Present. >> Mayor El-Ramey. >> Present. >> Vice Mayor Sood. >> Present. >> Council member Stevens. Council member Cain. >> Present. >> Council member Coleman. >> Present.
>> Town Attorney Kurtz. >> Present. >> Acting Town Clerk White. She's present. Uh Community Services Director Gardner-Young. >> Present. >> Public Works Director Lawler. >> Present. >> And I believe Council member Stevens is
now on the line. Please say present. Council member Stevens, can you hear me? >> Yes, can you hear me? >> Yes, sir. Thank you. Okay. Uh we are going to review the agenda for the August 4th, 2026
uh meeting. The first item on the agenda is a presentation from the Palm Beach County Commission on Ethics. Item number two, arts is the uh under consent, the approval of the minutes.
Item number three. We have the Groves Medical Plaza site plan amendment and variance. Karen, do you want to touch on that? >> Yes, thank you. Um thank you, Valerie. The uh applicant actually asked to asked for these items to be uh continued due
to the fact that they're um uh consultant the major consultant will be unavailable. That is discretionary up to the council. Um it's the first time before you and staff really doesn't have any objections to to them being continued. If anybody has any questions, I'm here to answer them.
>> I I I do have a couple of questions. This is Council member Cain. Um the first question that I have you know, personally, I'd rather see that the monument sign on Southern than on one of our lettered roads on F Road. I
know that it's approved for F Road, but I I would personally like to see it moved to Southern and have it on Southern, but my question is with pending lawsuits and people looking for us to be allowing things in town, if we were to allow only allow it to remain
where it is on F Road, does that set up set a precedent for monument signs on lettered roads? >> No, um there's no precedent with respect to any uh any request
um for a variance or um master sign plan because all of those things are arguably unique to the particular property that is um out there since no two properties are exactly alike. Um but it
>> However, someone who, I don't know, perhaps is currently in litigation with us could certainly use it as a saying that they were being treated unfairly cuz they weren't allowed to do it. >> No, I I wouldn't say that. All All applications stand on their own.
>> Okay, and I have another question for this. Years ago, we talked about opening up there's a driveway to the east of this property of the medical building um that would put them have an have them have an entrance and egress out uh where
towards Southern Lawn on that street there. Um is that something that we can look into doing again? I know that it was uh held up because the farmer's daughter lady was difficult to work with and that was the problem, but I'd like to
consider doing that, have council consider that maybe when this comes back to us. >> I I think when Farmers Daughter comes in for uh development, um you'll see that that would be part of the the plan. There's
um connectivity over on uh the John Deere side as well. >> Yeah, that's what that's what I was thinking. Okay, thank you. >> Any other questions? Okay, moving on to item number four. Uh this is Karen again. This is
regarding the construction of a Panda Express within the Groves Town Center. So, um thank you Valerie. So, this is um this is the site that's between the um
Covert's and the Heartland Dental. Um there's actually three petitions that are being uh that are have been presented. For this meeting, we're actually requesting the council to evaluate only one of them. The reason being is that there's one petition,
which is the master plan, that's an ordinance, which requires two readings, while the site plan and the um and the variance only require one. So, but we didn't want you to evaluate the master plan without seeing all the other
documentation that would be forthcoming uh if you decide to uh this to go to second reading. The um master plan request is to allow waivers. Uh and in this instance, it's not that you're approving the actual waiver, because
that information is contained within the site plan when it comes before you, but the question is do you want to even allow the applicant to utilize or to have the ability to utilize the waivers. There are three of them that they are
seeking, um parking, loading zone, and additional interior space. Um I see if you would take a look at them, they're probably all due to the fact of the size of the parcel in which the construction is being proposed. Um with that, I'm willing to answer any
questions or go further into any discussion. >> Okay. And both this item and the last item are quasi-judicial in nature. Um and so I'll be sending you the chapter
120 um or the article 120 uh provisions to remind you as to how we conduct those hearings. Um one of the big things for you all to remember is if you have had meetings
with the applicants or others, you need to disclose that up front. Um and as Karen indicated on on this one, it's not the actual approval of any development rights.
