go for grants is that a complete master plan of everything is that include the growth plan the extension
policy all of the deliverables that he's saying feels to me like it does and that's where I'm still confused as to I don't want to pay 18,000 to get one thing when we really need to get the bigger thing.
>> Right. So, basically, we're just coming to council today to do a authorization to do a budget a budget amendment. We will work on getting in a clear and uh
project contract stating it's going to be a utility facility or utilities master facility plan. So, that will cover that. He did tell us that at our meeting that way. The title of of his report will cover the master utility
plan and deliverable and deliver on all his deliverables which will give us a foundation and a start for a master plan which takes several years to build. we can go to a different engineering company, anything else. But as the grants are coming up to our our
opportunities coming up, we'd like to have this in place showing that we are starting and trying to do some due diligence and producing a master utility plan. So basically all today we're just asking for the authorization
for basically not signing the contract. We'll get you we'll get you a real cleaned up one here, but basically give an authorization to Rachel to a budget amendment for $18,000. So then we'll get the contract. We'll bring that to you. You can look at it,
sign it, and then she'll be able to do the uh budget amendment. >> I think we should take it up next Monday. Let's get get more paperwork. Let's get some some something to satisfy the questions and then we can take what they're going to do. I don't know how we
can decide what we need to do when we don't know what we have and we need to have that document first so we can make a plan of what we need to move forward with. I think that's my idea, but maybe I'm wrong. I don't know. >> Like I said, I believe this is just a draft you threw at us as an example of
what the what the the contract would look. >> I think we should just table it until next week on Monday and bring back I'm sorry, Tuesday and and look at it then. >> Tuesday. >> Fine. What were you saying about $2,000?
No, I misunderstood. Sorry. Okay. >> Yeah, cuz this is saying water and wastewater plan master plan for both. >> Yep. He's uh he's he's going to be using that uh uh management asset financial asset plan Florida rule water with us.
he's going to be digesting that into his plan here and and his recommendation. So that's kind of he can see what we need to do for uh maintenance and operation and capital based on you know he'll talk be talking
to the town here utilities telling them where we we feel that the the start of this would be and making the the the capital plan for the future >> like a path forward and he stated that they've also he's done this in um Kiston
and he was able to get it approved through FAU to use as students. So, his students came out and also and his students are going into um being utility um operators. >> So, did Kevin McCarthy work with him in Cluston? >> Not that I'm aware of. So, so again,
$18,000 for a master plan for water and wastewater is cheap. >> When I read this, >> it sounds like it's only >> one portion. >> Oh, no. Yes. A master plan takes years to put together, >> which is the 43,000.
>> No, >> the 350 hours for all the deliveries. >> If we decide to go with them, we could take this, >> but we have to at some point, right? >> No, we don't have to. We can go to >> Maybe not with him, but we have to have a master plan. >> Yes. But this will give us a start in a foundation for D showing that we're
doing due diligence trying to get a a plan together and for grants. No, this is just the starting point. >> Please, let's just wait till next Tuesday and we'll have the document in front of us and we can look at it.
>> Understand? But I'm guiding with some of the answers that I'm going to need on the costs and the deliverables better than how this was defined. >> Well, that's why we're going to get back to you by next Tuesday. But we're not
spending more than 18 or $19,000 with this company at this time. It could happen next year or the following year. We might do another section and we can do that for the under the 35,000. We're not, like I said, this was supposed to
be an example. I don't think that was supposed to be under the second phase or a third phase. It was just supposed to be the 18,000 showing his deliverables. And that's what we're asking him to do. >> Okay. Can it'd be helpful if he could or
someone could provide what he did do for Cluston. >> I have a copy. >> Okay. If we could see that, that might help. I think I made a motion that we tabled it until next Tuesday. >> I'm waiting for a second.
>> Second. >> Second. >> Okay. >> You have a motion in a second. >> You got a motion in a second? >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. All right. Any other discussion from the podium? >> Take it to the audience.
camp interest. >> This is strictly on the motion to table. >> It's not debatable. >> Why? >> Well, I think >> the motion to table is not debatable. >> Robert's rules not >> Robert's rules. >> I mean, if people want to address tableabling, I I it's really not
appropriate. >> That's like all stop. I'll listen to Bert this time, but it's it's pertinent to what y'all will discuss next week. But okay, >> but she can come up at the end of the meeting. >> She can.
>> Okay, bring her back. Call the council. >> Council member Worley. >> Yes. >> Council member Everart. >> Yes. >> Council member Hayes. >> Me? >> Yes. Council member Hayes. Council member. >> Yes. Okay.
Go to F. Resolution 2026-01, a resolution of the town council for the town of Lake Plast, Florida, designating an alternate to the election canvasing board for the general municipal election
to be held April 7th, 2026 in accordance with chapter 6, section 7 of the code of ordinances. So, mayor, this is the one we do every election to name an alternate in the
event that one of the three members, myself and the two council members are unable to make the canvasing board. Um, it's another opportunity to let the public know when the um qualifying dates are. That's going to be February 16th at
noon to um February 20th at noon. qualifying period beginning tomorrow. Candidate packets will be uh available at the front desk at town hall here. They're prepared um for anybody that
wants to um that's it. >> I'll make a motion to approve we can discuss. I'll make a motion to approve and adopt resolution 2026-01 designating Deputy Clerk Tina Canwell as an alternate to the election canvasing
board for the general municipal election to be held. I'm going to add general municipal election for the Tattle Lake Placid to be held on Tuesday, April 7th, 2026. You did get a second. Yeah. Second.
>> Got a sec. Okay. All right. We got a motion, a second. Any comments? >> I just had two questions. I guess a question and a comment. >> Um, in the past, right, this is something we always do. In the past, it's always been the town administrator as the alternate. It was Kevin McCarthy
last year, so it's always been the town administrator, which I guess that's where I was leaning, that we are consistent, and that's what we do. >> Yeah. So, we never had a deputy clerk and I find that it would be good experience for our deputy clerk to have that experience and so that's why I'm
recommending that Tina do it. Now, I can I can name the T town administrator. It's up to the pleasure of county the council. >> Yeah. So, I never knew we had an official deputy clerk. So, I mean that's a whole I don't even know when that happened when I know you went to Japan and we had a backup person and then now
I read we've have a deputy clerk. So I don't even know what cuz I think that's an officer. So that's a whole different story there. Um that was mine. I just felt to be consistent how we've done it should be the town administrator. And then in the resolution itself uh the first whereas
says town elections will be canvased by at least three members consisting of the town council members. It should say the mayor and town council members not standing for election. And that's consistent with the resolutions in the past. >> I can make that correction. Yeah, that's
what the town code says. >> I'll make that amendment to my motion. >> Are you making the amendment to have the town administrator as in past years? I had two comments there. No, I thought it was the wording for the
I think it's a good thing for her to go because it's it's um if something were to happen to Eva and No, but just in case it is good experience for Tina to have a backup person. So, I just thought that was a
great idea. Um but I mean that's that's I like it the way it is. I don't think there's a huge problem with that. But what did you just add? I'm sorry. >> I said in consistent with what we've always done is the alternate was the
town administrator. It was Kevin McCarthy two years ago. It was uh Phil prior to that. That's all I'm saying. >> I I thought you had a some kind of problem with the resolution. >> The resolution Yeah. incorrectly say it needs to say consisting of the mayor and
town council members. It just says consisting of town council members. >> That's the that's the amendment to my motion I'm making. So, it's correct. >> I'm just reading what Mooney Code says. So, that's what we've had in all of the
um I looked at last year's resolution. That was what was under >> I think it can't be the mayor because the mayor is up for election. >> No, no, no. But it goes on to say that. No, no. Then it goes on to say that um that the three people who aren't up. So
it all I'm saying is it it should say be by at least three members consisting of the town mayor and the town council members not standing for election. That's what I'm so that already covers who's ever not. >> All right. >> It's just being consistent with MUN
code. So, >> so >> where are we? >> We do have a motion with a second. Um, Deborah amended it to make the correction in the ordinance, I mean in the resolution >> to um, council member Charles wants it
changed. Absolutely. >> Not the not the uh, town administrator, but the words for the mayor. >> Okay. I'm sorry. I didn't hear that you had amended it. Second. >> All right. >> Is just can I ask is a deputy is that
title deputy clerk something that has to get approved by council? I mean because I know the town clerk is an officer. You know there's certain officers that we have and maybe that's a town attorney question. I don't I don't know on the capabilities of a
deputy clerk and what they can and can't do on signing. I mean attending and I mean we can have any employee attend on the campusing board. That's not the issue. >> Need to go back and look and see what the minutes said or hopefully the motion
uh appointing uh Tina and see whether that was a temporary or a permanent. I simply don't remember. Do you recall? I mean, >> I don't recall. I know that it was discussed and and she's been sitting here. That's >> Sure. Sure. But if we're I think she's
right. If we're creating an office of assistant or deputy clerk, we ought to say in a resolution who it is, define the office, what are the powers, the responsibilities, and um authority. And uh >> and and we could very well change her. I
mean, she's assisting me as as the clerk. Um, sure. I have I have referenced her as my deputy clerk when I introduced her. Um, we can very well call her my assistant. >> I'm talking about trying to backfill and make what you said all >> gotcha. Gotcha. Gotcha.
>> Because I thought we did it just for Japan, but I don't remember. Let's look at the minutes and see. And if we need to bring it forward as a resolution, let's do that. So, so just a little history, although Tina has never come up that much, but for the last two, three
years, she's been my backup. It's just I have always arranged all my vacations around meetings. So, anytime I've been out, I have literally left from this and went on a plane to my vacations. Um, and at some point, I started bringing her
in. So, she is the one that's always volunteered to step in as as filling in for the clerk. She's now taken over our LPA meetings. She's taken over our loop meetings um to free up time so I can do some of the other things uh that that I
need to be doing. >> Doesn't say we can't have them. >> True. >> However, it's it's a pleasure having council. >> It also says the code says you can designate. >> Yeah. If the council doesn't >> ju just looking at this, the way it's read, it says we can have more than
three >> for the canvasing board. >> Yeah. >> My understanding the canvasing board is is three. It is the whoever is not up for election and the clerk. >> Well, the way it's the way it's written, it says >> I use the same one I've used the last
three years. >> You can have and >> you can have more than one alternate. >> Yeah. That's what we were going. >> That's just the alternate. >> Yeah. Um, this came about when I first came on board as clerk and at the time, um, Miss Og Pennyog, who was a
supervisor elections, recommended that I do a resolution in order to ensure that we never have an a situation where we didn't have the required amount uh to meet at the canvasing board.
