16 is actually where we'll be beginning. Item 16. I will announce it for the record, Cassie, when we start, but I just wanted you guys to understand why we were handing it out. I don't know. Put them on a side. Yeah.
I don't think All [Music] right. Thanks. Sorry. shame on you, bro. Shame on you. No, it's good. You're sweetest. Not only that, but you're not. It's been here for like an hour. So, she beat you here. Oh,
well, hey, Rock. How you doing? Been here for like an hour waiting for you to arrive and you weren't here about you. I know, right? I was in here earlier. He wants a red barn. Make sure he doesn't need it. I think
Lisa has hers. I think the mayor has hers. I don't know. We're going off of last meeting. So, make sure you go and we're starting at 16. I gotta hug first. Paul, huh? I gotta hug first. Yeah.
Hey, how are you? Yeah, a couple that I have my one from my book, my original book. It's not any further away. We're going to the original agenda. So, the one that we have for today.
We might, but we'll see. And just I'll give you the sake. That's for today. Okay. Thank you. [Music] Are we ready though? Yes, ma'am. Everybody can see the chicken salad.
The continuation of the May 6 town of Lahache Groves town council meeting will now come to order. We could all stand for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one
nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. And I actually during our moment of silence, I just want to share in complete transparency and urgent notice I got today from the Supreme Master
Ching Hai International Association that wants to warn us all that the upcoming super solar storm will destroy the world if we all don't turn vegan by June 1st. So please everybody, if you want to see a copy of the letter, I have it to receive and file into town. If you want
to join the organization, there's scan chips and everything else for everybody to join and be part of it. Can you pass that to the file? Thank you. Thought I'd share that that I received today. Um, and if we could have a moment of silence
in all seriousness to have a um civil meeting. We had a lot of um things that happened or allegedly happened at our last meeting that were definitely outside of civility. And if we could just try to all remember that
we're neighbors, friends, um, and that we all share a common goal, which is a preservation of our town. Um, and everybody's doing the best job that they can to try to make that happen regarding whether even if you're on the other side, opposite sides, try to find some middle ground and try to find some peace
and harmony because it's the only way that we can move forward. Okay. If I could have a roll call, please. Council member Coleman here. Council member El Rey here. Council
member Manilia present. She's appearing via Zoom. Vice Mayor Herszog here. Mayor Kaine present. Town manager Ramalia here. Town attorney Torivia here. public works director galone present.
Okay. Um so I'll now announce it publicly for the record. There was um some confusion about the agenda this evening. Um the staff put together some additions to the agenda based on discussions that were had
during our last meeting. But um I've received a lot of unhappiness about that. So, um, what I've decided is that we will do what we originally said, which is continue this meeting with item 16, which is where we stopped off. We've
completed item 15. Um, so we'll continue with item 16. We'll work through the rest of this agenda, which is the May 6 agenda. And if we get to the end of that agenda, time allowing, we can look at some of the additional things that were um put in the other agenda and make a
council decision at that time whether they are worthy of discussion or whether they um should be moved to the next agenda. Okay. So item number 16 is a consideration of ordinance number 20252 on first reading.
This item is a cleanup of our solid waste ordinance. A lot of the language and cleanup was drafted in 2021. Essentially, there were four areas where there were changes in the ordinance. The first one was to move all the
definitions to the opening section of the ordinance. The second was to um um make the wording match the existing contract operations. For instance, with
regard to um standards for solid waste billing, lean collection and franchise oversight. Um we no longer have foreclosure in here because for assessments, which is how we charge for solid waste, there is um a lean ability.
The other thing is is that this also clarifies how livestock waste is intended to be picked up if it is being picked up by haulers. Um what the ordinance actually says um with regard
to that is that um on page 636 or page 13 of 20 of this ordinance item number or section 3858 containers required item
E says livestock waste must be placed in a rolloff container for collection. Rolloff containers used for livestock waste must contain an attached lid or cover and be watertight at all times. That is the way that our current hauler
Coastal would require it. But this is not required by every hauler. Each hauler has their own rules on the containers that the solid waste um would need to the the livestock waste would
need to be in. So, we need to modify this language. This language matches the way Coastal picks it up because Coastal picks up livestock waste, too. Um, so we need to change that wording. So, that changes the second bullet in the memo on
the front. With regard to the enforcement tools, we've referred everything to the sections of our code that are for code enforcement. um sections 14 and 30 I believe are referenced. We're also bringing the
civil citations back for council to discuss again on June 3rd and solid waste and livestock waste would be items that could be considered for civil citation. But otherwise
um this ordinance is a cleanup of um what we have had on the books for a number of years. It does not allow for any transfer stations. It doesn't allow for any vegetation blending or anything
like that. It supports the town's transition to a non-exclusive franchise for livestock waste haulers should we wish to proceed that way. But this ordinance does not require us to proceed that way. It simply says that we may
have as many non-exclusive ordinances as we wish if we need them. So, and you would vote on a franchise separately. It's not in this ordinance. And Mr. Torcivia, if I didn't outline this um or missed something you
think I should mention, please help us now. You did a good job of uh summarizing the ordinance. Thank you. Anybody have anything? I I'm a little confused. You're saying that you want to change the language to the section E. Livestock waste must be placed in a
rolloff container for collection. Roll-off containers used for livestock waste must contain an attached lid. I want to remove that language. I want to remove that language because it only applies to coastal and stuff. But that's but I but I would say that's
not accurate. Rolloff containers should have lids. All rolloff containers I've ever seen have lids. Dumpster is a rolloff. It doesn't have a lid. It doesn't have a lid. No, I've not seen that. The only ones I've seen all have lids, but that even the big dumpsters
I've seen for manure have lids. Oh, okay. You have to come up to the mic and talk. Okay. All right. Um Okay. All right. I'm sorry. I just wish to remove the language because it's not applicable to everyone. Each each livestock waste hauler uses a different method and a
different container. Okay. All right, Paul. Yeah. Know, I was going to say they it Yeah. Rolloff containers, you're I think you're thinking of the one they come they pick up. Yeah. Yeah. The one they pick up has a lid on it. Yeah. Yeah. So when it's coming over Yeah. But the rolloff container, like Lisa said, the the 20 yarders, etc., look like a
construction dumpster. They don't typically have lids on them. Well, all the ones I've ever seen do, but that's okay. I'm around a lot of construction. The farms I've gone to have well I think I I think what you know um looking at that language I had
notes here as well that it really gets specific. So I think we don't want to be that specific because I know there's people that have you know rolling uh services that do rolling cans. Now mind you they have lids on them but it's not a roll off. You know what I'm saying?
So, I think if we get too specific, it's not necessarily a good thing. And I think So, you're okay with removing? I think Yeah, I'm okay with removing that because I think later on in here, we start talking about um definitions of things and it talks about carts and it talks about other types of containers.
Am I am I wrong? Was that in here? Yeah. I'm sorry, Mr. Toshivia, you have something to weigh in on. Well, I don't know if you want to take out the rolloff container part and simply say livestock waste must be placed in a con container with an attached litter or cover and be
watertight at all times. No, because there are people that have those cement bins that they just put it in, push it up and then take it out and you don't have I mean while many people that I know that have those put like a tarp over it, not everybody does. So, I wouldn't want to do that. That would be
too limiting. Lisa, you done? Oh, yeah. Sorry. I keep forgetting. I got to turn it off. Um, so the history on this is a state law change and we have we currently have a registration process and I believe so does Wellington and now
we can't do that anymore. So going to this franchisee agreement, my concern is well this isn't about the franch that's the next item is the franchisee agreement but this this is the precursor. So my concern is how much are we going to drive up cost to to the
equestrians in this community by doing a franchise agreement versus what we have as a registration agreement. But can we wait and do that when we talked about the franchise agreement because this doesn't have this isn't about that. Okay. Except it says franchise fee here
and everything else on page hold I got my glasses 636. It talks about a fee and and all that stuff. So, I'm I'm just curious how this aligns with what we're currently doing that the state no longer allows to be done. And and by the way, the wrong state law is being referenced
in this item. It's 163.211, not the one that's quoted as 163. Where are we talking about change? So, where are you talking about uh in regarding state law and why this is coming forward? May I
ask what page Miss uh El Ramia's talking? I'm I'm on page 635 talking about franchise fee on item 16. Yeah, but I don't know what state law you're talking about. That's where I'm I'm asking. Well, it gets into it. May maybe I'm jumping ahead, but it
references the new state law as to why we're moving forward with a change to our current registration program. Would that be in That's the next item. That's what I was just saying. That's item 17. You're talking about 163.3205 you're saying is incorrect.