Um and it's only on first reading, but it um they do not have a right necessarily to ask for the waivers um that they're they're requesting. Um they first have to make that request
to you. It's a strange process, but it's a process that uh the town has developed for this. >> Any other questions? Okay. Item number five is a discussion and direction regarding the structure
and delivery of finance department services. Um this has come about um due to express concerns from uh council members, uh committee members, residents, staff, um so staff initiated looking at the finance finance
department. Um, and so we met with a couple of firms, Trimerch Consulting Group, Carr, Riggs and Ingram, and uh Raquel McIntosh. Um, the proposed costs and scopes of services, they vary considerably. Uh,
therefore the monthly rate should be reviewed together with each firm's staffing resources, municipal experience, proposed responsibilities, availability, software knowledge, transition support, and ability to assist the town in developing sustainable internal
financial operations. Um, we are recommending that the council authorize the mayor to execute an agreement with Carr, Riggs and Ingram, and recommend that the council authorize the town manager to issue the required written notice terminating the town's
agreement with Project Point with a 60-days written notice. Um, during that 60-day uh transition period, um uh you know, it will allow for the transition um So, if you guys have any questions, let me know. >> Uh
so, uh uh I I I I do. Anita Cain. Um, so we're switching companies at a higher cost, about a $12,000 a year increase. And I see here also that you want to employ a senior analyst on staff. What's
the cost of that? >> Okay, so for the senior financial analyst, that's already a budgeted position that just was not filled. >> Okay, well, what's the cost of that? That's that's what I would like to >> a $65,000 salary. >> Okay. Thank you. That's what I wanted to
know. So, the cost would be increased by about $75,000 a year. >> say that it's an increase. I would say that it was never um well, the position was never filled. So, the hybrid concept was never um
fulfilled. >> Got it. >> Mhm. >> Uh there's an issue >> Sorry. >> on page 65 uh sections two where the it's still referencing
projected point in the resolution instead of the CRI advisors. >> Jeff, do you have that to make that change? >> Be section two, section and section three, I believe.
>> I mean, well, I have to um >> So, um back to what you your question was. Yeah, so when you look at the contract, it looks like an additional 27,000, but when you really look at um what has transpired over the last fiscal year, uh
so projected point, they do include audit services as part of their contract. However, they were not able to um perform those duties alone. So, therefore, we had to contract Means Government Financial Tutoring. Um I want to say
that we paid them anywhere between 6 to 9,000 dollars, maybe even more than that. Um so, when you look at that, it's kind of a wash in that area with with the audit. So, you're really kind of looking at um an additional cost of about 12,000.
>> Right, that's what I said at first. Okay. >> Okay, I just wanted to be clear for the record. Thank you. >> Yeah, thank you. >> You're welcome. Any other questions? >> I I do see the the need for the correction on the the resolution. >> a no Jeff, so if if you can
>> We'll go over it with Um Cathy, I'm not sure what happened there. >> Um in any event, um if council desires to meet with uh any other consultants individually, we can be a will reach out to each of you to set those meetings up.
Uh item number six, discussion update on negotiations with Coastal Waste and Recycling. Uh one issue that the town is examining is the current practice of allowing more than one can at a residential property for additional assessment unit. To continue that
practice, the town may have to amend its assessment resolution. Um Jeff, I don't know if you want to add to uh what you've written or fully update at the meeting. >> Well, basically there
Um the proposed contract doesn't really um the South the authority's contract doesn't um address that situation and um when I look in the um
resolution and the franchise um ordinance that we have right now, um I don't see that that practice has been codified. Um I'm assuming, but we need in order to make sure the assumption is correct, um
that council wants to continue that practice. Um and uh if so, um we'll discuss it with uh Coastal. And as I indicated, there may be a need for um
some amendments with respect to um our underlying authorization documents. >> I I have a question. Jeff, have you explored I I believe we do have an ordinance that says one can per residential structure.
