Well, yeah, cuz you know the people with that one be purposely blocked. >> Did you get any other support besides Wellington? >> And that's not a bad idea. Let's do >> I say let's get back to that.
>> Did you talk to cities now? >> Something happened. They should have >> like he said they could have somebody. >> Yeah. Somebody was just not thinking about the way the math work.
>> They were lined up as locks hatch. Yeah. >> Almost road right? And there was nobody direct like there's no traffic diversion at that. So yeah, Chief Kennedy is here. So that that that means when they get down here and they
get bottlenecks and stuff the other night when they have that accidentally >> they were flying down >> he's as cool as her he was starting his career >> when her brace put the districts
together. He was in Montana then. Yeah. >> Hey, do we have um turn around? >> Do we have Ron Book's team on? >> Okay. >> Evening everyone. The December 2nd. I
almost said 10. December town council meeting for Los Angeles Grove will now come to order. You can all stand for the pledge of allegiance, please. allegian to the flag of the United States of America to the republic which
stands one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all. And if we could just have a moment of silence. A roll call. >> Council member Coleman >> present.
>> Council member El Ramy >> here. >> Council member McClendon >> here. >> Vice Mayor Herszog >> here. >> Mayor Kaine present. Town Manager Raalia here. Town attorney Curts >> here. >> Community standards director Karen Gardner Young >> here. >> Public works superintendent Lowour
>> here. >> Okay. Before we start the meeting, we [clears throat] had a matter that received a great amount of attention in the town recently um and caused some unhappy comments and unhappy allegations. So, I wanted to just read
into the record the last three paragraphs of a letter received November 21st from the office of the state attorney. In conclusion, Ramalia did her due diligence in requesting legal guidance regarding code enforcement reduction issues in her 82323
email to town attorneys Jennifer Huniki and Jeff Kurts. This was necessary due to the town's lack of an ordinance. Huniki responded by advising Ramalia that attached to her email is a draft of the requested policy providing the town manager with procedures for evaluating code enforcement lean reduction
requests. The criteria included in the lean reduction policy is based on the criteria set forth in Florida statute 162.09 which are used to guide special magistrates when they are determining how much a fine should be. Raalia then forwarded this information to the
Lockxahhatche Groves town attorney for review during the Shore versus town of Lockxahhatche Groves compliance case number two 2018 577 hearing that took place on 2524. The hearing magistrate AMD Barnard
specifically states on the record what guided her in her ruling. Nothing indicates that Ramalia's testimony directly influenced her ruling. Bernard during the hearing stated that she based her ruling on the town's moratorum. the town's changing code enforcement officers, the town's changing code
enforcement staff, the delay caused by the CO 19 virus, and the fact that Shore was not granted his April 2019 status check hearing by the town. Regarding the allegation that Ramali remained silent during the council meetings of 7125 and
8525, when the code enforcement lean reduction policy was discussed, she was neither under oath nor did she speak about the issue. Therefore, there can be no false statement under oath. Based on the above information, not only did Ramalia's actions lack clear criminal
intent, it does not appear that any false statements were made. This inquiry is closed. So, we've been stating all along, well, most of us have been stating all along that this was an inquiry, not a criminal investigation.
So, I hope this puts this matter to rest for those who were concerned about it. Okay. Can I have a motion to approve the agenda? >> So moved. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Okay.
Any additions, deletions, or modifications? Staff. Okie dokie. Then our first presentation by the Palm Beach County Fire Rescue. Good evening. >> Good evening. >> Amanda Bomero, district chief with Palm
Beach County Fire Rescue. And I will start out. It's not on. >> It is. It is. >> Hello. I have to really love the mic. >> Okay. Sorry. [laughter] >> Will it love me back? >> Say it. Well, [laughter] >> um, thank you for allowing us the opportunity to come in to speak with you
tonight. Um there's been a lot of uh conversation in Hubbub around this proposed local house bill that um we have been working on uh in regards to future annexation and um there's a lot of misconception out there. So we appreciate the ability and the
opportunity you allow us to come and explain to you what the bill is really about um and then answer any questions that you may have in regard to the bill. The reason this bill was created was to give us some sort of um protection, if you will, because right now we are
unprotected from annexation. And if other municipalities want to annex, uh for example, we have about 16 fire stations that are up and running and have been for many, many years um that
are in potential annex annexation areas. And so what happens to the fire station, to the personnel that's running it, to all the equipment. Um, recently there was an incident. We planned station 40. It was many, many years in the planning. It was of, at the time, I believe a $10
million station, million-dollar fire truck, $500,000 rescue truck. And the days we open the day that we opened doors to service that area, um, Boon proposed an annexation plan. and they just kind of cherrypicked the area and
left us seven trailer parks which we're happy to serve whomever needs our our assistance and our help. However, there's a very low tax base usually in a very high call volume um and in in trailer in mobile home communities. So,
um that's an example of what could happen. Um, it's also very difficult for future planning because another example, station 52, it needs renovations, it needs updating, needs remodeling, it needs to expand desperately. However, it
is in an area that Bokeh could potentially annex. So, for us to spend millions of dollars to try to keep up with the growth, not knowing whether or not we potentially could lose that service area, it um it doesn't allow us
the ability to plan. And that's just two examples. There's examples. We got it in the north end with gardens. And um you know it it's really throughout the county. And so we're really just looking for a way to protect ourselves, protect
the service delivery model that has been um 40 years in the making. Uh when station 21, who predominantly serves Lockxhatche Groves, if they're at training, if they're out on another call, you are never without coverage. another station, another unit moves up,
covers the area, and they are trained to the same level as the firefighters that you know and love at station 21. So across the board, it's about a system of offering uh the same level of service, the same level of care, the same number
of people on the trucks coming to your emergencies, and having that ability to protect and keep that coverage if that station or unit is out on another call somewhere else. And so the other part is when you're in an MSTU, when you're
paying into the MSTU, which you are, um it doesn't necessarily affect you at all right now. Um, but in the future, if our area continues to get eaten up, that cost has to shift somewhere. Um, I mean, we would hate to have to lay off
firefighters. Um, and, you know, would hate to have to close fire stations. Um, but I don't know financially how we would continue to deliver the same level of service without that tax base. So, that's that's why this bill was created.
And we've heard a lot about um home rule, but the reality of it is is it doesn't say that you cannot annex. It doesn't say we're not proposing at all that a a municipality can't continue to grow its borders. All it does is allow us a conversation on the back end of
after you annex, what does that look like for us? and then the city council and the county board of county commissioners would have to come to an agreement of who they felt would be the best service delivery for that area when it comes to fire rescue services. So
without further ado, I'd like to introduce Chief Pat Kennedy and then we'll both be available for questions. >> Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council, just um thank you and staff for the opportunity to serve you. We have been serving Palm
Beach County like Chief Romero said for 41 years now. So since 1984 the rollup was 10 districts and that makes up who we are with 51 fire stations. Now it really comes down to planning and as you can see throughout our county there's growth. There's a demand for growth
everywhere. There's there's planning that needs to be done to keep up with the population that's coming here. And this is what we're trying to do is preserve a system that's been in place that serves you that serves the community which we love to do. So I am here for any questions. I always say to myself, I don't want to follow Chief
Romero, but I keep giving her that opportunity. So that's on me. But I do want to say thank you for the opportunity to serve you. >> Any questions? Anybody? >> Okay, go ahead. >> So it says here that there may be some
fiscal impacts for this. Is is that something that's anticipated in this current form? fiscal impacts in the sense of if we have to shrink our footprint and and just to be frank that Palm Beach County is the backs stop if there is something that goes on in this county we've had
multiple you know situations where we've had different things going on throughout the county and even to our north and and St. Lucy, and because of your system being as robust as it is, we're able to cover all those areas. As we start to shrink, like Chief Romero said, there would be an offset of those costs if
we're closing fire stations or having to reduce our work staff. And I believe that's without looking at the language. I believe that's what that refers to. >> Okay. So there there's no understood fiscal impact at this point because we don't know what the future holds
regarding cutbacks or closures or >> we know that there's 16 stations sitting in the annexation plan. We do know that uh with that being said we we have a lot of planning that we need to put in place with new stations. And the two examples
that Chief Romero gave couldn't be more clear for me is from the fire chief standpoint, it's I hold my breath. Do I build that fire station out? Do I know if they're going to annex or not? Often we find out in the newspapers that there's an annexation study going on and
that's how we find out about the annexation that it's pushing towards that direction. So for us, we're really trying to preserve what we already have in place and how we can continue to serve the citizens that we serve. So the thing that you're proposing would that
>> Yeah. How spec how specifically is this I guess what Lisa Sorry for interrupting but I think I I think what she's asking is for you to clarify how specifically is this bill going to help you in that process of planning and being more proactive? What's what stop gaps is is
it putting into place that will allow you >> Sure. So I think Chief said it um that at the end of the day you're able to annex. Okay. So, the annexation can still occur, but what it does do is it allows Palm Beach County to still
collect that MSTU uh collection rate, whatever that was, back from the city. So, whoever annexes, if it was a revenue loss of $2 million, we're still able to collect that from the city if that occurs. >> So, the impacts don't get spread on the
smaller um remaining remaining uh still in Palm Beach County. It just offers us to continue to to uh collect that revenue. So >> it actually you've got a good point. The impacts would be spread on people like us in the smaller municipalities because it gets paired down and it's
still the same amount of money. >> And and Francine, maybe you can answer the question. It was posed during the budgeting. Sorry. Um that we're being taxed differently um as our property taxes for the fire department versus some of the other municipalities. Are we already in a
similar MSTU type um taxation? >> The reason that fire rescue is here tonight is that we are part of the MSTU. We've been part of the MSTU since before we incorporated um and we stayed in the MSTU keeping the same level of service
when we incorporated which is actually what keeps the MSTU costs and services as low and high as they are respectively. The reason that this bill is being proposed is because the fire
rescue MST has kept their millillage the same for 17 years. That means all of unincorporated Palm Beach County and I believe the 17 or 18 cities that the fire rescue MSTU serves, they have not had a change in their taxes for 17
years. That's because they spread that cost over us and everybody else that's in the MSTU. If let's say Palm Beach Gardens, and I picked them only because they do a lot of annexation, but let's say Palm Beach Gardens continues their
annexations, that means less and less uninorporated. Palm Beach County is in the fire rescue MSTU. They don't reduce their staff. They have to reallocate to provide services. So
this bill basically asks for annexations to be revenue neutral to the fire rescue MSTU. That means it keeps our residents taxes at the same kind of rates or lower than they would be otherwise versus if this
bill passes and other cities get to make land grabs and take the money out of the MST. So >> this memorializes the current tax structure basically that that you're collecting from. That's correct. And it protects it. Yes, ma'am. >> Thank you. Well, that was a lot better than I said as if that [laughter]
>> but I gave you a lot of detail and >> and knowing that you were on the advisory board long before us uh being administration, I think you understand it very well. Thank you. >> I am old. >> And typically when these other municipalities, there's like five, right, that have
their own department, right? So typically when they go to annex, they don't go to annex everything. they go to annex the higher >> correct >> tax base they that's like you said in the case of Boon they kind of went around you know and so yeah so it's not
apples and apples it's not like they're saying okay we're going to take this whole area and we're going to take your station and buy it from you you know yeah you know so it yeah I can see how that's a >> yeah that is correct >> so what you're here tonight is to ask us to to sign a letter of support correct
is that correct okay so is anybody willing Is there anybody willing to make a motion to for a letter? >> I make a motion to sign to publish a letter in support of >> There's a resolution on the consent agenda. It's number 202588.
>> Okay. All right. So, can we pull it and approve it now because we want to or can we or do we have to wait till we get to it with that? >> Be your choice. >> Well, hold on. If you pull it, then it's supposed to go to the end of the end of the choice. approve it now. We can pull it in.
>> Yeah, that's our choice. >> Is everybody okay with pulling it and approving it now? Anybody have >> I make a motion to approve that resolution to vote on it now. >> Okay. With their presentation and we have a second. All in favor? I oppose. Passes five to zero. Thank you very much for being here.
>> Thank you for continuing support. >> Thanks, Steve. >> We got one piece of business done, guys. Okay, >> that was a fail swoop pull and approved. Right, we don't have to make another motion. Correct. Jeffrey, >> just got >> you got approved. >> Pulled positively from consent. Okay, we're on the next one.
>> We're on number two. Item number two, which is Ron Book. Is he on the or Ra or someone? >> Hi everybody. >> There's a lot of things that just happened this week that we need to talk about. >> Yes, ma'am. Let me get Ron on as well. Give me one minute.
>> Okay. We >> should give you double screens. >> You get rid of the screen for me because I never >> Yeah, we've had some bad things happen. >> Distracts me. >> I wish that would do the MSU. That would make >> I I I purposely didn't bring it up
during there because this is their time. Yeah, that would that would solve >> by thing. >> Nobody has problems paying. It's just the double. >> Yeah, >> I think that's a big misconception that
goes around >> um is that you know this whole talk of defund and this and that. It's not that we have a problem pay. It's it's the amount and the double the double billing and that's the issue. You can keep that down.
>> Z. >> Well, last time he was he had to pull over. Remember he was driving last time when we caught him? Yeah. >> There's R. >> Hello. >> Hi everybody. I also have Casey Denny here with me from the Pitman Law Group.
>> Hi Casey. Hi everyone. [laughter] >> Ron, you're not driving this time. >> No, I'm not. I'm stationary for a change. >> You know the deal with driving. If you're driving and doing a zoom, you can be assured that a moving target is much harder to hit.
[laughter] And there are a lot of people that would like to hit me in multiple ways and with multiple vehicles. So, you know, be safe. So I I I don't know where you all would like to begin. So before I just lunge
in, um do you want to uh set a framework for what you'd like me to cover? >> We provided um a um outline of the hot topics that were hot when we sent the agenda out a week ago. Since then, RA
has been um you know, throwing a few things over the wall, if you will. I have to believe that um the rural renaissance and the adorum taxes and the yimi are probably the three that we need to start with and go from there and
maybe end with the um fireworks. >> What about the one? What about are you talking about that one? The development one. >> I am. >> Okay. I am. So, let me let me start with the let mad manager, mayor, council members, let me let me start with the
hottest topic first. And the hottest topic for you, the hottest topic for 600 plus municipalities in 67 counties is all about what are they doing on Adalora. I think things are at least beginning
as we're six weeks away, give or take seven, from the opening day, which is, you know, is January 13th. I think that the House is beginning to move towards a place where I think they recognize if
you put three, four, five, six constitutional amendments on the ballot, all you do is divide the public and it is a recipe for them to fail. Now, you and I want them to fail because we don't want adorum to be cut, at least not by
them. You want to cut it on your own. And from a home rule standpoint, that's your decision. I believe that before we're done, there'll be one amendment on the ballot. I believe that amendment will reduce, let me rephrase it, I
believe that amendment will increase the homestead exemption. Obviously thus reducing your revenue, but a far better option if you will than a repeal of all adorum and no if you
will opportunity to replace that revenue and whether that's revenue for first responders or not. It's great to say we're going to hold police and fire harmless. It's another thing to find a way in a constitutional amendment to
embed more than one issue under the long rolling rules of constitutional amendments um and not end up being invalidated at some point in time. I think that's where they're moving. I can't really give you
a bunch more than that because there's not a bunch more than that out there. Are there still 8 n 10 proposals floating around? there are, but it still takes that 3/4s majority to put it on the ballot. U that's a lot of votes.
That's a lot of coraling of people uh many of whom come from a local government perspective and expect that they'll reach that threshold if they try to do too much. So that's where I think the adorum issue is. I think on the
issue of um I think your second issue was rural renaissance. Let me just flip to RA for just a second and then I'll chime in. >> Um I think that well the Senate President's bill has been uh issued. Um
I don't know that it's been it's not been agended yet. I think that that's his highest priority, the Senate President this session. Um but things are moving extremely slow. I think the property tax issue is sucking all the air out of the room. Um there's [clears throat] another bill that's been
filed 686 that deals with agricultural enclaves. Um you guys have seen the bill that uh is not part of the aggural renaissance legislative issue package that the Senate president is promoting.
That's a separate issue and um I haven't seen a a house bill yet and I I do not know that that's going to move very far, but we'll keep an eye on that as well. Uh I think the most important thing to to tell you is that that specifically is not part necessarily of the rural
renaissance package. So um uh but that's that's top on our list to to keep on uh monitoring. You're you're muted. [clears throat] >> What was your third issue? Well, I think before we leave the rural
renaissance and the rural enclaves, um RA and I have talked about opportunities to go back and revisit the rural designation as part of perhaps legislation. So maybe we should talk about that because if you look at our
tax rule, we meet what the state meant to protect by rural enclaves and so on and so forth. Ron. >> Well, the we've been constant contact with the department of commerce on the uh on the designation and again that is
for um that is for a city or a community that is fiscally restrained in a sense that you can [clears throat] apply for grants. This is just for the public knowledge. you can apply for grants uh to upgrade your um drainage ditches and
all of the different things around the city around the town um without having to put up city money to match that grant, those type of things. Um that's the benefit of of applying for that um designation. And so uh we're working with the Department of Commerce to to um
get to a point where they're going to approve that again. Um that's that's where they are on that. And the other thing I think Ron I wanted you to touch on is Senate Bill 180 lawsuit if you don't if you don't mind.
>> I don't mind at all. So on 180 um we have as I think the manager knows we've strongly discouraged municipal clients from intervening in the 180 lawsuit. If
Naples, Port St. Joe, I don't care what other government does whatever they want to do in suing. Here's what I'm sure of. I am sure that any local government that has intervened
in that lawsuit will come away from the legislative session with no money in the budget. And I've had several local municipalities that have been on the verge of intervening and decided to let the others fight the battle on their
own. I believe that that what the legislature is going to do in the first weeks of the session is pass a bill to put them in a more defensible place to defend the lawsuit. I think their lawyers for the
state have determined the vulnerabilities of the bill, the infirmities of the law rather, and they are going to do a glitch bill to fix them. I have spoken to folks at the highest levels of the legislature
and what I'm saying to you is real and there's just no reason for us to fight battles that we can't win in the end and in fact will punish us. Um, I am
certain that they are going to pass a glitch bill and I am certain they're going to fix the infirmities of that statute and I am convinced that they will not appropriate a nipple for any municipality that has intervened. And I,
you know, and I don't know where we are, madam manager, city attorney, council, mayor, in in considering that, but I I I can't be more honest about it, and you
pay me to give you advice and counsel. Uh, you are my bosses. We follow your edict, contrary to an email I read from someone from the community today. Let me be clear to anybody that hears this meeting. We take
our lead from the city. We speak for this city. That's what we are supposed to do. And I read an email, mayor, commissioners, madame manager. I read a copy of an email today where somebody was chastising the the the the
the village for uh having others speak on your behalf. When you hire a lawyer to file a lawsuit, when you hire a lawyer to defend a lawsuit, they speak for your community. They run the strategy, but yet they take their
direction from you as the client. As a lawyer, I pride myself in ethical behavior. I pride myself in aggressive representation on behalf of you and your taxpayers. And I would never compromise that. But I
would never substitute what I think is best for what you tell me is what is right for the village. And so on that note, I I would simply say to you that I would stay away from 180. I would
avoid criticizing the process. I think everybody understands that 180 has taken away a ton of home rule powers. I think everybody understands that Locks Hatche Groves resisted that legislation,
but it's law and until somebody repeals it or adjusts it, it is what it is. And maybe those local governments that are suing under constitutional grounds will prevail.
God bless them. I hope so. But they don't need to do it with your nickel. and they don't need to do it at your expense. So, Francina, mayor, council, I hope that that helps answer and clarify those questions. >> Excuse me, Ron and Ron. Councilman
Coleman had a question. >> Yes, sir. >> No, you touched it. Thank you, Ron. >> He says, "You got it, Ron, as you usually do." >> We have We have another item on our consent agenda that is relative to this
presentation, and annually we have a practice to designate the mayor um to speak on the town's behalf in Tallahassee. Now, our attorney has reviewed this each year. It does not have to be renewed, but we bring it
forward to let it be renewed. So, everybody that is on the current sitting council has a chance, you know, to um vote yes on the mayor being the voice of the town. It's consistent with the
charter. And the reason we do it mostly is because the same person can't be in the same place at one time. And we had asked for Ron and Ra to speak on this because it's worked very well for us in Tallahassee for the last three years.
I I don't see why anyone makes change for the sake of change. that old cliche, if it ain't broke, don't fix it, uh, it works. And and I would say to you that if the
majority decides to make a change in that policy, that's the prerogative of a majority of that of your council. But I would say to you that I have very I I don't believe in the 28 29 local governments we are involved
with. I don't believe any government has anybody other than their mayor speak with that one voice. It doesn't mean that each of you can't go testify on bills one way or the
other. But as a voice for your town, a voice for your village, a voice for your community needs to be from the person that the government in Tallahassee perceives as the leader. And look, there are places uh Francine where city
managers engage. Um in our case, that has not been the way it's been. And so I again I don't know why we made change for the sake of change. I think the system has worked very well and I
don't believe that that has happened with any exceptions. >> Okay. I think Paul now has a question. >> So I mean yeah that I my thing I didn't realize I don't think I realized in the past that we had they just year after year we passed this or you know the
because it states right in the charter that you're the spokesperson for the I mean it does state it literally in the charter. I had the same question in my meeting because I said why do we have to pass this every year when it's the way we've been operating status quo. But a very good point was made which is
there's there's um at this point it's not determined who's 100% going with me to Tallahass here. I mean we know I'm going. >> We know I think Council Mlendon's going. We don't I don't know that you're in the yes or a no. I don't know about Lisa. I know Marge isn't going but we don't
know. But with this, the way this is written that Jeff has added a little bit to it, which gives me not just the authority to be the spokesperson, but it also gives me the authority to let's say we get there and RA says, "Hey, I need you to go with me to the Department of
Commerce, but we need somebody in my Caruso's office at the same time." I can then delegate because of this that authority to you and say Paul you go to Caruso's office because of the way this has been rewritten >> and because of in the charter it doesn't
it doesn't stipulate exactly that the council other council person can be spokesperson >> allows me to delegate >> I think that's where the confusion >> allows me to delegate that authority to whoever else is there >> I mean I get bringing it back every year so the sitting council because it could change every March at this point right
so I I get that so the sitting council could have the buy in I think the The confusion lies that the the the charter which everybody points to incessantly which they should right stipulates that you're the spokesperson with other entities right who yeah well
the sitting mayor so the sitting mayor is the you know for x y and z and other entities I think the state falls under that definition right so at this point what this does it allows you to the mayor to designate who you know other
person other persons delegate to other persons to be able to speak on her >> speak and of course the assumption is that we all speak with one voice anyhow that is that is the purpose of us being up here that regardless of how what side of a vote we were on if this council votes unanimously to do something as Ron
is saying even if he doesn't agree with the vote that we have if we vote unanimously to do it then that's what he's going to advocate for right and if I go up there regardless of how I feel personally I only advocate for what we have voted on as a council >> and and you know again to Ron's point, if we hire an attorney to do something
and the attorney doesn't do what we hire them to do based on what the needs of the town are, then that's something we need to take with that attorney. So, you know, not to say that people are human, they couldn't do something different, but it's, you know, that's just the way things work. And
>> this doesn't give any control to staff. It doesn't give any additional power. And it does not, again, like Ron said, do anything with staff. It is strictly with the council. Yeah, that's why I didn't mention you guys. Sorry.
I was just Yeah. >> And Mr. McClendon has a question for you guys as well. >> It's not I mean, we're My intention is to follow from consent and I've got a lot of comments about it, so we'll just deal with it then. >> Okay. >> All right. Anybody else have any questions for Ron? Arana,
>> is he going to go over the rest of this list? >> Are you going to cover the rest of the list? >> Sure. Absolutely. Um, thank you. >> I'll do just quickly. I think uh on the tree trimming issue, we'll monitor that. Um and so and I'll send because if the
I'll send the manager the language if there's something filed that we can review to see if that's something that that you all support and then we'll take our direction. Um on the same on the utility re relocation issue, um the additional items are the short-term
rentals, vacation rentals. I don't I don't expect that bill to come up this year. I think they put that to bed for the time being. Um, and then Ron, the last issue they want to discuss is the uh any potential exemption for small municipalities on the sovereign
immunity. >> No, the housing >> first of all, I I doubt that they will do that. I would say to you that that probably puts the bill in an unconstitutional place under equal
protection. But that said, I'm prepared to fight to the death over changes to sovereign immunity. We've had this battle going on for a decade.