Correct. That's item seven item. Got it. But they are linked. That's why this franchise agreement is being brought forward. So this ordinance is linked to anything to do with the franchise agreement. Mr. Tarivia. So this is an overall solid waste ordinance. It
includes livestock waste and it does include provisions about franchising. So, and this is um if you remember back in March when I did a memo about how to get from A to Z when the conversation was about livestock ways and and uh you know whether you had the facilities or
not um the first change you would have to make is a solid waste ordinance. They'd have to make this change frankly no matter what you're doing with livestock waste. I think I mean this this ordinance as Francine said has been drafted for the last three years. Um and the whole idea of updating your solid
waste ordinance is a good idea. Now, if you for whatever reason want to tweak the franchise language or when you get to the next item take a position on whether you're going to allow franchising for livestock waste, for example, you have a franchise now with Coastal, right? I mean, there are franchises for all kinds of waste, solid
waste, livestock waste, you know, yard waste. Um, so this is more general. It gives you that authority, but it definitely would support if you decide to go down the livestock waste, right? But it doesn't require us to go down that way, but it supports that if you want. It supports it, but doesn't require it. Okay. Thank you. I would
like to say for the record that section 3855 was in the original document. It's called franchise for collection services. And that is where we talk about um the different types of franchises that would be available or
that could be considered by the town. Um and we talk about that there could be exclusive and non-exclusive again at the town's discretion. And then when we look in section 3856 which was there originally, it's
collection to be by town or franchisee subscriptions required. Um and that speaks to how the collection services were underneath the franchise. So those sections were there. We just clarified
them so that we could talk about the possibility of using franchises to replace the registration program that we cannot do. And I did bring this up to Wellington in 2021 and because the
statutes um extended the time frame until now, they did not do anything. I've reached out to them to talk to them about how they wish to proceed and um I they've asked that I send what we do over to them. So,
okay, that's where this is at. You have something else? No, just to clarify that livestock language is being added to this existing um language. As Francine pointed out
there that this 3855 existed, but none of that included livestock waste until this is being proposed tonight. That is correct. 38 section 3868 adds in section for livestock and section
3869 adds in a section for special waste because those are both types of waste collection that are part of the definition by state law of solid waste. And so we're making it clear that they're covered under this ordinance.
Are you done? Yeah. And I just want one comment. I'm sorry. Go ahead. One comment on that particular section. As Franc said, it says it's on page uh 640. Livestock waste will be collected in a separate service. So one question that
we've internally talked about is when you go the audience can't hear you, Mr. Sorry. When you go out for bid for your solid waste, as you probably will in a few months, right? Uh when your coastal contract's expiring, you'll have to decide, are you
going to go out for one RFP that is everything, an RFP that's only for livestock waste? So I don't know if you want to change that word livestock waste will be collected in a separate service or may be collected in a separate service because you may include livestock waste in a bigger RFP that
someone is doing livestock waste plus something else. I would agree with that. Yeah, I think it should baby as well because not everybody I mean not everybody has theirs collected. I mean there's that's another that's another
argument to have down the road but not everybody has theirs collected. So, I always think taking away the definitive and leaving it to the possibility is a good idea. Yeah. Um, Phyllis, you had something to say. Thank you. Um, I I
remember a little while back it seemed like Coastal wanted to get into the manure business. Um, I have a huge problem with that. Um I if they want to leave a can
for somebody and to put manure in. I believe it's called organic material, you know, but I don't want to see Coastal um I don't think Coastal needs to get into the manure business. I think we've
got plenty of haulers out there and uh I I have a huge problem with this and Mr. Civia um made a few comments that, you know, it's pretty obvious he doesn't really understand the manure
business. So, um I I I have a problem with Coastal being part of the a franchise in manure. It's not their thing. Okay. Thank you. Um Paul, you had
something else to say? Yeah. No, I I don't I don't think that's what this does. No either. Just just for clarity, I I don't this allows the opportunity for us to have more control over the haulers. If Coastal wants to get in the
business, they can buy separate rolloff trucks that they only use for manure. I mean, like any of the other haulers do. I don't think we'll see because they're regulated by the state, by EPA, etc. I don't say I don't think we're going to see uh 92gallon trash bins full of manure getting dumped into the back of
the coastal truck with the rest of our trash. And I think that's where Phyllis was going with that. Um you know I I I I think including the haulers in this before the I I think that's a pertinent thing. So I agree with you motion unless there's
some discussion and and I appreciate that we're working together to try to move this forward. I mean, we had a conversation, Mr. Torcivian Francine and I had a conversation about six months ago where um everybody was kind of at odds and on a different side of the
fence and everybody has an opinion and everybody wants this or doesn't want that. And you know, I kind of said we need to stop the arguing. The real fact of the matter is we're an agricultural community and and we create Excuse me. But that's what we do. I mean, we
whether it's or organic matter coming off of uh farms or whether it's coming out of our horses or our pigs or our whatever that's that's what happens and we have to be responsible about it. Um we have to be responsible about the the removal of it. So, you know, we'll get
into that I guess in the next item. But, um but we can't just keep put burying our heads in the sand and saying it it doesn't exist because it does and and more exists every day on my farm. I don't know if anybody else is, but you know, it's it's not it's not a problem that's going to go away. It's not a problem that's going to heal itself. So,
we have to work together to be responsible about how we we get rid of this um product byproduct of our agricultural exercises. Lisa, yeah. What's the status of the best management practices? I know those were a future agenda item. Are are we do we default to
state best management practices at this point without any in place of our own? That's my understanding. That's the recommendation of our attorneys to default to it and both Mr. Gamont and I agree that that would be the easiest way for us to go ahead and um
Right. Correct. Correct. Are you done, Lisa? Yeah. Okay. Do we have any public comment on this item? Yes, Mayor. Uh Mr. Siliano. You're not on Joe Siciliano 1530 B Road. kind of forgot why I was up here because this
conversation or moved around a lot, but I feel like I think at the end when you decided that we all are producing manure of some kind or another uh and it needs to be handled because I
again I can't see everybody hauling out um the trash cans this like the size we have. If on the average it's a 10 horse barn, that would be a hundred lined up along the road. And what how is that gonna impact our
okay even more? So yeah, there's something needs to be done. Um, I think maybe my comment was a little premature because I'm not really sure what I'm commenting on other than yes, we need to have manure removed and I wasn't I think
that South Southern Waste Authority does not want to handle manure. I'm pretty sure that that's their standing and Coastal obviously doesn't have the capacity to do it in in the amount that we're going to produce. So, thank you.
Anybody else? Miss Stannis, Virginia Standish 15410 North Road. I assume we're working on item 16, which was item five in the revised agenda. So hopefully I got the right information here. They're picking. They should have sent you given you a copy of
the old agenda. They they did, but in my notes where I went over the I'm just saying. So I I believe I'm in the right section. If my comments are not appropriate, please advise. Okay. Okay. Um an example I've always given. I pay for water in two municipalities. The
same exact water use cost me three times as much in the town of Bloxah Hatche Groves as it does in another m municipality. and the service providers Palm Beach County. So my comment here is I would think I have no interest in the
manure game. I don't have any livestock right now, but from a business perspective, when you have more people, more services, the costs stay competitive. I would urge you not to go into an exclusive. I realize that's
later. Um, but for this section under livestock waste, um, can you give us a number? Pardon? Can you give us a number of what you're looking at? What section you're looking at? Um, well, I thought I was looking at, uh, number six, an ordinance of the town amending article
one, improper disposal of waste materials. I had pulled information from there. I don't have a page number but uh there was a requirement for livestock waste to be stored and collected in watertight water off containers. That's a section I was
working from. Okay. So, and you had mentioned franchise fees in your discussion just now which is why I'm bringing that example but basically um in the section I believe you also discussed composting not in this section.
Okay. and I apologize but um your definition of livestock waste I will just say previously there was a mention in previous agendas in the past years that livestock waste uh with shavings did not have to be removed and I noticed
that kind of was in the agenda and then disappeared. It went back and forth on this. I'm just saying there's some inconsistencies but livestock waste keep your options open. uh keep multiple vendors available to the people in the community for competitive rates. I'll
try and keep up with between your two agendas. Thank you. Just get rid of the new one and go with the old one. Okay. Any other public comments? No, mayor. No. Marge, you had something you wanted to say? I I don't have um a horse
or a pile of manure in this race here. um never have have owned a horse, but I know when we first started uh dealing with this issue years ago, we couldn't handle it back then.
So, you know, I I don't know how we we figure with all of the multiple barns and uh uh polo fields that are going in, how are we going to keep up with it? there. There's got to be a solution to this and I don't know what it is because
I didn't have any horses. Paul, you had something else. Okay. Yeah. Um just on what Virginia touched on, you know, the first well, not the first sentence, but just after the bullet points, this this ordinance supports the town's transition to a
non-exclusive franchise system for livestock waste. Non-exclusive. So, to your point, that's exactly the idea. If we if you say, "Okay, listen." I mean, when we took coastal salon and whatever the past few years, we never said, "Listen, if you're doing um you know, I
don't mean to pick on you, but Mr. Rafitz, if you're doing construction and locks at your groves, you got to go use Coastal's rolloff container. You can call whoever. You can call Ida. You can call whoever, right?" So, no, no, you have to use Co. Oh, wow.