I believe that's what it says. Um I'm I'm wondering if you've explored that that's just what we allow, one can per residential structure, and that if people want more for, you know, their barn or their whatever, that they contract directly with Coastal for that and take us out as the middleman on
that. >> Well, that's the that's the direction that um uh we'll need from from council as to whether you want to do that and essentially put those folks into a a commercial category. >> Right. I mean, but but do we know that
will Coastal I get the question I guess I'm asking is do we know will Coastal contract with them directly? Yes, for the additional? >> Yeah, I'm sure they'd be happy to treat them as a commercial customer. >> Okay. Thank [laughter] you. >> But yeah.
>> Paul, did you have a question? No, okay. Uh Jeff, do you want to go ahead and segue into the next topic? I believe that's you, discussion of uh recreational vehicle program. >> Um I
With respect to the um recreational vehicle program, um the item I think was originally discussed, I want to say it was at the council's March 17th meeting, and then um the staff brought back uh compilation
of what they understood um was the direction from the March 17th meeting. Um after that, we went to a first reading that was approved by council. Um and and then there was direction to
take it to the advisory committee. The advisory committee was the ULDC. Um and I believe they made some suggested revisions. It was brought forward for second
reading at your July 7th meeting. And at that point in time the council raised some questions and wanted to go to workshop again. You all went to workshop on
July 21st and discussed it. We have reviewed those that workshop and I think the ultimate direction of the council was that you need to further discuss it at on August 4th. Um
and having reviewed the the tape, I think staff concurs that we still need additional direction if you're going to make changes cuz it wasn't clear from your discussion on July 21st.
>> Do we have an answer to the question of how many RVs the ordinance the way it's written right now will allow? Do we have any kind of idea of that, Karen? >> Are we talking the cuz again we have to divide up whether it's the personal RV
or whether it's the rental RV cuz you only have >> I'm talking about rental RVs. I'm sorry. I'm just I don't feel like we have any right to tell people they can or can't have an RV. I'm talking about rental RVs. Do we have any Can we get some numbers on how
many that would potentially allow in the town? >> Absolutely. Following the polls we had that the property has to be homesteaded in a certain number of acres and ag and you know, whatever all those other things. >> Do Council Member Cain, do you want me to do it based upon the proposed
you know, number allowed per RVs or would you like me to do under the existing one or do both? >> I think both would be a great thing for us to have. >> Yeah. I mean I think it's I think it's clear that the proposed would allow less.
>> Yes, it it is. >> So. >> Any other questions? Okay, moving along to item A. Craig, you're on the line. This is discussion regarding the draft North Road paving proposal. >> Yes, so Council, what is presented to
you is what you would ask um for the we had um JW Cheatham come out when they were doing paving, had them give me an estimate on what it would cost per 1,000 ft if the town
employees did the prep work of getting the the side of the roads and all the OGMs exposed for them to come in. This quote does show that they'll come in, they'll mill the top of the the OGM and all the repairs to get it
flat, they'll come put a one layer um the first layer will be a 1-in and then there'll be a 1 and 1/2-in layer under on top of that that'll make it the smoothest that we can. The reason why we went with 1,000 ft cuz that would give the staff enough
time to prep in between each roadway to get it correct and it was to give give us an idea on what we could actually afford for the budget. Cuz obviously this is not a budgeted line. >> [laughter]
>> And I think I think Mr. Lowers memo made it clear that's not a quote that we could rely on and if the council directed to move forward on that project it it would in all likelihood have to go
out to formal formal bid because the it would probably contemplate doing the entirety of the road and there's 10 sections and so it's going to be over $300,000. So
this is to give you a ball ball park as to what the current cost would be so that you you can make some assumptions with respect to budget. >> Yeah, this was just to give us a enough a draft assumption of what we can you
know propose to do it in sections. Without doing a full one you know from one end to the other at a two-mile length. >> Okay, I had a question um >> Go ahead. >> Craig it when we're talking about what's
the total length of North Road? >> I think it's right at two miles from E Road to A Road. >> That that can't be right. >> Or >> Is is it between each lettered road a mile? >> No, if we did if you said each letter
road at a mile you'd be looking at almost five miles. A to B's you were thinking B to C that that way you'd be thinking it's almost two five miles that way. >> Yeah. >> [clears throat] >> So eight >> a half mile between I think. >> About a half mile, okay.