We've had a stiff arm. We've had hang grenades. We've had machetes. We've had guns. We've done everything we can to defend the position of our communities. And I think mayor, council members, I
think I once said to you that in 1976, I wrote a law review article in law school on sovereign immunity. And my attitude is either you believe in protecting the king's money, which is where the doctrine of sovereign
immunity came from, which means you're protecting the taxpayers's money, or you don't. And if you want to destroy the the financial condition of local GOVERNMENTS AT A TIME AT WHICH WE'RE TALKING ABOUT lowering adorum,
restricting ador, but yet WE'RE GOING TO INCREASE HOW MUCH MONEY YOU HAVE TO PUT ASIDE every year on lawsuits BECAUSE THEY'VE RAISED THE SOVEREIGN LIMIT. IT WOULD BE A CATASTROPHIC THING for local governments. And if I know nothing
else, I know what I got to do on that issue. >> Okay. And I think Miss Remy wanted to hear a little bit more about the housing bill, which is item number five on our list. >> You're talking about live local.
>> Yeah, that's what we're talking about. >> I don't I don't see that. I'm sorry. Okay. >> The GMBB. I'm sorry. >> Uh I believe that again. TOD Act and Starter Homes Act.
>> It's number five on our list. It's the TOD Act and the Starter Homes Act. The Yimi >> I don't have that. Wait, I'm pulling up that that's not the list I was looking at. I apologize. >> Number five >> on the list that we sent you. And there's an additional Yimi bill about
height limitation on um arterial roads as well. I >> I don't see that list. I'm sorry. Okay. >> Well, let me read it to you. >> Sure. Thank you. >> I'm looking to
>> draft Yimi style legislation to act starter homes act proposes mandatory minimum densities ADU allowances and administrative approvals that may conflict with the town's rural scale open graded road systems and
agricultural land pattern. Hate to put you on the spot, but do you have anything to say about that? >> Ringing any bells? >> You don't want me making stuff up? I don't like making stuff up. I don't have an answer for you. >> Okay. Well, then how about if we make
sure you get the complete list and you make sure that it's on the radar because it's something that, >> you know, with with with the hit we took with 180 last year, this would be >> I got it. >> Some nails in our coffin >> when we talk I'll be ready, but we will supply you
with a written report on it within the next couple of days. >> Thank you. We have two more questions that just came up. Mr. McClendon, I think you were first. >> So, do you guys have any poll with the public service commission? And the reason why I ask is we have an issue around here trying to get a a project
moving forward and is that something that you could work on for us? >> Yes, we have we do little work in front of the public service commission. We have great access at the public service commission. I remind I remind you that Senator Pasadomo's daughter, Gabby, I
believe, is now the chair of the PSC, but there are several other former House members as well on the PSC, and we're happy to engage and see what we can do on whatever the issue is. >> Is there a consensus from the council for them to work on that? I'm for I'm
for them working on it. I'm on the ground. I don't think they haven't tried. I I think there's questions about easements and right ofways and stuff that that are still an issue. So, but by all means, more pressure the better.
>> Your mind? Well, because well remember FPL was saying basically if we don't hit by a certain date and we go on a on a back burner for another couple years and D when you know we could do other things besides just those easements that we the easements issues I don't think it would clog everything
>> FPNL's end is my point right trying to you know in the timeline that they presented when they were here that that might cause an issue that the PSC would not be able to overcome or pressure them into doing. and they're they're going to follow it by the letter of the
documentation they're provided. >> But there's other projects throughout the town that they could start initiating trying to get easements on. Not specific to V-RO, right? So there was there was >> V- Road is necessarily the hold up. >> Yes, V- Road was the hold up. He was very specific on that. That's what had
them pull out in the first place. But I think Todd's got a good point. There are other areas that they could have moved to instead of just pulling out completely while that resolved itself. The fact that B was involved in a lawsuit is what had them that was two years ago. Correct. So correct. That's when they were here.
>> That's when they were here doing the work and that's what had them leave. I'm just telling you what he said. That is in fact what he said. So >> and when we said something about pull into the smaller areas, he's like, "Oh, we can't do >> why go back and start at the point where you ran into resistance before? Why not
go back and start in another area and then try to resolve that resistance?" >> Right? Could have jumped over. We we mentioned that and he was they were very uh they they they weren't keen on that. They weren't, you know, they weren't very amicable to that scenario to oh, we hit a roadblock here. Let's jump over
here and add these in because they said we have to follow our plan because it's something from the state >> level that this, you know, this is what was approved. >> Yeah. So, we can only work on on this plan because that's what was approved. We can't just jump over here to like GU
say and work over there. >> Sure. The PSC can can change that. But I think the PSC is the one like part of what's involved in that whole thing though >> to prioritize >> to prioritize. >> That's what I'm saying is can we have a consensus? >> I have a consensus to have that to
involve them. I mean I I would vote for it. So go ahead make a motion. >> Well, I don't know if we need a motion. Do we need a motion for that? >> Consensus to add it. >> Yeah, that look I think we get whether you do a motion or you don't do a motion. I think we have a pretty good sense of what you want us to do and we'll go do we'll we'll get educated
with Francine and we'll go see what we can do to be helpful. >> Great. >> That would be great. Thank you. Okay, Paul, Mr. Coleman has another question. >> I just you know I know you're going to give us a report on the this number five housing bill topic for the you know um
you know SP 180. >> I just sent you the list. Sorry. >> That's fine. So, I mean, as as I think the mayor was saying, you know, with the with the hit of SB80 last year and then this pending, you know, I I I kind of realized what the the focus of 180 was
and how it was trying to help out places that were hurting because they had small building departments and things like this. So, maybe trying to change things. Do you see any kind of fluctuation that except for, you know, shoring up their defenses on SP 180? I mean I mean you're
talking about there was a correct me if I'm wrong there was a slight state of emergency issued for some little part of somewhere and so it's now extended as is now extended the threshold out from 20 what 27 or 28 out farther now right correct
>> 100 miles >> 100 miles >> so I mean but if you if you're currently under the restrictions of SB 180 as we are because Milton came right through our town or The tornado from Milton came right through our town. That additional state of emergency that
was declared this year somewhere else in the in the state is is extending our time frame. Correct. So, we can't we had some stuff that we were prepared to bring forward back in June that weren't these big restrictions or whatever.
Weren't a lot. It wasn't heavy. Um, but now we can't because now we're hindered by SB180. I don't see any I don't see any policy changes other than things that shore up the defense by the state.
>> I we would have all been in a better place to do things like that but for the lawsuit. I don't I I'm giving you what I believe based on conversations with Senate leadership >> and there's no you don't see a a movement across besides the lawsuit a
movement from other municipalities across the state to kind of push to to to kind of maybe change it up a little bit or or to to revise it to where it's more because I mean yeah when you're dealing with a a like um I don't know what county but say you know Santael
Island it's a small little municipality small little town, they have a small building department. When you have a total catastrophic event that wipes out the whole town, yes, it's it's it's very tasking on the town itself. In a place like Palm Beach County where we're what, the third largest county, you know,
highest growing county, all this, >> we have a lot Hold on, hold on, let me let me We have We We have the We have the ability to handle that kind of, you know, um what's the word I'm looking for? Burden, right? if something like that happens. So, you know, it's almost
like these other places are are being hindered by these because that's what pushed that whole thing was all that all the flood and everything over on the west coast. It was it was you know, you had places that were wiped out but people couldn't get permits or they were changing, you know, um zoning laws and
things like that. So, >> So, I think what you're asking is is anybody fighting it? And he did say there are some people that are fighting it, but >> besides the lawsuit. I mean, yeah, I I I get that. >> Okay. Anybody else have any questions for Ron? Rona >> fireworks.
>> Oh, what's going on with our fireworks bill? You guys got Casey who's back there. Hi, Casey is the one who went with me to the uh >> she's on point. >> The local to the local delegation and held my hand when I gave the presentation, which um
our bill passed unanimously. So, thank you for being there with me. you are very supportive and and was wonderful having you there. Um, >> do you have any information on that? Anything further on that? Is that being written at this time or what's going on? >> Yeah, anytime. Thanks, mayor. Happy to
to escort you to that meeting. I see Sean just joined us, too. Um, he's here. Uh, update is things are are going well. It's in drafting. Representative Weineberger is um going to be sponsoring and we are chugging right along after
that delegation unanimous approval. So all things on track. One thing I do want to point out is we have two appropriation requests and both are for $750,000. One is the year three of our original
three-year ask and that is for continued coverts and catch place basin replacements. We have already spent the $1.5 million from the last two years. The um second appropriation request is
for the canal pumps, we gate upgrades um and hopefully um we will get some traction on that. We have also put that in for rural infrastructure funding as well as resilient Florida funding and um
almost all of our local mitigation strategy grants which includes this were rated in the top 20 which means that we are in good shape with the technical merits of our applications but uh the
question is when does the money come to match it? So, we're first in line. Um, but the proof is in the pudding, right? So, we hope you guys bring it home for us this year. >> Sean,
>> we know what the expectation is. We know what we've been able to do. We will continue to pursue as aggressively as possible and and and I have every reason to believe we will be successful. Sean, did you have something you wanted
to say or just want to? >> Romo speaks for me all the time except for with my wife. >> I speak for you with your wife as well. What are you talking about? [laughter] >> And I just don't tell you that.
>> We're We're excited to continue working with y'all. And uh I I'm sure um I'm sure Ron Book, R and Casey told you that it's going to be a tough year, but but that's why you have us, right? We we know how to navigate these waters when
when it's tough. Um, obviously no guarantees, but we feel good about your projects and uh, you know, um, Ron spends considerable time in um, sort of setting the pace and directing us all and making sure that we're all working
in tandem. So, um, we feel good about it and and obviously we look forward to you coming up when you do and um, setting some strategic meetings. um it's it's a waste of time for you to do things that we've already done over and over, but
strategically it's it's good to put you in front of folks uh when you come up. So, we'll look forward to that. >> Okay. Look forward to seeing you in January. Thank you all for your time. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> We love you guys. Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Okay. Can I have a motion to approve the consent agenda which is currently items 3 through 12 minus 6? >> I'd like to pull eight and nine. >> Councilman McClendon wants to pull eight and nine. >> I'd like to pull
>> I'm sorry, not nine. >> Not nine. Just eight. Just eight. >> Yeah. Eight. >> Just eight. >> Just eight. >> Just eight. Lisa, >> I'd like to add 4 10 11 and 12 on that.
>> I'm sorry. You want to you want I'm sorry you confused me. But you would also like to vote 4 10 11 and 12. >> Yes. >> 8 4 10 11 and 12.
Nothing like doing it out of up. 8 4 10 11 and 12. Okay. Okay. Then can I have a motion to approve the consent agenda items 357 and that's it >> and nine. Nine >> and nine. Oh yeah, nine was both. Three,
five, seven, and nine. >> What about six? >> Six. We already approved. >> Approve. >> Oh motion to approve 37. >> 35 >> 357 and nine on the consent. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. Okay. I've moved items 84 10 11 12 to
17. On to item number 13. Valerie consideration of approval on ordinance number 202521 on first reading. An ordinance of the town council of the town of Lockachi Gross Florida relating to plat review processes amending part five development
review procedures and requirements of the unified land development code of the town of Locksachi Gross Florida by amending article 115 public hearing notices section 115-0 table of public hearing notice requirements to delete reference to plat
amending article 120 quasi judicial hearings section 120-115 quasi judicial matters to delete reference to plats amending article 140 subdivision of land subdivision one platting to provide for administrative
review and approval of plats in accordance with section 177.071 Florida statutes providing for conflict severability codification and an effective date >> okay
Jeff is there something you're sending to us your Yeah. Would you would you like a presentation on this or a discussion on this? What what we are uh doing here is
there was um modification to state law uh requiring that uh plat approvals be done on an administrative basis. Uh presently uh the town council has that authority.
um and it is done as a quasi judicial proceeding. Uh so what we did was we amended our current ordinances to transfer the authority for plat approval to the administration
um and specifically the town manager or their designate. The reason we have that language is in there is because the only uh department, if you will, that uh is specifically mentioned within our um
ordinances is uh the town uh manager. Um it's anticipated that um that plat approval uh will uh be done by someone other than the town manager. it'll be her designate or his designate as it may
be in the future. Um and uh this is just to to bring us into compliance with um the state statute. later on today. Um further on on the
agenda is you have a plat that is being moved forward under uh the current process where you all actually um do that approval. The reason for that is uh
we did not have this in in place um uh the administration administrative review um and uh to comply with our ordinances uh we needed to move that forward tonight before you. They did not have uh
the time to to wait for this process to change. >> Mr. Coleman has a question. So that Yeah. No, I I reread it and I thought Jeff said it. I just wouldn't. So yeah, this was this is based solely on the statute that was passed the bill was
that the governor passed last year >> taking us out of the equation. >> It was Yes, it was effective I think in Yeah, it was effective in July and there's a much tighter time frame. Now there are some concerns that oh wow well that's going to give exceptional
authority to um the the staff. What you have to remember is that virtually all uh plats that would be um dealt with um under our current regulations are based on uh site plans
and the site plans still come to the council for approval. And essentially what the plat is, it's documenting um that uh what you have approved in the site planning. >> Mr. McLendon. >> Yeah, Jeff and I spoke about this at
right length today and maybe he still has a notice that we something we came up with where it specified um that the manager couldn't approve it or it won't get approved by the town manager until after the site plan from the council has been approved. You have that wording that we came up
with. Was that something? >> Well, I think that the the discussion that we had had to do with um modifying the site planning regulations to ensure that
for um properties that are greater than 20 acres, they would definitely have to go through a site planning process. Um and so uh the the current directive is
um that the site plan the plat has to be in accordance with the the site plan. Um, and you know, when we were kicking it around, when we looked at what things can be done in in in the town, um, on
commercial properties without the benefit of a a site plan approval or an I should say an administrative site plan approval, it's extremely limited. Uh and one of the things is uh that the
construction of bus stop shelters does not have to go through the council for approval to modify the site plan. So my thought was uh there could be that circumstance where administratively that
site plan is adjusted um and uh plat would reflect um that minor modification otherwise the basis of the uh the plat approval is
in uh the site plan. Now there is the there is the caveat that um a subdivision of land creating less than four lots um non-commercial uh resident less than four residential
lots um does not need to go through a a site planning or a platting process >> but it could do a platting process without a site plan. >> Yes. So we had we had >> and so we had talked about anything greater than 20 acres >> would have to have a site plan
>> would have to have a site plan >> and then that would prevent the flatting from taking place unless it was consistent with the site plan. >> But aren't you then applying new and more restrictive? >> No. >> No, >> you you are not because as of >> procedural
>> Yes. In the code right now, if you are subdividing and have four or more access access by four or more, you have to have a plat and a public road. So, this is really the same as what we have and it
ties it back. >> So, even if I blur it, >> I'm sorry, don't jump all I'm just trying to because this whole the verbiage of this whole four single family thing on adjacent lots is blowing my mind. >> It's still it's in there now. No, no. I I know that, but I'm still having I'm trying to wrap my head around it. So, I
have a 40 acre 40 acre parcel just to make it nice and big. And I'm going to build four houses, one per 10, right? That's four on adjacent lots. So, I need a site plan. >> Not at only if they use the same access road. If they don't use the same access
road, you don't need a site plan. >> Okay. Um >> it is true. Well, because because it says something about entry feature. >> Yeah, that's right. >> Well, >> a sign or community entry feature is proposed. So, if it's just a road,
that's not an entry feature. That's a road. >> Well, here's here's here's one of the things that you get into when you look at um our subdivision requirements and what needs to be platted or not platted and how long an uh access easement could
be. Our code was in some in some ways designed to allow for the split of 20 acres into four lots. Um and so there is a specific
provision with respect to how long an access um easement can be and how many lots it can serve. It's 1320 feet. When you when you look at that, you go, "Well, how did they come up with with
that that number?" And when you look at a typical 20 that's split into four equal fours and you go down um have the access easement uh along the eastern or western edge of one of the properties
that uh um or I should say the southern property, move it around. Um and it basically you go down one up one and over the other you have provided access with a sea um a sea formation um access easement
that's 1320 ft long. when you go to your 40 um acre and you've got the the 20 um uh the the 410s um you're not going to be able to do that with an access easement. You're
going to have to go to um a private road and that's going to trigger probably your site plan anyway. >> Considered entry feature I didn't mean to get in the weeds. I'm sorry. So >> yeah, I >> so just dial back. So the the adding the anything 20 acres or above does not does
not we're not applying any new >> more restrictive code. Right. >> Right. It just >> So we're not violating that way. So we're violating right now because we don't have the proper policy according to the law. >> Right. >> We're violating state law. >> Yeah. State law. But if if if if we're
if but currently in the scenario we're sitting in now, we we are not allowed to adopt anything more restrictive to our code. >> And their belief is by doing 20 doesn't do that. >> That's a that's what I'm saying. That's so that's a procedural thing. Is that
where we're going? That's it's a procedural. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Sorry. Yeah. Yeah. I didn't mean >> Lisa has a question. Well, just to piggyback off of what Todd said, I have a note here to add a clarifying language that plat approval
is uh an administrative act and it it doesn't um precede or uh conflict with council approved site plans. So, I think that language needs to be in there. There's also um a state uh plat review
uh maximum number of days that's allowed and if it's not done within those allotted days then it's considered approved. I'd like to see stricter language and and hours that complies with, you know, um asurances that uh
we're going to see that these 30 days and I think it's a 30-day and a 60-day for the final are not going to be exceeded. And uh lastly, a question, well, two questions. I think it's important on page 618 where it
references vested rights that it's only in the context of the platting. It's not it's not a land use vested rights. And then lastly, Jeff, on page 619, the removal of of um
the language uh with the final sign off and stuff. Why was that removed? Is is that because some of the steps have been removed? >> Um,
>> no pledge will be. >> It's a >> Yeah. Yeah. I'm taking a look reading. No plat recorded unless until there town manager test division. Um because
what you had uh what you had in the previous language um was that the mayor was going to to sign. It was going to be attested by attested by the the clerk and there was
going to be a final sign off um of the town manager once any conditions of approval have been met and the plat is in final form and ready for recordation. Um because now you have put um the town manager as the signature
and it's not being signed off by the the mayor. Um that is there is one final sign off. It's done by the the town manager >> moved a step. So that's why that came out. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Okay. It seems that we have a lot of
public comment on this. >> Muchi Cassie Suchi. Um, in reading this I I don't think we focused this ordinance actually focused on the requirements and I think it far exceeded what the state
statute SB784 implied. SB784 basically was a streamlining approval process for platin administrative approval which strictly was limited to verifying compliance with existing rules. In short, basically
administrative staff according to SB784 um could ensure that a project fits within the box and guidelines of the town. Administrative staff could not change the size of the box and think outside of it. However, when I was
reviewing the ordinance, it looks like it far exceeded the minimum requirements for SB784. And it looks like, and I just glanced down at one section, page 9 of 12 when they were talking about vested rights.
It looks like we went through and just took out town council and put in town manager or designate. So, I would urge the council to put this back to draft or to review again because I feel that it's written right now and it's far exceeding
the requirements and it's giving up the authority of the town council. That's it. >> That's it. >> Would you like me to respond to >> Sure. Free to respond. >> Um, it is giving up the authority of the town council to approve the plats
because that's required under state statute. Um, with respect to the language in section uh 14040 which is found on page 618 or 9 of 12 of the
ordinance um A3 there we did delete um that language uh and that language was that the application is not in compliance with applicable standards and minimum requirements of this code but conditions have been determined by the town council to reasonably necessary to
ensure compliance with the applicable standards and minimum requirements of this article and that vested rights exist with regard to any non-compliance in which case the town council shall adopt a development order granting approval of the application with said conditions.
So what we have what what that language contemplated is that there was a middle ground um between strict adherence to the code um and the intent of the code and that the town council since they
were going to be considering the the plat, they could make some adjustments in the conditions associated with that and approve the plat withstanding um that there were some
uh variations to the the the code because this is now an administrative um practice. uh or the uh only things that the town manager can do where the town manager or their designate can do is
determine that there is compliance with all the all the requirements um including the site plan conditions and those kind of things or there's not um and there is not an ability for the
town manager um or their designate to offer some variation or or save the day and say, "Well, I'll I'll approve it, but you're going to do the these things um you know, to to satisfy our requirements in the plat approval." That
does not mean once again at site planning that the council is not going to be able to make adjustments and and deal with the issues that may come up. But when it comes to this administrative review, it's either a yay or nay. You
have complied or you haven't complied. Um, and the ability to to fix things that was in the ordinance and granted to town council is not being granted to the town manager. The town manager or their
designate has a yes, it meets it or it doesn't uh meet the the requirements. Um and as far as when you when you look at the state statute requirements, um there there was a thought that well
we would just say the the the plat has to be in compliance with um 171 um the of the author of statutes. But one of the things that you'll find
in 171 um 071 when it talks about um what the requirements are for the plat uh it includes a specific provision that and this is you know very specific and but it but it says um yeah and the
size of the paper is going to be determined by the local government. So, you can't just say you're going to adhere to the state statute. There are um requirements that the local
government has to impose. Um and we just kept the same regulations that were in existence and have served the town for the last um you know 10 or 15 years since this was uh originally adopted.
um and so far as we know hasn't overburdened anything. So we weren't changing that aspect of the regulations. We were keeping it consistent. You do now now have to meet the timing requirements um that are imposed by state statute. We don't need to
reiterate them in my view because you do always have to to to meet those. Um if you want us to reiterate them, we can. I don't think it's necessary. Um uh but we we can do that um and we can do that in
between second and uh first and second reading if that's the the direction of the council. Um and I know there has been some concern about the language that was uh uh taken out with respect to
to vested rights and the vested rights um determination. This is not a vested rights determination. All of this language on the process specifically only applies to platting
and I think that was um council personnel Ramy's uh concern. Um but uh all of this language in here just goes to the platting process. It doesn't talk about a vested right pro process or a site planning process or any of those
kind of things. And that's one of the things that um with respect to our discussion on uh expanding or uh contracting uh the items
that would be subject to a site plan. We won't do it through this ordinance. We would come back with the ordinance dealing with site planning specifically. >> Paul, that's something. So the the 20 acre procedural part of the 20 acre
minimum before it that starts is not going in here. It's going in something else. >> Yeah, that last >> Yes, I Yes, I see that. I see that as >> But um you clearly but you clearly right here section 140-040.procedure
dot. So if we're going to call something procedure, I think we need to spell out the procedure. And if the procedure is that we're going to we're going to u fall within the confines of whatever time frame is set forth by the state
based on you know state statute whatever then I think that needs to be referenced. You and I have had this conversation about other things in the past. I think it it it it behooves us to to to you know we we add the verbiage >> to your pointless psychology.