Yep. Oh, I thought we'd just let Oh, I thought it was non-exclusive already. We're just adding livestock in there. So, it's amazing what you see out there. Um, so that's saying everybody does, right? So, I mean supposed to use. So, the idea is so it is a more competitive
rate. So, yeah. So if moving forward in the next agenda item, if that's adopted and there is a franchise fee, it's all going to be encompassed and it still should provide for a competitive environment for the consumer as well as
for the hauler, etc. So no matter how many dogs are in the race, whether it's 10 or it's one, you know that, you know, so on that note, I would like to make a motion to pass. Um item Well, sorry. I have a couple more things. Oh,
sorry. Sorry. Can't see. Can't see the lights, guys. Go ahead. So, just cleaning up a couple things. Section 38, uh, 38-22, page 629, uh, prohibition of depositing and disposing of waste materials. Should we
have language in there um excluding best management practices of livestock waste? Uh that's that's one possible change. What line what what section are we looking at
again? Lisa section 38-22 page 629. And what kind of uh prohibition of dep depositing or disposing of waste materials that may need to since we're adding livestock into here that may need
to to identify best management practices um of spreading livestock waste and agricultural land. But is it I think this is addressing stuff hauling in but you can spread manure on your property. Yeah, I know. That's what I was going best management practices. Correct. So
that that may need to do we need to add best management practices there because it is it is acceptable for people to spread livestock waste on their property. I think this reads the way it needs to because it says improper and it
does speak to spreading or storing such waste which is what's you know subject to the BMPs but we serve at your pleasure. We can change whatever words you wish. All
right. As long as it's legally sufficient to cover that you would agree that it's legally sufficient. Okay. Thank you. And then section 38-58 top of page 630 636 under A where it says unless
otherwise exempted by this article uh if we're going to um have the livestock waste if we're going to take that out are we going to like Marge pointed out are we going to get into the weeds
with you know whether they're building a manure containment with, you know, the very Wellingtonesque design standards of, you know, how you handle your manure before it's picked up. I don't know if that
needs to kind of be reworked in a way that cuz a talks about approved containers and required containers and then but it also says if such a container is required and approved. Yes. At the end. Well, it says unless
otherwise exempted by this article. So, are we going to rework E? I know Francine, you said we wanted to take that language out. Is that something that should maybe exempt from A just because of the language in
A? I would take the livestock out of a because I believe that the town approved container for collection services really has to do with the um um recyclable and the trash and the
vegetation. So eliminate livestock livestock out and out of out of article out of a A and E. You're going to strike E completely. Yes, that's what I would strike E. Right. Let me ask you for a reason why something would be
exempted. Would something be exempted? Let's say if there's a handicapped person who can't get their trash can down, their approved giant coastal container down to the road, they would be able to use a different kind of container. Is that an example of something being exempted, Francine? Um,
I think the better example is for if you renovate your bathroom, you don't have to necessarily put that in a container. It can be considered as bulk trash on the side of the road. That's always the big if. You know, where do we draw the
line on bulk trash? Essentially, if you redo your bathroom can be on the side of the road neatly, not in a container. If you redo your kitchen, you need a rolloff container. Okay. All right. Phyllis, were you trying to chime in?
Yeah. On page 636, we're deleting um the word livtock. waste out of a out of a after or everywhere. Everywhere out of a and on and we're
completely eliminating E on that same page. Okay, perfect. Okay, Paul, I think we're we're good. Before you make a motion, I'd like to read the title of the ordinance into the record. Yes, please do that. Consideration of approval of ordinance
number 202502 on first reading an ordinance of the town council of the town of Lakahachi Groves, Florida, amending article one in general, article two, improper disposal of waste materials and article three collection of waste franchises and registration of contractors authorized all of chapter 38
solid waste of the Lockahhatche Groves code of ordinances providing for conflict severability codification and an effective date. No Paul, you don't have to read the whole thing. You can just say the ordinance number. I can. Thank you. I was like, how can I do the so moved?
Um, I make a motion to approve uh ordinance number 2025-02 with the with the modifications with the corrections. Yes. Second. Second. Okay. Lisa Paul made the motion. Lisa seconded it before you fell, but thank you. All
in favor? I I Okay. Passes five to zero. Now we're on to item 17. Lisa, now you can pull out your hits. Okay. Um, let's see. I got to get back to the right page. Sorry, everybody. It's a big agenda. Um, quick question.
Was that first reading on that or is that done? That was the first reading. That's what I thought. Can I ask a question? Where's the hand that you guys all use when you want to say something? It's on the bottom of the screen. Oh, no. Where's the hand? The bottom. It's on the bottom of the screen. It'll look
like a hand and you can select raise hand. Oh, yeah. right next to the green square. You see it scroll on your screen, Phyllis. That sometimes that goes away if you sit too long and you don't interact with the Zoom. It's on the bottom next to the green box and there's a little hand.
Well, I don't know what Never mind. I don't see a green box either. That's okay. Okay. I don't think so. All right. We're on to item 17, which is a discussion item, and we apparently have a lot to discuss.
Um, are you introducing it? Introduce it and say that um, this is strictly discussion to introduce the idea of a non-exclusive franchise program to replace the registration program
um, that we previously had and the Florida statute reference should be 163.211. The registration program that we previously had um was contained in several ordinances which are kind of
outlined all the way through here. Those ordinances except for the registration requirement would stay in place until we change them or if we change them. And the only thing that would change would be
the franchise structure and franchise agreement with the hauler that allows us to regulate them. With regard to the previous permit, I believe we charged about $600 for a registration. It's the
same price that we charged for. Is that annual? It's an annual. And we charged a price per truck. And we also charged a price per load if you exceeded the loads. In our current ordinances, the
load limitations are not realistic. So, uh, and what I mean by that is there's like 20 load limitation for a year. People are generating a whole lot more than 20 load limitation. So with regard
to the haulers, we can set up a franchise that um is revenue neutral to the town. We only ever got something on the order of 5 to 10,000 depending how many haulers we had. The real issue is
regulating haulers. And when you have a franchise agreement, it's now a contract. And with a contract, we have um an immediate agreement and a way that we can um work better together as
opposed to chasing around illegal dumping and um not allowed transfer stations and so on. So you mean if somebody's picking up a town and then going and dumping it on 20 acres somewhere in we can we would have a better handle on we have a better handle on all of it. Okay. So nothing would
change in the ordinances except that the registration would be replaced by a franchise agreement and we have drafted a franchise agreement and if you wish to proceed with a franchise program and based on whatever input comes up in
tonight's discussion, we can bring you back an agreement that allows us to regulate haulers but isn't penalizing them because I think one of the big issues is where they're currently taking it is actually what's costing our
residents money. So that's the way I understand it. Where they have to go to dump it is what's driving the prices up. Correct. It's the travel and the locations um transfer stations locally. Got it.
Mr. Tivio, you wanted to weigh in on something? Yes. So, so as Francine mentioned, we've been working collaboratively on a potential agreement as well as a potent We've been working collaboratively on a potential agreement as well as a potential resolution. Thank I'll be a little louder. A potential resolution to adopt some kind of
standards. Uh so my analogy would be when you go out for an RFP for your regular waste collection, you have in that RFP your standards that you want and then you have usually a proposed contract that goes along with that. So that when people are bidding, all the
rules of the road are laid out for everybody the same. So we're not sure I'm not sure if you want to go down that same kind of path here to establish what are your standards, you know, and you can establish them either in a resolution or an RFP or both and say, okay, these are the standards that all
haulers, whether they're non-exclusive franchise, and we've talked a lot about non-exclusive franchises, and I'm hearing loud and clear that that's the preferred method, not exclusive. And if it's non-exclusive, is everybody on the same playing field? Do you want everybody to bid on it to make sure that
everybody has five years experience in the business, that everybody has certain amount of insurance, that everybody has, you know, appropriate licenses to do this work? So that's the to me the preliminary question is do you want to set your standards? And again, with the draft contracts that we've had going
back and forth and the draft resolution, that's kind of interwoven in there. But that's my question to you. Do you want to establish your standards first and say this is what we want to do and now go forth and put out an RFP out there let and whoever wants to bid bid. My
concern is if you don't do that and you grant a non-exclusive franchise to you know Councilman Coleman and you don't grant it to Councilman Herszog, well what's your standard? Why is he getting it and she's not? What's the He's got red hair. Because he's got red hair. There you go.
So, so that's the idea of you know of setting some kind of standard and um and then you can still go forward and you know move on these tracks together. So if you wanted to go down that path the next meeting we could probably bring you back some proposed standards and you can kick them around and say this is just like we've been doing with the solid
waste ordinance good conversation good pick pickups by different people and approving it. So I think we share the common goal of let's set a goal standard for the town. what's the town want their haulers to have? And then once you set that goal standard, let people bid on it in a competitive way. Um, it's probably
not price of be bidding on it to exclusivity, they would be bidding on it to be a part of the party. Yes. To be part of the party to get the invitation. Yeah. I like instead of bidding, I like Okay. Applying applying. So you all know before you get an invitation to the party, you've got to be over 21. You've got to have red hair and whatever else
the requirements are that you have to have. Um, so that's just one concept that we've kicked around back and forth. The other concept is you go right forward with an agreement and you put out agreements and you kind of have with those who are already identified because we know the people who already do it in
time, right? So might make it hard. But the standards to me is is is a key to the whole thing. Establish some kind of standards in some format whether it's an RFP or a resolution so we all know this is the game we're playing in. This is what we all have to meet. We all have to have whatever it is, so much insurance
and so many years experience or whatever it is that you decide you want to make sure your community has. Paul, you were first, I believe, then Lisa, then Marge, just so you guys know the order. And Phyllis, I'll let you chime in at the end if you have anything. Go ahead, Paul. Yeah, I'm pretty confused at this point.
You you kind of already hit the RFP question. I was like, RFP, why are we going out for bid because it's not a bid. Um so so we yeah we we said it's going to be application process. So are we going to have anything that that's some kind of designator for
because I know listen if you have a an account with solid waste that you can dump at their place and they you know they bill you on or whatever or you know um I don't hauler A because I don't want to pick on anybody even though I'm looking right at you. I'm sorry. Um, uh,
hauler A has, you know, he gets his, you know, he passes the application process, he pays his fee. Does he say, "I have 15 trucks." And we go, "Okay, here's 15 stickers with your name on it goes in the the windshield in the bottom right hand corner or something like that." So,
if that leads into the next question, who's going to enforce this? So if code enforcement or PBSO pulls them over and says, "Okay, let me This guy's not pulling out a wrinkle piece of paper out of the glove box. He's got a got a license number right there." And it's easily to record, not a license, but you
know, a franchise number or whatever. You follow what I'm saying? There are about 10 haulers that service the town. That number goes up and down. Um, can you speak into the microphone, please? There are less than 10 haulers that generally
serve the town. Our ordinances already outline what we're supposed to be able to get from them relative to load tickets and lists of clients and reconciliations of where it came from and where they took it and that type of
thing. So those are part of the standards that we have now. um those are very hard for us to implement because with the registration we don't have any teeth to make them um give us those reports and almost nobody has sent them.