So the you're estimating the total cost would be about 300,000. >> It was a rough estimate. >> Okay, and my math, let's see, a half a mile is around what, 2,500 ft?
>> Yeah, I just measured it. It's right at 2 miles and >> Yeah. >> Right at 2 miles, okay. >> Yeah, it's right at I just measured it on Papa. >> That's over 10,000 ft. >> 2 miles. >> 2 miles, yeah. 5,000 something feet per
mile. So, uh doing it in this 1,000-ft increments then is uh like 550,000. versus >> rough rough rough estimate, but give you a ballpark to estimate what you'd be
dealing with. >> Yeah. No, I'm just I'm just trying to understand spitballing if we if we tried to bite off the whole road um versus just identifying the worst sections.
>> Yes, if we did do the whole thing at one shot, obviously the cost would be cheaper than [clears throat] us doing it in sections because there would be less mobilization. >> I understand. I understand. What How many sections have we identified and how many feet are those sections that are
the worst? >> The worst sections that we've identified is between A to A to B, B to C. And I think there is one section that is in between like D and F. I mean
D and E that would need a good amount of repair for roadway. >> Okay, so basically it's really the distance between A and C that's where >> Yeah, A and C is is our worst section, correct?
>> Okay. Uh and are we stuck with the 1,000 ft or can we just cut out the worst portions and then whatever that length is it is or we this is just to do 1,000 ft at a time? >> No, this if we had, you know, we had
more to prep, you know, when when we go through the whole thing, it would be a larger, you know, if they if we prepped 1,200 ft, obviously we would have to go out to a bid. It would be cheaper for us to go out to
bid than or we can um do a piggyback with another um municipality if there is one out there. We can check on that as well. >> Okay. I guess my question is >> My question is are we looking at 1,000 ft sections or was that just a number
they picked because it >> No, it was a number I picked because it was right at 2,000 ft in between each letter road and that would give us time to prep. At least if we said we did 2,000 ft, we did A to B, we can prep that whole section at one time or if we were only
able to get half of it ready. That was the number I picked cuz it was a halfway between the letter roads. >> Uh I think the the original idea was to cut out the damaged section and just replace the damaged section not as a fixed amount, but I I don't I would
defer to my fellow council members on their recollection on that conversation. >> Yeah, so I originally so when I spoke with Cheatham, they said this would be the cheapest way to go through to it to get it the smoothest way.
>> Got it. >> This would They said this would be the smoothest way to have the uh company come in and to mill it and to put two layers down to get it that road just cuz the condition that road is in. >> Mhm. So >> did tell them that yeah, hey, what about
our option of we rip it all out, we do all the prep work, we do this, this, and that, and their recommendation was this quote of milling it and getting it correct. >> Okay, and then I'm sorry, did you say what the the ballpark of doing the
entire length from E to A would be? >> No, I did not ask them that. >> Okay. >> Because the reason of asking them is cuz it would have to go out to a full formal bid and we would have a bunch of different pricing coming on it. >> Got it. Okay.
Thanks. >> I I had a question. Um I I think I'm on the same page that Lisa is if we're going to do the project to try to get the whole thing done. Um so if you can come get an a number a ballpark number for the whole thing. Um
and then my question I guess to Jeff is can we use the PBSO contingency money and the red speed money um to do this project? >> Um you can use the PBSO money for
anything that um you would like to use it for. The red speed money's um you would have to have a determination that it was a public safety issue. Um and we'd have to take a look at that evaluation
depending on what you were doing with the road. >> So So we could possibly make the case that that road is not safe. It's not it is public safety. I mean technically to get that road safe and travelable. So that would give us about 600
$670,000, right? >> Um Yeah, I'm >> If we were to use those [clears throat] two sources. I'm just throwing it out there as a possibility and making sure it is a possibility before we go into budgeting. That's all. >> And and I'm obviously much more hesitant
about um the use of the red speed money's for that, but we would have to we'd have to take a look >> And it's sounding like what between Lisa and and Lisa's interchange with Craig that perhaps that's a good number. I mean or
a close number. Correct? >> Yeah. >> Okay. Steve Highway Key Largo. >> I think and Craig's much better but I in in my discussions with Craig the the the issue with
doing it do doing it all at once would be getting the prep of the road done. I had thought that that if you did the entire section my recollection was that there was probably about a year's worth of prep. Um
by by the staff. But I defer to to Craig on that but I just wanted to make you aware of that that issue. >> Yeah, so this quote revolves around you know, as council asked before for you know, if we're going to go turn key
this proposal is not a a full turn key with drainage or anything like that like we're doing on A road. This proposal is just to put pavement down to make it smooth and drivable more bearable for residents.