Okay. Well, anyway, we got a motion. Is there any other comments? Hearing none, we'll take to the audience. Bring it back. Pull the council. >> Council member Worley. >> Yes. >> Council member Ebahart. >> Yes. >> Council member Hayes. Am I voting on
this resolution as it stands right here or is there >> with the correcting with the correction that um council member Charles had said just I forget where it was >> I was going to go back and >> Yes.
>> Okay. And council member Charles. >> Yes. >> Okay. I'll go to agenda item 7G, Lake Placid Camp and Conference Center waterline
extension and SRF agreement. This was on the agenda, then it was off the agenda, and I asked for it to be put back on because I was getting so much conflicting information that I got a headache. So, I thought it best to get it back on
the agenda, ask them to be here tonight, uh, and just work this thing out between us and them so everybody knows what's happening. >> Um, first of all, my name is Matt Taylor. I represent the uh the district,
it's actually the southern district, Florida or Florida Southern District for the church in the Nazarene. And by default, obviously, I represent the Lake Placid Camping Conference Center. Dr. Brian Wilson's here with me tonight along with Anthony Haney who operates
the facility and also brought my dad along uh as well. So, um I want to I if you'll allow me, I want to give you some background because while uh Mrs. Worley, Mayor Bert and I have worked together
for a very long time. In fact, we worked with on this overall project for about six years. Uh that's how old this is. And I want to say that the obligation because it is an obligation that my client signed off on about five years
ago requires the portable water project to be completed. This isn't anything new. This isn't anything that anybody hasn't seen that's been involved for a very long time on this. And in fact, that obligation was placed into the original documents upon request of the
town. The town is the one that said, "Look, if we're going to do this on the wastewater line, which obviously spearheaded the $40 million project that you're undertaking, and my goodness, what a bunch of work that's been." But I
can tell you that the enormous amount of work that Bert Harris and I have done along with council, along with mayor, along with Miss Worley and your predecessors um laid the foundation for the portable waterline. And where we are today is a
result of those requirements that we drafted into those original agreements. And where we are today is that my clients as I as I stand here today have invested more than $750,000 of their own money into this project already. In
addition, what they've done is they've guaranteed a situation whereby there is no risk financially to the town of Lake Plast. There's none. And the reason for that is because my clients, although this is a municipal project as qualified
for the SRF and for through the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, my clients and the deal that the town made with my clients, which we're appreciative of, believe me, we've now got a wonderful wastewater treatment uh plan in place. We're hooked up. The
line's active. It's running. We're waiting on it right now for the the last of the payments or the first of the payments to be made so that money can get reimbursed to my clients or to you. And that loan's going to drop to a small grant amount that's left over that my
clients intend to pay off right away because it costs them $480,000 a year that they have to carry as long as that sewer project is open. So, just like you are, we're chomping at the bit to get that closed down. And I've heard a lot
of conversation tonight from the council and from the public, rightfully so, concerned about finances. Well, let me tell you what we've done to make sure that you don't you you don't have to worry about the money. We've pledged three pieces of property that the
district owns free and clear in in Sebring. It's in your packet. It's got a mortgage and a note attached to it. that mortgage and note has written into it that it reflects the terms of the FRF agreement that's going
to get that $2.8 million to you at some point in time. That point in time being when that water line is energized almost I I think it's around 2,150,000 plus or minus that gets for lack of a
better term gets forgiven. That leaves about $650, am I correct, Dr. Wilson? About $650,000 that my clients will be responsible for to pay their security again for that. Not just security for the $650, but there's
security there for $2.8 million worth. In addition to that note and mortgage, Dr. Wilson has with him tonight a check for $250,000 that's written. And that's the second part of that collateral that's spelled out in the bulk sale agreement, bulk services agreement. It says, "Look, we're going to pledge this
property for you. And in addition to that, we're going to pledge cash." It's written in how it's going to be handled. It's right there. And Bert, look, I've wor work with Bert, like I said, now for six years. And he and I had some pretty legendary discussions,
some of them in front of this council whereby we don't agree. But I will tell you this right now. I I've been doing this for 26 years, and I practice across the nation. I've done some I've done some massive stuff when it comes to utilities and wastewater treatment and storm water.
The biggest of which was just under three quarter or just over threequarters of a billion dollars. And at no point in time whether they were charging $50 an hour, they were charging $5,000 an hour. I seen an attorney who's been more protective of entity, namely this municipality, namely the town of of Lake
Pal Placid than Bert Harris has. And each and every time he and I have disagreed, we've got together and discussed about it. And you know what? I see where he's coming from. And the same goes the other way. There's things that I tell Bert that by God, this is how it's got to be, and that's the only way it's going to be. And sooner or later,
Bert and I come around, we get it done. This agreement is no different. He's built in the protections. I've agreed to protections. My clients agreed to the protections. So much so that they've already spent, again, like I said, $750,000. And we're going to tick a million here
pretty quick before we even put a shovel on the ground. Now, lately, I've heard some concerns about certain items. I've heard some concerns over fire hydrants. If you take a look at the plans and specifications, which went to the town in final form September the 15th of
2025, I have the email with me tonight with everything attached. My clients hired the engineer that did all of the the plans, all the specifications, all the requirements for building That's been turned in to Highlands County. That's been turned in
to FD. Everybody's approved it and you've got copies of all of that as of September the 15th. Again, I have the email. There was concern about fire hydrants. Well, two things on that. First of all, if you look at the plans and specifications, the plans and
specifications include fire hydrants already on the portable water line. That is not an issue that wasn't considered by us and our engineers and quite frankly by the town because we've covered that basin. It's already been approved by Highlands and by FD. Ordinarily, when you have a water line
that's in a rural um outside of municipality um line, you're looking at sewer, you're looking at hydrants anywhere from about 900 feet to 1500 feet. It's up to the county the county fire official. Well, in this case, we've got 15 included. If
for some reason the concern was, well, we got to discuss this fire hydrant issue. Well, number one, we don't because we're not there yet. This is part of the process of getting the application completed. So, the FD will say, "Here you go. Here's that money that we're going to give you to put in a
portable water line that's going to service not only my clients, but anybody else that wants on it from where it starts to where it finishes up at our place. If there's a requirement that there are additional lines, valves, hydrants, anything of
that nature, my clients bound itself to being responsible for that, not the town. It's no different than what the sewer agreements were. We're bound to that. We've already obligated ourselves to 15 of them by virtue of this plans and specifications we've submitted, again,
which have all been approved. So, there's that. The other issue that we were cons I heard there was concerns about and I and I'm saying all this just to put any everybody's mind at ease and I want you to ask me questions if there's something I don't touch on. That's what I'm here to do. The other one was timing. Well,
how fast can this get going? Because there's some concerns out there on being able to apply for other grants while this is open. I followed up again today on that very issue. from groundbreaking to turning the valve on, four months on the outside is what we're being told by
contractors. Now, add to that two more months. And why do I say that? I say that to be safe because you could have two months in advance of, you know, if if we for some reason revamp the plans and you go to the bid process and you get it before you to sign off and approve the contracts because remember
the town stays control of this from start to finish, not us. We're obligated to pay the money. you may want to change something that's in there. Now, I'm not telling you that we're going to go peacefully with something like that. It obligates us for
a pile more, which has been the case all along. But again, we worked it out before. We'll work it out again. We want that portable water out there to us again, if we didn't, we wouldn't have spent three quarters of million dollars already. Two months. Why? Because maybe it takes you two weeks up front to get
something done that we need to get done with paperwork or whatever. and maybe it takes you six weeks at the end or vice versa. So I put in there six months for padding and that comes from discussing it with contractors who have done the
sewer line and who do portable water lines as well as our engineer who handles CI and a lot of these projects, you know, all over the state of Florida. So we have those two. The final thing I'll say is I I
I hope that I hope that the the public also appreciates it because I know many of you have been here tonight who have have been very concerned about finances. I completely understand that. So the town in this instance has taken
upon themselves to ensure that this isn't a taxpayer issue. This is my client's issue and they're fully dedicated to seeing this through. Um, so with that, I'm right for questions. Ask me what you want to know, but I think
it's pretty straightforward. I one more clarification. The town has the ability to say no to this even after this is done tonight. What we've been told by the consultant that the consultant that the town wanted us to utilize and hire, we've been told
that we needed this bulk services agreement signed and in place. And my clients are ready to sign. Dr. Wilson's here ready to go on it. Okay, we've reviewed the note mortgage. We're ready to go on it. It's got a4 million dollar check ready to go on it.
If you turn this in and something comes back from the state that you don't like, this doesn't obligate you right out of the box to say yes to it. You can I mean, you can't can't catch a penny until unless your hand's out. You can draw your hand back and let it hit the floor on that. I'm
not saying it's going to make my clients happy, but I am saying that you still have that control. Unless and until the contract signed and we start putting shovels in the ground, that's not true. Unless and until the contract signed and the other agreements that follow this are signed, you have the ability to say
no. But for the life of me, I can't imagine why. Because it's going to be free money for you. It's going to be a potable water line that's going to service a lot more people than just my clients. And you're not on the hook financially. And oh, by the way, you're secured. Whereas, if the town decided they wanted
to put a portable water line anywhere, anywhere else, within town limits, within the municipality, and you got $2.8 million, you wouldn't have any security on it. And that last 650,000 that won't be forgiven, you'd be responsible for that. My clients are
responsible for it, not you. So, it's free. So, let me answer any questions you got. You're not going to let me off. >> Okay. Um I appreciate that I there's been a lot of work, a lot of years put
into this and um and but I'm also protective of our finances and the town and I will sometimes ask you questions that I know the answer to. But but I'm asking them so other people can get the
information also. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Um so um I looked at the uh property records that you're putting up for collateral. Um the two of the three are vacant lots and
then there's the building. So the total comes to about 1.9 million and you're putting up 250,000. So that comes to 2.150. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Go ahead.
>> So and okay, the loan is 2.8. A good chunk of it forgiven. The 645 645,000 is the part that is uh at risk. >> That's correct. >> Um how much do you owe on the wastewater
portion yet? >> We we have paid everything we've been asked to pay. We owe zero as of today as I stand here. >> Okay. >> Now, let let me let me add a caveat so there's clarification on that. If there is something else that we are obligated
to pay under those terms of those agreements, which I am unaware of right now that Dr. Wilson's unaware of, Burke, correct me if I'm wrong. I think we're paid up to date. I don't know of anything else at this time. >> I don't know of anything that hasn't
that's been build and not paid. I think councilwoman Joy may have been asking about how much is how much debt is still out to the state >> as opposed to you. You've paid your bills, I think. >> Okay. Yes. I'm trying to see what what
are the liabilities out there currently. >> Two two things. Um, as soon as the first payment is made, and Bert help me if I'm wrong on this, but as soon as the first payment is made on that SRF loan that goes to this wastewater treatment center, our system,
>> the forgiveness, and I'm I'm using that as a general term because I think they have actually used a term of grant. It converts to a grant and is then forgiven, which leaves a remaining amount of >> What's the remaining amount that will be on the sewer after it's forgiven, Dr. Wilson? Final numbers are not yet but
it's projected to be less than what the original somewhere around $2700. >> Okay. >> And I can represent to you it's my client's intention to pay it off immediately not over time because again it cost them $480,000 to carry their collateral because they bonded in the
form of cash bonds um as security for for that project. >> Okay. And um if the construction cost goes over the 2.8 8 million projected. Are you going do you cover that? >> We're obligated to. >> Okay.