>> Yeah. We add the verbiage to your point to, you know, it's kind of like the lean reduction >> ordinance, right? We added instead of just having that basic lean reduction verbiage, we added some stipulation in there to give us more teeth, right? If you leave stuff as a blanket, we're
going to fall under state statute blah, then that's it gives a broader brush. So when we get a more detailed brush, so I think maybe in the procedure, you know, I I mean I get why you took the vested rights out because it has nothing to do with the procedure of this that's going
to happen after the site plan approval that the man that the manager has all the power in this >> in this ordinance. Am I saying that or is this resolution >> ordinance? >> Okay, this ordinance. So is it giving the manager ordinance to say that okay
the procedure is it goes before uldc or blah blah blah blah blah goes down the line we approve the site plan now they're going to submit the new plat based on the approved site plan and the manager at the time whoever that may whomever that may be has the authority
and the ability to go ahead and approve that plat that's what we're doing here right so I think as many procedural items that we can list in here to spell it out helps us down the road. >> Okay. >> You know what I'm saying? >> Yeah. So, as I understand it, you want
us to to reference in here um the state statute um and the timing requirements that are imposed there. >> You need to stipulate the time. I think we just need to >> reference the statute. reference that any time frame set forth by the state statute because as you might know or not
know, you know, we have a certain amount of time that we have to uh review and approve building plans. We have this is all set forth and if you don't do this when that amount of time, then the person that's building that project can just assume that it's approved and they can go ahead and start with and it can
the plans might not be to to to building code, but they can go ahead and start. They're they're assumed to have a permit at that point. And I think this also speaks to something that came up at our last um workshop meeting which is that sometimes the lines of communication are
are a bit blurry. I mean it's something that came up in the actual consultant thing you know report and it's something that comes up a lot with citizens. So as much as we can lay out these are the steps A B C D that have to be followed for this process
in a reasonable manner without being too redundant. then then that is a prudent thing for us to do because then we have that to fall back on. Hey, we we told you these were the steps, you know, and >> by the same token, we knew these were the steps and we didn't follow them,
>> right? Sometimes the redundancy is needed and sometimes it's not. But I mean, I think as much as we can spell it out, it just again, like you say, if we have a consultant or a vendor who's doing our planning and we can say, "Look, this is this is the process." Then when they don't follow that process
or they're going around and doing other things like you know has been claimed in the past, we can say look you didn't follow the process have a good one. >> Right. >> Right. So >> in large what's next? There was >> Okay. Um will this um wording change uh open any doors for vested things getting
ability to get any unwanted approvals of any kind? >> No. >> No. and and u many properties uh want to uh push the buttons and and move forward
with uh with uh uh their vested rights, but too much time has passed. So that's going to work against them. Correct. >> Well, there's a difference between uh vested rights and historical legacy that I think you're referring to with respect
to the time frames. >> All right. Thank you, Todd. I think she might be talking about some platted properties that were platted a long time ago, not the vested rights. I think that's what she's talking about. >> Okay. >> Down that way. >> Um, so yeah, I'm in agreement that I
think we should clarify more like what Paul said and talk about that uh the plat has to be consistent, you know, with with what was approved by council. Um, I still want the 20 acres. Anything over 20 acres requires a site plan. Um, are those changes too much to have a
first reading tonight or can we is that is that fine we can have the first reading tonight and you can back those changes with the second reading. I think as I understand uh the direction and the um uh the incorporation of the uh some
process uh more specific process language and the reference to the state statute from a timing standpoint on when the reviews have to have to be completed. I think we can you can give me direction to to um make those
amendments. Um, and no, it we can pass this on first reading and then adopt it on second reading. Yeah. At our January meeting. >> Okay. Is everybody okay with that? >> Yeah. Just to be clear that 20 acres is based on the four units per for adjacent, right? It's currently in the code.
>> Anything more than 20? >> That's what I'm saying that that's that's why it's not 10. I'm just clarifying for those in >> well zoom land. I do want to say that [clears throat] the discussion on the on the site plan um and what would be
required to be subject to a a site plan that um is probably not going to be specifically referenced in here. The idea that you would a manager would have to have the site plan as the basis of the the plat we can stick in there,
right? But the the requirement as to what is subject to a site plan, that is something that I think we will have to come back um and clarify in an ordinance dealing with site plans. >> Yeah. But lest anyone think if you're building a brand new single family dwelling, whether it be on a or whatever
you're building, whether it be on an acre or it be on a 100 acres, you have to have some semblance of a site plan, you have to have a proposed survey. So that's kind of a given at this point, right? That has nothing to do with this, but I'm just saying it's >> a site plan wouldn't come if you're building house. >> It doesn't come to the
>> No, but a site plan, lest anyone be confused, right? If you're building a house, right? Say you just bought your five or 10, what you got, what what you got over there, right? And you want to come build your house. When you come
submit your plans, you have to have a site plan. It's a site plan. It's >> Yeah. Yeah, but we're with a proposed location of the house, etc. You have to have it or you're not going to permit. >> But it's not one asking approve of the council. >> No, it's not. No, it's it's a different >> If it's anything over 20 acres, it has
to come to the council person. >> Correct. >> Right. That's all that. >> Yeah. No, but that's what what this pertains to because that's the only thing that would have to pertain to replatting because you would be replatting your single, right? >> 5acre parals, right? >> Yeah. >> Can Can I take a stab at a motion? Should I participate? >> Motion down, please. Thank you, Lisa.
Go. [laughter] Uh, a motion to approve. Uh, let's see. Ordinance. They >> already did public comment on this item. >> Said they did. >> Yeah, Cassie did. >> A motion to approve ordinance 2025 21
with additional language clarifying. This is a ministerial administrative act. Additional language clarifying procedures to include state statute deadlines. Anything else?
>> That it's consistent with >> that it's consistent >> the site plan >> consistent with the >> flat has to be consistent with the site plan. >> Okay. >> Then that too >> and the site has to be consistent or the flat has to be consistent with the plan. >> On first reading. >> Second. >> Do I have a second?
>> On first reading. >> On first reading. >> Thank you. >> On first reading. And do I have a second? Motion made by Lisa. We believe correctly and [laughter] seconded by Paul. All in favor? I opposed. next time, won't we? >> Oppose. Passes five to zero. Yeah, I hope everybody took good notes for that
one. Okay, we're on to item number 14. We need to open a public hearing. >> Well, we first have to read the the title. >> Well, okay. Go ahead. >> Consideration of approval on ordinance number 202518 on second reading. An
ordinance of the town council of the town of Loxahi Groves, Florida, repealing section 2-11, payment of money of article 4, finance of chapter 2, administration of the town of Loxahi Groves, code of ordinances providing for conflict, severability, codification, and an effective date.
>> Okay, I'll now open the public hearing. Any Jeff, it's anything you want. Does anybody need a presentation from Jeff or is anybody ready for discussion or to have questions? Lisa's got the Lisa split to the gun. Go Lisa. >> This this goes to um the item on consent
I pulled number 12. Um I I think that the problem with resolutions is they are kind of ceremonial and temporary and they don't really establish a codified rule. Um so that's why I pulled 12. I I
don't have a problem with repealing section 211, but I think we should be replacing it in the ordinance or adopting a new ordinance codifying the the payment policies regarding check signage and EFTs.
>> Anybody else have anything to say? >> So, so in lie of corre just editing the one that we have, you want to make a whole new one. Well, because Lisa Lisa's point I believe is not it I I believe the point she's making, let me just try to rephrase this, is that in general
she's in agreement with the change of policy as I think we all are when we discuss this by consensus. But what she's suggesting is that a resolution has more teeth. I mean is is inadequate and doesn't have as much teeth as as
codifying it and having an ordinance. >> An ordinance. >> Correct. the the ordinance is more time consuming perhaps to get past, right? Because but but that it would have more teeth. So >> we've been doing it wrong all along. So we we acknowledge well and and this
corrects not just one but a number of errors. >> So and I know Jeff weighed in that the resolution was adequate to do this, but I think that >> from my from my standpoint, I think we should be changing the language, whether that's changing the language in the current ordinance, >> but you're talking about 12. I thought
we were on 14. >> No, she's saying together >> because 12 >> replaces the the policy of how checks are signed and the fact that we now have oversight on electronic fund transfers. >> Would would it be fair to say that 12
would be a temporary measure? So that puts it into place now because the ordinance takes multiple >> readings. It could >> I'm saying because we have an ordinance here that we have to we have the hearing then we got to have this. It takes time as you said, right? So the resolution
would would put that everything that we talked about in the workshop about the EFTs etc. in place today. >> Correct. But this is also considered a second reading according to our >> Yeah, it's a it is the second reading and it would repeal
>> um the ordinance as we discussed. One of the reasons that we um suggested going to uh a resolution is exactly what you pointed out. It uh it is
>> less binding. >> Yes. Less binding and and and temporary. And the reason why that's a good thing in this situation is because technology, banking regulations, how we have um how
we do things from a transfer of money is evolving. Uh and I'll give you I'll give you an example. Okay. Um, we had a situation in which our um, our
automatic deposit machine, the little thing that you stick the checks in and it winds it through and it makes the deposit. Um, uh, that occurred and we had to it broke down. Um, and so we had to get
checks actually deposited the oldfashioned way or the way, you know, I was very familiar with. Um, and I had to explain uh to our wonderful, bright folks that usually do this >> in our day. >> Here's how
you have to go to the bank and here's how you endorse a check. And they were like, what? And it's the same kind. It it's it's the same kind of thing when when we get >> they don't tellers these days by the way. >> Yeah, I know. And and it's hard. You
mean you don't just take a picture and it, you know, flies in there? All those kind of things. Um and and I and I say that that this is an area that does evolve. And so the the resolution
um and things being regulated by resolution and direction by resolution gives the council more flexibility to adapt and not go through the timing and expense of of putting it into the
ordinance. It does not change it. It's not ceremonial. Um a resolution is binding on on us. It does establish the rules by which we operate. Um and there are many many
things um that are adopted by resolution. But it a resolution gives you more flexibility uh to make the the change um in an area such as this. And that's why we recommended a resolution not to take
away um not to say that this is meaningless. Um and if you know if it if the the policy that was attached doesn't reflect what you want, we can we can certainly deal with with that. Um but uh
it is the idea that well believe it or not these things change. The other example I'll give is um there was something that we had to actually send by faximile um and our under30s were like
how what is that? [laughter] >> Okay. Well, so let's hold the discussion on 12 till we we get to it and let's just do I have a motion to to approve? >> Just for the record, I believe we do not have any public comments. >> Do I do we have any public comments on
this item? No. Okay. Uh then could I have a motion to approve 18? >> Oh, >> second. >> Second. >> All in favor? I oppose. Passes five to zero. Okay. On to 202585.
Consideration of approval on resolution number 202585, a resolution of the town council of the town of Lockahhatche Gross, Florida, approving the Locks Holdings plat for land owned by Locks Holdings LLC consisting of 6.55 acres more or less located at 14331 Southern
Boulevard being approximately 6.55 acres generally located on Southern Boulevard between Orange Avenue and Lockxahhatchee Avenue and bounded on the north by Tangerine Boulevard, Lockahhatchee, Gross, Florida, legally described in
exhibit A to this resolution providing for severability, providing for conflicts, and providing for an effective date. >> Okay, Karen, thank you. That is on. Okay. Good evening. Thank
you. Um, this is your prime example of plat and site plan. It's the best example. This project got a site plan approval previously and what's there doesn't match the site plan. So, we have to have the plat that needs to be in conformance and consistency. The memo
indicates the items that we're basically taking off the plat and what you're putting onto the plat. So, they're taking off where they had lots before. They're taking off a five- foot utility easement that goes through the center of the subject parcel, and they're adding in an equestrian easement trail, a
landscape buffer, and a public utility easement along the south uh boundary of the property. Um, this has been reviewed by our contract engineer, our contract planner, as well as by the public work then public works director. They've all reviewed it and find it inconsistency
with the site plan and our codes. The applicant come on up is here tonight in order to address and to present why this is being done or to answer any questions or comments you would have. >> How you doing? I'm Eric Gut with Locks
Holdings. The replat had to be done for your site plan approval. We had to add an a equestrian trail was the major adding to it and then Karen addressing the other options. Is there any questions? >> Sure. We got two guys quick on the draw here. Go ahead. Todd, I think was first.
>> Well, I had a question for staff I should have answered earlier. Um, is cost cost recovery been paid up to date on this. >> Uh, I wish I could answer that question. I don't know off the top of my head, but cost recovery is on my list and we will make sure it gets collected >> because we're not supposed to approve
things that haven't been brought up. So, if there's money owed, then we're not supposed to be approving this. >> What we can do, my recommendation would be if you're okay with it, prove it. But we just won't sign off and provide the the resol the resolution until we get paid. >> Okay. >> Okay. That begs another question. So our
current policy is is is there's no CO until cost recovery has has happened. If there's fees due, you don't get a CO. Correct. >> That is correct. >> Okay. So that they can't occupy, they can't move in. No stocking. No, Karen. >> No stocking. Hold on. No stocking
permit. No TCO. Nothing. >> I think Francine, do you know? I think they >> they have a TCO. >> Do they have a TCO? >> They have a TCO already. They just hooked up the >> No, they utilities like two days ago. >> No, no, >> that's right. The utilities held them
up. It was not us. >> Yeah, they don't have they don't have the water utility hooked up is not done. So that Yeah, >> it wasn't us. >> So all right. So So yes, so all that. So before we can do all that, fees have to be up to date. Correct. >> Yep. Correct. >> So that and that that takes care of that, right? Well, the policy says we're
not supposed to approve anything until they I get that. >> I'm good with approving it contingent on, >> right? I'm just saying this is I mean they're basically giving us land back, >> right? >> You know, horse trail is mentioned a couple times in here. You said horse trail. You said horse trail. >> Like to know what the other buildings
are that you're planning. >> Well, >> go ahead, Paul. >> No, where where is the horse trail on your survey? >> On the original site plan approval, you guys added that you wanted a horse trail to go through our piece of property. So right, so that when commercial properties got built on either side of
us that the horse truck could continue through tunnel lock. >> Right. So is that going to go on on the tangerine side of of this where you're replatting this in the FDOT easement or >> it goes directly through the middle of the property >> through the middle. So where it does this little dog leg it follows that dog leg
>> or is it taking that five five because again it's not mentioned here. So we're you know sure it'll be on the on the final survey. I'm just trying to understand because I'm sure that's a question that others might have. They can put up on the screen. >> Is that what the little dotted line is?
>> Yeah. Well, it's the the f parcel. >> It follows that curve. Okay. >> It follows that curve. So, >> it's behind my fence. >> Right. Your fence is the dotted line. >> Correct. It's between the dotted line, my fence, and the DOT ement. >> Okay. And then my next question was
along the line of what Anita was saying. the the you know the original approval was for like multiple buildings and you guys clearly have one large building. >> Well, no, we we came in for a reapproval for one large building. >> That's what I'm saying. You currently have one large building. So, we're not
at a stage where we're putting more buildings on the property. You don't have the room for it, right? >> And we're not subdividing the current building. Correct. >> One of >> All right. Yeah. I mean, we're not subleasasing. We're not dividing any units. We're not Okay. No, >> I I'm actually one of the owners of Locks Holdings. I also own Southern
Outdoor Equipment which is going to occupy the building. >> Okay, just just clarify. >> That was my question, too. >> All right. Do we have any public comment on this item? >> Cassie's got one. >> We have one on the way. >> My microphone. >> I don't know. just
>> Cassie, >> I'm not sure if it's part of this, but I was just reading um the uh conditions of approval on the thing and I may be off base, but on a um method of travel or mode of travel as I see the building come in and it's getting close to
opening, is there going to be and I I don't know, is there a way to to keep the traffic off of those people's residential so they don't cut through to Dro? I wasn't sure if that was part of this, but I don't see anything like I know like the um storage unit went in and I know council Marge was on there.
They were very adamant to keep that gate shut and the storage unit does have that. They can't access that back road, but I I don't know if it's getting close to open. Are they going to put some type of like what what they did at Grove Center with like blockades so people can't go left and go down through those
residential neighborhoods and hit the >> we're on Locks Avenue or Orange Avenue. said, "I don't think I remember when this was being talked and that was one of the the the factors that they didn't want their traffic emptying on those people's roads and sneaking over to D- Road and using the light and it would
force them to go up to Southern." >> I don't think >> so. I don't know. I was just looking at the thing and it's called an MOT. >> I didn't know if that was >> I I don't think we can block off Lock Heedgy Avenue. >> Well, no. I'm just thinking as you turn in, you put like the pork chop things where they can't make a certain turn.
>> Oh, I see. Discourage. Yeah. >> Yeah. So, I didn't know that was part of it. I just happened to just read the thing. So, >> I'm just making sure we don't have egress on the west side there, too, where it shows that old driveway. >> Well, that's the old I think it's the old driveway that we for the house that used to sit right there. I I think
that's a good point is to talk about traffic patterns because we found that the the workshops and other things were a very simple solution that I I don't even remember who came up with it but it really really made a enormous difference over on B-ro and we
are very adamant that those neighbors don't be in infringed upon anymore. I think that's something that all of us stand in agreement on. Phyllis. >> Um, so I do remember Phyllis Manilia West Road. Um, I do remember we talked
about because the neighbors were in the in here about Bloxah Hatchee Avenue maybe getting cut off completely because the concern is with the neighbors on Tangerine and Citrus that it will then
be a cut through to avoid the traffic and the lights on Southern. So what happened to that conversation? I mean, I think it was me and Marge and probably three other council members at the time >> that site plan got approved by another
council. >> Francine, do you remember that conversation about Lock Hatche Avenue being closed off? >> I'd rather look it up than say. >> All right. Well, we we did have a full
conversation on that and that is a concern to the neighborhood. Y Hey, can I just stop and have >> a motion to receive something I brought up in my conversation that the exhibit for item number 10 was not there.
>> So moved. >> So here so here it is. It is addicted. >> Um and we'll get it up on the website as soon as possible. Thank you. All right. Go ahead. Um anybody else any questions? Lisa, I'm
sorry. Uh Jeff, uh you have in here that you're reviewing the restrictive covenant. Did you get that done? >> Um the restrictive covenant that they were referring to uh was the
uh language with respect to the dedication of the um of the horse trail easement. And yes, it's sufficient. >> Actually, in the documentation here, it says the storm water ponds, >> which I assume was something with FDOT
and the previous owner. Um, let me see. I'm sorry, I'm looking at something else. In the ensuing quiet, I just thought that I would let everyone know that um
Southern Lawn is closing D road to finalize the utility connection on December 4th. So, you're going to have to tell your family >> I've already we saw the sign yesterday. >> Okay. >> Very very perplexing how that >> be done, right? Okay.
>> Are you going to get home? >> It's for the rebings. It's for the rep. >> Yes. >> Yes. The repaving for the process already. >> That's I I saw I saw the Was that our sign or is that their >> sign? Is that >> Are we still doing the ensuing quiet?
Because I can ask a question real quick. >> Question, Jeff, while you're looking that up. >> Yeah, it's it's Go ahead. >> So, the the 35 foot easement on the west side of the property, is that is that a flat or is that an actual drainage? like >> that's actually drainage for
>> as it's a drainage like a swale >> a dry retention >> dry retention area. So >> that that >> on this survey I'm not sure I didn't check the date. So on the survey it shows like >> you know that little >> Oh so you're talking about I apologize. >> So the on the north part of my property
is the F FDOT >> on the west side is the FDOT pipes that run to Southern Boulevard. >> Right. So is that ground flat there? >> Correct. Is it on grade with your parking lot? >> No, it's below grade. >> It's below grade. So, it's it's actually a depression. >> It's a depression. Correct.
>> So, we don't have that that that driveway that's pictured on this survey here. >> No, that's the original drive. >> Okay. The original house. >> I don't like to make assumptions. So, I was just Yeah, that's where the original house was. Okay. So, I'm >> But there is a driveway on that side of the property there.
>> There is a driveway on the >> You guys have a driveway on egress. There >> is a access to >> Orange Avenue, which we're planning on keeping closed, but it has to have the has to have a access for the fire department, >> right? Knock box. You're gonna have a gate with a Knox box, similar to the
>> to the um storage place. Yeah. Okay. >> But we're we're not going to leave that open during business hour. That's just for fire department. >> That's I think that's Yeah. >> Are you done? >> Yeah, I'm good. Sorry. >> They said I'm sorry, you have a question. >> Yeah. Um, is there any uh discussion on
uh the mural that was brought up um being put on the face of the uh building facing southern? >> I have not got that yet. I know me and you talked about it in the lobby. That's that's about as far as we got. >> Okay. Um,
so what resolution do you have for the the traffic flow that's going to impact them? >> When we had the original meeting and the approval, our business hours are 7:30 to 4:30 Monday to Friday. So most of our traffic's not going to mess with the
neighbors. We're not open on the weekends and we're closed at 4:30. That was a major one. The second part was the paving as the paving originally is going to be the entire Lockachi Avenue. The resolution said to stop halfway to
defer people from driving on the dirt road. The third one we were going to do is put up a sign asking to help our neighbors and go to the rights. >> Would you consider putting up pork chops or some kind of something to make them go to the right? >> Problems with that. >> Yeah. Okay. Thank you. >> Helping the neighbor doesn't work.
>> Yeah. because they had those signs saying please don't turn left over at the everybody did but boy they put those little sticks up and now they don't anymore so it takes a stick sometimes >> it takes a stick in lockahhatche
>> I said [laughter] the most important part is by 4:30 we're shut down right >> so when when the you know residents get home you're not going to have any traffic at all >> hopefully uh Todd Well, they say you were done, right? >> But there potentially could be traffic all day, >> right?
>> During the day, absolutely. There could be. And that's that's our concern is traffic. Absolutely. 7:30 in the morning, everybody's trying to leave for work and >> correct >> here they got 10 people leaving, you know, going down that way. That I doubt Karen knows the answer, but I'll ask her anyway. That that west gate he talked about is going to get locked and it's
for emergency uses only. That I assume that's is that a part of the condition of approval for the site plan or we don't know. >> Oh, I don't know. Oh, I mean if you want to wait if we find the order. >> No, because there's nothing we can do about it tonight in New York. >> It's not part of the conditional approvals, but it's something we don't want open. >> I understand, but that might change in a year from now, right?
>> No, because I would need my customers to come in through my entrance. My entrance is on the east side. Okay. >> My doors are on the east side. >> Right. But somebody could offer you millions of dollars for your business in five years and you sell it and the next person says, "Oh, we're doing something different than the old guy." That's >> absolutely sir. >> Or if it was part of the condition of
approval, but we're past that, I guess. >> Yeah. We didn't appro We didn't approve it. Okay. Jeff, do you have an answer to Lisa's question? >> I believe that I did review it, but I am looking
for the confirmation of that. Um, and if you want to make it subject to uh my the plat approval subject to the confirmation of the restrictive covenant, I will be able to confirm that. I'm I apologize. I'm just looking for it now.
>> Okay. Would you like to take a stab at a motion, somebody? >> I'll make a motion to approve uh resolution 2025-85 contingent on the restrictive covenant and cost recovery being paid up to date. >> The pork chops
>> and the pork chops for the term. >> Sure. Add that too. >> Yep. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> Opposed? Passes five to zero. on to item number 16. And I I just want to just let you know before you leave, I think that
I would have never in a million years approved that building. I think it's hideous. I'm sorry. And very industrial looking. And industrial is not our town. It doesn't really fit in with our rural Vista guidelines at all. I'm not sure how the council that was sitting then approved that. So, if you would consider
anything to beautify that building like the mural or any other suggestions, we sure would appreciate it because it's right there on our main street and it really would >> the biggest thing is the landscaping. That's the things we brought. >> Get on it because it's really really not okay.
>> Property minus where that water tank just got removed this week and there's oak trees going in there as well. The majority of the front of that property is lined with oak trees. Yeah. >> That are going to grow fast. >> Well, I sure hope so. But the only thing that you know you did to even remotely fit in with Royal Vista is the cupula. But you know you can put lipstick on a
pig, but it's still a pig. So anything you can do to make that look a little better would sure make me happier driving down Southern B. >> In defense of the previous council, there's no artist rendering. There's no like street level image. And as we have
things that come in front of us, we need to make sure that we >> Yes, we do. We learned a big We learned a big lesson. Thank you. One last reminder um because there's somebody currently deal dealing with this right you know just be mindful there is a some ordinance out there some code out there
ULDC regarding um you know well yeah signs the the wavy signs that's one and two vehicle storage I mean I'm familiar with your with your you know business and whatever just keep that in mind you know I don't want that one there to have
to come >> No problem >> thanks Okay, on to item number >> forward to working with you on the mural. >> Thank you. Thanks, sir. >> Okay, on to item number 16. Consideration of approval on ordinance
number 202519 on second reading in ordinance of the town council of the town of Lockahachche Groves, Florida, calling for a referendum of the qualified electors of the town of Lockahhatchee to be held on March 10th, 2026. as to whether the town of Lockachi Groves charter shall be amended in the
filing respect amend paragraph two point removal compensation filling of vacancies of section four administrative of the charter to provide for charter officers to be removed from office by a majority rather than a supermajority vote of the full council and providing for severability the repeal of laws and
conflicts codification and an effective date. Okay, so this is basically about putting the red on the ballot. Anybody have any questions about it or we've already kind of talked this one through? >> I'll make a motion to approve. >> There's a public hearing. Public hearing has been scheduled. So, you have to open
and close the public hearing. >> Public hearing and then we have to allow for public comment and then make your motion first. Okay. So, we're opening the public hearing for consideration of ordinance number 202519. You want to make the motion before public comment? >> Sure. Okay. >> I'll make a motion to approve 2025-9.
>> Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Okay. Now, do we have any public comment? >> No, ma'am. >> Okay. Okay, then we can take a vote. All in favor? >> I opposed. Passes 520. >> That might be the quickest. >> We are on a roll tonight, guys. When I looked at this book, I was like, this is
never happening. But this is great. But we haven't gotten to the pulled items yet. So, >> yeah. >> All right. On to item number 17. Valerie, >> consideration of approval on ordinance number 202520 on second reading, an ordinance of the town council of the town of Lockachi Groves, Florida, calling for a
referendum of the qualified electors of the town of Lockahhatchee Groves to be held on March 10th, 2026 as to whether the town of Lockahhatche Groves charter shall be amended in the following respect. Amendment paragraph 4 town attorney on section 4 administrative of
the charter to provide the attorney's required review of contracts bonds and other instruments shall be as further defined by ordinance or resolution and providing force severability the repeal of laws in conflict codification and an effective date. >> Okay. Do I have a motion?
I'd like to open ordinance 202520 order. >> Thank you. Thank you for reminding public hearing. Do I can I have a motion? >> I'll make a motion to approve ordinance 2025-20. >> A second. >> Okay. And a second by Lisa. Public
comment. >> No public comment. >> Okay. Can I have a vote then, please? All in favor? >> I >> I opposed passes 540. Okay, guys. We're back to item number eight. Mr. McClennon, I believe you're the one that pulled that one. >> Four. >> Oh, actually start.
>> Well, I wrote eight four because he pulled first. Let's You want to handle? >> Go in order. >> Do four. We can do four first. Okay, Lisa, you pulled four. >> Uh, the reason I pulled four and and I spoke with Jeff about this earlier is
state statute says that you can amend last year's budget and you have 60 days to do it. So again, this kind of goes to our workshop conversations about getting better at basics, making sure that we're
not making basic mistakes. So this is not a basic mistake. I'm sorry if you find me to be interrupting, but it is not a basic mistake. Yes, 60 days is the state law, and um we do not have
to make this budget amendment. And for those of you who've worked with me for any amount of time, I don't actually believe in budget amendments because disclosing it in the footnotes is just as transparent as making a budget amendment. It lets you know how you really did. With respect to this
particular budget amendment, there is a story and I am happy if you don't approve this and you have us put it in the footnotes. There is problem with the solid waste authority submission of the contract with ashbrit and there are
currently people in Washington working out the approval. Solid waste authority increased the rates that they were paying Ashbrit. We are a piggyback on the solid waste authority
contract. So when we were built by Ashbrit, they built they build solid waste authority, not the town. Solid Waste Authority paid Ashbrit. Solid Waste Authority then saw that they made
a mistake paying Ashbrit and FEMA saw that Solow Waste Authority made a mistake in paying Ashbrit. Sell waste authority had to take the funding back from Ashbrit, but FEMA has
not given the town its funding because the funding is at the higher rate in the solid waste authority contract. Ashbrit currently has lobbyists working with FEMA. We meet weekly, Mr. Lowour and
myself meet weekly with our FEMA folks. And by the way, the way the FEMA reimbursements work, and I think some of you know this, they obligate payments. Until they obligate, you don't know that you're being reimbursed. So even though it seems logically this storm was a year
ago, why don't we have those numbers? We actually have to wait on FEMA. So we expect this money to come back, but we have not been obligated back. I have told them that I am willing to go ahead and I've told FEMA and Ashford and I
guess they've told whoever in Washington that we are willing to pay at our contract rate if this will go ahead and facilitate quick resolution of this issue. Mr. Low has been on some of those calls with me. So if you approve this
budget amendment, we will go ahead and record the budget amendment. If you do not approve this budget amendment, we will disclose it in the financial statements. Uh FEMA audit takes years to complete and some of you have been
through the storms before know that um we finally we actually are still wrapping up uh one of the payments from a 2017 storm. I think that there was some last >> Craig if you know this better please share.
So this item is a bit of housekeeping. It is more than 60 days. I asked to try to do this on the last agenda. The uh numbers were not final from FEMA. Our CFO was not ready with it and our
auditors are indifferent. So this is strictly the essence of council policy. Approve the budget amendment or we'll disclose it in the financial statements. Either one is transparent. we've done nothing incorrect except follow through and that takes time.
>> So I I appreciate the clarification on that and and I would say from a historic recording standpoint, I would rather see it go through the audit process and that be disclosed for future
reference by staff by councils in the future. Um and and that's a very interesting scenario and I know with the ashbrid contract how how does it work that that's a mandate by FEMA that we have to
pay for and then wait to get reimbured so that they're there saying yes this is storm debris it's your taxpayer dollars at work >> 100% it's insane so >> been working very interestingly this year I can certainly personally
>> and I just and as we make our decision. And I'm not advocating one way or the other, but I just want I just want to crunch some numbers to talk about we your position is certainly a valid one. So, we're talking about $106,000 roughly here, the shortfall. Um, so there are
two ways that if we were to make a budget adjustment that it could be funded within our budget constraints. And by that I mean one way we could fund it is against the general fund. Now, we have a not a mandate, but we have a desire to keep our general fund at 25%
reserves because that is an indicator of financial soundness for the town. The the that fund is currently at anywhere between 28 and 30% right now. So, the difference in the fund would be a 3% difference. So, if we were to fund it out of the general fund, the general
fund would still remain above the 25% threshold. Another possibility of funding it is against the current year revenues that we have um gained from Redspeed so far from the Redspeed program. And so far we've gained what we've received
>> $70,000 has been collected on $140,000 fund. >> Okay. So, so we could fund it against >> Yeah, we could fund it against the red speed. We could fund it against the current collections of the current year collections of the red speed. So again,
I'm just putting those out there as to financial possibilities of ways to actually fund it and make the budget amendment without the budget or the town being affected. Does that make sense of just putting them out there as possibilities? I just always want everybody to have the
numbers. So those are the numbers that are that I have available. >> I do want to add one more thing. >> This would be the third time that we've made a disclosure in our financial statements. The first time was when we went over budget due to the planning
work for the Okachchobee overlay which extended an additional year during COVID and we had to do extra meetings and so on and we reported that in the financial footnotes. Again, I don't believe in the budget amendment. I believe you should say where you went over and why. The
other time we had to disclose it was for the legal fees. I was no fan of spending those legal fees. I feel that that was good that it was disclosed in the footnotes. And this is another case where the circumstances were also
outside um you know they were circumstances that could not be avoided. They were necessary to go through. So they would be fine to be reported in the footnotes to the financial statements. >> Okay.
>> So we're not we're not just to go on your point, we're not hamstrung any way how we spend those, right? hamstrong if we make the >> how we how we spend those red >> right then and the money is there is basically what I'm saying we're not hamstrung if we if we do make the budget amendment but I think that the point
that Lisa and both Lisa and Francine has made is is a very valid one which is it's it's good to point these anomalies out in a footnote and to have them be on the record for future councils and future >> posterity >> yeah or posterity that's another way to
put it >> you want to make the motion or should I? >> There's enough money. >> I'm just asking. >> Make a motion to disapprove [laughter] number four. Not approve number four. Yeah, disapprove. That sounded weird. Deny. Thank you. I knew it was a D.
Thanks, Todd. Uh, I make a motion to deny number four. That was resolution number. Sorry, I lost my my spot. 202586. and to uh add it as a note as a note.
>> Anita, do we need to clarify how it would be paid since you brought that up in the motion? >> No, you don't need to do that at this point. >> Don't need to do that, but I'm just wanted to that would put everybody at rest that the money is there. >> Is Is that a clean enough is that a clean enough motion?
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Well, and it'll eventually be reimbured and go back to whichever program we have it in. Take it out of whatever >> March seconded. >> Okay, we have a motion by Mr. Coleman, a second by
Marge. All in favor? >> Okay, we're in favor of of what did you say? >> Deny. >> Disapproving. [laughter] >> We disapprove proposed resolution. >> Okay. On to item number eight. Mr. McClennon, you pulled this one.
>> Yeah. So right now the way this is written um Jeff and I have talked about this at great length also he feels that it is consistent with the charter but I would like it to see um more in line with what the charter says where the mayor doesn't designate who it is that
it falls to the vice mayor if the mayor is not available and seniority uh council members from there as to who's available. >> So you'd like to see the hierarchy actually laid out in the ordinance. Is that what you're saying? where you could put resolution.
>> Yeah, you could just put >> the resolution >> you could put, you know, if the vice mayor is not available, then it goes to the next council member with the highest seniority. I don't know how you would do it when there's two that are the same, right? Because >> yeah, Lisa, you flip a coin or how that not with me, Lisa, because I'm way down the total.
>> So, you know, but I would like to see it more in line with what the charter says when it talks about the duties and responsibility. >> Can we stipulate left arm? Does that still does that wording still achieve the same goal that you had in writing it the way that you wrote it to protect whoever goes on these adventures? Well,
that that would be the concern uh that I would have is what in as I understand it um you're talking about going to to Tallahassee and at this point in time the vice mayor
is not planning on attending. Um and so then who is going to be there? Well, if only one other person shows up, it's really easy. Um and if you have a
situation where it is um the the two folks that were were um elected or appointed at the at the same time. Um you come down I think to
I would suggest the mayor making a a choice uh at that point in time as to >> Well, can that be stipulated then? Yeah, we can we can do that. >> So, that would take care of that. Lisa, >> if the if it's the if the if there's a
consensus of council that you want to um >> it's done by seniority and then mayor appointment or something along that >> and if there's a tie on that seniority then the mayor does make decision >> seniority or may you know followed by mayor decisions something like that. >> You don't have to arm wrestle. >> Yeah, Rich.
>> Okay, Lisa. [laughter] I would argue the arm wrestling right now would not be >> I would that's why he's doomed. Um I would argue that the charter does not give the mayor's position any authority to create a designate. So I'm more in
line with where Todd was going with that. And then I would also like a bit more clarifying language particularly when it comes to legislative positions that we had a great presentation by Mr. book tonight that perhaps at the January
meeting we could vote on our legislative platform so that it's clear that this is majority of council's um direction and that this is you know we we're supporting this you know or we're opposing that. Um so I I'd like to see
language there that kind of clarifies you know that it it's a council driven >> it it has been and we've always voted on the platform before we've gone up there. >> It's just [clears throat] not in the language. So, does it does it need to be there? It would make Lisa happy if you
>> Well, well, it's no different than clarifying it be a separate resolution. I >> Yeah. >> Saying that that we require a vote of the legislative platform. I mean, I think that's just a matter of course that we've always done that. Have we? >> Yeah. Well,
>> we have that's my point, right? I have never gone up and represented anything that wasn't voted on. loyal we um right so there has been question right I'm just talking about how do we how do we narrow this down and use more
clarifying language so we're not in the positions of where we have had too much room >> well but I mean you could make the same argument that the people who shall I say self-represented in the past wouldn't have followed these rules
anyhow but that's I I mean I'm sorry. I'm I'm just being you know the fact that the fact is that by by >> our duties and by what what we're directed to do as council members. It speaks very clearly to the fact that we're supposed to present a unified
front that it's not about our personal opinion. It's about what's unvoted on and decided on by consensus. And so I I would argue back that that is a matter of part of our job. Um, and that that shouldn't it shouldn't have to be
uh defined by by even ordinance any more than it than it is, even resolution anymore than it is. But if you think that's necessary, and everybody else does, I'll go along with it. But I just think that it's it's it's everywhere that we make decisions by consensus and
that we represent ourselves by consensus regardless of our personal opinions. >> And Lisa, I agree with you 100%. But I think what Anita pointed out is right. If even if there was something definitive, this is how it is, that council member you're thinking about would have done what they did anyway. And they've proven that.
>> Well, and that goes to censure and and other abilities that council has. And this is not unique to Lockachi Groves. This is a cultural problem, you know, where where consequences are >> are lax or non-existent. So therefore
there's nothing restraining people to a certain behavior pattern or position. So >> nothing >> no and and then then it becomes a question of if we put language in there does that then give the ability to
create censure in the in the future should you know there be enough appetite to to take that action. So >> I agree but I think that's a broader much broader thing that we need to discuss is about censure and how to deal with that than
>> council members acting outside of the >> police leave. So is the consensus to just leave this dealing with what it's dealing with and then >> I think it should clarify how >> and then have and then explore >> hierarchy >> explore more with clarifying the
hierarchy and then explore the possibility of creating a a a more observable policy a more >> measurable and restrict a more measurable policy on council behavior
when representing the town and potential sanctions for stepping outside of that. >> How do you think we deal with the hierarchy when there's a when there's two equal? >> I I think it doesn't matter if two equal people in that situation are the only two there to decide it. It could be a
coin flip or an arm wrestle, right? >> You know, I have a titanium plate. I'm just saying. Or it could we all have a discussion and say okay Lisa you know Sam Smith from you know having worked with him before that's your area or you're the one that knows that whatever
I really feel we can make logical do you think it needs to be >> delineated more decision to be made by >> you are a self-regulating group so I am you know >> it is up to it is up to you um to to
make those determinations I don't >> Well, I mean, honestly, the people I think it's up to are the lobbyists that we pay $65,000 a year. I think when we go up there, whoever's there, that they should be able to say, "I want you here and you here and you here." Because that's their job. That's what we pay
them for. That's honestly his job. >> Has a little of a hierarchy. It could just it could just be the verbiage could just be changed to where it's the mayor and council persons or whatever or or the spokesperson. You just it's a broad brush. So whoever is there
>> makes a decision, >> you know, >> they only have one there. >> Yeah. I mean something could happen and only Lisa is able to show up. Something, you know, >> and you or only Todd's able, you know, so whomever >> fresh, but okay. Yeah. >> So it's not the mayor making a termination. It's mayor, vice mayor, and
then the remaining three. >> No, I think I think it's on the spot. >> I think it's the mayor is the the spokesperson as it stipulates in the charter, right? And then after that it's because it does not stipulate in the charter that we are the other the other council people are right
>> well it says the vice mayor fills in for the mayor if the mayor >> well that's that's already a given >> and then council to the person after that >> something to say she with her light >> I I think that um you know uh just
seniority does not make for a successful representation um in Tallahassee, you need someone with the skills needed to bring home disability. Okay. So, you know, um maybe maybe the
mayor and the vice mayor would be the choices, but maybe the vice mayor would not be the choice. Somebody else has better skills with uh what we're going after. Well, let's say there was a mayor, vice mayor, and a council member
there. If the consensus from the three was, "Hey, I think this person would fit better." The vice mayor could say, "You know what? I'm not feeling well, so I can't make that meeting. The next person's going to have to go in [laughter] my place." >> Right. >> Right. >> Okay, >> that's fair.
>> Okay. Are we clear on what we want? I think mud. There's >> mud. Mayor, [laughter] >> we do have two public comments. >> Okay, great. Go ahead, >> Miss Sud. Hello, council members, everyone. Uh, good evening. Uh, I'm Sheal Sud. Um, you you're probably familiar with Manish, my
husband. He's traveling, so I'm kind of making this on both of our behalfs and it's also been submitted in full writing. Um, mayor, town council members, town clerk, thank you for allowing this public comment to be entered into record. What is being pushed through uh item eight of the consent agenda is troubling and deserves
full public scrutiny, not a quiet rubber stamp vote without discussion. I think we were discussing it. So, um, maybe this is moot. This resolution does not simply designate the mayor as a spokesperson. It goes beyond it. Uh, allows the mayor to handpick an alternate who may be another council
member or an executive officer of the town. Uh in plain English, this means the mayor could delegate this authority directly to the town manager. This means that unelected staff could end up representing the town's legislative priorities, budgetary positions, regulatory interests, zoning matters,
and uh opportunity zones at the county, state, or even federal level, all without a single public council vote establishing these positions. Um more concerning, this resolution also explicitly requires the mayor or resign to coordinate directly with the town's
lobbyists. Uh so why are lobbyists being built into this chain of authority at all? Why would this coordination happen through one individual instead of the full council holding lobbyists publicly accountable uh and being transparent? There are several major red flags that demand answers before any vote occurs.
What exact problem is being claimed that this resolution is supposed to solve? Why is the council not debating and voting on the town's official legislative and budgetary positions in writing in public and allowing a ceremonial representative to represent those positions instead of granting
broad undefined authority to one person and whomever that person designates? This proposal is not about efficiency. It's about control. In our opinion, this is not what transparent government is and it's not what residents voted for. Thank you. >> Okay, I believe we addressed all of you.
>> We have one more question. I'm pretty sure that was definitely a loop. >> We have one more. [laughter] >> And just for the record, we don't present anything in Tallahassee that isn't voted on by the council. This council in my two years that we've sat
here has voted on everything that we go up legislatively. And I can go back and find you every one of those votes. And we will certainly vote on it this year. Again, we are a united front here. Whether we all agree 100% of the time or not, we vote on everything that we push
for legislation. Thank you, >> Cassie Succi. I had the opportunity to sit on the um ordinance uh the charter review committee and it had double the amount of people. I think I think we had what 11 or 12 and we all varying opinions, but there was one underlying
commonality with everybody at that table was that the charter was the document of our town. And if you're going to change the rules in the charter, you have to do it across the board the way you've done it with other ones. So, we talked about doing a charter change for voting and
things like that. Now, you want to change the duties of the mayor. It says in here, and I don't see how we are interpreting it differently. The the mayor is shall serve a period of year and have the same legislative powers and duties at any other council. And I know
you're saying, "Oh, they can be the ceremonial head dealing with other entities, but you guys are talking about that when you go up and a group of people go up to Tallahassee, if Anita doesn't want to talk or Paul doesn't want to talk and there's three people, Todd's probably going to talk. Why do
you need a resolution to expand the duties of the mayor?" Because what I see right now is this little resolution is changing the duties of the mayor to make them, you know, have, you know, more duty more more jobs basically. So, if
you're going to do that and you're going to change any type of in our charter, then it just need should go to resol referendum. People should be able to vote. Um, that's the way I see it. If you want to do it that way, that's fine. Otherwise, why do you need a resolution? Obviously, you guys all work together.
So, why do you need something that says, "Oh, the mayor's going to have more power to do this, or they're going to be the spokesman up here." When it refers to, and let me let me quote exactly what it says. Can't work my phone. basically legislative
and legislative uh potential budgetary matters, appropriations dealing with Palm Beach County Commissioners, members of the Florida Legislature, US House of Representatives. It looks like you guys all work together, but if you want to
change it, and that's fine. If you if that's what you guys want to propose, just put a resolution in and have the people vote. Explain it just like we've done the last two you just voted on. But don't just try to change it because our charter has protected us for what since
we've incorporated in since 2006. And now all of a sudden we see it chipping away. And Jeff says this was done before, but I' I'd like to see the other >> been done for the last five years. >> Okay. Maybe that could have been supplied in the supporting documents, but I don't think it's appropriate to do
it this way. >> Well, I think Mr. spoke to the reason why it's done this way by >> Well, my point is if you want to change the charter and you want to extend duties to the mayor more than what they are and not interpret it, then it needs to be done properly. That's all I'm
saying. >> Okay. Do I have any more public comment? One more, Phyllis. Yeah. Phyllis Manilia Westy Road. So, um I actually have been to Tallahassee with every single person up there on the
council except for Mr. Coleman who's new. Um we have all worked together very well. this nefarious um tales of deceit going on in our town
is is very saddening. Um it is very important to have a united front when you go to Tallahassee and everybody sitting on that deis has different experiences and different
um advantages and that they could speak about. We've all been there. And when we split up, it's usually, you know, the person that takes the lead in the conversation is the person that is passionate about that particular
subject. And sometimes you don't know until you're there. So, I think it's important these guys able to act on the fly. Um, we have had a strong mayor and vice mayor in the past, you know, and we didn't want a
strong mayor and a vice mayor and a lot of stuff that got done we didn't vote for. So, I think we need to trust the people we elect, you know, and um keep an eye out on what's going on. And when these guys in
Tallahassee to get the job done, they need to kind of work on the fly. And the lobbyists truly direct us as to where to go. We we hope that they always have our appointments made and that it's with people that could help us. So, all this
uh nefarious and I'm telling you, I'm getting quite tired of people sitting on committees um that should be called out by their appointees who are sitting on council
when they're lying from the podium. >> Okay. So, the only thing I have to say is I think that the lobbyists very clearly said it and and I just know this from having done this for a long time. It's important to have a figurehead.
Whoever it is, whatever it is, it's it's just important to have that just so it's not a free-for-all and a whatever when you get there. Um, I just think it is. But anyhow, go ahead, Paul. You know, I I I think we we've all had
conversations outside before we sat up here together, you know, over the years. And and I don't think anybody up here is looking for a strong mayor scenario. Um I think that the the charter stipulates, yes, that the mayor is the person who is
the spokesperson, etc., etc., but it does not stipulate that beyond that. So to have the ability when you're off in Tallahassee trying to do these things, whoever the mayor and the vice mayor are can't be in three, four meetings at one
time. It it's just it allows that. It's not allowing decisionmaking opportunities to to to you know, that's not what this is allowing. This is allowing the mayor, whomever that may be at the
time of of whatever event, to be able to delegate the position of spokesperson to another that's on the council. And it's not to say that we aren't all able to speak for, you know, our position or whatever
or the the council's position any time. That's a given. But officially, you know, that's the way it should be. So, and you know, I'm sure Jeff would or we can get, you know, uh, Valerie maybe to pull up the last five times we they've
this has been voted and enacted into place um to put everybody at at ease. But this is, you know, it it it clearly if we don't if we don't do this, we are clearly going against the charter if Anita and Todd go up and Todd speaks on
behalf of the town because in his position as council person, it doesn't say that he's a spokesperson and you know that doesn't stipulate that as the job in the charter. So I think or if Lisa goes or if I end up being able to go. So I I I you know just for a little
clarification I don't think there's anything >> nefarious >> nefarious or or tort going Did I say that right? >> Todd did you have something make a motion? >> Yeah. Well close. So when we go to Tallahassee not one of us can make a quote unquote decision there. Anita
can't go there and spend money and make a decision on behalf of the of the town. No different than we apply you know for a grant. The town manager isn't committing us to anything right? that has to come to the council to get voted on. So, it's always this thing about, you know, there's power that's been given to the manager and they're they're
changing our land use by getting this grant or we're going to Tallahassee and, you know, the mayor's going to sign off on something up there. That's that's not a thing. That's not even a possibility for that to happen. The council has to vote for these things to happen. >> Nor would it happen, >> right? You know, and I mean, you've seen
council members that, you know, that have tried to do that before and haven't gotten anywhere. I mean, I remember some roads getting graded because a council member was out, stopped the guy in the graater and said, "Go grade road and grade this." And then and then the guy came here with a bill and said, "Well, how do I get paid?" Well, here's the council member's card. He said, "I can
get paid." Right? Of course, the guy didn't get paid, right? Because that council member didn't have that authority. And I sat with that same council member in Tallahassee and we worked fantastically well together going to these meetings, you know, and it was good to see that. So, we've had road council members. None of us up here fit
that description at all. We've probably only had two or three in the past that have fit that description. So, I'm good with the resolution. Like I said, just make it where it's the mayor, vice mayor, and whatever council members left, you know, and Lisa, if you go, then if there's two two different
meetings, then you and the mayor go. And if there's three, then I guess I'll do the third one, you know. I I don't see an issue with that. So, I'm good with that. There's no reason for the mayor to have to decide who it's going to be. Just make it mayor, vice mayor, and the council, and that's it. >> Well, and they have been historically approved. Aren't they still technically
in effect? >> It is. Yeah, technically this is it. Yeah, we're just >> Right. Right. >> So, >> so we actually don't have to approve this because we're not getting technically in effect and I think there was something that >> that was my question when I went over it just why why does this have to be looked
at every year? >> Well, perhaps >> but and then that was where I got the explanation of the reason it had it was looked at this year was to do that further thing to protect the other council members that went. But I think if we put just a hierarchy thing in it and pass it this year, it doesn't have
to be passed from now on. Just put a put a hierarchy and let it >> a buy >> perhaps if it would give some peace of mind that it is limited to the legislative session, the upcoming legislative session, right? Because
that's where we would be as a perhaps as a group attending. Um, and it because the charter clearly states the mayor's roles. >> So, you know, if that if that's the concern, maybe it has a timeline.