Um so I Jeff is speaking of that would be if we had to do the prep work we had to do the you know, full drainage and everything like we're doing as of A road right now. Are we there? >> Yeah, I I I >> Oh, sorry. >> I I I I mean I that's what we've always
said we wanted is the drainage before putting any more pavement down. So I would assume we're going to stick with that. >> It as you guys direct that's what we'll do. >> I I mean it would be we would have to reach out to all the residents to get easements and
everything as well as we did A road and that's you know, it would be time-consuming to reach out to get easements from the residents. >> I I'm I think that's a maybe a false assumption. That has been the past mentality of easements and
stuff, but I think what would be more helpful in the short run cuz I know the B to C section is pretty eroded and has degraded pretty badly. I mean you got them throwing millings and stuff and patching there. Maybe if you could have at the meeting
when we discuss this item like how large is that section between B and C and how large is the section? I think the one between A and B is a little smaller. Um so maybe we could at least identify like
the worst of the worst. I don't know. >> Yeah, I mean we can measure out those sections. That's I mean that's easy. I can measure them out before the meeting and I can give you the exact footage on it if you'd like. >> Okay. >> And can you also include some idea of how long it would take you to prep each
of those sections in that, not just the cost of doing the surface, but the prep the prep work, the drainage work. Just a rough estimate, you know. >> Yes, ma'am. Are you and insisting that we we're doing the same
thing as A, we're putting like a 10-ft swale in or we're just going to um get a 10-ft by 10-ft easement from a resident so we can put a catch basin on the edge of road just to get the water drainage off? >> I'm not insisting on anything. That's
not my That's not my I'm just saying that in the past we have said that we don't want to put surfaces down anymore without putting some kind of drainage in because we know that that just is throwing good money after bad because they just erode away. And so, I
want some idea of what doing some kind of drainage that's going to keep the road from eroding away when we when we put the surface down. When we make this kind of an investment. >> No problem. We'll We'll have to put something together. So, we're going to say we're going to do a a full drainage
then. >> Whatever drainage is required. I I'm I'm not an engineer and I'm certainly not a roads person. Whatever drainage is required to make the road last more than 3 years. >> No problem. >> Isn't there a uh
standard design, quote unquote, that was established a couple years ago? Greg? >> There was a standard design that was established for catch basins a um years ago that was done by Keshavar. Um that's just for the catch basins.
There was no actual considered standard design for swales on the roadways. What we did with A road was as much as we could get the easements from the actual residents that were as consistent that we were able to make it meet men's for the town
and how we can actually get drainage off proper drainage with the roadway. >> Oh, I I thought since that drainage basin came I thought about 3 years ago there was a a a standard road design that was designed or it was said to get designed
or something. There was talk of it, I thought. >> There was There was talk of a DOT standards. We don't meet DOT standards. >> Well, no. Not Not talk of DOT standards. I said that I thought there was a talk of I believe it was
uh Richard was supposed to be dealing with catch for somebody and coming up with a standard road design period that would overlay on every road and that's what we would have, you know, aspire to become. You know.