>> By agreement. >> Um then since the town is going to be the person of record on the grant, will we have to take out another line of credit to cover construction invoices?
>> I would defer on that to Rachel. is did you need a line of credit or is this one that we can um get the reimbursement and then um pay the contractor and the alternative I think the client I think
uh conference center would owe any interest on such a line of credit if we have to have one. What did we do this past >> on the last SRF? No. >> Okay. The loan the line of credit is only for the sort accepted.
>> So we would have enough um resources to cash flow this without a line of credit. >> Correct. >> Well good. >> And again I know the terms of the agreement
the cost goes to us. I mean, that's I >> I think he's referring to the interest carry on that line of credit. Unlike on the 40 million, the interest carry comes back to us. >> Mhm. >> It would go to them on this project. >> That's what I was getting at. Whether we
had some additional cost that wasn't in the upfront numbers. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Okay. Um, what really concerns me though is that in some of the research I'm doing, um,
there's a the Florida Constitution, Article 7, Section 10, sounds like it prohibits municipalities from lending or using public credit to aid private entities.
And even though the DP um says, "Yeah, it's okay. It's okay." Um the other resources say that they really shouldn't be doing that because they do not override the Florida Constitution. >> Okay. So, I'm really worried and even
though we got the even though the wastewater portion went through without a you know anything any auditing or whatever, uh I'm still concerned that this is completely okay.
>> I would tend to agree with you if it were a long six mile dirt road and the only thing that was at the end of it was my client. In this case, that's not the situation. Nor was it the situation in the sewer.
Um, the way that the SRF is set up, as well as RIFF, a rural infrastructure fund, and any of the other grant sections that we have, you're right, they require a public a municipality to benefit from that. In this case, the town of Lake Placid
benefits from it because what you're going to end up doing is you're going to end up adding water meters over time to anybody that hooks up to that water line, therefore increasing your revenue stream on a line that's free to you. My client just happens to be at the terminus of it. Um, so again, if that's
a concern, I'd love to see a legal opinion on it. And there isn't there isn't one. Um, I know that people say, "Well, you got to be careful with it." And you're right, we do have to be careful with it, which is why the way that it's being done, the application and everything goes through the town.
The town is the entity that is quote borrowing the funds and quote getting the benefit of the grant. Our clients are merely providing security for that and we are paying the carrying costs and anything else that goes along with it so that the town is not bearing it. And while we will definitely benefit from
the portable water system, the town as a whole will benefit from it as will everybody from its beginning to its terminus. It also makes it cheaper for you later on to move on with that line. >> And in addition to that, we're again we've signed up to install fire hydrants
up to 15 so far, which is a net benefit fit to you under Florida's fire prevention act that was adopted I think about 18 months, maybe 24 months ago. Okay. Um, >> you were looking at me a little bit. Let me weigh in if I may. Uh, we're not
building a water system on the camp and conference center or for the camp and conference center. This is the town's water system. >> The camp and conference center, just like any other customer, will be a customer of ours on that waterline.
Often developers will pay the cost or part of the cost even contribution in a native of construction to extend utilities to a new development. This is similar to that. So we've constructed this as it is our waterline. It is our
project. It is our grant agreement. They are simply paying any cost overruns in addition to the grant. And I agree Matt has done a good job of explaining where we are. Furthermore, if you're concerned about that and want a legal opinion on it, we've got time to
do that because this tonight's action is simply completing the application. The grant agreement comes to you months from now when and if FDA FD says, "Yes, this looks all correct. Here's your
grant agreement. Sign here as we did in the last." I'll read to you a couple passages when it's my turn. >> Okay. And >> can I add one more thing to what Bert said? I I mentioned to you earlier that the consultant that the town wanted to
use and secured and is paying for who we utilize for this obviously has said, "Look, this is we have to get this done. This this bulk services agreement. It's the last component, if you will. I I don't want to call it the application process, but I don't know what else to
call it because before they're going to pull the trigger and issue the funds and say, "There's your 2.8 million town of Lake Placid. Go to it." They've got to have this document in place. And I've also been told in no uncertain terms that if we do not get it to them by
January, end of January, we will miss the vote on this completely. And that I can also tell you after talking with our uh engineer and contractors today, it's going to be massively more expensive if we try to come back and do it later.
>> Okay. >> Um >> go ahead. >> No, no, go ahead. Or anybody else? I'll I'll hold back for a while until I get more feedback from other people. Okay. Um first, I I really appreciate
Okay. everything you had to say and I and and I agree we need to get this done right this has been four five years in the making we've talked about it the wastewater treatment plants up of course my concern is going to be risk to the town you've said there's no risk to the
town financial you know impact to the town but what we you touched on it but we really didn't talk about is the benefits to the town I mean the benefits to the town on the way this has been constructed is huge huge. If we would
have had to ourselves run this line all the way out there because we know eventually we're going to pick up customers, it would have been a lot of money to the town. And so the partnership that we have with the camp and conference center and the flexibility
that has been done over the last three years, I mean, maybe I wasn't on town council, you know, when all this started, but I sure did watch and listen to those head beating conversations and that and I mean the flexibility, the compromise,
the give on both ends. So I mean I'm a proponent that we need to get this done. We need to get this done. We need to finish the second phase of what we started running the wastewater line down there and then running the water and then that allows opportunity for some
growth in the wastewater and the water um area. So I we could have done you could have done reverse impact fees for everybody you hook up. You need to reimburse us. So there's other ways that it would have cost the town some money. I guess unless I'm looking at it wrong,
that's how I look at the holistic picture of we've talked about this. We've talked about this. We've revised this. I mean, I don't even know what amendment we're on for this. I mean, we've gone through so many amendments. >> Well, I could tell you there's a pile of them in my inbox and Bert's in box where
we went back and forth and and tweaked this thing. And I I want to >> touch I'm sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt. >> No, no, no. Those were my comments. It's like, okay, I just want to make sure from the town, the taxpayers, right? >> You know, if there is a financial cost
or if there's a risk, I'd just like to know about it so that we can discuss it or plan for it or mitigate it. But the flip side that we aren't talking, it's hard to quantify is the benefits to the town to have both of those to have you
on the southern end of the town beyond the town limits even. >> Yes. to hook up and the opportunity that's going to bring to the town and the water and the wastewater. And I agree with what was just said is this is approving the application. When they
come back, then it's the here's what we're going to agree to. So, >> you you're you're exactly right. And let me just say something that reflects the amount of flexibility that both the town and my clients have had. understand that I some of you may
not know what kicked this off, so to speak. What kicked it off was the camp and conference center had a series of on-site uh on-site wastewater disposal systems, sept tanks and drain fields. FD came to him and said, "Look, you're capable of
generating over 60,000 gallons of effluent a day. So, because of that, you can't rely on safety tanks and drain fields anymore." So they said, "You've got to do one of two things. You've got to either build your own wastewater treatment plant, which they had the
ability to do. It would have cost less than what it's cost them >> to do. Um they had the space for it. They were ready to go. Or you can hook up to the municipality. They chose the municipality route to go with that. Same with water, portable
water. They've got a water system in place. They've got a fire system in place if they need to need it. um and and and can expand on it if they needed it. But they've treated it like a partnership because the town of Lake Plast's been good to them. You know, the campus conference center brings in a lot
of people every year constantly in and out of it and u they frankly like being here and dealing with you. Another thing that I'd like for the council and the public to remember is your basin management area that you've got your BMAP for this
area and where you are in the w waterhed you're in is something that is of great concern to the Army Corps of Engineers as well as the um South Florida Water Management District that you fall into here. by doing this. Also, those that's
a pretty nice feather in your cap to demonstrate what you're doing in terms of you've got a new wastewater treatment facility coming up that is top-notch in terms of what the technology is today. As well as you've got a portable water
system going in that whether it's true or not, I'll make no conference I'll make no no consideration or determination on it. A lot of people say, "Well, that's a concern with the aquifer and what you're pulling out of it for residential, commercial, industrial water use."
That's also something to consider as well. It's another feather in your cap. So, unless I'm missing something that's really obvious and I can't see the forest of the trees, I think it's a win-win for everybody all around. And again, I don't blame taxpayers for not wanting to pay any more money in the town of Lake Pleasant. By golly, where I
live, I live in Manatee County, and it disgusts me what I pay. So, I'm good for everybody that stood up and made a comment about tonight and good good on the council, too, for you beat on those things tonight for financial reasons. So, this is something I hope we took we
took that away. We made it good before it got to you. >> You uh you answered my concerns, but staff was really concerned about the wording on the fire hydrants. >> Yes, sir. Again, >> that we considered it. It's in the plans
and specs for 15. And and frankly, if it weren't in there, it wouldn't matter anyway because we're obligated. We have to do it. >> Okay. >> Hey, Matt, I I just would like to see something in there because it's in the original bulk wastewater agreement that
the town is responsible for the fire hydrant lines and this is not supposed to be a cost to the town. Is there any way we can put something into that bulk water agreement that nullifies the the sections in in the bulk wastewater agreement on the potable
water side? I I think that ship is sailed. As far as changing it, I'm not inclined to change anything other than what's in front of you. I think if there's a cost or a concern, that's something to be addressed later. But if it's an obligation, understand this. the way that it's drafted, it requires us to
pay the cost of the bulk the portable water line. Full stop. That's it. I if if and so my answer to you would be no. Absolutely not. And I'll argue against it all night and all day long because we have run out of town
out of time. Everybody has seen this. You've seen this quite a bit, Mr. Warner. You've seen the the the drafts of it going back and forth. Um, and again, those plans and specs, those went to you and everybody else in September of last year. We It's It's time to
>> Yep. Well, when I got the plans, there was no hydrants on it. I sent it to Highlands County and the deputy chief called you guys and asked you to put those >> he talked to uh your engineer because it's under fire code that there has to
be hydrants every,000 ft in rural areas. There's there's in the specification >> it's 15 to 1,000 >> I'm sorry >> it's 155 1500 to,000 ft in rural areas >> right but in the specification there's there is there are specifications in the
plans >> yes there are >> for 15 >> okay no 17 actually >> even better >> no but my point is there is something in the document I'd like to see something that supports what you're saying on the plans that the town will not be
responsible for the haka the hydrants. >> That would be appropriate when we do the agreement. >> Well, anyway, >> it's not it's not needed at this point. >> Okay. I just want to make sure that it's not costing the town to the to their advantage. They they're
on the plans and they have agreed to it, but in the original plans, it's it's in there. I mean, the document. So, that's one of my concerns. The second concern is technical services CI in the uh wastewater. They were not
covered under the um SRF loan. Um I was told that they were requested in this SRF loan. Um I have waiting on a quote for CI um inspections. waiting for
the quote for uh you know for them to do that and and I just want some kind of assurance that if they're not covered that you guys will cover them. >> I'm not going to give you the exact assurance you want. The assurance that I'm going to give you is that the
obligations that we have are already spelled out in the agreement that we are going to pay the cost of the SR of the portable water line. I'm not going to any more than Bert or anybody else would negotiate finite details tonight in
front of the council on No, I'm not I'm not saying let me finish that that we we're not going to negotiate an agreement that we can't even get to yet until we know if the money is going to be done. If if if it is a cost that goes
into the portable water system, then I I will say this. I think you've got a pretty darn good argument to say, folks, you've got to pay for it. But I >> I'm just I'm just trying >> the cart before the horse. >> I'm just trying to make sure that you're aware of the cost that could come to you
guys. >> I'm aware of I'm aware that under the way that the agreement is drafted, we are supposed to pay for the cost associated with the installation of a portable water line. If that's CI, if that's a helicopter survey, whatever it
is, and it's considered a cost, then I guess my clients would need to look to pay that. But I'm not going to tell you yes right now. >> I'm not asking for it right now. I'm just want to make you aware of there's could be an extra extensive cost for CI.