>> Well, it kind of it kind of is in there already. >> It kind of Yeah, it talks about that about in front of the House and the Senate and appropriations and that sort of thing. That's in there already. >> Yes, but I think it's expanded beyond that with Palm Beach County and things like that. So, that's just a suggestion,
but there's already one in effect really. >> So, >> all right. Do we have a motion? >> I'll make a motion to approach resolution 2025-90, changing it where the mayor doesn't make the decision. The hierarchy is mayor, vice mayor, and the remaining council.
>> Second. >> All in favor? >> I I >> oppose. Passes five to zero. Okay. On to number 10. I'm sorry. And that was Lisa again, right? >> Yes. >> And it's okay now because they handed that out. That answered my question. the
hand the handout for the public was uh where are these uh >> solid waste authority location. So >> that's why I have those meetings. I >> I'll make >> a motion to approve 202592. >> Second.
>> Okay. All in favor? Opposed? Passes five to zero. >> I also pulled 11. >> Okay. >> And this is a question since this is a public works >> Yep. uh project. Uh I just wanted to
clarify the crossroads >> crossroads at >> well it's it's suggesting that these are going to be >> crossings on Okachobee correct >> for Okachobee as in the first set would go to FOD because that is one of our >> design crossings.
>> Yes. This is the sign so we can piggy back off of Wellington's piggyback contract. So the first set would be as a cross in Oakwood Boulevard would be FR row because that's one of our main roads of the horse trail, our main trails. The next one would go over to B road where
there's only one sign where the crossing is at B road behind Publix >> and then we're going to add more >> to C road and collecting as well. >> Okay, so they're going there's already one at C and collecting for the >> but it's only flashing at one spot.
But people coming down see don't see that flasher going if there's horses coming across. >> Does it flash all day long? >> No. >> No. They push a button. They push a button. >> Oh, it's AC. Okay. Crossing. Yeah, you see it now. There's different prices for flashers with or with. >> So, there's only going to be one at F
Road in Okachobee, one at B Road, >> one at B. Okay. At a crossing at a crossing, correct? >> There's going to be there's going to be the one there. It added to the crossing at the B- road at Publix and the
easement I sorry the conservation area right trail to add >> and then C road is adding an additional one >> then once we finish this project here because there's going to be a crossing right here at >> yeah that's what I'm saying F and collecting where that crossing there we
will be having them there as well. Okay, >> because that's a major crossing right there. When we widen that whole pipe, >> it's going to get finished. >> There's equipment there now to get closer. >> Okay, thank you. That answers. >> You're welcome. >> I make a motion to approve resolution 202593. So,
>> all in favor? >> I passes five to zero. On to item number 12. Lisa, I think that was your >> trifecta. What is it? Quatfecta. Uh again, I would just like to see it
codified. I I understand the attorney's concerns about the evolving nature of uh banking as it were. >> Uh so, but perhaps the language could accommodate some of those future possible changes. And
>> so pass this now, but look towards codif. >> Yes. look toward putting the language back either back into the existing >> something on the lines of to take into consideration current trends in banking or some kind of whatever. >> Yes. Still still you know having
oversight of a minimum of two council members whether you know whatever format it's in. >> Yeah. in the since you since you have repealed um the existing ordinance uh which get gets us to a point of okay
well what are the rules this is an attempt at the the rules my suggestion is let's pass this as a as a resol as a resolution um and we can discuss uh cotification at a another date. One of the good things
about a resolution too is um you can work on it and maybe there's something that >> you you said, "Wow, we didn't consider this or or that." So that's that's another advantage. That's >> Can we make a motion to approve it with
a date certain to bring it back as a as codification? I I see the hand. I can empathize with that. Yes. >> First time only Paul noticed. I noticed you. Well, thank you. >> I just ignored you. >> I know. >> I I just I try not to interrupt.
>> No, we're talking and then all these decisions, but I wanted to make a suggestion. Okay. >> And that is we had an ordinance that talked about signitories that we never followed. Why don't we bring back the first reading of that ordinance with two
council people for any payments? The procedures can stay in the resolution. is the way we adopted the HR manual. I'm sorry that not the HR manual, the procurement manual >> and the fact went through and this is
when Anita was the chair and we did a policy resolution for payments and we did an Yeah, we're on the council Lisa and we did an ordinance for the procurement >> that that was after me. >> Yeah. Okay. >> No, maybe. No, maybe not. >> I don't think so. So, I'm suggesting
let's approve this tonight because these procedures are pretty good for now and we bring back a first reading that has two council people signing every payment whether it's >> dealing with all >> correct funds because we already have it
that we have to do the reporting that's already in an ordinance. >> So, how would you suggest the motion? It's in line with what you're >> saying is to approve this now and then and then to give direction to come back with the other ordinance. It's a separate issue >> for the two on all of the
>> so I make a motion to approve resolution 202594 with uh >> with directions. >> So just just do that and then give direction after that. >> Oh okay. >> Second. >> Okay. All in favor? Okay. Now, the consensus is that we want to give
direction to come back with an ordinance ordinance requiring two council signatures on all payments regardless of therefore >> there there's one caveat to to that that I would suggest is and that we're we're
talking you said it not me brother. >> No, you said we're >> we're talking about payments to to vendors. um because there's substantial payments that happen every um two weeks
um to employees around here >> uh that nobody signs [laughter] checks to that gets automatically deposited into people's accounts >> excluding pay that could be part of the ordinance you bring >> well that's what I'm saying that let's
don't say every payment and uh >> well you got to bring them for a first rate we Shoot it down. >> It's vendors that we're talking about. >> Yeah, >> it's happened before. All right, >> that was a great one. Thank you. Okay, on to item number 18. Todd Manuel, who
are we gonna let take the lead on this one? Uh Jeff, I guess. Go ahead. [gasps] >> Your name's on it. >> Yeah, my name my name is on it. Um, since the last time we discussed this, we did have uh contact with the the
sheriff's office. Um, and Colonel Coleman referred it uh referred me to their legal advisor. Their legal advisor um said that he would look into it. The legal adviser got back to me and
basically said, "Balls in your court. Um, we're not going to tell you what we're going to do or not do. Um, we will react to the the situation. Um, the situation at this point in time is that
there has u there is a payment that was due. It is uh for their December services. It has not been made. Um the council has not allocated monies for that payment. Um and
uh whether they've really noticed or not, we don't know. [laughter] Uh um you know, as far as their finance department ringing up somebody and saying, "Hey, where's that money?" We haven't uh we haven't been contacted on that issue. Um so uh it is up to the
direction of of council as to how you want to proceed at this point in time. Uh one of the things that was the subject of um our meeting and discussions with uh the sheriff's office is whether or not
they would be amanable to a mutual termination of the agreement. Um and uh I guess officially they haven't given us given us an answer on that, but we certainly don't have an agreement uh to
mutually terminate. Um so direction of council is requested as to how do you want to proceed? Do you want to uh make a payment, not make a payment? Um,
I don't see an advantage to us to formally terminate the contract at this point in time. um uh for the this this year. Um you may want to
consider uh whether or not we want to uh consider termination of the the contract within the confines of the contract which is by March 31st and you can do that for the the next year.
Lisa, I think yours was on if I'm right when I came up. >> You are correct. Beat you to it. So, so there is the state statute and I think we alluded to this in the budgeting conversations regarding this item that
if you reduce spending on law enforcement, right, um there's I believe >> there's a window Yeah, there's a window of like 30 days Would we be starting that 30-day window or have we already
passed that 30-day window when we put it in contingent? Right. We put it in contingency. >> We did not fund. We funded law enforcement 120,000. So, we would be stuck with the 120,000 next year putting in the net budget. But if you don't spend it by the end of the year, then it just gets absorbed.
>> And we've so from the state statute standpoint, we've already passed that. I think it was a 30-day window that that has to be contested is maybe using the wrong language, but >> um I'm I'm not I'm not especially concerned
about uh that language and its implications. Um the major issue is going to be their response to uh non-payment of the contractual amount
and what their response is going to be. I I don't know and because I don't know I don't want to speculate um as to what the response may be. You have all had I think discussions or participated in discussions with them and you know some
of the well no [gasps] >> um >> separable >> but uh uh they have suggested some possibilities but they have not indicated that they would act upon any of those
possibilities. So before we discuss further, excuse me, Todd, right at this moment, I just want to reiterate where we stand. At this moment, where we stand is that they've offered to throw in red speed and not charge us more for that at
this time and reduce >> reduce the contract by 1%. >> $1,000. >> Well, six or $7,000. >> Yeah, >> it's 1%. >> 1% >> like six or $7,000. Yeah. Okay. I'm so I'm sorry. I just wanted to just make
sure it was clear where we stand right now. Okay. Um and and while we're talking about red speed, did you explore the possibility of if we are unable to fund this because we simply don't have the funding for it and to handle our
infrastructure needs. If we are unable to fund this, have we approached them of whether they would consider continuing to handle the red speed part of the contract? And at what they would do that, >> we discussed that with them and similar to the uh rest of the conversation, we
do not have an official response from them on that uh on that position. >> And so and uh we have begun reaching out to other potential agencies. They're very limited um as to who would be able
to to service the Redspeed contract. And without uh a law enforcement agency, um the continuation of the Redspeed contract would be difficult. >> Thank you. Okay, Todd.
>> So, one of my concerns when we were back here approving the budget and I didn't want to approve the 120,000 we put into it was because they're not going to take it seriously until the payment's cut off. And I don't think they've taken it seriously until a week ago because Brian Chet wasn't even aware that there was
really an issue until two weeks ago, right? And and everybody we've met with are like kind of like blowing it off the way I feel. They didn't meet with Paul, right? So they're kind of blowing it off and now that didn't come in the mail, right? And they know the check's not We didn't even tell them the check's coming in the mail. The check we made it clear
the check's not coming in the mail. So I say we leave status quo. We leave it where it's at. And then we're going to start getting more attention because right now they're blowing it off as the way I see it. Um in addition to that, so one of the things that we had talked
about is the savings that we that we get from this that we were going to um reimburse people on solid waste and Francine had talked about um a policy needs to come forward on how to go about refunding those funds. Um, so I would
like to make a motion that any savings from this line item from law enforcement for the 675 for the year, whether it ends up being $50,000 or 600 thou. Well, it can't be 600 now, whatever that amount is, that it gets refunded through solid waste, and I would like to see staff bring back a policy on how to move
forward with that. >> Okay, Lisa, did you have something to say or >> Sorry, not to go back around. you had stated how much we had received so far from the red red speed 70,000 >> 70 and there's another 70 in the
>> right and that's there's probably some potential diminishing returns as people start to change their behavior >> or not right >> so I think my point is is right now I'm going to use the term pure profit right
because there's no cost associated with administering that um and so obviously we've just how >> the answer is if it kept up at the current because I already got this number today. The answer is if it kept up at the current rate with very little learning curve, it would be close to
half a million dollars by the end of the year. >> Right. If nobody adjusts their behavior, >> um which we know >> if they do adjust it, we can anticipate 300 to 400,000 probably by the end of the year. >> Even if it's 300, that's that's a great
number. Um, so I I just think that's a really interesting uh revenue stream that hasn't potentially been in our in our coffers in the past. Uh, and then depending on how this plays out, how that will affect
obviously that income level. If if and Jeeoff, you may not know the answer to this. If we had had to pay the sheriff or other another entity, do we have an idea of what that would have cost us to administer that portion of the program? >> We've reached out to a couple of people
that and don't have an answer to that question. Um I I don't know there >> you have you have you have a couple of issues that >> um we would have we're going to have to deal with on this. First of all, you're going to have to find
um an agent that has jurisdiction um which is going to be a state agency. Um, and then then you're going to have to uh find uh an agency that
might be willing to deal with that with us if there was opposition to that from the sheriff's office. That was one of the things that we discussed with them which we still don't have an answer to is well
if if you're not interested in you know continuing on just with a traffic enforcement uh agreement um would you have an objection to us working with other agencies
um to supply that traffic enforcement? Um, and mum's the word so far. Um, and so that's an unknown. Um, and as as you're aware, one of the
concerns that uh the sheriff has has raised in in general is, you know, that there might be political implications to um their response. Once again, I don't want to speculate, but that's that's one
of the things that they they have not they have not said, well, we'll we'll just take this uh on a legal basis and we'll file a lawsuit and we'll get it all sorted out that way. That hasn't been the only thing that they have mentioned as a as a possibility. Well,
in that scenario that you just posed, I would have grave concern committing the funds, though that was the discussion during budgeting, should they choose the the legal route because there then we're looking at more legal expenses um depending on where that
goes. I would like to think that they would take it seriously and perhaps another negotiation could result, right? And then that red speed could potentially make that a moot point, right? Maybe it doesn't become a revenue stream anymore. Maybe it now pays for the sheriff's contract. >> It's a cost recovery type of
>> There you go. So, you know, I think there's there's a lot potentially there. So, but you've had your light on the whole time. Did you talk some more? >> Um, no. >> I I still would like staff to bring back
a policy that any savings from that light item. There's a policy on how it's going to get reimbured back to the people because that's what we promised when we raised the millage rate. >> I agree to the most, >> right? And but it's it's
it's being well I thought we determined it's being held in >> it is it is >> right. >> But there still has to be a policy on how that's going to happen when we pull that trigger. Right. >> And my point is to start that policy discussion. >> So we're holding it >> starting right. We're not we're not saying start writing checks, but here's
the policy when the council decides to trade, >> right? >> Can can we make that motion include um potential legal cost associated like like you said what money is left >> whatever money is left. So yeah, I guess if there's any legal fees
>> in this then it would come out of that that funding. >> Correct. That that funding. Yes. Okay. So if we spend 50,000 and we end up saving 400,000 as opposed to 450,000, >> 400,000 goes back to >> So you need that what? January. >> I'm sorry. >> The ordinance.
>> Well, resolution. >> I don't even know if it' be a resolution. It' be a policy. I guess it could be a resolution. >> Be a resolution. I think >> it can come back at our next meeting, but we're not going to pull. We're going to approve the >> I get that, but I'm asking when you want it to come back next. >> I mean, theoretically that could be March. >> Next meeting.
>> I know. I'm just saying. >> Yeah. Next meeting. Do we need a motion or just a direction from council tonight? >> Directions fine. >> Direction. >> So at least three of us are in agreement that they'll bring back a policy to refund the taxpayers like we promised >> 100%.
>> Okay. >> Do we know >> on that? >> What What's the percentage we collect on moving violations written by the sheriff's department? >> Nothing. We We've never seen a penny on >> We're supposed to get a dollar a ticket. We've never seen a penny. kind a dollar
a ticket. >> Uhhuh. >> It's it's small. It might be more than that, but it's not much. >> It was a dollar a ticket less. I knew the fact. But I'm just >> It's a moot point because we've never gotten a pay. >> Yeah. >> You know who else has a financial stake in the Red Speed as much as us is Redspeed. So, I think we need to have
some serious discussion with Redspeed. Hey, no, I know, but and put it back on them. Hey, this contract may fall apart for you guys, not just for us. And I haven't I haven't been satisfied in my mind that we've reached out to um Fish and Wildlife and Forest
High Patrol as aggressively as we should be. But maybe I misunderstood. >> So I don't want to put words in anybody's mouth. I really do not. I have spoken with Redspeed because FHP has statewide jurisdiction.
It would be beneficial for everyone if Red Speed had a relationship with FHP. The issue is a very tricky issue because you have to be able to have the
appropriate initial training FIO or something like that because don't forget this is first and foremost a safety program. So you have to actually need to know, you know, just like you need Paul to know the current stuff in building,
this person needs to know the current stuff in traffic enforcement. The state has put a committee together to do this training and this training is on hold until February. So, one of the
reasons why we're not getting like a real quick turnaround answer is because we don't know, you know, where we can hook up if we can hook up with FHP because of the training
being on hold. Otherwise, we'd be limited to jurisdictions in Palm Beach County and um >> adjacent jurisdictions, which is one PBSO. [laughter]
>> So, there you are. um PBSO did and I want to be a little bit less um I want to be a little bit more cognizant but the sheriff's office did say that
they understood we would have a need for a red speed contract and they did share with us that in Havill where they do not collect a contract like we have here they do have a traffic contract contract. So,
those are perhaps two things we haven't talked about in as great of detail as we need to speak to the sheriff's office about, but I would not rule out Red Speed being able to be administered by the sheriff's office, but I do not know
what the fee would be. >> Well, another option, just thinking about it, would PBSO be amendable to a separate contract just for Redspeed? >> They would, right? >> No. No, >> that when you say they would, that is
what we asked them and they have not given us a response to that. >> Except that they have one with Habhill. That was their >> They also have a fixed price with Habill that they won't consider for us either. So, I mean, Habill seems to be the to
deal. >> Well, I'm just >> Nobody lives there. >> I think Sheriff Willie did that 20 years ago or something. Yeah, that that's what we talked to them about, but they haven't responded to that. >> So, yeah, I would ask that question again. A separate contract because I'd have no problem with paying contract for that. Right. Separate. So,
>> right. So, we're not killing the Red Speed per second. >> And we have asked Red Speed for help in these negotiations. >> Okay. >> And I think at some point maybe we should explore red light cameras on Southern Boulevard. I know that's outside of our jurisdiction, but we can ask the state if we could do that. Put
red, you know, red light cameras. at B and S. >> That's not his policy. >> No, red no red light camera, no speed. >> Those got 86 years ago, did it? >> No, you can do them. >> In fact, some municipality just I don't know if it was West Palm, somebody I just saw in the paper is putting them
in. >> Okay, so guys, we have to give direction. Are we funding or not funding? >> They're not taking us seriously. And like I said, we shouldn't have funded them in two months, but I'm willing to give that and they're not taking it seriously until we stop paying it.
Otherwise, what's their rush? There's nothing that fake serious. They keep getting a check in the mail. >> Paul, >> concur. >> You concur, Lisa. >> I would be interested in pursuing it,
protecting those funds for le any sort of legal fallout and um >> yes, >> better understanding uh protecting that red speed revenue. So, >> so you're you concur for the moment
>> with with Yes. Yeah. those cap. >> I believe you have a consensus. >> Okay. >> Anita, you're not going to say where you stand. [laughter] >> I stand with the rest of my council members. >> That's where I stand.
Um, >> can I say something? Yeah, we I don't think any of us up here taking this situation lightly, >> right? It's it's being portrayed that way. You know, I think we don't take this lightly. We don't we don't we don't
discount what PBSO does on a daily basis. Uh, you know, it's just it's a it's a funding issue. That's what it all boils down to. You know, that's >> there's a lot that goes on that people don't understand, like joining lawsuit with Senate Bill 180, right? You know, oh, why aren't you doing that? This is
horrible. Why aren't you doing it? And you hear from the experts say absolutely don't do that. So, there's a lot of >> public perception about we don't have a clue what's going on up here, but that's not really the case. We we know a lot more what's going on and that's why our decisions sometimes don't look like they should, right?
>> Yeah. And Paul, I I I'm sorry if you mistook my my comment as humor because I don't it's it's definitely not a humorous situation. So, I apologize if it came off that way as humorous. It it it is it is a very serious situation, but the bottom line is
>> we don't have the money to fund a $700,000 a year contract. We just don't have it. We've been saying that for years and we've been saying that for years and we've been asking for some kind of consideration and and we know it's possible because we know that at least one surrounding municipality has
been given that kind of consideration that's in a very similar situation to us financially. So, um, you know, I I don't take it lightly, but it's it's just where we're at and and like Todd said and Lisa said, perhaps this will bring us back to the table and right >> and and have us come to some kind of a
more agreeable conclusion for all of us. Do you have any public comment on this item? No. >> Oh, we're allowed. >> I think it's very I think it's very disconcerting that to to say that there could be political ramifications and things like this when
we're talking about public safety. we're talking about in the times where you know everybody's looking at what's funded and how it's funded you know um you know you know they they're a cost recovery basis type of you know they get paid by tax dollar and recovery basis
too. So you know there's multiple revenue generators for that department whereas you take fire rescue for example and they get they're getting paid strictly on a tax base on a on a millage rate basis and >> by us >> by by us and and they don't have a recovery right you you know I I guess
you do pay >> actually suggested several years ago why doesn't they why don't they consider going to the same kind of model spread it's spread evenly throughout the country >> I mean you get built for an ambulance ride but you're a rescue truck ride or whatever you get or trauma hawk, you know, >> and I know the sheriff of Martin County
does not charge municipalities additional. He he works within that that that rate that everybody pays, you know, and so >> could you imagine the fire department coming saying, "We want another contractor. We're closing down your >> honestly when I first saw them on the agenda, I went right to that. I started reading because I'm like, "Oh, you got
to be kidding, man." But somebody wants more money. They actually want to try to my perception of them is they actually don't want us to pick up the burden of what is happening by annexations. Anyhow, I'm sorry. So, go ahead. >> Billion dollars
>> 1.2 >> $1.2 2 billion budget >> and >> yeah, the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Department and we were underwater in
2018 and we said we can't afford it. Our our roads are failing and he charged us. So this morning I was sitting on my couch having a cup of coffee and all of
a sudden I see all these cars going west on Collecting Canal cuz I see Collecting Canal from my couch. And in the middle of all these cars going west, there was a sheriff's car also going west. And
then I'm hearing on Facebook that certain residents were complaining that, you know, why was the sheriff's office not directing any traffic whatsoever is what I'm hearing. So what
you know I we the park is has its own police and I see them at the park. I see them sitting under the awning at the the new um uh orthopedic center. I mean, I I
we can't afford it. And um I don't like being threatened by the sheriff's department. I think they're supposed to protect and serve. >> Thank you.
>> Full trans full transparency real quick. What the comment was made something about, well, why why are they people where are they? Why why are people just rushing up and down collecting canal road? Um, in in events of detour, the sheriff's
department has never dispatched ever dispatched folks to calm the speed on collecting Canal Road. This has never been a thing. You know, I I've this has happened more than once. something happens on Southern and then you know the traffic is diverted. They've never
diverted manpower whether it be when we were paying hundreds of thousands of dollars or when we weren't. So >> didn't happen before in corporation didn't happen with the 300. It's not happening with the six. >> No. >> Okay. I think we've beaten that one. Okay guys, we're on to item number 19.
So I I uh typed up the list the list that we came up with. I I tried to uh I tried to be uh as as faithful as I can to what was said and actually even had it checked by AI and apparently I was 90 something%
accurate. So I'm pretty darn pretty darn proud of myself. I like passed the AI test. So um anyhow um so this is our priority or strategic planning list that we have. Um, and I think what we need to
do now is look towards prioritizing the priorit prioritizing these priorities. But the good news is we have it down to, you know, we have it down from what was it 164 or 167 to like 25. I think that's
that's really doable. Um, >> that's item 20. >> Yeah, I was like October 19. >> We're on 19. I'm on 20. Sorry, guys. I'm like, what? >> Let's finish 19. That's you, Francine.
Go ahead. Sorry. >> No, actually another time it's all Jeff. Um, >> yeah, 19. Yes. >> Oh, sorry. I apologize for skipping. >> On your first workshop, you guys were very productive. This is what's left
over that we need um direction on. Um I think we can easily do the resolution for changing um >> Okachobee Boulevard >> the name. >> Yeah. >> Uh I think we will have to work with the county on it. But um we need direction
on when >> do you need a vote tonight for that or just consensus or >> you just what we what we need at this point in time your your workshop meetings um are workshop meetings and to bring it back at a public meeting at
at one of your regular meetings and actually vote and say yes we meant what we talked about. Um we need to we need to have that um and then we can come up with some timets as far as uh you know
naming middle road. Um that's a very easy resolution that we can bring forward. >> Question again. Do you need a vote or a consensus on that? >> Um >> could this be construed as a consensus? >> We we just >> A. >> Do we all support A? Yes. >> Yes, we all support A. If you if you if
you want to do >> if you want to do it as we all support the whole page, that's okay, too. And that's faster. [laughter] >> Like to do them I have some questions about them. So I I I'm afraid I want to do the >> We're good. >> One at a time. So >> you want to pull something? >> Okay. Now I'm not pulling.