>> I can reach out to Randy um cuz Richard worked directly with Randy on the majority of everything he did and I can give it to Randy and we can go back and forth and see if he had worked on anything with Richard or to that extent. >> Right, cuz you can put as many catch basins as you want if you're not flowing
water that way and we don't have the ability to flow water that way it really doesn't really do much, right? >> Correct. >> Thanks. >> That's one of the issues that we have on A North. There's catch basins all the way down A North, but there was no actual proper swale worked to move the
water from one edge of road to the catch basin itself. >> Right. And you wouldn't want to catch basin before you swaled, right? You want to do it kind of in conjunction or do swales first and then catch basin? >> Uh it's kind of in together cuz you have to put the catch basin at the height that
you the low enough height that you can get enough pitch in the roadway. >> Okay. Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> Okay, item number nine, zoning map and land use map conflict. I think you were going to touch on this, Jeff.
>> Um yeah, this is uh the existence of conflicts between the zoning map and the the land use um map um and we propose to make the zoning map um
consistent with the land use plan map. Um and uh we're seeking direction on uh whether or not you want to limit that um to the RE or get them all done in one
rezoning of the town. So. >> Any questions? All right, item number 10, line of sight. Karen. >> Yeah, thank you. This is a matter that the council brought up earlier this year
and asked that we take it to the ULDC for them to review and provide recommendations. That has been accomplished and staff is bringing forward the recommendation from the ULDC
for the council to decide you know whether you want us to proceed with enforcement of the line of sight as it is today, whether you like the language that's presented by the ULDC and whether we proceed with adoption. I we had actual language with diagrams
to provide more clarity I think which was a request of the council and and we're just looking for direction on where we should go with this. I'm here to answer any questions. >> Does the line of sight apply to
all entrances? Like I know some people have like unused entrances, you know, that they gates on the back of their property that they don't use. And often times when you look at where the those are placed they're they're you know, like right next to a neighbor's
property. So I guess my concern is does enforcing the line of sight put a undue burden on the neighbors, right? Cuz if your prop if your gate is let's say, you know, at the far west boundary like if my if I had one that was at the far west
boundary of my property and my neighbor had something that blocked that line of sight then my neighbor would then be burdened with clearing their property to permit my line of sight. So, I'm wondering how we would handle those kind
of situations cuz I think there are more of those than than not in town. >> So, let me just make sure I understand. So, uh your concern is if the
driveway or access on one person's property is so close to the neighbor that the neighbor could be impacted, that is the type of situation you would like the council to look at and to determine whether you want to proceed with enforcement or not. >> Correct.
>> Perfect. Okay. I don't think that UDC discussed that, but I'll take a look and review the minutes again uh just to see whether it was discussed at all. >> Thank you. >> Yeah, and and that's that's probably a leftover problem cuz I think there are
typically for for any kind of uh driveway permit, um there is a requirement that you be so far from a neighboring property. Um >> Right. Most of the ones I'm talking about, Jeff, that that I'm aware of are
like people's second entrance, if you know what I mean. But, if they're going to be enforced as a line of sight, then >> Yeah, but even even for >> would place an undue burden. That's all. I'm I just want to make sure we're not we're not placing an undue burden on
neighbors. So, yeah. >> E- even for a um a second entrance, um there there's typically um a requirement that you not put it right up against the the property line, but
um there may be non-conforming situations in the town. >> [laughter] >> Yeah, oh yeah, there are. >> Yes, there are. >> So, so do we do do we define in this uh venture do we define cuz I think one of the things we talked about was defining where the measurement is taken from
taken from, whether it's center of the road, property line, etc., buildable line. Yada yada yada. Did we define that? Because there's some there's some instances that it's very vague, right? >> Uh we did, Paul. The suggestion from the ULDC was basically a 10-ft offset from
the edge of road. >> Yeah, but the edge of Okay. Well, we can have that debate that at the meeting. That's fine. All right. Thank you. >> I I I and I think what they mean by edge of road, Paul, is the the um the actual drive area, not you know, the
the argument that people say, "Well, my property extends out and and all those kind of things." >> no, edge of road is edge of road. No, there's no Yeah, that's that there shouldn't be any kind of debate about that. It's the edge of the road. The the question that was posed before when this when we started