>> I'm aware. >> Okay. And if Bert says we can do this agreement for the hydrants at a later date after the bulk water then the cost because you guys have agreed to it. It's just that stipulation in the original one says town will pay.
>> Well again whoever bids the project is going to bid it based upon 17 hydrants. >> Okay. I'm I'm just trying I'm just trying to make sure the town does not incur expense on all the as they were told this would not cost them any money.
>> I understand. >> I'm just trying to protect the utility and the town. >> I I understand that. >> Now Burke Burke can put something together after this bulk of water agreement and you guys come to the agreement as an amendment or something. I'm fine with that. >> You don't even need to amend it. It's
when we do the next step, we'll go to the final agreement with the camp and conference center. Once we have the grant that says absolutely, this is these are the terms. Actually, they're already spelled out in the eight
agreements previously entered. Um, but you bet we can summarize and make sure that they pay everything. I think because >> I want to say Rachel, didn't they pay the CI and the wastewater line? >> We did, >> but we're making them aware. I I believe
>> you're making me aware of things I already know. >> Okay. >> I mean, again, >> I'm trying to protect the tower. I understand what you >> I understand, but but you're talking about fire hydrants. I got I got word that fire hydrants were an issue late last week when all of that documentation
was in your hands approved. But yes, it was. I had the email in September the 15th and you made the call when >> I talked to Barack your engineer >> Carl >> Carl that I would not sign off on that
plans that did not have hydrants on it and then I sent it to Highlands County and the fire chief showed him in fire code that they had to be and then he put them on the plans. >> Okay. So I'm aware that you guys were going to do it. I'm just trying to protect the town from this first
agreement so it doesn't come back and say that in your original agreement that the town is responsible for these hydrants. >> Well, I think we're in violent agreement. >> So, that's that that was one of my concerns and trying to get the quote for your CI so you guys would be aware of
this cost if it's not covered by the SRF loan which um Corbett was supposed to put into. I just want to make sure this could be up to $100,000 in cost for inspection. >> I think at this point we've paid
around a half a million or more over on the sewer line than what was originally in grant form for SRF. I'm aware of all of this. Um I I got it. I I will tell you this. I expect the town to hold us
to whatever the agreements say and I expect to hold the town to whatever the agreements say. Um because that's how we've done it all along and it's worked out swimmingly. I mean it's been great >> and and that that's it. So I understand where you're coming from. I understand
and appreciate what you're trying to do as far as protect the town. >> Again, I I deal with municipalities all over the place and nobody does it better than you do. I mean really everybody can take a lesson from y'all on how well you do protecting your taxpayers. So got it,
understand and appreciate it. Look, if CI is a cost that goes to it, then I would expect we'd have to pay for it. >> Okay. Like I said, now it's in I would in the public form. I'm good with that. >> Bert, now you can see why I called him an so the first time we met,
>> which is a term of endearment. It is. Yes, I believe it is. >> His father said I was right, I was told. and I've since apologized publicly and I'll do so again. So they have been very honorable in what they've said and done. I would also add we agreed
years ago see the date of this agreement >> of course 2020 >> water supply for the property. The town agrees to provide portable water up to 60,000 gallons per day for the development as described. Subject to the terms of this agreement and subject to
the rates, fees, and conditions, they've already paid half of their back in 2020, they paid $63,000, which was half of their system development charge for water. I would also add that you can
elect when you get the grant back, which we don't have. When it does come in and we have the agreement, paragraph seven of the third agreement allows us to say no. >> I understand that part. >> Very good. So the town, this is not a
crisis for the town. It completes the application whatever the FD calls the application at this point. But I'm under understanding that the uh FRS will take a draft of the bulk water agreement to till they move forward too.
>> No, they will not. Um we've confirmed with the state that the only thing they will take is a signed copy and it has to be to them by the end of this month. They will not take drafts. >> And I don't know why we want to do a draft. I would I would hope that we could just get this done. Bert, you
answered my question. So this is the ninth amendment >> referring to eight other nth amendment. This is not an amendment to the to the agreement. So that shows and you said since 2020 we've been working on this. >> Yes, ma'am. >> And it's and it's good for the town and
it's low risk. Have you reviewed all the documents? >> Ma'am, I wrote them. >> Okay. So you're comfortable and you support >> I absolutely recommend this without reservation. So, I'll go ahead and make a motion and if I need to make it for further discussion, that's fine. But is
the motion Can you put the motion up because it's saying that we approve all of these? >> You approve and I would like you >> right. Go ahead. >> And I would like you to add the words and authorize the mayor to execute. >> Okay. So, is this language here?
>> Yes. So, I'll move that the Lake Placid Town Council approve the form of the proposed following and authorize the mayor to sign the documents. The waterbulk service fee agreement, the additional collateral note, the additional collateral mortgage, the
additional collateral security agreement, and the resolution. >> Second. >> Okay, we have a motion and a second. Any other comments? >> I just wanted to be sure that um Mr. met that you understand that um our our
utility director seeing that it may be extensive cost. It's it's for you if you're responsible for it, we want to be transparent with you and let you know if we discover something and it's it's a lot of money. We're telling you now so
that if you're obligated that you will know this now and um it's just it's uh doing business in an honest way. No, it I understand that and I would not want Bert Warner's job. Um, and I appreciate
his comments and if I was TUR, I apologize, but I can tell you that it's our intent to be um, bound by the documents. I know it's towns, too, and I appreciate it. So, thank you. I really appreciate you guys being here
tonight and this to me cleared up everything and uh I think it's a big step forward. >> Thank you. >> Okay, we appreciate >> any comments from the audience. >> Pam Fentress 12373 Law Slate Drive. Um I have been following this issue for
over the six years. I come here all the time they go to utilities, ask for updates, ask for where the the bulk water agreement is. I think just for just for historical purposes, the camping conference center has had an issue with DP and it wasn't an official
consent order to six years ago. They've had issues. So that's how this all started in my opinion. Um this would be the ninth amendment once it goes through the normal process. I reread the seventh and eth this past week. I think the
sewer line is a 6 in line of which the camping conference center paid for 4 in. That's you got to think about with the capacity. So I'd like to know the size of this water um line. Is it a 10 inch line? Um and is the location. I know you
may not be at that point right now, but it plays into you're talking about the growth and will extend, but it will be on the east side of Lake Drive east. The sewer line is currently on the west side. I have issue or I've got questions. Page one, second paragraph under statement of issue. State
revolving fund agreement contains a principal forgiveness of the 2.54 million one year after completion of the construction and timely proper initial payments by the town. The town will owe the difference which is to be paid back
time as established in the loan agreement when presented by D. And it you may have answered some of these questions, but my question was who's paying the interest during this time? And this goes back to the sea coast, the line of credit versus the loan and the 4
million. Um the the camping conference center bulk water agreement was supposed to go out for bid a year and a half to two years ago. You've already been through this whole process. And then when it actually did, there wasn't enough collateral to cover it. So, it's
been going back and forth for a long time. So, and this was has addressed, I think, by um one of the council members. Um what happens if the bid comes out and it doesn't cover the 2.8 million or the and
and we've been down this road before. Um, I I'll try to wrap it up, but there are definitely concerns and and while it uh Matt and Bert Harris may feel very confident every all bases are covered,
we understand the town's financial situation. We understand that you just increased utility rates 18%. You want to make dang sure that the town isn't on the hook. And I know Mr. Harris and I know that he will he you know strikes a
hard bargain but there's condition uh concerns based on the history in my opinion of the camping conference center and the delays and I'm not saying it's all on their fault there were many things that slipped through the cracks whether it was their uh consultant grant
writer whether it was uh over um or turnover from administration here in class but they were there in many Um I I looked at a CC property under
question,000 cash. Um is there a time on construction water months? um who who responsible for
making sure the county hit hard and and I do reference the time sewer system um line station there were a lot of them and and I've read the report I got to ask if I can finish my business
issue Okay. Uh I would like to know I think how much revenue center installed and running how many years agreement
around town project. Final final thought have you confront the answer is no. Um if if not SSRF so
water line SSRF will that make that county near future because that's a town and and thinking about big future issues. Um there there's still concerns. I hope they do.
I hope that they they pay for all the expenses. Um but y'all y'all can't afford make many many more mistakes. Thank you. >> Yes. Yes. Yes. Okay. of course.
tomorrow. Okay. Okay. Contract. I think attorney was also sent to me. >> Oh. Oh, yeah. No, not even just town. So contract here
attorney changes >> and that was dictated and maybe closer So I left something and he basically made sure that
now you use all the eye on it. We always review and we have done now three years. So, but the contract for him and he looked over it and did a recommendation. And
so, I think what we presented tonight is what Brian Koji had um supplied us with. >> And um if I could speak, I know Councilwoman Charles sent some questions and she wanted to know the reason why it went through PRM and not our town attorney. >> Um we've been using Brian Colder for all
our um all our personnel thing for years. So, >> he's our employment attorney. So, so just for the public, PRM is what? Our riskmanagement insurance company, right? Who? Right. So, yeah, because I was
taken back that a the insurance company reviewed an employment contract and so and that's why I appreciate, but I I never knew we would go to insurance companies to review that, but if that's what we do, okay. But I was surprised
that the town attorney hadn't reviewed it. Brian Koji is also for Brooklyn's comp with personnel. He's a labor attorney and um I'm not sure if um Phil will put anything before Burke or
>> I agree. We've been sending labor matters to Brian Coach when there's been a dispute particularly over workers comp or something else. I don't think we've sent uh the town at the town administrator's contract to Brian in the past.
that I'm aware of. >> Yeah, I sent Kevin's to Brian Gi. >> News to me and >> and I um I'm requesting consideration of the employment contract for my position as town administrator because it keeps with the standard municipal practice.