I'm hopeful that by having a contract we would be able to do that. We also have stickers and decals for each of the trucks. So, if you are an approved um in the past, if you were approved
registered hauler and in the future if we go with a non-exclusive franchise, you would still have a decal. There are a number of ways that we can move forward, you know, learning and growing um and and maybe come up with some better means of control. But the real
means of control right now is where are you picking it up from and where are you taking it to? No, I I I get that. And I guess where I was going was so say so we have those 10 haulers right now and you said they come and they go, right? So at any given
time, you know, and we've had some attrition, you know, amongst staff, right? So we get just not to pick on anybody, we get a brand new code enforcement guy and he's out there and he's there goes Solomon going down the road. I'm I'm going to go over there and I'm going to pull him over. What What
are you doing? Oh, I don't how is he gonna He doesn't know Solomon hauling for nothing. You know, you know what I'm saying? This alleviates I guess my point is by having that sticker with that number on there like Solid Waste does. It alleviates. So if he does pulls up to that barn, he walks up and he goes, "Oh,
okay. Oh, you got your sticker. Cool, man. Have a great day." It alleviates the, you know, the person who did the right thing and whatever getting, you know, having to come down to to the town hall and Yes, absolutely. Yeah, it's the same as a food truck. If you pull out
your permit from the fire department, you're clean. So, if you pull out your detail, as a guy who used to drive a a delivery truck or whatever kind of truck that gets all dirty, yeah, the sticker tends to be I think is going to be if we can implement that going forward as part of the standard because you got that
piece of paper in the glove box. Yes, there's one standard that Paul wants in. That's it. No, that's not the only standard, but yes, there's there's our first standard. We got a standard. I actually everything that that Lynn was touching on the qualifications as far as how long you've been doing this or whatever you know do you have the proper
lensures do you have the proper uh disposal account with here and there and the insurance etc how much liability we want to have I think we need to dig into that and how much where we want to get that it's usually a million dollars yeah so I mean that's what was it code or PBSO that was
the other that was in there PBSO will not do this and um even though it's under Florida statutes 403 um PBSO will not um enforce this. So it's a combination of um our code enforcement and our public work. Okay.
All right. That's all I got. Thank you. Yeah. Was it Lisa next or Lisa's next? Okay. Go Lisa. Uh do we currently advertise on the website anywhere who's currently registered? Um we used to um but at this point in
time we have not kept that list current. Um so we do need to do that as soon as we make a switch forward with the registrations and the franchise instead of the registration. Yeah, I think an educated consumer is a good idea. Um and
and can you provide an example? You said revenue neutral. What what do you mean by revenue neutral? Well, right now, like I said, we haven't changed the price on it um since its inception. It's $600 to register a year. And again, I'm
saying register, but in the future, it would be franchise. And then you have to pay a per truck price, which I I can't remember the number, but there's a per vehicle price. Let's say you have 10 vehicles and it's $50. That means you
give us $500 and you get the 10 decals. Additionally, we had a load limitation in our ordinances of 20 loads per year. If you exceed the 20 loads, you can only go to a maximum of 40 loads
and you have to pay a fine for every time you're over 40 loads. we have to go back and take a look at whether that is something that we even want to have in the standards because that is very difficult to enforce. Um so when I mean
revenue neutral um I think what I mean is that the franchise payment would be akin or close to or similar to what we charge for the registration and the de decal. The other thing is we charged
$2,000 for the fine um if you were operating without being in a franchise. Um so we have to go back and see if that's still able to be a franchise penalty as opposed to a code enforcement
250 or 500. Okay. Thank you. How how is this different than the registration program that gets around the new state restrictions? because this is sounding an awful lot like what we already have. Well, actually that's what the document says. It's essentially replacing the
registration program with a non-exclusive franchise program because we can do a non-exclusive franchise, but we can't do a registration program and we do need to regulate livestock waste haulers to some degree.
Um, alternatively, we don't have to have the franchise and then we don't really have a basis um beyond, you know, BMPPS to try to regulate. Um, so if you
were in an agreement with us, a franchise agreement, that has a little bit different legal standing than a registration or permit. Mr. to Civia, can you weigh in on the the legal threshold on that? Yeah, we
are well trying to thread that needle because the state, you know, keeps preempting areas and that's where the permit uh program kind of fell apart because the state jumped in there. Uh and if you think about it, a permit program is we're granting you permission. We're basically giving you a
permit to do something where franchise were signing a contract with you and they can voluntarily contract or not with the town as opposed to being required to have a permit. So it is again threading the needle. Um franchises are generally been well accepted. Think about it. All your solid
waste contracts for decades are all franchise agreements. Solid waste authority goes out for bid I think every seven years and enters into franchise agreements. So the concepts of franchise agreements has been pretty well tested. So we think you can go ahead and go forward with the franchise program. Um
you can't go forward with the permit program anymore because the legislature is taking that away. Um, if you want we could do a deeper dive, but that's, you know, we were all proceeding on that on that thought that yes, we can do this if you want to do this. Mark.
Yeah. Um, I I think we need to stay with the uh the the franchise um because um we can't have nonhorse people being um impacted um you know with road
maintenance and and everything because of you know the the interest that uh the equestrians have. I mean, uh, I welcome the equestrians in our town, but we we've got to be, uh, fair to everybody,
you know, and we've got to come up with a way that, you know, the the size of the truck and and the amount that you're hauling can be regulated. Francine had said that it's hard to get the tickets from the guys
uh, to keep track of uh, how much they're taking uh, for the for the dumping. So, you know, the the trucks are not uniform. You're not you're not going to have the same amount in every truck. So, we've
got to come up with a system that's fair for horse and non-horse and the town budget. Phyllis, you had something you wanted to add. Yeah. First of all, I don't think our attorney needs to work on this anymore. Um, it was very confusing
listening to him speak on this. I'm not sure how much research he personally did on this, but I think the town, the haulers could probably work this out regarding uh regarding the franchise, the fee, the
containers, and all that kind of thing. Um, and I'm sorry, I'm kind of I it's hard because I lost my train of thought a little bit, but um all the manure in this town, you know, when we started with this, they
were just stockpiling it anywhere. And it was really not the equestrian community. It was just basic land owners that had land that were making money uh turning their land into uh a a a manure
transfer station. So, um I think uh to move forward with this franchise is the way to go. Um obviously we can't uh it you know we had to stop the um
registration um because I guess it went against state statute and uh we need to work with these guys because we're not going to stop producing manure. So and it's
probably as some of our properties develop it's going to become more So, uh, I am in favor of this and, [Music] um, however, I don't think the attorneys
need to work on it. Lisa, I would caution staff and council, uh, against focusing on the weight of the trucks because we have some uh, commercial nurseries out here that their trucks are insane. Thank you. insanely
large and they impact our Yeah. Um I'll just say nurseries at large. Um we're not the only agricultural impact out here. So I just caution that. Well, and to piggyback on what Lisa is saying, I I caution and I
do this a lot at us having discussions or including things as parameters that are virtually uninforceable and then it just looks like, you know, I mean, what what capacity do we have to weigh the trucks anyhow? I mean, we don't have
that. And by the same token, I would say requiring the manure haulers to um send us slips every time. I mean, I realize that that's done at the A, but again, going back to the volume of manure that is now being produced in this town,
which is substantially more than um when this whole conversation started. Um I I think that um we need to look towards something like in the standards like I don't know a customer list maybe something like that. These are our
customers. We we do I know send out letters to the um residents asking them to say what hauler they use but not everybody responds to that letter. So maybe if as one of the parameters the haulers would say who they who they serve and that way if I don't know what
was the fictitious name of a I don't want to slander any manure haulers but that way if if hauler A hauler A thank you if you know if we see hauler A on the property that a registered hauler is
you know has let us know that they do this farm whatever um that that would be a little bit more enforceable to me if we had that list. I don't know. It seems to me that that and I think it would be a little bit um less tedious to the haulers too um
just to you know provide a monthly list of who they they they served that month. That's you know something as simple as that. Not how many truckloads they took out, not how many whatever because dumping it is ultimately their responsibility and between them and the client of what they charge or their rate
or whatever. And then and then if we have hopefully between five and 10 haulers, I mean, knock wood that we have that many that respond to this, that'll help to keep the price down a little bit. Um because there'll be competition. So um you know, with competition, prices
stay reasonable. Um and we want to do that, but also um I think like Lisa said, trying to regulate I mean we we don't have a weight station in town. How the heck are we going to regulate the weight of the trucks? Um, and I think that we just have to consider any trucks
or any increased traffic. As Marge said, you know, there should be some compensation for the fact that they are using our roads to, you know, that the average farm has a manure hauler, a feed delivery truck, a barriers truck, a
whatever, you know, has multiple trips per month, per week. But so do nurseries. But so do nurseries and so does everybody else. So, we'll that's that's a different issue. We're just dealing with this issue here. We're trying to get this one right and then we'll get one right, but let's try to
fix this one first. Okay. Um I think that there should be some kind of impact fee that like you said, whatever dollars a truck a month. Um and then the the annual fee. Um I think that's reasonable. Um, and I think the standard
Paul said is good of having a sticker, having, you know, something that's easily identifiable, a big sticker so the hopefully the code officer or whatever can see it without having to chase the truck down the road. And then if that sticker combined with a list from each hauler of I serve farms X, Y,
and Z and I serve farms PD and Q, that that would help to make it enforceable because I always worry about enforcability. We're always running around chasing our tails trying to enforce all this stuff and it leaves a bad taste in a lot of people's mouth because we have some people that are following the rules and some people that are not following the rules and those
who are following the rules get, you know, really upset about those that aren't following the rules. But you can't catch everything. So, I hesitate to put something else in that we have to try to enforce fairly that let's make it let's make it as
simple and as straightforward and as streamlined and as easily enforceable as we can in whatever standards we come up with is what I'm saying at the end of the day. We already have a Hold on. Francine's answering me and then you can Yes. What you're saying
sounds very similar to the reporting requirement that we have for commercial collection where they have to give us a commercial customer list every month. Okay. So, we can put some wording together that looks like that. And I
don't think that's unreasonable. And maybe before we have this up for a vote, we could have we could request we we know who most of the haulers are in town and we could ask each of them to um you know provide us with if they're interested in pursuing the franchise and
with you know what their approximate volume of business is. Do they have 20 clients? Do they have 50 clients? Do they have 100 clients in their town? because that will help us to decide the impact moving forward like before we have this right before we make final decisions about any of this stuff that
we have that that other bit of information that I would think that they will voluntarily provide to us. Um Paul I think you were next. Sorry, let Phyllis go ahead. Oh, Phyllis, go ahead. Thank you. Um so I agree. I think if you
over try to control this, I think most equestrians have control over it and most of these manure haulers as well. They want to work in our town. I don't want to see this being another burden on code
enforcement because if you super overregulate it, as I was hearing the attorney speaking earlier, this is going to become another burden. And um with with these standards, I think basically we have the standards from the old
manure hauling project and most equestrians have their own standards and best practice management best management practice. Sorry, Lisa. So most of these stables, especially
the the working show barns, you know, they don't have a pile of manure in their backyard, you know, or on their farm. So, let's try to make this as least invasive on code enforcement as possible.