putting up um you know, warning notices, as it were, you know, was, "Well, where does this Where does this start? My property goes to the middle of the canal. My property goes to the you know, so is it from the property line? Is it from Of course, it's in the middle of the canal, it's not from the property line. But those
things have to be set you know, dictated in here. It has to be if if your property goes to the to the middle of the canal, then there's so much easement for the So, you know, does it come off the easement line that's there? Does it come off the edge, you know, exactly you know, that's kind of where I was going
with that. So, sounds like we defined it and we can >> Mhm. >> get deeper later. >> Right. >> Yeah. >> Okay, moving on to item number 11, funding direction for the Loxahatchee Grove Stormwater System Rehabilitation Phase III project. The town was awarded
$375,000 in state funding, uh which requires a 50% local match in the same amount of 375. Uh at this time, we have met with uh
FDEP. Staff will be working to submit the request for agreement initiation. That takes approximately uh 2 months uh to go through their review cycle and then presented to us for our review
and final execution. Uh at this time, what we want to do is have a discussion with council in terms of funding direction. Uh the finance director recommended that the council approve the designation and carry forward of 375,000
from the fiscal year 25-26 contingency uh PBSO surplus to satisfy the required local match. >> Well, there goes North Red. Any questions? Can you remind me which specific project this is, the phase three? What What exactly what we're What we're doing with
this 750? Uh Craig, maybe I guess is the right person. >> Um it's to include improvements to the canal junctions, pump stations, control structures, public culvert crossings, swales, catch basins. >> It's pretty open-ended as to drainage.
>> Okay, thank you. So, we we haven't We haven't specifically said what we're going to do with it. It's just >> No, that's a discussion that we'll need to have. >> Okay, thank you. >> You're welcome. Item number 12. >> Sorry, Val. Quick question. So, is this implementation of those those projects
or is this uh another like planning environment? Or is it implementation or whatever we need to do to implement? So, we have to use some planning, we can use this for planning. If we have to do some of this, we can do it, you know. Or is it really specified?
>> This is This is building stuff or making improvements to stuff. >> Okay, but I guess my my point is is if we go and we find out that, you know, or we decide we want to do all the weir locks, we want to do three weir locks, or whatever the case may be, right?
It can cover It can cover total implementation from design to installation, right? >> Yes, it would It would include engineering, design, and everything. >> Thank you, Craig. Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> Thank you. Uh item number 12, direction
regarding the town manager recruitment and the interim management services. So, based on the council's decision on July 21, uh there will be a uh vacancy, and you will
need to fill the town manager position. Uh per your charter, there's a requirement that the council shall begin the process to fill a vacancy in a charter office within 90 days after the vacancy. Um the recruitment process typically
takes 60 to 90 days. Uh council needs to start thinking and determining um how you want to move forward in that process. Uh do you want town staff to conduct it? Do you want to hire an executive recruitment firm? Uh determine
what qualifications, experience, salary, uh different, you know, the terms for the employment. Um what the screening process looks like and the format that the council would like in terms of the interviews and final selection.
Uh typically, applications are expected >> Uh >> Did someone say something? >> I'm sorry, I accidentally hit the unmute button. My fault, sorry. >> Oh, okay. Uh Uh >> Speaking of my daughter. >> Applications are accepted for at least 30 days, and so it is unlikely that a
permanent manager will be selected and available to begin employment before the current acting town manager agreement expires, which is September 30th. Uh so, the council may want to consider
um negotiating a new contract uh with the current acting manager, appoint another qualified individual as interim town manager, or retain an individual consultant or firm to provide internet interim management services.
Um we're bringing this to you now um because any interim agreement should be presented to council at your regular meeting on September 8th to avoid a lapse in executive management authority. Any questions?
>> Just to uh that point of emphasis in there, the current agreement with um Ms. Oaks is uh expires on September 30th. >> But we have 90 days to begin the process of replacement, correct?
>> Yes, but as of October 1st, you're going to need to have somebody um you don't have an acting town manager. >> No, I I get that. I get that. I I I I get that. >> I I get that. >> is. You don't You don't have to make the final selection, but but you do have to
to figure out what you're doing on October 1st. >> Right. So, so we we we don't have to make a determination on it. We just needed to determine whether by the 8th whether what what course of action we want to take, right? So. All right. Thanks.