The proposed contract was first provided to Rachel, our human resources directed in her purview as a human resources director. And in any other municipality, if you look, they send it. If they have PRM, that's who it goes to is because it's our label at labor attorney. The contract that you have before you is one
that we mimicked from Avon Park and was vetted with Dr. Kelly who was there previously and also with her own personal attorney. Um, there were changes that were made, but this process ensures appropriate risk management review and consistency with the employment standards. The contract
language is not unique or specialized. Upon review, the agreement reflects basic employment provisions commonly used by Florida municipalities. The same contract form is currently, as I stated, being used even in the city of Avon Park and the similar language is widely
utilized by other local governments. What you see outlined in there, you will find in other contracts with any county administrator, town administrator, or city manager. This request is being presented during an election year in which three council seats are subject to reelection. Establishing clear
employment terms provides continuity, stability, and operational clarity for the town during a potential period of governance transition. The request follows proper administrative channels and reflects customary municipal employment practices.
So, it's before you for consideration. >> Is this similar to what Kevin had? >> Yes. >> Or or we just started new by based on what Avon Park and I appreciate because I'm a benchmarker. I keep saying all the time, why aren't we contacting Avon
Park, Sebring, and even Highlands County on some of the things that they have um because of the similarities. So, so the basis is this is Kevin's contract before >> Kevin was a direct hire. So, he was
employee. >> I requested for this council. >> Charlotte's an employee. >> Correct. But she's coming before you now with a contract. >> I'm requesting for a contract. I but I just heard this is similar to what Kevin's contract. That's that's all I'm saying. Is this or did we not have a
contract with Kevin? >> We had a employment. So what her status is now as employee is what Kevin was was using. So now she's coming in with a contract for employment. So Kevin did not have a contract. He had he was employee
>> an employee. >> Correct. Just like Charlotte is now. But she bringing a contract. But okay, I I don't They're both employees, so I didn't understand that. Um >> Kevin didn't have a contract either, >> but he was an employee. She kept saying
that's what I'm saying. I didn't get that because Charlotte's an employee, too. So, in the past, we've never had a contract, >> correct, >> with a town administrator. >> Correct. >> And so, this is like putting some play. That's fine. I don't have a problem with that. And I really appreciate using Avon Park or some of the others, you know, um
to do that. What what I like to see happen is so first you do an evaluation, right? You do an evaluation of the person and then um as what Avon Park does and what Highlands County I actually sat in
during Highlands County where they have these um evaluation that goes out to the uh and maybe you're familiar with it that goes out to the uh commissioners. They complete it, answer the questions. It's rated one to five on each of the areas. goes back to I think the HR
director who compiles it and then that's talked about in the um commission's meeting and then they make the recommendation for the annual merit increase and so to me I feel that's the kind of the first step that we doing you make a good point right three people are
coming up so equally is the feedback that you can have on um the year that you've been here with the continuity that we have so to me I like to kind of decouple an evaluation of job performance which leads to the annual
merit something you said that you're institute or you're instituting now for the people of the town you know you'll have u performance reviews and that and you couple that to the merit increase for the so I know I think the mayor you're you're you've asked for our
feedback on a on evaluation we haven't had it so I'd like to see us put that process in place now and then not necessarily does that lead into the employment contract, but it gives it
gives some feedback. So, it's the employee evaluation. Um, I really like the way Avon Park did it. Um, and not Avon well Avon Park also, but um, Highlands County and the questions that they ask and I even I even have those, but that's I'd like to
see us table the contract and do the evaluation. And we could probably do that evaluation pretty quick and then the following month we do the contract. >> With due respect, Miss Charles, if you look, it says performance evaluation will be performed 180 days after the
effective date of this agreement and annually thereafter on or near the anniversary date of this agreement. So it will be forthcoming 180 days after which will lead us into the new election cycle. >> Right. But right now you have a a contract, right?
uh some type of a signed agreement of these are my job qualifications. So we can do the same thing. We just because and you raise a good point. So you're saying that if we sign this contract then 180 days from now we give an evaluation. You I I would think you
would want and we would not want that now with you being here since October. So this has been requested and I had discussed it with our current attorney and he did not suggest that this would be a good idea. This is not only to safeguard the town but it is also to
safeguard me. >> I I I'm so >> Mr. Co not >> No, we've talked about it in behind closed doors. We've >> what? >> Yes, we've talked about me having a contract. Yes, we have that you did not you did not support because they did not
have one before. But we are trying to be to follow normal practice and this is not an unreasonable request. I leave it to council to make that decision. >> I think >> so your your point was that I said we had not had one and did not need one. >> Correct.
>> Okay. >> Perhaps the request >> clear for the record. >> Perhaps your thought to do the evaluation now is to protect Charlotte because there will be new people coming on in the 180 days who don't even know her.
So would be to her benefit to have the evaluation done maybe before the new people come on board >> and and timing wise you can do that right you can do the evaluation I don't know you can do it in a week but
for the next >> that's presuming that was presuming you weren't reelected I'm >> you know but if it should happen >> right >> but you could I guess what I'm suggesting is um and I and I thought we would be doing an evaluation that we would be given the feedback. Um so that
we do that and we can do that for the February meeting and then that second February meeting we can do the contract or do it in the March meeting. So I think there's still time before any election changes that may take place. So it's just decoupling
a contract with first we need to do the evaluation. That's what's required too and that's the feedback I think that >> that you would want. >> Well, I don't know that the evaluation is going to be so bad that it would make
any difference on the contract. So, why not just sign the contract and do the evaluation before the election? >> But sign the contract then means evaluation's 180 days. No, amend amend that part so that the first evaluation
would be before the election and then subsequent but but the contract includes a merit increase. That's why you typically decouple it. Your merit increase is based on your performance
and the valuation for that. Where is the contract includes a 10% wage increase which if you look here base salary it it outlines it here but that wouldn't come before until October when we are reviewing the budget cycle anyways.
So it would have to pass through at that time the same as with the other staff. >> It the first thing says compensation employee should receive an annual base rate of 120,000. >> That's what I already make. That's my current salary. >> You make 109.
>> No, I don't. >> That's what the contract we signed is. When did it go to 120? >> We did that at the budget session when we went when the budget passed and we did everybody's salaries. This has been the same salary that every town administrator has had even before me.
>> But the the job posting had a range and I guess I'm not aware that we gave because typically the town council gives >> this was all correct. Yes, that's correct. >> Yeah, the salaries was approved by town
council and everybody had a copy of all employee salary. There was no there I we may have got a schedule of what was proposed. There's never been and I guess I have to defer to the town attorney again, but
there was never any proposal on >> the town administrator that reports to the council. Right. >> I'm looking at I'm looking at this letter. Employment offer effective date starting September
30th, 2024, your starting salary is agreed at $109,000 per year. >> That's what this said. >> And when we when we were go >> ahead >> to answer your question, I don't recall
a discussion regarding an increase in salary. What was buried in the budget I cannot address. >> Yeah. Well, the salary everybody's salary was before and after the proposed amount for the salary. So, >> and base salary to an automatic 5%
increase does not is not consistent with let's have a review and then discuss increase. Look at paragraph 3A. And I don't see a delay in starting the 120. Maybe it's further down. It's certainly not on the screen there.
>> This is the new contract. This is a new contract. This is new verbiage. >> So the original agreement was 109 and we went through the budgets. We gave raises to people and that was included in the budget. So that's what we approved.
She's an employee now. So that's what we did just like with the all the other employees. Am I correct, Rachel? That >> is correct. >> So people got raises. Um so that's what we did. And and just for the record and to clarify, this is the same amount that
Phil Williams has received. This was the same amount that Joe Barber received and also the same amount that Kevin McCarthy received. >> I'm I just >> Why do you keep saying as an employee? That's where I keep I'm missing something. She's now an employee. I I
>> So when a employee is hired, they give a job offer. So you're given a job offer as employee. >> Yeah. So nobody's contracted. So we have contractor like we have a consultant whatever do certain work but then she
wanted a contract for employment. >> So right now she's moving from an employee status to a contractor status is your point. >> That is correct. Well when did >> we decide that? >> That's why she bringing a contract to you now.
>> Today that's talking. >> Oh that's it. So, we're moving her from an employee of the town to a contractor of the town. >> Correct. That is what she asking for. >> No, it's not a contractor of the town. It's I'm going It's a contract for employment. This is a standard municipal
agreement for a town administrator, a town manager, a county manager. If you look, Lori Hearner at the county works under a contract. It is a standard pro process for municipal government is a standard agreement.