>> Game on. You want to pull something? >> I'm not pulling. Yeah. Me never pulls anything. Um I just wanted to add to be the new business policy um that that including last minute additions and supplement would say be immediately posted. I don't think that's realistic.
How about be posted within 72 hours? Because I think again if we make >> I think we're just talking about as quickly as possible. >> I know. I feel like sometimes we put words out there and the public perceives them and says it wasn't done like that thing that was handed to us at the
beginning of the meeting is not up on the website like right now there's nobody to put it up on the deposit checks. It's not >> exactly. So that's why I'm thinking that we need to go ahead and cut staff a little bit of a break and say within 72 hours. >> How about 48?
>> I I'm okay with 48. Is that sound reasonable? 48. Valerie going. >> So, so long as it So long as it's not a Thursday meeting. [laughter] >> 48 business hours. >> 48 business. >> You want to say two business days? >> Two business days.
>> Two business day. Got it. Okay. So, we'll see. >> That worked. Well, >> so then I'm okay with B. >> And I thought we weren't going to have anything added to the agenda tonight. We had 700 something pages. My gosh, one stinking math. >> But I was like, it says there's this thing here and it's not there and I'm
not happy about it. I'm sorry. >> Okay. So, now we're all okay with B. Yes. Yes. >> Yes. >> Okay. We're all okay with >> Yes, I am. I am. >> Okay. C. Everybody okay with C? >> Yes.
>> That's Jeeoff. You're supposed to be on case law and attorney general opinions regarding oneway communication. >> I will be I will be happy to make that presentation. >> Okay. Great. >> Do you want me to do it at one of your workshop meetings or do you >> Great. in in front of our next workshop meeting because
>> it's come up and it's happened and so before we travel down that path if there's something we should know particularly before our next workshop meeting so can we agree that we'll start our next workshop meeting at 5:30 so Mr. Curts can give his Oh, Paul's gonna shoot me. Is that okay, Paul? Can we
start our work? >> We have it in January. >> No, we're having it December. >> Absolutely. >> All right. >> Okay. So, our next workshop meeting will start at 5:30 for a half hour where you can give your presentation and anything else that may come up in the rest of this discussion 16.
>> And that's two weeks from today. >> That's two weeks from today. >> Yeah, we can do that. >> Okay. Everybody in agreement with that? >> Yes. Yeah. >> Okay. Great. Webside C. I can't wait for Jeff to say, "Oh, Todd, you were right." Because we me and him have discussed about the one-way communication >> website [clears throat] calendar
synchronization status update from staff on the steps being taken. Is that something you were going to give us tonight? I mean, or something we need to say, "Yes, we still want you to do that." Or >> I think I need clarification on what where's the the issue? Because I didn't really understand. one of our or doing
our workshop, we received a complaint or several complaints from people saying that >> on the different calendars on the website on the different places that you look the dates for things are not in sync. They show up differently. So, we we were hopeful that perhaps by using
the Asana system or or whatever and we were told that it's because one was put in one way and one was put in another way and that's why. Okay. and they were being monitored kind of separately, but we're looking again for a clear, concise communication with the public. So, what
we're looking for is for that to be fixed. >> Okay. So, I know at one point we had split out the calendars so that way we have the events on one calendar and we have the town meetings on another calendar.
On the website calendar itself, all the meetings are preset. So, for example, first Tuesday of every month, town council meeting, those are all preset in the system. If a meeting is canceled, then we go in and manually delete it or put cancelled.
when you're looking at MUN code, those dates are not set up reoccurring because the way that the Municode system works is that once I put those dates in, so let's say we have a meeting December 16th and I predate everything through
2026. What you're going to see at the top of that screen is your meeting from December 2026. I guarantee you you'll get complaints that you have to scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll all the way down to get to the January 7th 2026
meeting. Does that make sense? >> So I'm just trying to understand if that's the issue. >> No, no. I So I think where she's going that is when we're talking about the agenda link to the calendar, right? So that's where I think the disconnect comes and I knew there was some
technical part. So the homepage of the town website calendar where you can be on meetings or events those are preset in perpetuity as far out as it'll go >> right >> then when a meeting appears on the
agenda link that takes you to the MUN code lockahhatche groves agenda site it's a separate site right >> technically >> it's taking you out of the town weather it has a whole different domain name, >> right? So, they take you to another page
and that's the one she says if she puts it Yes. If she presets those dates, the the most >> the latest one in the calendar will be at the top. >> Correct. >> So, what'll happen is that you'll have this huge gap. So, what'll happen is
when someone's looking for the next meeting, they're going to have to scroll all the way to the bottom of the page. >> Right. So the intent which is what is standard through most municipalities is your next meeting is always at the top of the list. >> So while you're while you're speaking
I'm going to go ahead and pull up the website calendar because I just want to have an understanding so that way if there is an issue we can clarify. >> Some difficulty in synchronizing that. >> There was something about synchronizing it. Correct. There was something about syncing the two and people were
>> I don't look there because I write everything down on paper just >> um so I don't look there to get my date your Google calendar >> or I use my Google calendar now but there was from several people in the public the complaint that they go to one
place and it says one thing and one place that it says another. That's all I can tell you. >> Maybe we can go back and >> if if I may. So this is what I was referring to. I've had issues or I would say calls where people are looking for the meetings on this calendar and what
happens is they're click on events. Correct. So what happens is if you click over here on events >> you'll see okay Christmas Eve we're closed. Christmas day we're closed. You go back to meetings. You see how it changed here. >> Right. Look right here. This is where
it's changing. >> Can you can you do something like town hall is closed? Could that be on both? You going to have it on meetings and events? Cuz that >> Absolutely. That's fine. I mean, you know, to be honest with you, we don't really have that many events to have a whole separate calendar. So, if you guys
want, we can consolidate everything so you can view the entire month. Maybe that might help with the, you know, >> just one calendar. >> This is a template for those who don't understand. Right. This is a template that you have to work within with >> Yes. So, like to modify the view, we can't do that.
>> Correct. >> Right. But so let's go ahead and click on December 2nd. >> So Valerie, can you change where it says meetings on a tab and events on a tab? Can you have one that says meetings and events? Just one tab.
>> Absolutely. So now when we So we were having an issue before that when you select the meeting date, right? So if we go here, you guys see me right here. Okay. What would happen is [clears throat] it would take you to a link in HTML
link. And I don't know if you guys recall that we were having some issues that when the HTML version of the agenda was being printed, it differed from the PDF version. The reason is is because the HTML version is picking up the
backend agenda program. And so what happens unfortunately is that when we have to modify the agenda at the last minute um if we have to put you know additional updates or whatever the case is
when we do those uploads we do those in a separate tab so the HTML version does not pick up the PDF version so then what happens is then they're it doesn't communicate and right so what we did is we eliminated the HTML link because it
is confusing for the public and we were kind of racking our brains you know thinking why where where are they getting this agenda from and that was the issue >> so does that change the pagionation when you're when you're adding documents in to like the PDF is does it repagenate the entire document
>> what hap >> rep >> it is >> so what we do is you see down here >> these two links right here >> I'll get you >> so this tells you that basically there was an amendment or we added additional information. So what happens is the
agenda stays the same or we re-upload it so it's amended because this is just the agenda column but when you look at the packet you see this is where we had to add in additional information which is a whole another >> so you've actually fixed the problem even as we addressed that it needed to
be fixed kind of by just eliminating one of the formats. So when like the document that came out tonight >> we want that thrown up there on tonight's meeting will that >> in two days >> when two business two business days >> two business days
>> will that then it obviously it'll create another icon >> right next to here >> so so the as you add the icons I guess my question is they are added on chronologically like it's not by the name of the file folder or something like that like >> so let's pick the first one here
>> that should be the agenda Well, it'll be the whole packet, right? >> Right. >> And then the second one would be whatever it is. >> All the information's in there. But then now when we go and we select the second one, [clears throat] you'll see this was the information. See right here at the top.
So what we try to do is if we get the information before it hits your DIS as you see here at the top, item three meant to come after page. Whatever you know, whatever those updates are, we try to put those at the top so that way you have a clear understanding. This is to replace X amount of pages. But yeah, you
will see it in that order >> and they they'll appear in icon order of when they were placed into the the program. So people can expect if they hit the first icon, they're going to get the packet as it was originally. Awesome.
>> Yep. >> Okay. So I think the problem was solved even as it was focused. That's what it sounds. >> What I would suggest if any of you come across any issues or anyone in the public come across any issues, I'm very easy to reach. give me a call. You know, we're here to make sure that the information is transparent, accessible.
Um, and we'll work through any issues. Again, we're we're on the back end of the site more than we are on the front end. So, you know, you're our eyes and our ears. Just give us a call and we'll do what we can to work through it. >> And they're not always wizzywig. That's another word.
>> I just learned page nation. I looked it up. sequence of the numbers on the page like one two >> wrestle for that Paul. >> Yeah, left-handed. >> So, we've got some we we also talked about some specific committee assignments. Did anybody have any
specific committee assignments that they wanted because I have one and nobody else has one? >> We talked about the review of fact on the 5% uh budget reduction that was going to be >> already been do you need help with the 5% budget reduction, Francine? >> No.
>> You have it? Yep. >> Okay. Will you present the 5% budget reduction to us at the at the in the half hour at the beginning when he's talking about his other thing? >> We can certainly do that. We were put on the January. >> He doesn't need help with that. It's already done.
>> Not for nothing, but you know, we we were all kind of complaining about how and it was all over. But you know how FAC was kind of shut down until April or June or whatever of this year from after
the budget was you know and I mean it seems more like it should be a longer term committee then that's what I was hearing the whole time was we named a committee was April and they weren't able to meet
after the budget passed for the previous year they weren't able to meet until we named it like April or June or May. >> Well, I think that was also addressed in our meeting where we talked about >> I don't think that that committee sunsets. >> Can we bring >> I don't believe that committee sun >> so so so they so they met every month.
>> Okay. >> They never were intended to meet every So we talked I believe was at our November meeting uh we talked about can we set certain timeline expectations right like we want to see certain things a
minimum of so many months prior like we have the contract >> yeah that's in the next that's in the next section >> right and I think that that might address why that committee didn't meet was because it wasn't it wasn't being formulated yet right so
>> uh and I think that's possible And I know we've all talked about the ulvc and conflicting language and wanting the committee to go back through that and and start some of that process. >> Well, that was that was part of what this was was, you know, >> wanted to come up with specific things.
I had I mean does any that's why I was asking does anybody have anything specific? So, >> yes. How how come the ULDC committee has not been meeting? That's specific. >> There you go. >> Why have they not been meeting? Ed that
>> is it is it due to uh >> quorum? >> It's SP 180 as far as I understand. >> Okay. So because SB S SP 180 does not say that the ULDC committee cannot meet.
>> No, I agree with you. And not only that, there's so much stuff that has to be >> I I understand, but it's there's so much stuff that has to be cleaned up that's not necessarily restrictive that that they should still be working on cleaning up some of the stuff that needs to be cleaned up. >> That's the point. >> I mean, I don't feel like they should
not be meeting. I think they should be if they're if they're ready, willing, and able with the cautisil that we might not necessarily and I know because of Joe tells me all the time they're ready to meet. Um, you know, >> reason why when approve a bunch of stuff. >> Yeah. Whatever happens with SB180, first
of all, not everything that they pass is going to be more restrictive. A lot of what they what they need to look at is cleaning up language and clarifying it so it syncs with our our zoning and with our other rules. So, I don't feel like that that those things should stop. I think that they need to to continue. So,
maybe um >> is there a list that we >> Yeah, is there we have a list of things that they need to clean up. Let's Let's get >> No, I don't think there has been direction from council, >> but that's where I was just going to go. Council did make a list and we needed,
as I understood it, where we left that list, we needed to go ahead and get an opinion on the items that could move forward without being an SB 180 problem. >> Okay. The items that you wanted to put in what order. So let's get that and
within the next 30 days let's have a ULDC meeting on those five 10 50 100 items I don't care what they are that need that can be done without >> yeah like for instance the role vista most of it should be a to be adopted >> okay so can we can we give can we give that directive that within the next 30
days everybody okay within the next 30 days we want to meet and start addressing the issues on the list >> I can say yes but I can't commit for the attorney >> attorney can you tell us what King's making about his capacity.
>> There's a Okay. With respect to the uldc, I am not I am not certain as to the the reason that they have not met or do not have um items on their list. I
know that uh Garen was working on them. I know that they did work um on the on the sign code um issues. I think they have basically completed um that work or
or gotten to a place where um there there wasn't anything more for them to to discuss because it was all getting into restrictive types of things. And the sign code um as it has
been discussed by the uldc is more restrictive um than uh the existing sign code. But they they've already pause real quick. >> They've already worked so much on the
sign code. We've had such an issue with the sign code and with codifying rule vista. I don't understand why we can't have it sitting there waiting on the table and then even if we can approve it with a go- ahead date after SB80 is is is not in play because we've reached the
deadline. Why? Why that? Or it can be just sitting here. So when it happens, you just bring it forward instead of going through. Yes. Instead of coming back and going, "Oh, let's look at the trail signs one more time like we did with Recag. Let's look at this one more time." If it's sitting there in the
little file on the computer ready to go because the committee's already voted on it, it's ready to go. We're still not spinning our wheels because we, like we said, we know there's a ton of stuff that has to be done. >> Kicking the can. >> Exactly. So, so what I was saying I I'm
not sure and Karen's not here and I don't mean to speak to uh for her on on this and we really haven't talked about uh this uh this issue in detail to know where things for me to know where things are
exactly at. But my recollection of the uh resolution was that the ULDC was to meet and discuss items as directed by council. And I remember
that there was direction for them to meet and discuss rural vista and signs. Off the top of my head, I'm not cognizant or don't recol recall
that there has been direction for them to look at any other specific matters. Um, and so I'm sure there is a list of things that everybody wants them to to do.
That's my recollection of how the ULDC works. It is assignmentbased and I am not sure um that there has been a further assignment to them. >> What you're saying is if 8180 abolishes
tomorrow, Mr. Dantis wakes up in the morning says, "Okay, you know, we're throwing it out the window. We can we could have a special hearing or special meeting and we could approve we could approve the sign code tomorrow because it's ready to go. >> That's what you're saying. >> No, >> you're saying hold on, Jeff. That's
exactly what you just said. You're just saying we didn't give it all they had was these two directions and we haven't given any other direction besides these two because you weren't aware of it. >> That's not >> That's what he just said. >> No, that may be what he just said, but it's not accurate. We provided a list of things we want. I don't understand why
they're not looking >> that. But that's my point. >> 100%. What he's saying is the sign code's done, but we haven't had any clear direction. That's why we haven't met anymore. >> No, what >> that's what you were just saying, Jeeoff. So my my point is is if the sign
code's done and and and and rule this is done, sign code's done. Francine says there's a list. Anita says there's a list. I wasn't here. I don't remember the list. pull out the list, get us to reapprove the list,
>> right? You know, or start at the top of that list and just go >> bring the list to that meeting, too. That be at that 5 5:30 on the 16th >> because I've been here since April. Nobody's asked me about ULDC meeting any. >> Anybody else? I have one. If nobody else
has anything else, I'd this is a little bit outside the box, guys, but um hoping I'm hoping you'll all agree with me. I know. I don't even know. I feel like just taking this and chucking at you, Craig. Um, [laughter] because you're the equipment dude, aren't you? Um, so I was hoping that we
could ask P&Z to take a look at a unique idea. Um, and where my unique idea comes in is a lot of the things that I feel like that we do as rules and have create a culture of breaking the rules,
>> right? People look for ways to get around things. Okay. Right. Yeah. Or do things, you know, build a something that looks like a barn but really an apartment building, you know, or some something along those lines, right? So they can have their friends and family live there
or whatever. So what I was thinking was why don't we have P&Z and I'm going to say the word zoning, guys, but it doesn't necessarily have to be a zoning. Have them look at something like equestrian estate planning or estate planning. So for any property over 10
acres or 20 acres, I don't know, we get to decide, right, that the people come before us with a site plan that would be similar to as if a a commercial came to us with a site plan. So this would allow, let's say you got a guy who's
building out a 20 acre estate, okay? and he wants to have his barn in the front. And he wants to have his um he wants to have a caretaker up on the front in a small house to watch the gate, right?
Okay. And then he wants to also have his big giant house in the back, right? And then maybe he wants to have a house for his grooms or whatever. But the bottom line, but that would be against our current code, right? Because it would be three houses on one piece of property on
one parcel. they've got a 20 acre parcel, but I know from where I come in Maryland, it's very common to have a gatekeeper's house when you go onto somebody's estate and then a cook's house and often house a guest house and often times this house. So, and it's all
done very tastefully and beautifully, but all approved by a site plan. I'm not saying to just let people run a muk, but what I'm saying is to to consider something like this equestrian estate zoning where these would be site plans that were approved by council much like the commercial is approved by
council to keep people following the guidelines and rules and not just running a muck outside of them. I don't know what it would look like. I'm just making some suggestions, throwing some stuff out there based on my life experience. Again, from coming from up north where these kind of estates are
very common on much smaller parcels. I'm suggesting something like 20 acres or above or 10 acres or above, whatever you guys decide, but I'd like for PNZ to take a look at what that might look like. >> Have we had an issue so far? >> I have had several people approach me that have larger parcels that wanted to
put second homes on them, >> but they can't if they just break it up into four or five acre lots. They can put one on each, >> right? But they don't want to do that. They want to keep their property coming. >> They want an estate develop. They want an estate. They want to develop their property. >> Is that not something that could be brought forward as on a waiver in case
by case basis already or it's not allowed? >> It could be, but if it's not it's not allowed. >> No, it's not allowed. >> It's not allowed. >> So that's why I'm saying if we had this particular zoning thing, >> again, it would be very specific. I'm not saying throw everything a muck or whatever. It would be very specific
>> acreage requirement, >> a minimum acreage requirement. I mean, >> you got setback issues. >> Setback issues, fencing issues, all of that. >> You wouldn't want to divide the property because then each would have a separate taxed area. Correct. You'd be paying more taxes. Correct. And if you left it
as more >> and it lets people kind of tastefully and and responsibly develop it instead of throwing up this thing or putting this RV over there or doing whatever. Bill thought was you're driving up the cost, but somebody who's going to do on that scale. That's probably not in their
wheelhouse, right? You're not talking about that. >> Oh, cost is not an issue for for this type of person. So, >> 40 50 acres and a barn and a house and an arena and >> Yeah, exactly. >> I like the idea if we didn't have a thousand other issues we had to contend with. >> Oh, I'm just I'm just saying
>> that are that are dayto-day. >> We're looking at things to assign committees to. I would like to have them start looking into that. It goes along with the the more global thought of >> protecting land values. What is driving land values, equestrian use, right?
>> How do we support that industry and and and make it inviting for them to come and invest? >> And I think that would make it inviting for people that have that kind of money. >> I think Todd with with that that thought process that is all part of my thought process. So I I I can we have a
consensus to have PNZ look into that and what it might look like. >> I'm good with it's not like busy or something. >> Right. That's what they're not doing anything. That's what I'm saying. We're looking at tasking committees with stuff. I thought that was a good one for them to start pursuing that. I don't know. We might decide no once they look at it or they might decide no that's a
stupid idea but I thought it was worth pursuing. So, um, and I think it might get rid of some of the, like I said, rulebreaking culture, the like, you know, what I can get away. If you can come up with a site plan and and have it get approved and and do it the right
way, I do believe that people do want to do things the right way. I think that they cut the >> Bless you. Bless you. >> I do. >> I know. No, bless. I'm serious. Bless you. Bless you. They don't put my rose color glasses on. >> But you got to give them an Well, but you got to give them an avenue to do it
the right way, right? Well, they don't have the checklist, right? That >> come in and they're like, "Oh, if I want to do this, >> here's here's the little hurdles you're have to clear, >> right?" 100%. >> And here's, you know, maybe a cost estimate that you >> these mangroves are protected. It's okay. I don't care.
>> Cypress, give me the bill. >> But also, part of that cy can be the keep this the cypress head in your property. like we we want you to keep that as part of your site plan. Like it would kind of give us >> Well, I honestly don't know why we're not trying to get cons like conservation like the way, you know, like it's a bad
example, but like when they put up the cell phone tower, you know, they designated like as an acre or so of various place over there, you know, is conservation. That's when when that the guy who owned it before him put the cell phone tower up. The countyy's like, "You got to give us a x amount of conservation area, right?" And then like
the one we were talking about that they clear the one owner clearcut and then defaulted on the loan. You know, I don't know why we can't start asking for like some kind of conservation >> did. >> Yeah, >> the county did it. >> Yeah, that was those were punishment easements basically. Okay, so but those
are two if anybody else can any ideas in the next meetings of >> of things. So we're going to get the ULDC back to work in the next 30 days. Francine's going to come with the list that was previously put to them at in the half hour that we're going to have before our meeting on the 16th. She's
going to have 15 minutes and Jeff's going to have 15 minutes or they can arm wrestle and decide how they're going to do it. Um and [laughter] and then if anybody has any more ideas on what other committees might do. >> Well, I'd like to have I'd like to have a joint meeting with the FAT committee.
I'm very disappointed that for how many years have they made a motion and approved a recommendation for the millage rate for the acreage assessment and that didn't happen. I mean Jeff sat right there at the fact meeting and said the most important thing you do tonight is to make a recommendation for the millillage and assessment and they
didn't do it. They said reduce spending right n not essential reduce non-essential. What is non-essential? I mean, I I think we need to have them here and have a joint meeting with them to find out what happened here. Why didn't this happen when it's happened every single year up until now? Who
dropped the ball, right? And when you said non-essential, can you explain to us what you thought was non-essential? Because we're still in this budget cycle and they said don't spend on non-essential. >> I only meet that our next workshop. >> We were supposed to have a joint meeting. We had two of the members here
and they never got a chance to speak when we were doing the budgeting. it was presented as a joint meeting. So, but I agree this thing this is where we need to make sure that timeline moves back where we're we're getting more input and not less and we're we're working
together to make sure that we're hitting and checking all those boxes. >> So, do we have a special meeting to have that joint meeting or >> Oh, we have to or we use a workshop? >> I don't know if I want >> I don't want to use a workshop for it. >> So, >> it is kind of a workshop item. It it is
I mean we can have a workshop but dedicated to that because we're not going to vote out on that's what I'm saying I'm saying not not mess up our regular workshop >> what is their standing meeting night fact >> they don't have one at this point in time >> I thought they had standing >> they had Sunday and they went to a
Thursday so we can certainly pull them all and see what works for them again >> well maybe we just pick one of those standing meeting if there is a standing meeting >> there isn't I guess I I say we have or a workshop >> pull them and let and and and bring it
to us at the workshop and we'll make a decision then how decision and >> why workshop >> it's got a half hour before the workshop >> so we're going to have a meeting >> a half hour meeting before >> it's going to feel like >> that has two items on it so far now
we're putting a third on it will take >> will take like two and a half seconds okay so >> no more for that meeting >> um real quick on Redk say nothing about Redk but okay >> please >> I'm listening
>> okay Redkak has been really functional committee it meets every month >> they've been doing a great job on trails I don't know if you've noticed the change up in our trails and um Craig has um been the liaison for that for I think
probably about six or eight months now they've been doing pretty well that committee comes up with a lot of their own ideas Um, >> are they the only committee that doesn't have to be directed by council? >> No, they need to be directed by council, but I just wanted to share with you some
of the things that council had asked them to do and they have been self-directing and getting those things done and bringing them back. Um recently one of the members brought forward um the mural idea. Another one of the
members brought forward the PSA and they all worked on the PSA. that another one of the members has brought forward something called community greening um which is an organization that works with all different kinds of towns and
agencies on repopulating trees. Um and so Repak is probably the place where that kind of stuff might happen. Um, so I mean I know we had a certain amount of avoid and telling you what was going on with the other committees, but with
Revak it's been it's been getting stuff done. >> No, I I wasn't thinking they weren't getting stuff done. I just I I just know that it was said to me multiple times about multiple committees that they have to have direction. >> I do. So, and I know that when before it got sunseted years ago, when I was on
it, we were, you know, we were basically Jim Fleman held up the the maps and was like, "Oh, here they are, right?" But I guess my point was is it was maybe we ought to revisit cuz I think we've we've acquired some
easements since those were done, whatever. And maybe it's it, you know, because the whole thing is about, you know, making these trails more connective, the continuity of trails and stuff and see if we gain some easements, see where we need easements, see where we, you know,
see how we can do that. If that's something that they can move toward, you know, like reviewing, you understand what I'm saying? Reviewing the map or the survey and going, okay, we have easement here. We >> think there connectivity. I mean, I talk
to my member frequently. She's my neighbor, so I talk with her a lot. Um, actually, she called me tonight before this meeting because she wants to sit down and meet with some ideas she has. And she and I know Katie Lakeman are extremely active >> um in trying to come up with ideas and
move things forward. So, um I will be meeting with her probably um over the weekend to hear her newest round of ideas, but I know they're ongoing directive and the thing they're working on is to try to get trail connectivity accomplished. Correct. I I think that
that is that is like that is the ongoing, you know, and that was where the adding the roads, the trails on the side of the roads and trying to get some of these other trails open is uh is what they're and getting the crossing signs in place. So, this is all pieces of it.