Thank you. Thank you. Who was next? P. Go ahead. I I agree to a point. Um, you know, yeah, we don't want to overtask code enforcement. On the other hand, you know, code enforcement needs a guideline to go by. Uh, the haulers need a guideline to go by. Um, so the more I
think the more detailed or whatever we can be about the the the standard and the guideline. I think it's going to help everybody to be on the same page. Um, I agree that most of your show barns and stuff like that, you know, do have best practices in mind and they have
things going on and you have those that don't. Um, but we can't we can't go forward just assuming that the the property owner or the barn lease or whatever um, you know, is going to do
the right thing, right? we have to spell out um this is you know how this is how you're going to you know this is what the criteria is and this is how we're going to meet it and and and you know if you're a franchise hauler and you get
caught dumping on a property you're not a franchise hauler anymore or some maybe not that drastic maybe there's a couple whatever but I mean we do have an issue we still have an issue you said there was a fine before I yeah there's a fine but I mean I guess my point We still have issues
with whoever it may be dumping manure on lots on under the opice of agriculture and it's really not you know it doesn't even fall in that best management practices of you know one load an uh per 10 acre whatever the that quarter inch
per five acres or whatever that standard is. So, you know, I I I just think that the the more we can put this standard forward, the better and the more detail is it'll be it'll be enforceable at that point. It'll be be easier actually. Um,
so I mean I think I fell correct me if I'm wrong. I think she was going earlier to and you know that you know with the like somebody else said it I think you said it the the haulers being kind of involved in you know the ones that are currently working with the town whatever of what these standards should be. I I
don't think it's too much of an ask. Um you know, these guys are already keeping paperwork in this digital age to be able to say, "Okay, we we hauled, you know, um 2,000 tons this month." Probably that's
probably a low number, but you know, um you know, so I I don't think that's too much of an ask. um you know, yeah, the weight of the truck, per weight truck, we don't have our own, you know, um heavy truck enforcement task force like PBSO does. So, we can't be out there
weighing trucks on the side of the road, right? Um so, I think that's going forward. I mean, it sounds to me like we have the start of something if we can, you know, no offense to the attorney's office sound like they've already put a lot of work into it. we can, you know,
like fi fine-tune it and then, you know, Glenn's folks can just go over it, make sure we're not, you know, breaking the state law. That might, you know, because we are looking at, you know, budget time and all that stuff. It's just always in the back of my head. So, you're suggesting to let staff work with the
contractors, come up with some standards, bring them back to us at the next meeting, and then give the final product to the law firm to give the legal sufficiency here. I think so. And then we can look at the final product and go, you know, to be part of the process. They know what the Okay. What's
the worst that happens? We look at it and go, you guys are off your rocker, right? I think that's a great idea. I mean, I mean, am I right? I think that's a great idea, Marge. Okay. We can beat this to death. I mean, is is there a way that um a system could
be designed similar to the way the water control district is designed where so many acres you pay X number of dollars uh per acre? Uh so many horses you pay X number of dollars uh uh for road
maintenance uh for the horses. I don't know. I mean, uh, it would be built into your your taxing system and everything. Uh, it might be something to explore and and find out if if it's a simpler way of
controlling the issue and be fairer for everybody. That's it. I like Paul's idea. That's the direction I'd like to give is to have staff and staff and um just waiting for public
input. staff and uh uh haulers work together. I think that's good because I don't I mean because you know like a polo farm can have 200 horses on a smaller lots and then I could have only three horses on my 20 acres. You know
what I mean? Depends on how much it doesn't it doesn't really work that way. Yeah. I think that's like really not regulable but it's a good idea. Do we have any public comment on this item, Bill? Yes, we do. Uh Mr. Santana. Good evening. Pablo Santana 1362 E road
hauler manure hauler. Uh thank you very much that the night was civilized. Nobody's fighting that makes everything go forward. I believe I I I came here with an opinion. I'm going to change and just kind of probably give some data of um procedural versus uh real
life. We've been working with manure hauling for the last 3 years in the pilot program doing exactly like coastal manure beans closed trucks everything a collection every day just for for your
reflection for every 10 horses that you have in a farm visualize minimum seven to 10 of those beans the beautiful green beans do you guys have out there a
day? A day. This is the true. This is the data. I collect uh for every 10 horses every 10 horses a day. There is some people that don't put shavings but the normal standard of a equestrian and this is not
me inventing. It's a data of collecting for three years. I can pull the report right now. So close your eyes and think about every day that Costco is coming to pick that up. Let's say that they come twice a day, twice a week. 7 + 7 + 7 or
they came. It's a horrible visual. What's uh 96 gallon the same that that's what we use like if you go to Wellington Grandf Village, it's one and a half per horse a day because they don't care. They just throw that and go. So that
creates a level of waste that's not emergency. It's one tier above. It's catastrophic. Let's say that we keep going on this stigma that manure haulers illegal dumping. Put them all in jail. That's me
A1B everybody's in jail tonight. The just is being made. tomorrow. Make the math of this maneuver and keep piling it up until our lawyer get us out and get an injunction. We are back on the work. We have 15 days to get
it out. This is catastrophic. You can you can run any kind of flaw under uh uh catastrophic like a hurricane. It's coming. It's coming. So the the solution for the problem after all these things. Yes. Correct. as more
we have better because the price needs to go down. It's an insult what the horse uh owners are paying for manure removal especially because this product it's becoming is is transforming in
money for other people either for the agriculture that takes it or for atlas bit and soil that sell us whatever what it pays if I can just finish that more or less very quickly the problem the the the way to to solve the problem and have
the town to control to make money because there is money being thrown away. It's not where we throw it, it's how we take it off out of here. And by changing the size of the small trucks to
keep working on here and transferring to big trucks gets everything cheaper, faster and out of here in every day we don't have anything piling. So it's I I think we should bring back the discussion of having two or three points
that those trucks can go there the town control what they do they are controlled contain enclosed whatever it needs to be BNP and then get that out of here every day every single day instead to be piling or making it expensive so people
feels attractive to dump that illegally Mr. Affluence. Good evening all. Good evening all. Brett Ralphs, 1261 F-RO. Um, setting up this, it's important to remember there's different ways to to do it. So, I think
putting it together, having a company like ourselves, I'm actually able to remove our own manure because we have trucks and we have equipment. So, when you're establishing everything, I think it's something to think about letting a private resident actually take care of their own manure.
Um, I think what's more important and a a good way to really try to figure out who's bringing what, who's hauling what, if you're really wanting to do that, it would be a transfer station. I would like to see a transfer station
lock because now if the town is engaged with a lo one location or multiple transfer locations, you could get franchise fees out of them for the tonnages that are coming in. And now you could actually track what's coming in and what's leaving. If somebody's really
transparent about everything that's happening at the transfer station by having 10 contractors haul on site, they're not going to tell you every farm they go to. I mean, it's probably impossible for them to even try to figure that out. Or, you know, uh, Lisa calls today, hey, I'm running behind or
my guy's not getting to. Will you take a load of manure for us? That's not something we do. But now if who that one 10 of 10 different contractors, are they going to say, "Oh, geez, we we got to tell them we we picked up manure at this farm today." But if we had transfer stations
local, I think that's the way to solve it because now you're actually in control of the whole situation. And if a truck picks up in Lockahhatchee, they would be required to dump at a transfer station lock. Right now we have two
different locations we work uh ESI show jumpers out of. And when I load our manure up once a week, I've got to take it to the transfer stations out out of town. So that is uh something to consider as you guys are moving forward to try to figure out how this would work
for the town of Wahachi. Can I ask you a question, Brett, before you sit down? Absolutely. When you when you take your own, do you take it to down to solid waste or you take it over to Wellington? Are you able to take it down to solid waste? take it to solid waste. It's just further to go. So, I take it every time. It would be cheaper to go down to solid
waste, but your time is a factor. You know, I don't know. It could be something I could try just as an experiment to see, but I don't know. I've never tried it, honestly. It's not cheap. It's it it's less expensive, but the time is more. Okay. I was I'm just curious. Certainly time would be more.