>> Well, I think what you want to do is at your next meeting determine what course of action that you want to take so that way we have a month to bring something back to you. >> No, [clears throat] it's M4. I was just
I was just >> Okay, I just wanted to make sure that we're clear about the dates because they go by very quickly. >> Yeah, I didn't want to have to get a big debate about it right now or whatever discussions. So, yeah, thank you. I just want to clarity. Thanks. >> Valerie or Jeff or both of you, I don't
know who to ask this of. Would it be to say that before we go out to an RFP, let's say for a town manager um that um
that we need to make decisions about what salary we're offering, what benefits we're offering and all that thing and this is as per the lovely chart that you gave us, Valerie. I love charts. Thank you. Um and that that those might that might be a good
starting point. >> Usu- Usually [clears throat] usually you do that. Um there are I have seen some jurisdictions um that kind of leave those questions open-ended.
Um uh but I think it's usually advantageous to to give somebody an idea as to what they might be making. But all those things are generally negotiable. >> All right. Well, we only want people to
respond who are willing to accept what what we're offering and that we don't want to waste everybody's time. So, okay, I got it. Thank you. That's what I was suggesting. Thank you. >> Any other questions? Okay. Item number 13, continue discussion
regarding the town attorney's contract. There was discussion at your July 7th meeting and then you guys had continued discussion more so about the legal model at your workshop on July 21st. As I understand it, um council members
have had the opportunity to meet with Mr. Kurtz, our current attorney, um and two additional law firms uh from Neeson Yeager and also from TG Law. So, um council >> I have not yet had the opportunity to
meet meet with Neeson Yeager. >> Did Kent not reach out to you to send to make an appointment or >> My first one was never started. My second appointment yesterday was canceled, and it's now rescheduled again for tomorrow. So, I have not yet met with them. I'm
just for the record, I just want to make sure that's >> Yeah, and to my fault, I did not get in touch with Mr. Kurtz last week, so that was my bad. So, still got to talk to Jeff. >> There are There are meetings that are
are are pending with um several council members. >> Okay. Um anyways, so you guys will have that discussion and provide direction to staff as it relates to the attorney's contract and how we're moving forward with that. Um
all right, item number See, what do we have? Item number 14. Uh update on her homes. Jeff, I believe you were going to go into more detail about that at our meeting. What at our regular meeting? >> I thought that was going to be as a part
of the the report. Um >> It is. >> But >> It says 14 under >> All right. >> your name. >> okay. I'm sorry. I I'm I'm I'm a Oh, I see. Item 15. I was on item 15. Yeah. Yeah, well, with respect to
um to her homes, there has been a cessation of work on on their part. And staff are evaluating alternative
means of accomplishing the various tasks and we continue to reach out to her homes to see if we can resolve some outstanding issues. It's a fluid situation and uh
we will update you in more detail at the at the meeting and as we get further information. >> Okay, thanks. Item number 15, the mayor
has a recap of a meeting that was held with Palm Beach County Mayor Baxter. Did you want to touch on that now or provide your full report at the meeting, Mayor? >> I can go over it when we're going over our closing comments.
>> Okay. And then the only thing that is not on here that I will bring up during my report is that I have met with LinkedIn Associates, our grant writers. We are initiating the process.
So step one is to conduct need assessment interviews. So Kanthi will be reaching out to each of you to set up one-on-one meetings with um Heather to talk about um you know
what you see are the needs of the town and then all of that information will be compiled along with the department heads um input and then from there we will be working with her to prepare the grant strategic plan and
that will be presented to council. Um Um, just a reminder their contract does end September 30th, so in the next 2 months we'll be working um, on the on on putting this information together and then um, going through that list and and and
starting to apply for grants. Um, additionally I'll be asking for consensus uh, to present the audit um, and also have a discussion on nuisance abatement at the
council's workshop meeting on August 18th um, and perhaps um, you know, doing a special meeting prior uh, starting at 5:30 so I'll be making that uh, request at the meeting as well. Um, any questions before we end the meeting?
All right, everyone have a good night. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> you so much. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.