And I'm so happy to hear about the crossing signs because that was one of the things that she expressed frustration about is how long does it take to order some stupid crossing signs. So, thank you for getting that done. The reason we had to wait because they went under a new contract. So >> I couldn't go out there, >> you know, but you know,
>> government it takes a minute anyway. And it's just like it's so hard when people and it's frustrating because you know these this is stuff they've been trying to get accomplished for years. So >> no, I guess my my point is is if we know that we're missing like 3,000 feet in the middle of Sea Road to
get Sea Road connected, that could be a focus. like we can't go out and ask for these but you know there a letter could be sent or something you know that could be a focus and we would have yet another you know >> I think section >> by road or section by section are you know >> yeah one of the things I I asked is
>> like the worst >> I asked about I was describing >> some of that the biggest thing was like high park the connectivity from high park out to F that little easement that we got from the homeowners there to connect down in between the two properties we're looking for more of
that one that comes right up the gate. >> Gruber is the only road through the whole town that goes from one one main road to the next, >> right? >> We need more of, hey, that 15, >> somebody wants to give a 15t of their property that we can put a horse trail
all the way down. Maybe it's one of these big gigantic horse farms that owns from one side to the other, >> right? they would give up a 15 foot that we can put an actual horse trail to connect from D to F or from you know C to B in certain areas that we can
connect everything to make one big loop >> right >> that's one thing we're trying to >> look through e trail and you got the A- road trail fixed up because it's closed off now not being used as a super highway >> and it has passed >> so that's good yeah >> so it's just I think they're just doing
it piece by piece and trying to get over all That's all. That's all I was saying. >> One step at a time. All right, let's move on to item 20 and try to Now we can go back to 20. Um, did anybody have the time to prioritize these or do we want
to just say that these are all our priorities? I mean, some of them that made the list like the holiday parade float that's going to be done in two weeks. I mean, that drops off the list in two weeks. You know what I mean? That that that's so >> that's on the bottom of the priority list. >> But that wasn't a priority list. That
was just something we had discussed. >> This was a list of all the things that we did discuss that we wanted to get accomplished. So I was just putting all of them there. Whether we need to prioritize I think that the um solid waste especially the manure management
has to move to the top of the list. That whole situation has gotten out of control. Um and I think that needs to move to the top of the list. Um >> I think code enforcement operations needs to move. the top of the list >> that falls under the same thing.
>> We had a long lengthy discussion today where the sign code or the sign enforcement is coming back to us, right, for code enforcement, but the what I see the industrial properties on Boulevard are being ignored. I'm more concerned about those than I am the signs, >> right? Right.
>> So the signs the signs is moving forward, but the industrial stuff is not. >> So I I think I touched on it at the workshop. I think council should decide what is the main driving goal and I
think we talked about property values and identifying you know what what drives property values and protects property values and then every pillar that we focus on to support that goal is is where the priority has to then be
placed because limited resources whether that's time or staff or money um is somewhat irrelevant and because it it needs to to have a focus and I think the past list of 165 items there's no way to
focus on that right and right >> and you know you start eating an elephant one bite at a time and while you can say oh my god we've got all the drainage issues can we prioritize what will give us the most bang for the buck can we make some connectivity with trails can we encourage
site plan development that you know encourages estates, right? You know, any of those decisions are all driven by one overarching theme that is supported by the pillars under that overarching theme. So I know a lot of these check
those boxes. >> A lot of them do. So I think as we go forward in this list I think what we have to do is like what is the overarching theme that is the guiding principle of all decisions that fall under that. So, well, I think I think
you I I I actually think you hit the nail on the head on what the overarching theme is is to try to create an environment that preserves the rural integrity of the count town and makes it a desirable place for people to >> but we have to identify what are those
things like is it is it equestrian use because you know there's people in the town that don't like the horse people >> 100%. >> And so, you know, so what protects their land values? Um well, not having a neighbor with a semi-tractor Speaking of code enforcement, right? Code >> enforcement comes.
>> The funny thing is, oddly enough, more more large scale equestrian facilities actually helps their their bottom line, >> right? Their property, >> but it also creates manure, huge, piles of it sitting on the road and trucks coming in and out. So, it's all I I'm not sure that any of these are mutually
exclusive. I I kind of feel like these might be the top 20 to to take. >> Can we take this and then come back with it maybe at our next workshop with that clarification? >> Right. And the other thing I'd ask everybody to consider when they're doing the clarification is to talk to staff,
talk to our um our local lobbyists, but to try to um some of these things are timesensitive for lack of a better term. Like we know that our district commissioner is right now working on this Okachevi K Boulevard boulevard
corridor thing. So, this is a really good time for us to put that at the top of our list as far as the renaming the road and what are we going to do, you know, that that's not one to kick down the road. And with that being said, things like the vested rights that's on here and finally doing something about
that. That is something that I don't know, I've lived here since 2011. That's a can that's being kicked down the road since then. I'm sure before then, but that I've been aware of since 2011. It's something that everybody's talked about that something needs to get done about that not a damn thing has been done
about and the longer we let situations like that exacerbate the worse it is for us as far as legal standing on being able to do anything about those steps. >> Can can you provide since you tap touched on some of the time sensor ones can an email be shared with all the council what those are so we're all
aware of you know what's coming forward um that may affect how we prioritize. >> Yeah. like our trash contract is timesensitive. The Okachchobee corridor is timesensitive for what's going on in the community around us, but I can try to add dates of what's timesensitive and and
>> and making the manure making the manure a a top priority, engaging solid waste authority in that process. Um because I don't think solid waste has has any real structure regarding that and this is not something I think our town should be
taking on exclusively. Um, so >> no, I mean it's a it's a it's a communitywide issue, meaning the neighboring communities as well. Wellington's creating poop and it is creating poop, you know, a lot of which at this time is ending up in our town.
So, um, we gota we got to do something about it. >> Don't forget Sunshine Meadows and all those guys down there. >> I'm sorry. >> Don't leave Sunshine Meadows and all those guys out. >> Well, okay, I won't. >> Just kidding. You know, whereas, no offense, Todd, but the reclaimed water opportunities along Okachobee could drop
to the bottom of the list as far as I'm concerned. >> When SB came up tonight, >> SB 180 kind of came up tonight, meaning not a whole lot we can do about it. The holiday parties off. >> Yeah, but I I think what I was talking about with SB80 was more along the lines of C can can we go ahead and adopt Rule
Vista with the guys that we're not going to be able to enforce some of it until it goes, but we could be on the show. But >> yeah. Or or can we can we >> back the I mean I don't want to back stuff out because it's it makes it too difficult. >> Yeah.
>> All right. So we we're all in agreement that what we're going to do is we're going to come back hold on before I forget. >> We could adopt things that are more stringent. >> Yeah. >> Right. We could adopt today and it would be in opposition to state law and it would take a developer to try to
challenge that. Right. That is a possibility. We could do that. Yeah. Oh, well, not not even necessarily a developer, but um because anybody has the basic right to to challenge and there are attorneys fee provisions in
there. >> So, you would you would encourage >> you would encourage resourceful lawyers to go out and say, "Oh, I'll take a shot at that one." like like the like the ADA >> the ADA >> chaser >> or the old public records stuff where
you know you would have somebody belligerently ask for public records and then sue for them. >> All right. So, I'm going to try to add time sensitivity things to this and redistribute it to Valerie as soon as I can. I am leaving town for town business tomorrow and we'll be gone tomorrow and
Thursday. So, it probably won't happen till the beginning of next week. I apologize, but um I will do the best I can. Um, but I will do the best I can as far as I know. And if anybody else has any time-sensitive information that they
know of, they could share it directly with the town clerk, too, and she'll try to get that on there. Okay. All right. Moving on with to the last item, which is supposed to be carrying, which is the sign code education program. >> The use of receipt file. She's just giving you an update from what she
presented at the last meeting. Okay. But can I I had a comment to add to this if nobody else has one. I I just think that um I I've just been hearing from several local businesses that they do not feel
that these things are being enforced uniformly. Um, and I think a lot of that perception is because some people are just doing things that are illegal until they are got no, you know, got told to. And then when they're told they have to take the flag or the giant waving man
down, they just wait till code enforcement leaves and then they put the flag or the giant waving man back up again. And then the guy who's following the rules is really not happy, right? And that's a guy who's calling me and saying, "How come you know, you told me that that yes, I had to follow code
enforcement and take down my flags, but now dude around corner has his flags up. He took him down when I when when they came through and said we all had to, but now he's put his flags back up again." Well, I'm putting mine back up. You know, you don't want to do that because you're going to be in code violation.
Well, he did it. They go, I understand, but he's in code violation. So yeah, >> you know, like so I I just want to reiterate and have that somehow be part of this education and policy in
that, you know, you know, >> that's why she's doing that. >> Yeah. There there just has to be more um more communication, which is what we talked about a lot of, you know, yes, you're right, your neighbor is doing that, but just because your neighbor jumped off the bridge doesn't mean that
you need to jump off the bridge, too. And that and that's one of the reasons we've said if you're going to enforce your signed code, you have to do it in a proactive manner and not just rely on complaints. It has to be >> right >> because those are the kind of things
that you go, okay, yeah, we'll go out and get them and we'll see them and we'll nail all the the flappy men. >> All right. Okay. We're on to the last item number 22, discussion of the SWAT analysis. I thought we kind of already put that to bed, but >> receive and file.
>> Oh, it's another receipt and file. Uh, great. Okay, so we don't need to worry about that. So, then we're on to the town manager's comment. Actually, do we have any public comment on non-aggenda items? >> Yes, we do, Miss Suchi. >> Okay, >> the long range election.
>> Yeah. >> Closing down the house. Cass >> Cassie Sushi um made an observation the other day because I was leaving at a time for work not really like Odarkund and I noticed that and I so I started
driving around and I noticed the backup at traffic east and west at B-roll because it's now becoming people coming out. It's a main thorough fair to whatever the plazas are. I don't know if it has to do with the red light cameras going up and now you got people really
slowing down. So you have huge watches of people. It was also going west. It was very difficult to get out. I saw people doing maneuvers that I was amazed that they were even doing them and not getting hit. Um I didn't
notice as much backups until we got to like Folsome because of the B-roll access to the plazas and wherever it's going, Southern Boulevard. Um, you made a comment that we made $70,000 on this
the cameras or whatever. We really need to do something for these high traffic times, whether we take that money and we I I don't know whether we put stop signs or something, but maybe take a drive
like during the rush hour. I don't know if it's more people driving. Um, I'm gonna try to change my hours at work and see um if it's just it was only like three days I noticed in a row. So, I just wanted you guys to think about
that. I noticed they're not doing I guess with all the immigration, they're not doing as much drop offs and pickups there, which has helped because cars were now using the side roads to come out. But, it might be something you guys want to look into. I don't know how we can do it. I know it's been an issue with the traffic. thought about putting
stop signs at like B. >> I have no idea if it has to do with, >> you know, like I said, I don't normally go there. Is it more people from Westlake? Is it because of the cameras? But I was amazed >> the amount of cars. There must have been
>> 25 cars going west backed up. Nobody could come out. So, there was 10 cars going north and there was >> another 15 trying to go this sometimes. I just go right and then go up and >> so I saw people doing like a right and
then doing a J hook back around in front of people. I was like, well, that works, you know, but that's dangerous. >> You have to get creative. >> Yeah, they were creative. So, just think about it. I don't know if it's something we can do or what the solution is um as our traffic gets more >> roundabouts.
>> Huh? >> Roundabouts. >> Then I also noticed um an increase in heavy trucks. Do we have I know we have a no through truck on our side roads. >> Do we have anything like that on Okachobee or anything we can do? Or
maybe we have a >> maybe we could contract with the sheriff. I don't know if we're on talking points with them, but maybe maybe look into their commercial car enforcement. But I I I took pictures of several trucks that went I followed
>> two three They were four company trucks from the same company caravanning and they ended up going all the way to 441 and then going south. I don't know where they went after that, but I just thought it was a case. >> They gave them 162
>> huge dump trucks laden full of stuff and they didn't come from our town. So, um just something I noticed. Like I said, I'm going to try to do a little bit more research and maybe get some pictures for you. But um I if I if I had to leave at that regular time, I think I would >> Well, something has to be done about Okachobee and that's why it's
>> But I noticed it was the D road was one because it's a main through road, but D road wasn't as backed up as B- road. >> Yeah. >> And the next one is Falsam. So you got your three big roads. >> Fros's bad enough, >> but I couldn't believe. >> But your Fum and D road are definitely being impacted by school zones.
>> 100%. Yeah. and they're not slowing down moving here. So, >> okay, Francine, town manager's comments. >> I have two big comments. One, we are moving forward on a road. Um, a lot has been going on. I think we have four or
five easements left to get and we're working with all the property owners and we're getting quite a bit of help from Mr. Burkhard on that. We have the bid document just about ready to go out. It will be going out next week. We are
trying to streamline the design on that so that we can save some money. And we are also going to do an invitation to bid that provides two different schedules of values. one that um has us
doing the prep work as we've been doing for the last several months and the other has the prep work being uh included in the contract because um the time is money >> and so um we expect to get that out next
week and um hopefully we will get some excellent bids like we did last year on the drainage. Craig mentioned to you that um the work is starting at um collecting canal and a but the main thing I wanted to mention is the
livestock waste. Um we have been working with Wellington. um a property owner in Wellington um has um engaged attorneys to bring a verified complaint against the A- Road
property and um has invited us to participate in that verified complaint. And a verified complaint is where you send it on up to the state. The FD
have to basically come down here and verify that the complaint is valid and that they have a registration and so on and so forth. I am not going to go in the full detail. I'm going to seed my time to Mr. Kurtz to talk about it in
more detail because it is a legal matter. Um we also can bring back to you the franchise registration agreement in January um so that we do have um some tracking of the haulers in place. It
does not include a transfer station. It is strictly the means of regulating the haulers. Um, we have more haulers now going to the A-Rod property than we have had before and >> that are registered with us. So, people
are using it that are not registered with us. >> Correct. We have registered right now because that expired and we need the franchise to have the registration. So, anyway, I hope you all had a happy Thanksgiving. I am very thankful that we're moving along so very well and I
hope um that the holiday season is a good and bright one for all of us. And Jeff, I'm seating to you for more livestock. >> Will you talk more about poop, Jeff? >> Well, uh apparently there's a whole
bunch of it out there. Uh uh the property in in question is 1470A Road. That property was the subject of a code enforcement action. They have current fines. Um there are current fines
running against the the property. Um and those those fines are in the form of a lean at $100 a day. um uh the time period um that it'll be 90 days I believe on
December 28th uh of this um month. Yeah, December 28th. And so that pursuant to our policy leans have to be outstanding for 90 days before we initiate any sort of
foreclosure action. Uh this property happens to be homesteaded um which adds to the the complicating factors. >> Let me before I forget when was it homesteaded? After incorporation or before you know
>> I I do not know. So >> I'm asking right >> so far. Yeah. >> It's only halfacre in a municipality. >> Yes. That's that's absolutely correct. >> Unless they were homesteaded before. >> Yeah. >> Okay. All right. um >> they lived there for many years and and
and we will be talk we will we will be talking about uh foreclosures and the issue of uh the halfacre um and the fact that if you did foreclose on the the properties you would be creating non-conforming lots if
you were successful. There's a there's a whole magnitude with respect to that. I'm just telling you the status of the code enforcement case. Um what Francine has indicated is that uh there is a complaint that was made with uh FD.
Um the FD is supposed to be coming out to take a look at it. Um I uh reached out um today and uh expect a follow-up call from uh the council of record in that case to
find out what the status is and what uh FDB's response has been thus far. um they have asked us to join into the
the litigation. Um and uh what we are asking you for at this point in time is uh direction that um we be able to to move forward um and join in that
litigation. Um at this point in time it would be something that we would handle um in house uh we would uh the >> argument that it's an agricultural use
>> that it's an agricultural you bet >> you think you need to address the counterargument right there are some people that say that it's an agricultural use so they protect it right >> okay >> I'm just >> yeah I well well and um let me say first
of all with respect to the code enforcement case um there was um I want to classify it kind of as a memorandum of law um that was sent to us
uh which made some of those arguments that you are are talking about. there was no need to respond to those arguments because um they had not made them in front of the special magistrate and they did not file uh an appeal of
the special magistrates's ruling. So um there is if you don't make it in the proper form there's nothing that it's doing. It's it's empty air out there. Um the arguments
Yeah. And the arguments that have been put forward I think are mostly empty air. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> I just wanted to address that. That's all you know >> out there. But >> I think that is the I think that is the
reason for the FD verified complaint because they would be making the decision and there is also a state license >> that is required that is not
>> in hand. the the yeah the intent of the FD involvement would be to uh get their attention and they have regulations saying that a transfer station such as that would have to meet
state regulations um and that property does not come close to um it uh the the uh entity that
um is had brought in action is um the operator of a transfer station uh down in Wellington. And so they are coming at that from a competitor's standpoint.
um and they are quite confident based on their experience and having to uh deal with FTP that uh this transfer station that we have here is woefully inadequate. Um and they just need the
state to come in and and help them shut it well help us shut it down. And they have asked for for us to join them in that. Um and given the fact that we have not gotten cooperation up until this
point in time, um we would like to uh have that authority administratively to move forward on that. And as I said, at this point in time, it would mainly be joining in um and letting them be the
the lead um uh you know, the existing uh complaintants, >> provide all our code enforcement case >> and we would provide them with information, but for the most part, it would be saying yes, we agree with what what they're saying. And uh
>> you okay with that? >> Yeah. We need to do emergency. >> I know, but let's just try to get through this. Are you okay with that, Todd? >> Yes, >> Lisa. >> No, >> joining a lawsuit. >> No, not joining a lawsuit. >> Making joining joining in on the
complaint that they are making to FD. >> Marge, you can't. You have to recuse yourself. >> Okay. So, four of us, >> okay, >> that that can weigh in on this are weighing in on I need a motion to extend the meeting. >> Motion to second. in
>> favor. >> Okay. >> And it and at the same time, um, we are going to be reaching out to the property owner. >> Well, yes, I I talked to him to today and they're trying to set up a meeting
uh with him to express our concerns and our intent um because the property owner is not the operator of the the facility. Um I I believe that they are in they have some
sort of uh use or lease arrangement with it but um we do want to make the property owner aware that we're moving forward because in in our past experience with the the property owner they have been a um a cooperative person
with us. >> Okay. >> Anything else, Mr. Kirk? >> Yes. This is uh um I'm smiling um because there is a
um well I I told you that you have to be aware that anybody can make a complaint about any of us at any point in time. uh and so
um we should not be judged on the fact that the complaint has been made against us. Um I was in a meeting on November 7th with uh Cindy Scrunchie and her husband.
Um the outcome of that meeting um or part of the outcome was that she filed a um a complaint with the sheriff's office
uh with regard to my alleged behavior. Um my the way she has characterized my alleged behavior is a complete fabrication. Um, and then today I got notice of
a complaint that has been made with the Florida Bar about my conduct in that meeting. Um, and one of the things that that I have to do is I have to alert you
as you are my uh superiors or the people that I report to um that there has been a complaint made with the Florida Bar. I am not taking this lightly because any complaint with the Florida Bar potentially affects my license to to
practice law. Um, and so I'm going to hand you a copy of this. Um, you can read it at at your leisure. >> Motion to receive file. >> So move. And um in
>> favor >> I >> uh if you have any questions uh about it, you are free to contact me and I'll be happy to discuss the the circumstances of the meeting and what actually happened at that meeting.
Um, I will be uh providing a response to the bar by December 10th because I am required to do so. Um, I uh can assure you that
her allegations about and characterization of the way that meeting happened and what I did is a complete fabrication. You have witnesses. >> Well, I do. >> Um, >> so what? So,
>> okay. So, you have witnesses. It's a fabrication. You're going to answer the bar, but I I think that we want to take this further. So, this is someone who allegedly attacked a sitting council person in the restroom. This is someone
who has called me a liar. you know, has disparaged my reputation as well as other people on counsel, but has disparaged my reputation publicly for stating the truth, which I just tonight proved by that letter from the attorney general that I'm not a liar and
that in fact it was not a criminal investigation, it was an inquiry. Um, and now this is a person who is coming after our town attorney. So, I I I understand we're public figures and I understand that this is the town, but at
some point, what what rights do we have? I'd like you to inquire from the bar to protect our town and ourselves >> from these types of behaviors. >> I at at this point in time with respect
to to this particular matter, um I will be providing a response to the bar. I will copy you all on the the response so uh that you can see it. Um my fervent hope is that uh the bar uh dismisses it
without uh further inquiry um so that it doesn't waste um my time or the town's time. Uh this is something that obviously occurred during the course of my employment. Um I am not uh seeking at
this point in time any kind of indemnification. We have to see what happens with respect to to um this um you know it will be up to uh the the bar as to whether or not
um they wish to take it beyond uh my response and the potential rebuttal. Um, so I'm not gonna I'm not going to belabor I'm not going to belabor that any any further. I will
say that um in light of this um and I hope you will understand my decision. I will not meet with that person again. >> Gotcha. I believe that may be the sentiment of >> all staff. >> All staff.
>> I don't blame him. I don't blame him. >> Clearly, if they come to a public meeting, they have the right to be here. But private meetings, that's not a >> that is not something that >> they're entitled to. >> That's lady that >> Yes. >> Yeah. I refuse to give up the mic after
three minutes. And so I just wanted to let you know that I have fulfilled my responsibilities and you are you know I'll be happy to talk in in more detail and if you do have any questions um about it uh feel free >> but you didn't really answer my question
of what so certainly that is a great move to protect staff and that's great to bring up the fact that staff is not required to meet with anyone particularly if they cannot behave in a civil manner but is there you know based on the allegations that were made by a
former council member. Um, is there anything else that we can do to protect ourselves as council members? Because that's a great way to protect staff, but is there anything further that we can do? I'd like you to investigate if there's something else that we could do as council members to protect ourselves, too, because, you know, I don't particularly want to be followed in the
bathroom and beaten up. So, um, you know, if there's something that that we we can do or should be doing, I would I would certainly request it. Um, I don't know how everybody else feels about that. >> Yeah, I I suspect he's going to come up with nothing. There's really not much
you can do. You got freedom of speech and those people can come and say whatever they want and they have more freedom of speech against elected officials. So, it is what it is. >> No, I didn't mean protecting from the speech. I get it. She can call me whatever name she wants to and I bet you she is right now. But that's not the
point. The point is um, you know, I think that we have >> no private meetings. >> Yeah. No private meetings or something. Yeah. With anyone >> recorded, Zoom calls, things like that. There's whatever. That way keeps everyone. >> Yeah. Everything on the Everything on
the straight and narrow. >> I mean, that it's and it's like I said sitting here several months ago, it's these people like that that are dragging down the community. They say they're here in support of the community. They want the community to do good, but they're not. They are actively looking to destroy the town. When they come
after the town manager, and they say, you know, she's a crime. She's a criminal. don't renew her contract because of that. You can say don't renew her contract because she hasn't done a good job. Don't start saying making accusations where she's broken the law and that sort of thing and coming after her for that. You're dragging down the town. Other town managers that are
looking to come here are going to be like, I'm not going into that hornets's nest. Next town man, you know, town attorney that might be looking to come here, I'm not going there. That place is crazy. You know, believe me, where it gets around, where it gets around, other municipalities know the craziness that goes on here. >> Yeah, true.