I'd have to drive almost double the distance. I was just curious, mayor. Yes. Self haulers are already provided for in our ordinances and you do not have to have a franchise or anything like that. Okay. So, they're fairly
exempt from this unless the council wishes to go back and revisit self haulers. Yeah. Okay. And by the way, Solo Waste Authority and Wellington are the same. Okay. I think that's what the issue. Well, my thoughts on the transfer station is something I think we really
need to talk about because then you could have control. Miss Dailyy. Hi, I'm Ally Daly. I live at 829 Croad. Um, I don't currently have horses or things that produce manure that I have to deal with, but just from a common
sense perspective, I had a couple of questions. So, I think you were mentioning making this part of a uh something that's going to go on taxes for those of us that are not zoned currently agricultural and do not have a solid waste issue like this. How is that
going to impact our taxes? because in the last two and a half years that I've owned my property, my pro property taxes have doubled my mortgage. So, I think the question is that a I think the residents that don't
have horses or animals that that's an issue that I don't think you can tax everyone across the board in the community cuz that's not fair to us. Secondly, I understand you guys wanting to control this in some capacity, but from my perspective, humbly, um, if you have a
list of approved vendors that are picking up manure and they're in agreement that they're all going to charge about this price, how is that a free and fair open market where you might have 50 vendors that are going to
be more competitive? To me, it seems like people that have large farms or horses and they're dealing with manure, they would want to shop around to get the best price possible, which if you're only giving them 10 to 15 vendors that they can use
to remove their waste, that's not going to give them the opportunity to have the best rate possible. I mean, is that correct or is that not correct? So I feel like this to me just observing
seems like um an effort of control and sort of eliminating rights and you're talking about code enforcement, but there's codes that code enforcement is not enforcing right now. So you're
giving them more codes to enforce. So, I just want to maybe consider being cautious about stomping on people's individual rights. Um, I don't know for my
opinion. Obviously, I'm looking into getting horses, but I want to address this before I do because I want to understand what that's going to entail. Um, and so far as a way station, where is that going to go and how is that going to impact the community?
um dealing with um the smell and the flies and the issues that I have to deal with on my property from neighbors. Um how is that going to impact our community? I understand it's going to make money for Lockxahhatchee cuz other farms outside
can use the way station and that's great, but I think we need to consider how that's going to impact the community and who's it going to be next to. Miss Standish, Virginia Standish 15410 North Road. So,
as they say, the plot thickens. We start with a simple franchise discussion, non-exclusive. I believe you discussed waste transfer sites before and I believe you have been educated on why you couldn't do them legally and in
addition we reminded you of all the waste transfer stations you have here now illegally and all the problems in the town you can't manage but all of a sudden we're going to be able to handle this this is the biggest fairy tale I have ever heard in this town I mean the
stories just get bigger and bigger first of all manure Waste Transfer Solid Waste Authority, Palm Beach County. This problem is not exclusive to the town of Lockxahhatchee Groves. You need to consult with your attorney whether you want to or not, or perhaps reread any
information your legal counsel has given you as to why you're not set up to do this. You also need to explain to the public why you have not been able to manage the other illegal waste transfer stations in this town before you proceed with this. I also found it interesting.
Oh, let's use smaller trucks and take them to a site. Wonder which haulers that would benefit and which haulers that were not. You had a simple premise. You should start with that. Let's get them franchise agreement going. Let's
start with some common ground before you have this pie in the sky idea that is going to fall apart. And before you get to that pie in the sky waste transfer station, let's take care of all these other problems first. Prove to us you can manage that and then maybe we can
have this discussion with Palm Beach County. Thank you, Miss Sushi, Cassie Sushi, um, you started out franchise. We're going to make sure that everybody gets a fair, you know, it's not going to be exclusive. It's going to
bring the cost down. Amazing. I'm reading the thing. not a pilot program for a livestock waste transfer, but how we circle around in the comments come back to let's dump it in our town. Lockahhatche Groves is 12.51 square
miles about 8,000 acres as compared to Wellington, which is 31 square miles, about 21,000 acres. That's a total of 13,000 more acres. yet you want to dump the poop from everyone
into our little 8,000 acres. And I listen to some of the comments up there and you say, "Oh, well, we need this. Do you want it next to your house?" Somebody moves in and builds their house. So, I don't see anybody up there that is for it that says, "I want it next to my house." The first council
person that stands up and says, "I want it next to my house." all of the poop for Palm Beach County to be dumped in a transfer station next to my house. I would applaud you. So, please, please consider our little town. And I I I
agree with the comments and starting small, keeping prices down, and trying to not have non-exclusives, but please don't let this be some type of something else. And that's all I implore you. Please make sure it doesn't turn into
that. Okay? Just just to be clear because we're kind of getting off track with the comments here. There was nobody up here on council and nothing that's in this item that talks about having a transfer station. That was a comment made by two citizens who have a right to their opinion just like you do. So there
that that is not part of this item. This is simply an item about franchise agreement. It is not an item about a transfer station. That is not in this language and it's not part of this vote. So, just to be clear and to bring everything back to what's actually being discussed here, it's a franchise
agreement. That's it. Anybody else? Okay. So, is the consensus of the group that what we want Oh, go ahead. I'm sorry. Yeah, I she took some of my thunder. What I
was going to say, um, you know, yeah, two two citizens brought that up. um you know and and we we had this discussion months ago and whatever I said before I was even sitting in this chair but we're here talking strictly
about the franchise agreement um it wasn't I just to touch on a couple things um I I don't think it would be very difficult for somebody to self-report you do a job for a client you invoice the client for the job you did right it's in QuickBooks it's in I
Name however many accounting softwares that you use. If you're running a proper business, you're invoicing your client. I picked up, you know, five trips at this many tons. Da da da. If you're delivering, you know, 20 yards of fill
to a client cuz you run a dump truck. You know how much that 20 yards and you're going to invoice that client or you're going to give them a receipt with their name on it. You're going to have records, right? Because you have to file with the IRS. Now, does everybody always file properly with IRS? Of course they do. Um, so, you know, on that note, I
mean, I think that's a simple answer to having to provide, you know, pickup tickets for every single job. You know, that was just an idea for a standard. Um, you know, uh, again, no transfer station
talk tonight. Um, or no way station um, simply removing. Yeah, it's simply removing, right? taking us somewhere else. The idea is if we if if we can if we can, you know, keep a leash on
because we have a contract with these folks and they're going to get fined if they if they're dumping improperly and they're they're going to lose their franchise or whatever. We can start, you know, having some teeth on this. It's a small step forward in a possible in a positive direction. I I agree. We we
we've had a hard time because of, you know, lack of staff, attrition of staff, lack of direction, lack of good codes, etc. in the past with dealing with some of these things. Um, you know, and but the pricing wise, it was an the comment about the pricing because I made the
comment was strictly it wasn't to get an even price across the board, you know, we're not trying to create a monopoly here. it it's to create a more competitive market because if you have to have this if everybody has to have this to operate here then you know
they're going to be you know that part of the fee is going to kind of translate evenly across the board and it causes things to be and if we're starting to crack down on it it you know it causes things to be more um even across the keel and I don't know
about the rest of these ladies that sit up here next to the rest ladies that sitting next to me here. But um I said that differently. That was weird. I don't know about the ladies that sit next to me. But you know, I'm not here to trample on anybody's rights. I'll just say that out loud. That is not a thing. Um no, I don't look to tax
anybody any extra or if you're not you know if you don't have horses or whatever and I you know 100%. Yeah, that's that's not a thing. So yeah. So thank you. I just I know this is normally but it is a discussion. Okay. So, let me just see if I have the consensus correctly. If everybody
correct me if I'm wrong, what we're asking staff to do is to get together with the manure haulers and come back. I don't know if you can do it by the June 3rd meeting, but maybe by the July, what is it? 7th meeting. July, it's July 1st. Oh, July 1. Isn't that something? uh
maybe by the July 1st meeting if you can come back with a set of a set of proposed standards that evolved from the discussion that we had here tonight taking into consideration what everybody's concerns are that sound
correct everybody we say we like it and then we send it to Glenn for review correct yep we like it or we don't like it or we add to it or we subtract from it and take it for review and that also and that you work from the list of that you have of current haulers in the town.
And I think also Lisa for one and myself, I would like to see the list of haulers that we have currently working in the town or that are considering applying for the franchise on our website somewhere. Even if we had like a resource page, we've
talked about that before, like having a welcome page or a resource page. And that that is a really useful resource for um for people. It's an added bonus for being part of the franchise. Right. Exactly. Exactly. Free advertisement. There you go. Um, okay. I'm gonna call just a five minute recess before we get
into the discussions that might be kind of lengthy for you. Stretch your legs, Marge, and for us to use the restroom. And then, um, we'll be right back. Oh, I'm sorry. All right, we ready. Sorry. Okay, we're going to come back to order
and we're on to item number 18, which is a discussion of um charter amendments and We had had some discussion previously
about perhaps reestablishing a charter review um committee. There were some items that um had been brought up over time that I think are added to this list of things that that charter review committee might
um might consider. Um, and so, uh, since the letter is from you, Glenn, your office, we'll let you take the lead on this. Okay, my mayor. Now, um, the
letter covers four or five different topics that you had dis the letter covers a few different topics that you had discussed. Do you want me to go through the entire thing first or do you want to stop after each one and discuss each one? we should stop after each one and discuss it because I think they're all very different issues. Does
everybody agree with that? Yeah. Okay. So, let's do item number one, which is the charter review committee. Okay. So, the first concept is uh really the charter amendment process. And just the short version of that is if you're going to have something on the election of March of next year, believe it or not,
you're going to need to have it to the supervisor of elections by November of this year. So you'll see I kind of did a uh you know backed up um on the uh Can I ask you to speak it better? I don't know why you're so softspoken tonight, Glennon, but we're not hearing you.