Okay, >> that is the language that we received from Mr. Cooji. >> I'm glad we have somebody that we can hold their feet to the fire because Phil Williams um I don't I got the date from um 2023
when he resigned when he retired. Okay, so we're just into we just finished 2025. We've counting Phil, we've had four administrators. We've had Phil, we had Joey, we had Kevin, and now we have um
Charlotte. We cannot handle more turnover. I'm of the opinion this has been things have gotten missed, you know, and dropped because of the turnover and it's hurt our town. So having some consistency to
me is everything. Especially at this point when we have had almost like I'm going to say it a swinging door and it's hard to get up to speed. It's hard to you know you've got to you've got to be here and then you've got to get the history to really do uh your job. So, I
think if somebody's willing to commit and we can hold their feet to the fire, and there's also options in here, if Miss Charlotte doesn't behave herself, then we have options. But I'm saying, let's get her on contract. Let's get some continuity
um in our town so that we can, as Marlene Berger said, we kind of make mistakes sometimes because we've dropped the ball and it's just natural. You can't have so many people. >> I don't disagree with any. I just wanted to clarify cuz it kept saying she's now an employee and that's where it's like
she's always been an employee since day one when when we hired and so I appreciate knowing that we've never had a formal contract but we've had the employment right you sent this to us today um somebody sent it to us an employment um which is a signed
agreement these are your duties this is what you would do so in lie of this type of a contract there has been a legal document in place of her work conditions. Is that that's true? And that's similar to what we've had with
>> Kevin and Joe and Phil and others. >> All I'm saying, we also need to do an evaluation, right? And and I mean to me, a contract can wait another month because she's continuing and I appreciate the work
that you do. So she's continuing to do under the um application that you signed. These are all the job duties um that we had. You know, we have that whole when we went out for um the employment, right? It wasn't an RFP, but
it was Indeed and all the others. And we had all of the requirements and she she had submitted that and she signed. I agree with all of these. And then we have this cont. So, we have a contract in place. It might not be extensive as the other is all I'm saying. I'm just
saying wait one month on that because my research and what you typically do is you do decouple. You do the evaluation and the increase. It sounds like we've already increased. You do the and then and then you if we didn't have a contract in place then you
do the you know um I guess in this case the contract. So that's all I'm saying is I'm not saying don't do it. I'm just saying decouple it to do the evaluation now which we should be doing after 15 months
of employment to get that good feedback and then immediately after that take a look at that employment contract that needs to be tweaked and approve that and then that 180 days that you is in there would kick in
and that's what the other cities So, I mean, I'll go ahead and make a motion and we'll see where it goes. Is I'd like to make a motion to table the contract signing until after I I let
me back it up. I'd like to make a motion that we move to do an evaluation on the town administrator with uh feedback from the mayor, the town council um and the town attorney
and >> that's what I said and the same as because I think that's what Highlands County does too. So it's the same as what the Highland County does and then the results would go to as the HR director because that's
who it goes there and they compile because it's typically one to five exceeds expectation meets expectation um and I mean I have samples of them if you need but that we um do a at the next
meeting we have it completed where we do an evaluation of the town administrator um with the grading results going to Rachel and the results coming at the next town meeting. >> You're talking about February, not next year. >> February. Yeah. Yeah. February. I'm
sorry. Good point. And the and then after that, the following month or if you want to do the following meeting, then we review a town contract with the town administrator if if that's what we want to put in. Now, this broader documentation than what we have already,
>> I'm not quite certain. Well, you're you're making the motion, right? So, what's your motion? um that we put in place an evaluation of the town administrator similar to the Highlands County
evaluation process that the results go to Rachel that she summarizes them and comes back at the February meeting for that um for that input and discussion. So I and I'm saying decouple the
contract can be then the second February meeting but the evaluation you have to do first. >> I just well I don't want to interrupt your motion. Go ahead. >> I I'll discuss it. >> So is there a second?
>> I'll second it because I think we should do an evaluation. I don't think it's fair to Charlotte until she um that she doesn't get evaluation and input feedback from us um who have worked with
her over this past 15 months. Um and I mean it's quite possible that there will be new people up here. It's very possible all of us could be replaced. We were threatened with that when the sewer thing came along. So um it could it could quite be. And so I think that she
deserves to have some evaluation from us because we know her pretty well and um all of us that are sitting at this table, we've all worked with her and I think she she should have that and then so we would have time to complete that
between now and the first meeting in February. We would turn that into Rachel. she would give us the results at that first meeting of, you know, of the evaluations and then we can do the contract the second meeting in February. >> That's what you're saying. Yes. Right.
>> So that's a second to what she said. >> Okay. We have a motion and a second. >> So I'd like clarification. I understand the evaluation part, but the first part of your motion was who was going to be giving the evaluation? Town council, mayor, town attorney. Is that still part
of all that motion? >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Okay. Any other comments? >> I only I only declined to second because I don't see why we can't go ahead with the contract, but have the evaluation. I
mean, we drag things out all the time. So, I would like to get the contract in place and then have the evaluation by the people who know her before the election. >> One answer to that is put the golden
parachute up on the screen as you're committing yourself to a considerable payout if you do not retain her in this contract. The reasons vary, the amounts vary, >> and and my my I guess my thinking was
that that's kind of normal procedure with the other municipalities. They do the evaluation and then they do the employment contract. In this case, we have one in place. It's not like we, oh wow, we've worked for 15 months and we've never signed what your duties are or anything. We have something in place.
This now is just more extensive. So, so that's why it was like and the the common practice is it's like whether it's in business or municipalities like they just did with um with the county and um the other cities is they give an
annual evaluation. Probably something we should have done at the 12 month mark. Right. >> So, we're catching up on that and then now we're finding out we've never had an extensive employment contract. Okay, we'll catch up on that. So that's where it was.
>> Would staff be able to weigh in on the evaluations? >> So if you want to do the 360 that county doesn't do that, but if you want to do a 360. So I was just trying to make it simple, similar to the other municipalities. I mean, I I know a
lot of managers in business will just go out to staff and say, "Look at I want to improve. you give me feedback anonymously so then I can work on improvements. So that's of course something that you know Charlotte can get that feedback from staff. This was just formalizing and making it more
simple. I may I Okay. So you're giving this scenario that we're going to have an evaluation and if we don't keep her then we don't do the contract. And I'm saying I agree with
Miss Everheart. I think that you're talking about getting another new administrator. >> No, why wouldn't we keep >> But why would you care about the evaluation before the contract then? I don't get that because >> that's just the normal process that people do. I
>> Why wouldn't we keep her? I I I really take exception to what you said that that I'm saying now we've got another one. No. Typically though, you do an evaluation with all your employees
to determine the merit increase, right? >> But she's already got her she's not >> I did not know that. I did not know that she got a 10% >> and she's only getting what everybody else has gotten. And um anyway, I'd like to hear what the public has. >> Anyways, so that that's why I decoupled
it, right? Any other comments? >> Take it to the audience. Yes. >> Pardon me. >> Yeah. >> Lisa Sherman, 400 Lake Mirror Drive. Um, I've been in business for 40 years, run
my own business, have several employees. I do not, and most businesses do not give any type of increase without an evaluation. the thought that you have had an employee that is running your town, your town administrator for 15 months and not only have you given her a
raise, but you have not done an evaluation in 15 months. That a business, a private business would never run that way. You know, only government can do that sort of thing and get away with it. The rest of us would be out of business if we operated our business like that. So, my opinion as a business
owner is, and Charlotte should want this as well, she should have an evaluation before any increases. I'm always against merit raises across the board without evaluations. And certainly, her first raise was a 10% raise. She went from
109,000 to 120,000 in less than a year. And did everybody else get 10% raises? No. But apparently she did. That brought her to 120. and now you want to obligate yourself to 5% and you're not even obligating yourself to evaluations
before you even go into a contract. Just my opinion as a business owner. >> Well, I guess we've been stupid for a long time because we've never done an evaluation of any town administrator. Marlene Barger um
in government we did evaluations annually. So and if you were a merit proposal you had to do the evaluation and I agree with the attorney. You don't go off and and give and do this without an evaluation. I asked a a question in October to one or two of you. When do we
do the evaluation on the town administrator? That's not a minus for the town administrator, but why? My question was, why haven't we done one? We should have done one in October, so why not do it now? She's been on board for over a year. I'm still confused how
she went from 109 to 120. >> I'll be happy to answer that. >> It's not out. It's not outlined in there. However, there was a conversation in my um interview that I would go to the salary that the previous administrators made once I met my one
year. Excuse me. Once I successfully met my one year, I would go to the same salary that the previous administrators held, which is 120. I am the only one who came in at 109. So that means previous ones were at 120. In the interview process when we
discussed it, myself, Mr. McCarthy and the mayor. That was a discussion. Well, >> I appreciate you advocating for yourself because it's because you are the point of all of this. It doesn't negate the fact that there was no evaluation done
in October of 2025, >> which should have been done. That's the issue. So, if you didn't do it then, why not do it now? And as the attorney said, you do that. You're putting the cart before the horse. Let's do the
evaluation and then do the contract. Do you think you're not going to pass on the evaluation? >> Is that the concern? >> Why Why is there a hesitancy about being evaluated? I I have no problem. >> The Bord County Commissioners do it.
Avon Park does it. Sebring does it. Why can't Lake Placid do it? >> I have no problem being the first town administrator in the town of Lake Placid getting properly evaluated. the problem that I'm having at this moment and for transparency purposes and unfortunately in this seat you have to have courage
and you have to speak up when things are out of order. The mere fact that we're going to have a town attorney sit in on my evaluation and weigh in whenever I have messages where he can't even have a conversation with me is very concerning and alarming as a town administrator. I do not wish to air that here. However,
if it's necessary, I will do so. When you cannot properly have a conversation with your town attorney and be able to handle business amicably, then I do not believe that he has the right to weigh in on my evaluation. Well, that's your opinion. And I have seen times where you have argued with
the town attorney and basically you've argued with the town attorney and you've tried to muzzle a town council member. So, that's fine. You can do that. Nobody got hurt and there's no penalty for it. But the the point is there should be an evaluation and it should have been in
October to council. >> That's just going by the normal process. You can put this all to rest by saying let's do the evaluation and then then let's do the contract. >> Hi. Hello. I'm Josephine calmly 607
Sunset Point. Where is it in writing? Now you've had a verbal. Where is it in writing that you automatically get this increase? That makes no sense. Just as the young lady behind me said, in
business, you just don't get a raise without an evaluation. An evaluation makes you then look good and you enti then you're entitled to the raise. It's a simple process. But why on council they've done this for years is
beyond me. But it doesn't mean it's written in stone. So I don't agree. I I agree that there should be an evaluation in all fairness because we need to start thinking common sense, not what everybody else did or had. Now, Bert, as
you you're the attorney, is it in writing that automatically they get this raise in this uh when she was initially hired? I know of no writing for an automatic raise. There is one that she's built into this agreement for a 5% annual
automatic increase regardless of evaluation. And I I was asking that you'd put the golden parachute up on the screen. It's still not there. standard agreement. So that's my concern. Okay. If it's not in writing, then we need to start
following guidelines to how we do increment changes, increases. Thank you. I'm Rosemary Heath, 588 Sunset Point Drive. Um, I agree you should have an
evaluation first. That's a procedure. It's procedures with most businesses. You evaluate a person and then you give them an increase or or
I it's ridiculous just to give someone an increase with no evaluation. I'm sorry. My name is Joseph Gray, 24 Oak Street, Lake Placid. I'm actually a town employee. Everybody's standing here talking about