>> Clerks talk to other clerks. They know what's up. >> Yeah. Term of office and and how many votes it takes to get in and out are not as much as No, no, no. I'm not going there. >> Has nothing to do with anything else. >> So, yeah, your your pool of candidates drastically decreases and the ones that
are willing to come here >> probably don't probably don't want them. Yeah. You know, >> because they couldn't find somewhere else that was normal. >> Sorry [laughter] to chaos. Uber fixers >> doesn't apply to you all. Yeah, we're
not normal either. [laughter] >> We're not. Yes, we love you and we are committed to this. [laughter] >> Okay, thanks. I think that one came out wrong, Todd. Okay, Valerie, do you have a report? Well, on a lighter note,
[laughter] um it's that time of the year where we um distribute gratitude baskets. Uh so, flyers went out today. We will be doing the pickup on Thursday, December 18th. We do have a limited um amount this year. Um so we are asking uh that you
come in on December 18th or if you can't make it in that date to please give us a call 561793 to 418. Uh if you have any questions again, you can give us a call, but you can pick up at any time during our business hours of 8:30 to 4:30. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome.
>> Anything else? >> No. Okay, Craig, you're not on here, but we need a float thing. >> I know. I already confronted her about I'm not on there. I know, >> but I put you on, right, Craig? >> I get to do that. >> Yeah. Public.
>> Um, please do remember the 14th is the parade. >> What time do you want us over there? >> Um, I got to look and see what time they're actually going to let us come in >> because they have their own times for arrival to be in the area. >> Okay. So, you'll let us know. >> Yes, I will let everyone know. Is >> everybody working on their outfits?
That's next Sunday, right? >> Not this Sunday, but the following Sunday outfits, Lisa, you said you put a >> put on some a hunter. Is there as long as it's unloaded with a with a
>> I highly doubt it, my friend. It better have an orange tip on it. And it's plastic, >> man. Come on. >> There is a lot of PBSO over there that we don't pay for. >> We have them that [laughter] Hey, listen. If I got a fishing pole, bud. >> We We have now, so bring it.
>> No, I just meant if I have it tagged out. >> Yeah. >> You know, I mean, >> I would just let the sheriff know that on this float [laughter] >> there arrest locks at your gross. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> I guess I'll go get a Nerf gun from
>> just said we're not normal. >> Yeah. >> Just proves our point. Hey, it was it was I'm a hunter. >> We We got a little thing going here. So, kind of going to be gunslinger >> on their outfits and Paul's coming or just in case
[laughter] >> and you don't need any support from any of us on the float. You're good. >> Oh, we'll be good. >> All right. Okay. >> If I need them, I'll give you guys a call. >> All right. >> There was um a recommendation that maybe enlarged some of the pictures that are out there and note them on that fence
that you were talking about, the picket fence. Oh. Um, the float itself. I thought we're doing like a chicken wire fence around it. >> A chicken wire fence. >> And they wanted like a cane grass around it. >> Yeah. With cane grass. Yeah. >> Oh, okay. Okay. >> Yeah. Cuz we're trying to look like
we're in the swamp. >> Yeah. [laughter] >> We're trying to look like we're in the swamp. >> We'll put a little tree stand for Paul over in the corner of the >> You got a little tree stand. >> Wait, are you building it? I'm going stand next to that tree stand, dude. >> Okay.
>> He's the hunter. I'm a hunter. Tree stand. >> Oh, a tree stand. Okay. All right. Like a real tree stand. I see what you mean. Okay. >> Just have a bow with no arrow. >> Before we have to extend again. >> So, I wanted to talk about the grant for Southern Boulevard. Um, there's all this
misinformation out there. What I think is misinformation that there's discussion of commercializing from Southern to Collecting Canal. Is there any council member sitting here that's looking to commercialize all the way to Collecting Canal? >> No. No. >> No. [clears throat] So and that tangerine >> the best interest
>> but the purp but unfortunately we've had councils in the past approve it >> I think at all and so we have the whole reason of including that whole area in the grant and let's be clear this is not a grant to do anything but study it
>> to see how we can preserve it and to make clear and definitive how we want it designed. >> You mean not the healthy RV park? not has nothing to do with the farm. >> Correct. >> No, the whole point is to say, okay,
we've got the solar sport with commercial all the way to to to collecting canal. However, with that little slip swap we did with the hotel and the the assisted living, we've made their back commercial park be
>> easement park. So now we get to study it and say okay anybody who develops from there back that part anything on that side of Tangerine has to be easement or buffer or parking lot or whatever the heck we decide. But the whole point of
this $75,000 which we have been awarded is to study it and for us to collectively decide what do we want there that we're going to put in writing so it can't well so it hopefully won't
be challenged and so that it'll be clear to people coming in if you're going to build here this is what is acceptable this is what you can do >> and it's to study drainage utilities drainage utilities not >> landscaping everything. >> Are you cheating? Did you
>> traffic infrastructure >> address concerns reference SB down in $20,000 bes and um they're very specific what it's spent for and it gives up zero control to the federal government, the
state government, >> the town manager >> or the town manager >> town manager is changing. >> Okay. zero control and it was voted on and requested that we go after these grants. So, >> okay, >> just to dispel all the all the urban legends at once. >> Well, I guess which brings me to the
next thing. There was discussion about putting something on the website that dispels these myths, right? A mythbuster. Is the council okay with the with the town staff providing something on the website that acts accurate actual real information?
>> Yes. based on these nonsense stuff that's out there. >> Yes. >> I mean, do we have a consensus for the for the time to do that? >> We want to allocate staff time >> unfortunately >> to to address stuff that historically has not been addressed because staff
doesn't address Facebook things. >> Yes. Yeah. >> On the town's website. It's a mythbuster thing. Is it sad that we have to spend resources doing that? Is it sad that that the town attorney has to respond to this now, right? This allegation. It is
sad. Is it the town that how much the town manager had to defend or >> No, it was I agree. But I'm just saying historically >> my my upset isn't voiced you. [laughter] >> It's about the nonsense that we have to deal with on a dayto-day basis. And some
of it just bold-faced flatout lies that are not accurate, you know? And I'm so fed up with it. It's ridiculous. and all it does is drag the town down every single time. So >> I I would say though to ask Ta staff to spend time on that,
we're at an age of institutional mistrust. I'm not sure if Jesus came down and mentioned it that anybody would believe it, right? So I'm not really sure spending the time to to do that is is worthwhile. Um I think council getting
up and speaking on it. um when things are clarified like you reading tonight on that case. I think that that's really the only way to combat it with with fact and not not waste staff time. You know, we we do have to rely on these other agencies to do their jobs. And
unfortunately, when you sit in these roles, you are a target. And we we've all been there. So, and you I just don't think you're going to you're not going to sway those people is my point.
>> For your B. >> And it's like I said, it's seasonal that this craziness is seasonal. Absolutely. So, there might be time spent now where it'll drop off, right? March >> moon, solar flares, >> and yeah. Then we get back into October and we get back into budget and then it
starts again, right? It's seasonal. So, I don't think the amount of effort that would have to be put in it now or budget season and that sort of thing would be a year- round thing. >> I think as we talk about things earlier and they come up earlier and and facts are coming out in a in a regular way, checklist and things like I think we're
going to combat it. I I think your suggestion is you're not going to sway those people. So, I wouldn't waste the time. >> I I can tell you I think that our couple workshops that we've had >> I disagree. I think corre correcting the record and getting excuse me for a second Paul. I think correcting the record and getting factual information
out there is is critically important. Um I just do. But anyhow, >> there's some people that say, "Do you want to tell your the story about yourself or let somebody else tell it for you?" And right now we're letting somebody else tell it. >> Correct. I'm sorry, Paul. What were you saying? >> I honestly think that our our our workshops that we're having and stuff
like that, that's I think that's had a lot of positive impact. I've heard a lot of positive feedback on that. just the the sheer informality of it, being able to ask questions and being able to, you know, and we can answer those things. I mean, honestly, I can tell you I and I made it in the post today. I don't do
the tip for tat on Facebook anymore. I used to do it. I don't do it anymore um since I've been sitting here. Today, I was compelled to because I was by a former council person, you know, just making it a whole thing. And I was strictly given a PSA. Hey, listen. D
road southern boulevard shut down westbound at D road, you know, and it was this whole thing about defund the police and this and you know, which is, you know, and I I clap back at it as the kids say, but you know, I think, you know, and I listen, they they're already
spend enough time fielding all these emails that come in from from the four or five people, >> you know, >> that's my point. So, they're already spending time on so why not memorialize it on the website? But why memorialize it? >> To have the fact information out there for people to see. Not the people. You
are correct. Those four or five people that write these nasty letters and say these nasty things and commit these nasty acts are not are not going to be swayed. Their mind is not going to be changed. You're absolutely right. As one of my good friends said to me, "Anita,
you could plant a a tree that produced $20 bills." And they'd say, "It's a wrong denomination." I mean, that's that's >> absolutely >> that's what they would say. She said, "There is nothing you can say or do that those five people are going to be able to, you know, think is right." But my
point is exactly what Todd just said. We've been sitting back silently. I mean, my my tactic with those people originally was to try to have conversations with them and and no, there's no it's there's no swinging. You're right. I mean, I gave up on that tactic. My next tactic was just to
ignore it, but it's not going away. And the only story, like Todd just said, that's being told is their story. That is the only story that's being told. I think it's really critical that we have some kind of like, you know, just a one mythm buster a month, whatever, you know, not not like that somebody spend
hours and hours of time, but just a like like Todd just mythbusted that thing that's going around about about the, you know, we shouldn't accept that. We can't accept that. It's against this state law. It's against that state law. I illegally got it. Francine and I
conspired to get it and and the consultant and we need to fire the consultant and all that other stuff that we all got that letter that said that. Okay. I think that that needs to be mythbusted. I do. I think that that does because that's only letting one side of the story get told, but that's just my
personal opinion. >> Where you at? >> Marge, where are you at? >> Yeah, I I think that uh it should be told. >> I just wanted to share with you briefly. We had to do a lot of work to put the grant together. The work is done. The
topic was dis discussed extensively throughout all of last summer. The topic has been discussed since 1995. There's all kinds of materials that are readily available and we use them as we put together grant applications. There
was a third party hired through competitive solicitation. His name was Dr. Herb Marlo, he did all kinds of American assembly work on this. Collecting canal was where the hard edge of the business improvement district was
supposed to be, not so that it would be commercial property, but so that there would be a buff or zone. And additionally, that work was reviewed several times over. on August 14th last year. It was discussed in an open public
meeting with the desire to move forward and try to form a study the idea of the special taxing district so that we could perhaps leverage the existing commercial
that we have on an arterial road. not allow the whole thing to become commercial but collect commercial from that which is commercial and have maybe lease paid for by that area as opposed to the rest of the town. It was then
discussed at council on August 20th and August 22nd. So the topic was discussed multiple times. Then we brought forward resolutions to allow the mayor to sign um for grants and so on and so forth. So
long story short, the information is readily available and putting that out is very relevant to the grant itself and the study that we're about to go in. I'm not sure I would say, "Oh yeah, I want to do that every time one of these, you
know, u misinformation comes up. But on this particular one, it's a grant that we're going to be engaging with the community about. So it does nothing but help the town, but put the information about this part of town that has been
looked at for 30 years. So that's that's just me as the staff person who would be putting that information together for you if that matters. And don't forget, I was a criminal. So, you were under criminal investigation.
>> Yeah. And we already have some of it out there because we did a listening session. >> We did a listening session earlier in the year when we were proceeding as directed by council. Um, and I think we
did two listening sessions and then we discontinued because we were going to go through this process and here we are. So >> I have a question. >> Mark's a yes. I'm a yes. >> Yes. Yeah. >> Todd's a yes. Paul is a
>> Cassie saying >> indifferent. >> Different. I I don't I don't think it's going to style business. >> So you're >> So what's it come down? >> I've seen you have a consensus to move forward with myth busting. I was going to say as Todd did his mythbusting today
when you guys do your council meeting you do your one mythbuster >> and there and that's your one myth mythbuster instead of staff time putting in onto the website you guys do your you do your one mythbuster here >> is that the four or five people are
sitting at home saying their lives >> right I mean if it's in writing >> well they say the same thing we're no different than you guys >> if it's in writing somewhere it's easier for everybody to access I think But I'm looking for the distance watch through a whole video. >> You think it's innocent and if you're
liars as well, >> you go >> I know. >> So another thing I wanted to discuss is I wasn't happy with >> Francine's contract with the fact that we're putting in all this money to FRS and nobody's getting a benefit out of that and I'm wondering if the town should look into pulling out of FRS and
going back to 401k. Um if if staff could look at that and tell us the consensus with the staff how they would feel about it and how that would affect us financially whether it would help or benefit us to do that there because there's some staff members that might say oh we you know we want to stay in
FRS because we've invested this much or >> 100% >> something that could give us that option as to what can be done. >> There's one guy >> he's ups [laughter] I'm 20 years in already. But when we spoke, you said that we would look at having another option. >> Yes.
>> So, it's not 100% anything until you look at the options and we can look at the options. >> Like I said, we're spending all that money, you know, with Francine on FRS and nobody's benefiting from that because she's in the drop program. Um, another thing we had t talked about
before and that came up tonight is the fact that health insurance keeps going up. And you know, my thought is if an employees total package cost us $100,000, I don't really care how that $100,000 gets spent, whether it's all in their paycheck or 70,000's in their paycheck
and 20 is for retirement and 10,000 for health insurance, it's still a $100,000. I would like staff to look at not providing health insurance and instead give those funds to the employees where they get their own health insurance. >> The argument against that though is tax
brackets, right? If that's all salaried, >> right? >> Right. So you'd have to look at a way can you could you bundle a portion of that benefit? It's not necessarily a benefit we would purchase for them, but I see where you're going with that.
>> Right. So it, you know, I'd like staff to come back and give us some, you don't have to spend a bunch of time on it, but kind of give us some options as to what possibility we can do and get away from providing health insurance and because there's probably some of these, you know, people that they could get with
health insurance through their spouse and that sort of thing or they're on Medicare and that sort of thing. And I'd rather put it in their pocket, you know, if it if it benefits them, you know, it benefits us where we don't have to manage the health insurance as an administrator, right?
>> Or maybe there's an incentive if the person is able to get it through their spouse if they get it through their spouse. >> Well, the incentive is if if we're paying $1,000 a month for health insurance and we just give that to them in their check, that's our incentive because it only costs $200 to add to their spouse. So, they come out $800 ahead. We come out even as what we're
paying for the total package for that employee. doesn't exist. >> That's that's generally not how it works. >> If I get if I can get if I get insurance through my spouse and I but I opt out so I opt out of my I just don't get the deduction of the insurance.
>> I don't get I don't get extra money because I opt to go with my wife's insurance. I just get that money I would be putting into the insurance. >> My point is give the money as a benefit. >> If that if the package for that employee is $100,000 I don't care how it gets spent. If a h 100,000 goes in their pocket or if 70,000's in the envelope
and 20,000's for insurance, you know, and that sort of thing, it's for us what we're paying for the employee is still $100,000. How it gets distributed, you know, is that shouldn't matter as as sitting here. Still 100,000 for that employee. You follow what I'm saying? Whether we're paying 10,000 for health
insurance for that employee, it's still 100,000 for that. >> Then why then why not just get the health insurance? Because you're you're paying the money >> because like I said because some of the employees might come out ahead. We got to what was our what was our increase? Uh >> 7.2%. >> Is it incentive or is it a cost savings?
We're not saving any money. >> We're not. But >> if I'm going to spend 100,000 on Craig, >> we don't have to administer the health insurance anymore, right? We don't have to deal with it. >> That's part of the fee though. It's part of the 100,000 I'm paying for Craig. >> Yeah. >> For Jimmy and John. >> We're not having to deal with health insurance every year and get quotes and
figuring out what that is. And that cuts down on labor for the town staff to deal with. >> Yeah. >> Right. Yeah. Let's say it's 30 hours a year that you have to deal with it, whatever it might be. >> Just to just to clarify, since you approved the healthcare plan for this year, it would it it's it's not till
next year. Just >> yeah, >> don't want don't want to have to bust another another myth [laughter] >> for this year. No, get just approved for this year. But my point is for moving forward after that and you may look at it and the t and the you know the employees say that's not going to work for me. There's no way that's going to
work. It's going to cost me $1,200. you only give me $1,000. That's not going to work. Okay. And we won't go down that path, but I think it's something we should explore. Um there was discussion a couple meetings ago about a motion to extend. >> Motion makes.
>> Second. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Uh so, so there was 150,000 that you had brought up regarding drainage north of North Road, right? And then we figured out we can't use that 150,000 there because there's no easements and all that. Do you remember that discussion?
>> You had brought it up. the 150,000. >> Yeah. >> Right. So, I assume that 150 is still there. >> It is, but we've talked about using it. It's 130. 130. And we said we were going to look at the three neighborhoods that had talked to us. And I believe there
were 11 um 161st where we have the um >> cut through up there. >> Yeah. And then the other one was Robert's way because Roberts and 11th had contacted us. Am I correct, Craig?
>> We had held it back for neighborhood projects, >> right? It was for neighborhood projects and those were the three that we were aware of that people asked us about. Um, but with Richard leaving, I don't believe that Craig has gotten up to speed on that yet. >> Well, if those don't move forward, can
we see about repaving North Road? Because it's atrocious. >> It's atrocious. >> It is atrocious. So, we have $457,000 that we put into the capital with the transfer. It is unallocated. The
original design cost that we estimated several years ago for North Road was about 400,000. In the meantime, I believe Craig and his crew have done some significant cleanup on North Road.
Um, >> just keep blowing out, blowing out. Blowing out >> bag patch. >> Yeah, it just needs to be that. Is this terrible? >> Right. The bag patch. Yeah. >> Or to design it. And then >> Oh, keep blowing out. >> Why is it Why is it so much? >> Don't know. Not an engineer.
>> Well, when you say $400,000 to design >> a straight stretch of road and do what? She's saying design and do it. >> We had two. >> Oh, no. >> Yeah. in each year was a total of like 800 to a million dollars for North Road,
which kind of makes sense with the numbers we've sent elsewhere, but as we're putting out, you know, a road, we could certainly put north in as an alternate. >> I mean, is that north is that north from A to A to E or is that the whole north
road? >> North and >> it's A to E. A as far as >> I don't want to speak for Craig, but there's a whole bunch of prep work and that is involved in in that. It is
>> we started to cut some of the road back in certain areas and the burm that's up there is intruding two feet into the road that we've already tried. We started cutting it back to widen North Road in certain areas. >> Well, the reality is that roads had got to be found anyway. It it was the old
gradient BM is just it's just started like >> the road's going to have to be ground. Yeah, it's be away. >> Well, they'll mill it. They'll mill it, repack it, and then pave over top of it. >> Yeah. >> The same thing we did right right by the um little turtle bypass where like right
property just the gap roads and the north red project. So, okay. >> So, you get pricing for a road. You'll include that in it. >> We can. >> Yeah. Okay. Um, >> we can try. Let's get in there. >> 300,000. >> It'll it'll delay your
>> No, let's not. >> It It will delay you going out to to bid. You're talking about going out to bid on uh in a week and then you don't have any sort of specs right now for North Road. Um and plus North Road North Road is going to be
um by all accounts expensive. Mhm. >> Yeah. I'm totally against delaying a road and hooking another project to it. Okay. Let's not be Congress. >> Okay. That's it. That's it. [laughter] >> Hook our projects. Lisa, >> sure. Let's be
>> wary of piggybacks. >> So, I have an early morning flight, so I'm just not going to ask my questions. >> No. >> Okay. >> I'm not wearing piggybacks. >> No, I'm good. >> You good? >> They're not They're not quick ones, >> Paul.
Well, Todd took half of mine. >> Um, I gota say I can't remember uh the quarter ever extending to to collecting, but that's a discussion for another day. Um, I would like to say I mean I'm watching what happened at the last
accident and I mentioned earlier what happened with the accident this morning. I don't know if there's some way that we could coordinate with with PBSO and and see if they can work on their procedures because it really does have an impact on our on our neighborhood as
how they how they go about detouring that stuff. Even if it's coming down like the way it was this morning, it came down F road to collecting. At least it's not going by those those little quarter acre houses on on you know, Tangerine, etc. just, you know, I mean,
I'm not saying they got to post up PBSO all down collect Canal, but if they if they could they cut it down or, you know, even if I don't know how feasible it is for for us to put out detour signs or something like that, >> you know,
[laughter] >> you said it, not me. Um, yeah, you know what I'm saying? I don't know how people >> will not do detours. They will not detour people at all. They block traffic and that's it. >> Well, that's what I'm saying. But if they put the block traffic back to F-road and had PE number one, they
wouldn't have had 200 people parked at D-ro waiting to go and with looking at a sideways 18-wheeler. Everybody wouldn't have been peeling off at either making a U-turn or pulling into Wellington or coming into us right there. It's just I don't know if there's, you know,
especially with the conversations we're having about budget and stuff like that. I don't know how amunable, but you know, and like I said before, they've never, you know, controlled the detour traffic before, so they don't at all. >> You know, it's just food for thought,
>> you know, that's it. >> Okay. March. >> Yeah. um on um a-road um do you still have the the dirt coming in that's going to be used for the rest
of the expansion? >> We are redesigning the actual structure of what we're doing with a road. We're not going as wide, >> okay, >> as where we have it where you see it sold. We're cutting it back with the re the new design because it was wider than we thought they should be with the new
engineer we're going with. You probably shouldn't be asking questions about A-Rod. >> Well, we're not voting. >> You're not voting on it. It's an inquiry. You always have the right to inquiry. >> Just we're on the side of Kia. Thank you. >> So, where we're actually pulling
material back and saving material. We're going to pull it back out and move it shift it further down. You guys already signed a a PO ready for us to finish it off. >> Okay. Okay. With the dirt >> paving begin and then >> I couldn't say the exactly time when paving will begin. It's going to go out
next week. I think we're looking to shoot it out to go out on the street. >> The if if things go smoothly, the award of contract um would happen hopefully by your February meeting. >> Okay.
>> Okay. >> We did get two more easements today. So, okay. How is it? >> Bad you're doing well with the easements. Um is there any plan on the anniversary um
20th anniversary? >> It's on our list of priorities. >> Okay. All right. Um on January, do you um propose that we put strategic
plan in there that has to be done by March or is that being worked on behind the scenes? >> This this is the strategic plan. That priorities list is is is the beginnings of our strategic plan. >> Okay. So, we're working on it. Um
the town gathering 12 to 2 on the 18th. Is that is that correct? >> Oh, the baskets >> for the gratitude baskets. >> No. No. >> Oh, >> the 14th. The float >> for the staff. >> For the for the >> Oh.
>> Yeah. Staff, not council. >> It is council. >> Council. Okay. And the LGA is 6 to8 on >> 5:30. We have a meeting at 5:30. >> 5:30. Okay. And let's see.
Thank you for working on the um the the manure. That That is crazy. Crazy. In a half hour there were six trucks loaded back and forth.
So, thank you. And the two 18 wheelers that were going in today, >> there was five of them there at 7:00. >> Okay, >> that's all about spike strips. >> Spike strips sound good.
I am gonna I'm gonna air on the same side as Lisa is because I also have to be traveling tomorrow morning quite early. So, I'm just going to say thank you everyone. It was a great meeting. I love it when I just feel like we are really
cooking lately. So, I'm super proud of all of us and I really appreciate sitting here beside all of you representing the town and doing our best for them. So, can I have a motion to adjurnn? >> Motion to adjourn. >> Oh, and Paul and Todd didn't fight even once tonight. Motion to really fight
before I Oh, spirit.