Okay. I said so part of the process is to realize that if you want this on the March 2026 election, you're going to need to have it to the supervisor elections generally in November. Sometimes she'll push that date to December. So, I would say to be safe by November of this year, you have to have
get ready to go. And ready to go means going through whatever process you're going to do over the next several months and then having first reading of an ordinance and second reading of an ordinance by November. And so, you might want to consider having first reading as early as September so that if there's
any changes, you could bring it back in October and then you can bring second reading in November. Any ordinance includes a couple of parts. The main part is the ballot language. And ballot language, just so you realize, has two requirements. The title can't be more than 15 words. And the body of the
question can't be more than 75 words. And it has to end in a yes or no question. So has to say, shall the town do XYZ? Yes or no. Um so and again, those are kind of your limits. And then um the first thing that you talked about
was uh election cycles. Um, so you have So stop me. Okay. This is item number one, charter review committee. Are you suggesting that we all bring two nominations for each council member? I'm just throwing out a number
everybody. I'm not dictating. Uh, that we all bring two recommendations for the charter review meeting to committee to the next meeting, which is June whatever it is, 6th, 7th. that we all bring two nominations having 10 people on the charter review committee so that that
could convene immediately. We appoint them at the next meeting and then immediately set them with a schedule to go. Is that your discretion? One person, two person. I'd like to cover this item and let us discuss this and see whether we think that that and that's a special
one. So people could duplicate service committee. Correct. And that would be an ad hoc committee. So you can duplicate service. Does that sound okay with everybody? Everybody has two members. Phyllis, two members. Lisa, you okay with two? I think it was three before. By the charter, it is
three. Oh, it is three by the charter. Okay. So, three. Sorry, I threw the number two out there. I was just just throwing a number out. Didn't really Okay. So, by June, you say by the June meeting, if everybody brings their three appointments and I suggest everybody bring four or five suggestions since we
know there may be some duplicates among us since the same people frequently. STP are uh yeah so so don't come with just three everybody come with four or five and that way if your first three are taken we can um that's a large committee
but that's that's the charter it was it was three a piece yeah and I think I'm just thinking how hard it is to get five people on one committee 100% which is why we're putting the cottis so that you can reappoint somebody that's already on another committee because it is hard to get people to step up and serve I
thought we had to have for tonight so I was ready to Oh my god, good for you. Okay. Um, all right. So, three to five. Everybody bring to the next one and that way if people's are taken, they can take others. Okay. So, that handles item
number one. Yes. I had a question from a a member of the public. Um, they want to know if you're going to go through item by item so that way they know if they can comment item by item or should they comment now in general terms before you guys make your decisions? How would you like to
proceed? is what I'm being asked. Well, this is just a discussion item, I guess, if somebody wants to comment on us creating a charter review committee. Is there anybody that has a specific comment about that? Oh, please come forward. I think they're just getting up to volunteer to be on the committee. That
might be busted. See how that works. See how that works, man. Very good. Good evening everyone. uh Manish Sud 3765 EOD have you heard the phrase put your money where your mouth is. So whether we are
doing charter review or strategic review it's important for the council uh to state why we tax our residents, how much we tax our residents and how our hard-earned tax dollars are spent. I am here today as a resident but I'm also here as chair of the financial audit
advisory and audit committee. Our madame mayor knows this very well because she held this position for herself. So let me share with you some real life examples that are unfolding right now in our town. But before I do a side note, I have no violations as of
this date and time. No fines, no infractions. So in our town when you question the government, it seems you tend to get marked as we saw in the last meeting. So our charter must remove any appearance of the laware. Coming back to town
finances, I'm concerned that um our tax money has not been well spent in 2024 and I don't see any improvements in 2025. Last year under our new mayor, residents were told we need to raise taxes to fix roads and drainage. Yet
last year in 2024, less than half of the capital funds earmarked for infrastructures were actually spent. This year, the same story continues. Meanwhile, in the last year, general fund was overspent by $300,000 largely due to the legal fee. So 10 cents of
every dollar that we pay in general fund was spent for legal fee. This year, our town manager is on pace to spend $500,000 on legal expenses. Our newly hired accounting/ CFO vendor in the last meeting accused fact members to have an
agenda. And yes, we do have an agenda. And with this charter should make it clear to protect this town, to lower taxes, and to ensure every bureaucrat and outside contractor is held accountable for every dollar of the taxpayer money. Please tell me one taxpayer sitting here or watching us who
would not want to see the legal expense breakdown regarding what legal matters they are working on or to demand policies to stop public funds from being used on legal fights over Facebook posts. Then there is the narrative. We are told last time that this two this
sheet everything is on track. The town is doing great. We are told to trust the town manager. Don't question the item level spending. You are given this two-pager dashboard print out as be all end all trutht teller view of the town finances. Is it is it the truth teller?
As an example, once you remove the noise in the financials, in particular item number 39, 512,000, which is an internal fund transfer, you will notice that our general fund has spent 1.77 million as
of March 25 against 1.556 million budget. There is almost Thank you. that it's okay. Last I'm not sure what your what your point is. I'm coming a charter review committee, but that's what we were talking about as a
charter review committee. So, if you have a comment, give some extra time to other committee other comments. I'm asking for 30 seconds. May I please take your 30 seconds? Okay, good. So, my message to the council members, if this trend continues and you do nothing in 3
months, you will be coming here with a large tax hike. And I tell the town management this. As the chairman of PAC, my fiduciary duty is to lock Sahhatche Grove residents. I'm not here to rubber stamp your financials or blindly trust
100% what you show us or sing song of your praises in public. So we will work in good faith, but as you design your charter or your strategic reviews, please pay attention to the town monies. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else that
wants to talk about the charter review committee? Okay. I have a public comment card here with no name. It has 3765E road. Do you wish to speak speak now? No. Okay. The next person on the
list I have is Mr. Todd McClendon. Do you wish to speak now? Okay. Todd McClennon 3481 D Road. Um I had the privilege of serving on the charter review committee a few years ago. Our charter sets up and it says after 2012, every 10 years you're supposed to put
together a committee. It doesn't require it, but it kind of gives a recommendation of three people for each council member. This isn't what you're looking to do now isn't following that exactly because that was talking about for every 10 years. This isn't every 10 years what we're doing looking to do right now. As far as I'm concerned, I
don't think you My point is I don't think you need three people. we don't need 15 people on that committee. It's hard to find 15 good people that are actually going to show up and participate. The the town attorney can look at that part of the charter and I think he can confirm that we probably can get away with five because this is very limited. This isn't that trying to
meet that requirement of the town charter. There are a lot of things in the town charter that need to be fixed and I look forward to hopefully serving on that. Thank you, Miss Succi. Um, I just want to confirm as you go through the items, we can talk on those.