an evaluation. Evaluation. evaluation. How many times have you hired an employee, gave them a 90day evaluation? When I was hired four years ago with the town of Lake Placid, I was given a six-month evaluation before I received my raise, before I received any kind of
benefits or anything. I have worked under Charlotte for the past year, 15 months. I have also worked under Phil. I have worked under Kevin. I have worked under Joe. Out of all four of my town administrators, Charlotte is the only
one that has routinely gone above and beyond to each and every one of her employees to make sure even outside of work. I have stopped at Wawwa, spoke with Charlotte. I have been at the school with my children spoke to
Charlotte. Other town administrators have not even acknowledged me as they have walked past my me on the street. I have referred to myself many times as the child, this ugly stepchild kicked
out in the back 40 because of where my position is. I don't come into town often. I don't come to town hall very often. I am stuck in one 42 acre plot Charlotte and I seen Miss Worley and I have seen
uh Miss Ghart down there several times and that is it. So for anyone to sit there and say that m Miss Charlotte doesn't deserve to have her evaluation after her contract is set, I think I
want to know where your evaluations were. Where were your evaluations after your 90 days? Where were your evaluations after your 180 days? Thank you. Ken Leblanc 120 yesterday to your lane. Um yeah,
listening to this it it seems like um I don't it doesn't seem to me like having a contract in this position is unre unreasonable or unrealistic. Um, I think there's a reason why you have contracts in this position because it's a
political situation. Um, so I don't think it's unreason I don't think it's unreasonable for make 120,000 a year in this position. I wouldn't do it for 120,000 a year. That's for damn sure. But, um, and I don't think 5%'s an unreasonable raise in that position, you know. So, um, I don't know. I mean, it
it seems to be from out here looking in at what's going on, not knowing all the dynamics of everything, but it seems like a bit of a setup and a bit of a hit job. You know, I I don't think, you know, at at a year she got a raise. Um, she didn't get evaluated probably
because the only person really above her are all you guys, you know, and have any of you guys put together a s a system of evaluating her, you know, obviously not. So now that you know the fact that you haven't um doesn't mean you can't do it,
you know, but you need to take your time and put it together. I don't think unless you want to do this evaluation and possibly fire her before you sign this, then why are you doing the having to do the evaluation before? I think it was Joy who said, "Let's go ahead and look at this contract and sign a
contract with her and then we could do an evaluation." I mean, that seems practical to me and makes sense unless, you know, it's going to get all political before you do it, right? To me, it's not. It shouldn't be political. It should just be simply a contract that we review. you know, agree on the
contract and sign it. Now, um, you know, I don't know that everybody's reviewed it, looked at it, but, um, it seems to me like it's it should be a pretty straightforward process like that. And, yeah, sure, she should get involved. She should have got it back in October, you know, but obviously the system wasn't in place. So, I think you move forward with
a contract with her unless you have intentions of getting rid of her, you know, sign a contract and then 30 days from now, you get your system together, you give her an evaluation. Um, it seems very straightforward and pretty simple. Um, unless there's, you know, unless you
want to consider whether or not you're gonna keep her, right? That's the case. Fine. You know, but if you're not intending to get rid of her, then, you know, I think review the contract, approve her contract, but come up with a system and then start evaluating her. Evaluate her, you know, in 30 days or
when you get your system together and then evaluate her every single year. But I don't think 5%'s unreasonable. And you know, 120 in this position is not unreasonable. And and all my dealings with Charlotte having to do a CRA been wonderful. I mean, she understands
historic downtowns and what we need to do to revitalize our downtown. That's great. Not everybody understands that. She's very good at that. And it's coming to her with developers, which I had a meeting with her with developer recently. It was awesome, you know, and the developer came out feeling like,
yes, I should be investing my money on this town, you know. So, >> um, I I I don't I don't see a problem with with, you know, what she's asking for here, and I understand why. Okay. I have here some emails. I'm not going
to read them from our employees that are all in favor of Charlotte. They they've all pretty much said what what what he stated that uh she's gone out of her way to make them feel appreciated and, you
know, make them want to be part of our community, which is great. Uh the reason I wanted to bring it up and and do it because I I think it's something that we need to not only protect her but to protect the town both ways. Uh
we had a contract with our attorney. We had a contract with Dana, our planner. We've we've had contracts out there. We've never done We've never We've never We've never done it. As far as the administrator, we're
new at this in a short period of time. We've had four. Phil Williams started out. He retired. Joe came on. He he took it for a short time. Uh
he left us. Kevin, our utility director at that time, filled in. He did both jobs for a while until we hire hired Charlotte. So, I just thought it was probably time that the town
get to a point where it not only protects our employees but and protects the town. And this is why I brought it forward. All right. Any other comments? >> I I would like to just say a couple
things. Um first of all, um Charlotte, you seem to assume that because of an evaluation that it's not going to be good. It's going to be a good evaluation, and I'm I'm sure it will. And I think it's it's just
getting things in the proper order. The the problem I have with with doing this contract without any evaluation ahead of a ahead of time is that this this contract says, "Okay, we'll sign the contract and then you get
evaluated in 180 days after we've already made a commitment to the contract," which was a little odd to me. And then further further into the contract there's the severance pay um which is equal to 12 weeks of employees regular
salary paid paid uh monthly for termination without cause um and then however in the event of a termin employees termination without cause occurs within 60 days of two or more newly elected council members taking
office who have not previously served as council members. During employees tenure, employee will be paid severance pay in the total amount of 20 weeks of employees regular salary paid monthly. So we are already
obligating the town um to to this much money or dollars uh or pay and before we even evaluate you going into this um into this whole thing. So, I just think it's a responsibility that we have to
the town to come in and say, "Okay, this these are the things that we really like. You've you've done these things really well. These are a couple of things we'd like to see you do a little better." And and you know, all of us will um you know, do our evaluation and then say, "Okay, we all agree this is
good. Here's your contract." But I just think that it's important that we do an evaluation first. Maybe you want to take out the evaluation after 180 days or maybe you put in there instead an evaluation every year or you know
whatever or some sort of a of a a normal sequence but um I think it's difficult to operate without an evaluation because you really don't know um how people are feeling about what you're doing. You think you're doing the right thing but you don't really know when you get an
evaluation. and you kind of have it down on paper and you know you're doing the right thing. So that's that's where I am with it. >> I agree with Joy as far as the evaluation. I think we should sign the contract. We should do the evaluation with the people that have worked with
her as long as she's been here and then um and then just move forward. I that's what I I believe that as well. That's a great idea. >> Yeah. the the other pro I haven't extensively read the contract
because we just got it. So, I had went over the points that um Councilwoman Hayes made. Um but when she read them, it like, oh, okay. um
would and and clearly there is some tension going on between the town attorney and the town administrator. So, I mean, the last meeting and this one, um, I would have no problem revising to have just the mayor and the council give
that feedback if that's something that can help with some of the because in the end, it's like the town administrator is hired by the town c the mayor with the consent of the town council. So, the evaluation would be consistent with that. But I I still believe and it's
like I mean even Joe Joe had said I used to get an evaluation every every three months, every six months. So it's I'm really surprised and I know I talked to Rachel and I think that's something that you guys are doing this year but we haven't done that. So So there's a lot of things that we just haven't done that
we really should do. I don't see this as a bad thing. This is given the feedback. These are the great things you're doing. Here's a couple areas you might want to try to tweak here. So I it was never intended to be what what were you saying a grounds for
firing? I mean it's like no no cuz we we we could do that without this contract. So because she has a contract so it's like okay if we've worked all these years with never a contract then we wait one more month but what we need to do is
the evaluation. It is done in government. It just has never been done here. It's always done in businesses. It's never been done here. That's why I'm saying is do the evaluation and I'll revise my motion
that it's the mayor and the town council um evaluates the town administrator based on the Highlands County um evaluation process with the results going to the um HR director uh to bring forward to
the February meeting. And then the second February meeting, we'll have more time to read the contract and ask some questions in the meantime if there's because we just picked up some little revisions that we feel we may need to do, we should do. >> I was going to suggest the same and that
is take me out of the process. My opinion is fairly obvious, I think. >> Yeah. >> So, y'all do what you want. I'll be gone soon. I'll >> I'll second her her revision. Yes. Hurry.
>> I'm trying interest. I think the town is at a critical juncture right now. Um I I attend the meetings go to the county. I think this is the first time there's a breath of fresh air when Charlotte came
on board. You have a professional person that's representing the town at county meetings, Highlands economic development meetings. Things start to be flowing. Um, should there be evaluation on town administrator? Yes. Should have already
in place. Yes. How much time though is is the counselor staff putting out fires all the time going from one topic to the other? We still haven't done the rate utility or not utility rate rental increase. We haven't done this. We
haven't I mean it's just constant. But you need stability. I think staff needs stability. From what I've heard, everybody it speaks positively about her and is in favor of that except for maybe one exception. But she has a really good reputation. I think she has a good
reputation as working with the chamber and other entities. And um for me personally, I could understand why she'd want a contract. I'm not opposed to separating the two, tweaking, you know, the contract. I read it last Friday when
I read the packet, but um it it is a crit critical time um to to unite and have a strong leader, a strong council. Um so I think it's important and I my vote is in favor of I don't have a vote, but if I did, I'd be in favor of
Charlotte as a town administrator. >> Okay. May I conclude? >> No, we got one more. You certainly can. You're in charge, Mr. Mayor. Uh, I I I definitely want to commend you, Charlotte, for having to advocate
for yourself on public record and an open form. >> State your name and address. >> Oh, sorry. Dustin Woods, 179 Huntley Oaks Boulevard. And I commend you for doing that because that's that's a peculiar thing to have to do that many of us wouldn't understand. Uh, I I agree it's in your best interest to secure a
contract even prior to the evaluations. I would suggest to you and the council it's not in the best interest of the town to do that particularly when there is a pretty robust escape clause attached. Uh I I have sensed in the conversation surrounding this that
there's um it may seem because of the contention around this conversation like some are for Charlotte and against Charlotte. Um I'm not totally sure that that's the case. I I see that there seems to be lots of support for her. I
can't speak to the day-to-day operations. I can only speak to my experience as chairman of LPA, Board of Adjustments, and a community member. I've had a great experience with Charlotte, and I have seen her go out of her way to serve people beyond her job role. And I've also seen her take her
job really seriously, not just from a management standpoint, but watch her go out in front and try to lead and develop and and improve the future of the town. And I do appreciate that from my vantage point. I'm in agreement with the amendment. Uh, and that's not because I don't have high regard for Burke because
I do, but I I do think that a proper evaluation is to be done by supervisors, whoever holds the keys to the contra to the to the employment, to the raises, to the whatever. I think it'd be most appropriate for those who are in the supervisory role to be doing the
evaluation that I think should happen prior to that contract being signed officially. Um, but I do recommend that we move forward with Charlotte as our town administrator and have that contract signed. >> Okay.
Right. Any other comments? There's been uh reference to my disputes with Charlotte yet again tonight. She put off on me the dis delay of pickle ball. I'll be circulating tomorrow amongst council in Charlotte
where she pulled me off the project. It's an issue of credibility that I have developed a concern for which is the reason I strongly urged that you evaluate before you make commitments with the
golden parachute still not up on the screen. the 20 month and the 12 months of pay. If she is discharged, it makes her discharge a lot more painful before you have any evaluation.
I encourage evaluation and then contract without me. I was going to say take me out of it. I obviously have made my opinion. I think that the um that is in case um
there's no cause. She just gets fired because somebody doesn't like her basically. That's kind of my understanding. I'm not a certainly not a law a law person for employment, but I think without cause. So if there's cause, she didn't get it. So she's doing
something wrong, she's violated her trust with the town, then she doesn't get it. That's my understanding. All right, it's 10 o'clock. Let's put this to bed. >> Go ahead and pull the council. >> Council member Charles.
>> Yes. >> Council member Hayes. >> Yes. >> Council member Worley. >> No. >> Council member Eberhart. >> No. Proceed with the contract. >> Mayor Hull Brook.
>> No. Okay. So, I will make a motion that we proceed with the contract and within um the next regular meeting or before the next regular meeting, we have an evaluation done
and uh thereafter um every six months after six months after the contract date. Second. >> Okay, we have a motion and a second. Any comments from the podium? >> Can you clarify the motion? I
>> I make a motion that we de decouple we sign the contract or vote on the contract and then have an evaluation within one month from now and then every 6 months
thereafter from the date of the contract. So you're make you're making changes to the contract. >> No >> contract says 18 days. >> Well, okay. So no, it says I'm saying
180 same thing 180 days after the contract is the subsequent evaluation. There will be an evaluation this month and then according to the contract every
180 160 days. So, I think where you're going is that we approve the contract. You've got a couple changes and that we vote on that tonight. Would you be open to push that into the ne next Monday's meeting, next Tuesday's
meeting? I I have not I want to go back now and people have made some comments. I want to go back and take a look and I'm not I haven't read it in depth as I would like to. So we have the next
meeting next Tuesday. >> Mhm. >> So can we table it to next meeting? >> Oh, okay. >> That's all. >> We can table the contract >> and then that way there may be more changes that may need to be made. >> Contract table contract the table the
contract vote until the meeting next week. >> The changes 20th >> and were there changes? change the >> Oh, okay. Yeah. So, okay. Table of the
contract vote until next week. Schedule performance evaluations to occur prior to the next the the February council meeting. And that's it.
Second. >> So, what kind of evaluation would would you like me to send something out? So, everybody using the same format or >> you just guys going to just write it up? >> No, we don't have to use the same format. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> There there's one out there, Rachel,
that you can find. There's typical >> I mean I can get you Highlands County and that way it's the same and it's not it's basically these are the core competencies and how does the person measure on a
scale of one to five. That's all that's how simple it is. It's these are the core competencies and meet exceeds expectation meets expectations. You know it's just the five scales is what they use. I'll send it to you separately. You can take a look at at
Charlotte. >> Okay. >> Second. >> Any other comments up here? Any from the audience? >> If the contracts being tabled to the meeting next week, is it not just as easy to complete that
concern for evaluation before then as well? That way you guys are having a comprehensive conversation next week about the terms of the contract as well as your overall valuations of Charlotte. That way it's just settled.
>> You got seven days. >> Is there time? >> And and I keep hearing how easy it's going to be. That's all I'm saying. Then it's all done. >> If you >> I'm good with that. I mean I I will mail you what Highlands County right um the
the it's like the 10 competencies this is and then if that's what you want to get out I mean >> we'll fill it out. It's pretty standard. I mean it's like that's the same comp and then I'll just read Yeah. Yeah. I just I'll read the
competencies. Here's the competency. leaders, leadership and integrity. Demonstrates ethical conduct and integrity. Provides steady consistent leadership. Maintains trust with council, staff, and public. Makes decision based on facts and professional
standards. And you give a rating of one to five. Board council relations and policy implementation, financial management. That's what I said. I will give her Yeah. Yeah. But but so you can see it's just the core competencies and then some what does this mean? and then
we rate one to five. So I think we get that out. It's simple to do. >> The only thing I think and I and I appreciate Mr. Wood's comments. I think that there it has been stressful and um
I would like to will you would you not quit? Please don't leave us. Will you what would you do? I mean it's been hard and this is a vote of confidence. This contract is a vote of confidence. This says we want you. I
mean, okay. So, if we're going to do an evaluation, why are we doing that? I I guess in this situation, in this situation, I understand it. We've never evaluated anybody. Never had this happen before. Never had a contract before. I understand you're what you're saying. It
isn't normal, but this hasn't been normal since Charlotte came. I'm telling you. >> Yeah. And to be clear, she has my vote of confidence. Again, Dustin Woods, she has my vote of confidence as well. I think my point is this is an opportunity to to write the ship and I and I do trust that Charlotte's going to hang in
there for a week. I like a week better than a month. But my point is if the valuation is simple, let's start there. If we're going to be reviewing the contract, start there. Then by next by seven days from now, we're having a comprehensive discussion with everything
right in front of us so that she can be settled and I want her to feel settled and so that you and the community can feel settled as well that it's been done, every stone has been looked under and we've done it the right way. >> Yeah. Yeah, and I was just going to say um I mean it it because it's obvious
that not everybody has read this, you know, and um so I it does make sense that you go back and everybody reads it in details. So that makes sense. Um the evaluation, you know, of course, you know, like I said, everybody should be evaluated at some point. Um you know, on some time frame, right? So the
evaluation's not a bad idea. Um the only thing I would say is I'm not sure that the evaluation should be public. You know, I think the evaluation happens then the evaluate and the mayor or somebody reviews the evaluation with with her Charlotte, but I don't know
that the evaluation should be public in the meeting where you guys approve a contract with her. I'm not sure that that's fair, right? Um, nobody else would do that kind of thing in public. So, and I'm not sure what your plan is. I'm not sure you know what your plan is yet, but um, but I do think it's coming
together as a good plan. So, Highlands County does do the valuation public, but that's why I believe, but I guess I'm okay, you decouple it. So, it's not the contract
is tied directly to the evaluation. So, that's that's the reason for the decoupling of it and that's what's common. That's what's best practice. But, yeah, the public evaluation Highlands County and the others do. Now, it's typically the the rating system
and then the commissioners will then make any comments that they want. You know, one said great here, but the reason I rated a little lower, it was verely was because of these reasons. So, yeah, that's standard. That's what I'm saying. It's all standard.
>> All right. Where we at? >> Motion and a second. So I think clarification on the motion it was to table it >> but your motion was to schedule performance evaluations to the February council meeting but when I'm we still
doing >> let let it let it stand that way and see and see how the vote goes. >> Okay. Leave it where it is then. Okay. >> So we had a motion in a second. >> Yes. Okay, go ahead. Pull the council. >> Council member Everheart. >> Yes.
>> Council member Charles. >> Oh, I'm sorry. >> I'm really off my game tonight. >> That's going on. But council member Worley. >> Yes. >> Council member Hayes.
>> We're voting on tableabling. >> You're tableabling the contract to next week. Schedule performance evaluations to February council meeting. So contract next week, evaluation the following at the February meeting. >> That is
>> Yes. >> Did you say yes? >> Okay. Uh, Council Member Charles, I really like what Mr. Wood said to try to get them both done at the same time in the same meeting. So, I'm going to
say I'm good with the contract tableabling it. I would like to see the evaluation at least closer to the contract. So, I'm going to say no. >> Okay. >> All right.
>> Okay. We'll go to town administrator. We were going to do a year-end wrapup, but I'm looking at the time. And so, would you like us to hold that until next week? >> Yes. Okay. So, we're going to hold it
till next week. >> Mayor Har maybe Harry will be back by then. So, >> yes, sir. >> Yeah. Okay. Mr. Attorney, >> I'm surprised you asked. >> No, your honor.
>> Always ask. All right, we'll start. Um, Charlotte, two things. One, on the new pavilions down at the um, park it, and I've seen it, too. It's brought to my attention that the bolts that the hurricane bolts that they have, they're
actually sticking inward to the picnic tables, but they're really long. They need to be >> at the seven new pavilions that were built. So, have them look at down at the bottom the big heavy duty bolts that are part of the construction. And it's interesting because the other pavilions
at the beach, the bolts at least went outward. These they made them inward, but they're really long, so they need to be for safety reasons. Um, you know, pulled down. And then just a question on the the basketball nets again
because that keeps coming up and and are they lighted or not? Did the basket are is there lighting there for the basketball nets? cuz it it's starting to get, you know, even some men want to play at night in that. >> Uh there there is lighting. I don't know
that the uh the timer was ever changed because the clock that controls it is inside of the uh water tower fencing. >> I don't know if I still have a key to that. Uh we have about 21 time clocks we have to change every time and
occasionally that one gets forgotten. I'll double check it tomorrow. and and the nets are being replaced. >> We're looking into replacing Well, >> the whole goal is one solid piece
because it's welded on. Uh instead of just replacing the nets, we're looking at replacing the entire back stop, which would require getting a welder out there, uh cutting the end off that's currently on it, welding on a plate, so we can put any standard
uh back drop on there. Uh complete replacement, you're looking at 4,000 on per goal, uh not including shipping. And then one side is actually poured into the slab. So that means there's concrete under the slab. You'd be causing damage to the
court if we did a full replacement. So Harry is uh looking into the cost of having uh the welder come out to retrofit. >> Okay. Thank you. And then um Charlotte, you have a contact at DOT, right? I just
want to ask you to alert them is um similar to that little break over there. If if you do the turnabout at H Heartland, so you're coming out H Heartland from the park, right? And you want to go to the town hall, you have to make a right and then you did that turn
turn around that you know is if you look there are gaps between the curb and the temporary road. In fact, I I looked at that and somebody is going to put a car tire in there. So, it's like they haven't completely paved that temporary
road right up to the curb that they have. And there's like So, it's that turnaround. Maybe there's others, too. But if you can um look at that. I should have taken a picture. Every time I go through there, I keep thinking if somebody takes that little turnaround too tight, a a wheels going right down
in that, too. We >> have a status call tomorrow. >> Okay, perfect. So, it's the it's the south turning north right there at H Heartland and 27. It's temporary what they have, but they
need to put that material in so it doesn't have a big gap right there. Okay. Thank you. >> No, >> nothing. >> Nothing. >> Okay, Deborah. >> Yeah. >> I had an idea and everybody get real scared. Um, I had an idea that um, it's
the first part of the year and to give um, Charlotte and the mayor and maybe um, if anybody else want to contribute to this, make a list of our wish list. I'm on the tourist development council. One of the things I'd really like to see is that we go ahead and try to purchase
with the grant some maybe another 40 acres of park before it gets developed. Um, make that a goal. Um, I don't know how everybody else feels, but I'd like to, you know, do a list and maybe everybody could prioritize them,
whatever. We can't do everything at once, but I'd like to kind of have a list from everybody. I I can't talk to you, so I thought that would be a good idea. And if anybody uh in the town has a some
comments as well, um, get them on the list and at least you can have something to work with. Thank you. We have so many things that are half done. I would like to have on each agenda like just like we do anniversaries or coming
meetings or whatever have a rolling list of all the things that are being worked on like the uh uh the fee schedule um whatever and because it's also a pleasure when you can scratch something off
>> and it would just be a reminder of what is what needs to be finished. dead. All right. Anything else from the audience? The only thing I got to say is good night.