Yes. Okay. So, I I'm reading the charter. I agree with part of what Todd said, but it's in our charter. So, if we don't like the language in our charter, we just don't dismiss it, then let's like what we've done in the past with the mayor and the term limits, we do a
referendum. And it says at its first regular meeting in March of 2012 and every 10th year thereafter, the town council may appoint a charter review committee consisting of 15 individuals who are not members of the town council to serve in an advisory capacity to the
town council. It was put in there for a reason. We just don't wipe it all. So, if we're going to consider doing something for a charter, maybe we need to the first referendum is put the language out and let the residents vote to change the language like we've done in the past. not just we don't like it
anymore. Um because I thought this was our founding document for our town. Um and it's there for a reason. So it says it may appoint I I mean I clarification just I'm what I'm reading. So maybe perhaps if we don't like that language we can change that first. That could be
one of the things in the referendum is what you're saying. Um to to I'm just saying maybe that's we've done it in the past. You know when it was the term limits we didn't like that language. We did housekeeping. We changed some housekeeping things. Um, this seems to be that maybe we don't like every 10th
year. Maybe we can decide it's every four years, but for whatever reason, I believe we might have a founder up there. It was put for a reason. So, if we don't like it, we just can't wipe it out. It needs to be treated important. So, maybe have a vote of the town
referendum to do away with that and then we can now discuss what we're doing there. I mean, that's just my thoughts. I hold this document very dear because it has protected our town. Um, and that's just the way I um, anybody else. Okay. Glenn, can you
speak to that? Does are we prohibited from having a charter review committee other than any 10 years by the language in our charter? I don't think you're prohibited from it. I think you can, you know, obviously ideally you would have done it in 2022. You didn't. So, I think you can still do it now. Okay. When is
the last time that we did a had a charter review committee, Todd? 2019. 1920. Yeah. 2019. Was 19 and 20. Oh, we did it two years in a row. Well, it took that long. Oh, we did it for two whole years. Okay. Well, it took like starting in 19. I got
it. I got it. I got it. Um Paul, um Oh my god, I just dropped. Um well, according to what Mr. Trace was saying earlier, this is all looking at this to put this stuff on the ballot
come March. The review committee would make suggestions about what to put. So, we would all be voting on that, right? It wouldn't be just us sitting up here going, "Yes, change the charter to to you know what I'm saying? It's it's put to a vote to the populace." The whole
point of of of forming the the charter review committee is um I honestly I think we is for them to advise us advise us is is yes this is good no we don't think this going to you know etc because honestly you see how long it's taken us to get through this 700 pages can you
imagine if we were doing a charter review you know on the on the other spot of the month I mean you know so the idea I think that's the idea is for the committee to come back with you know suggestions and then we can and get that done before September so we could get it
on the ballot so folks could could vote on it. That's right. That that is what I hear. That's that's what I'm hearing. Okay. So, are we back to our consensus then that will all come with two to five names to the next meeting that we would like on the
charter review committee and at that point we will have clarification from Mr. perivia of what the size of that committee actually has to be and we will then make a decision of whether it's going to have five members, 10 members or 15 members and proceed forward. Does
that sound good? And we'll have time to hear from towns people outside of the meeting that have opinions one way or the other of whether we need to stick with that 15 number or whatever, right? And get input. And as Paul said, this
committee, your purpose is to come up with the wording that will be presented on election day for the residents of our town to vote. Well, not not just that. I think the wording actually gets come up with by our lawyer. I think they can make a
suggestion to us and then we would direct the lawyer. But not only that, but to consider this list of items that have been that are on this list that have have come up as suggested charter amendments. Whether we even want to consider right this list of items that
that's what I'm Do we do we pay the supervisor election by question or No. No, but we would pay if we had a special election. If we did like like maybe what Miss Suchi was suggesting and first put out an election of of this, then we would have to pay I think it's around
$10,000. Well, that $20,000 then we would have to pay $20,000 to have a special election. We probably wouldn't want to do that just to you have to consider that for a special election if you're one municipality holding a special election
the full respons the full onus of all those payments go to that municipality it's extremely expensive which is why we try not to go down that route and rather do everything at our regular general election March. Okay. Because then we share that cost with all the other
municipalities. Gotcha. Well, as I say, even if we did it, that's an extra fee. If we say we were to get our act together and have it done here in July and we had it on a November ballot, just just for argument sake, right? You're still paying that's an extra fee. If we can do it on the March ballot when we're
already holding an election for council, then it's basically kind of all-incclusive in a sense, right? So, you could have five questions, one questions. It's it's still going to the physically responsible thing to do. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Now, we kind
of covered item two, Glenn, I believe. But did with in your item one, you covered item two. Would you would you say that's accurate? Does somebody specifically have anything that uh public comments or any comment council comments on the process? Anybody have any comments? Public comments on the
process item number two. No. Okay. Uh we're on to item number three. There was a um proposal made by a council member that um the fact that we have elections every
single year as I understand this um that the fact that we have elections every single year two two and one has us always in election mode um campaigning mode and that creates a whole new ball
of twine in this town. Um, and so this council member had proposed that we might want to consider trying to figure out some equitable way to skew the election. So there was maybe a year's rest. I don't know, you know, whatever. I I don't know what the solution is or
what that person's proposal was. Um, but I I have heard I have heard a lot of um public comment about people being concerned like whose term would be cut short and whose term would be extended or things like that. How is that
handled, Mr. Torcivia, so that that doesn't happen so that somebody doesn't serve longer than the people elect voted for them to serve? How would you skew it that way? Does that make sense? Mhm. So again, part of this is going to go back to the charter review committee, right?
How how do you My understanding is you're going to send to them these are some topics you want them to consider, and then they'll consider them. And right now, you have threeear terms that are staggered, but they're staggered in a way that two of you are up in year one, two of you up in year two, and one
of you is up in year three. And my understanding of the proposal is that instead of that, you'd have year one, maybe three people up, year two, two people up, year three, nobody up. Is that the concept? So you would basically skip a year. I guess it wasn't my
recommendation. Okay. That is not the concept. What was the recommendation, Phyllis? Well, it was to try to, you know, you certainly don't want three people running for election. you know, it it's
bad enough with two. So, it was try and I'm happy with the charter review doing this. So, but it's to somehow stagger these elections because it does
interfere with our town doing daily business in between the months of December and March. So, whatever. You know, did you have a did you have a suggestion there? I
didn't hear one of of of how you would like to see it done to send to the charter review committee or you you're in support of sending it to them and letting them decide. Is that what I hear? Well, I'm happy with council coming up with a few suggestions to send
to charter review. I in my mind the easiest way was to do four two-year terms, but I I don't care. I don't care how they do it as long as we don't have an election every single year.
I don't care. I'm open to any suggestion. Okay. Before you answer Margie's question, Lisa had her light on and then I'll let hold your question. I'm sorry. Go ahead, Lisa. Well, I think to Marg's question, um, that's for the charter review to kind of dig into, but
I I would say that I agree with with your comment, Anita, that, um, we should throw this to the charter review committee to come up with some suggestions because I think there's quite a few models that could be, you know, kicked around and getting there might be difficult, but let them figure
it out. Yeah. If that's something that people want to see and they don't want an election every year, then that's perhaps it. I I do get election fatigue. So I understand totally understand that. So still feeling it. Did you want to ask your question or
just let Well, my question was do we have any uh other towns uh in Palm Beach County and Florida that do this and or that have had to go from what we Yeah. that have had to go from what we did to then. Is that something we could provide as a as an example to the charter review
committee? I think most recently Lake Worth Beach had the same voter the same fatigue on elections and so they changed it so that there was an off year. So there is a year and I think what I think what they had is three people up in year one, two people up in year two, nobody
up in year three. So year three is kind of a breather and then year four three people are up and you know it depends on how long your terms the charter review committee and let them think of what do you think? Yeah, I think so. I I think so. I mean, cuz the only thing I can think of is is that it, you know, when
we changed term limits, right? That's when we kind of it wasn't always a year every year, right? When we change the term limits, always been an election. It's always been every year. Two two and one. I just I show up and vote. But all right. So, yeah. I think we You're probably
thinking of the first year when when seat five was only for one year. Oh, that's probably what it is. Yeah. because that was Yeah. Oh, and you know, we had that whole I I would say you could consider districts and then only those people in those
districts vote. I think there's a lot of different ways to to juggle this. So that's just not the only option. And I think charter review committee, if they're going to be tasked with it, let them dive in. Amen. I agree. All right. So this is something we would like sent to the charter review committee that we
are going to establish next meeting in June. Okay. The next thing that we have on a s on a proposed list of items to be considered by the charter review um committee is
uh term limits. Um we currently have two consecutive term limits. a council member has brought up the fact that it is getting more and more difficult to find people
that want to run for office in this town. Um, and I believe this is just to have the charter review committee reconsider a two consecutive term limits which was put into place last time.
Um, and the three-year term which may be put into play in the election cycle thing. I believe that's what this item is. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong. Is that Am I accurate? Okay. Well, Lisa has
her light on that. I'll call on you, Phyllis. Go ahead. Go. Uh, I I think that was voted on what, six years ago, and it's really just taken effect. So, I'm curious why this is coming back forward. That's all. I I don't really
remember where it came from to be honest with you. I don't remember who suggested this one. It was I thought it was Phyllis that suggested the election cycles. I'm not sure where this one came from, but we can. Phyllis, did you bring
this up? The term limits. This is all right. This is part of the election cycle because they may, you know, there are people that don't want to run
anymore. Wonderful why. So, um, yeah, I think you're going to find this is going to be discussed with the election cycle. They go hand in hand. Well, while I agree that there may have to be some change to somebody's term or
some people's term in order to accommodate changing the election cycle um shift. I'm not sure what that has to do with term limits. I'm not sure how they're related. So, I'm not following your logic. I'm sorry. Okay. Well, if
Okay. Well, if you go to fouryear terms, two terms, because we're saying it's going to be difficult to find people that want to run, right? So, they may change to four-year terms and two term limits, and that would
change the dynamics of the election cycle, wouldn't it? Well, again, I think it's I think what what we're saying here is that we should let them handle it. Well, that's justice. Okay. That's what I'm saying.
Let the charter review come up with a few scenarios and then we go over it. Okay. So, can I get a consensus on then to have them consider election cycle cycles in whatever way they see
fit to make a recommendation to us which may may not include addressing the length of a term and term limits. Is everybody okay with that? Well, the term limits and the mayor was changed
um during like 2020 2021 something like that. or maybe even 2019. So, yeah, I think that, you know, they should be able to come up with several different scenarios. Okay, so we're back where we started.
Let's let the charter review committee decide this. Okay, I think we're all in agreement there. All right, election dates, uh, section seven. I think that just falls under the same. It's a housekeeping issue. We're gonna
have just one big thing to consider. Okay. Let's look at uh Does anybody have I'm sorry. I totally skipped over any se any public comment on that section three? Anybody? No. Okay. All right. We're back to we're on to borrowing B. I'm not sure why we went from numbers to
letters, but Oh, no. B is part of Okay. Borrowing power is our next section. And this one uh certain types of borrowing I I don't know. Do you want me to keep reading this stuff? Okay. This was
suggested by the town manager, so I'm not sure if she wants to take Go ahead, Francine. Go for it. This has come forward twice before and 36 months is not necessarily enough um time for financing. For instance, when people buy their vehicles, they often use 5 years.
So, if we're doing a lease on a big piece of equipment, it might be nice to be able to go for five years because the time of the equipment is a lot longer. Additionally, as we have been saying for the last number of years since we have kept all of our rates the same for seven
years, um, and because we no longer have funds coming in from outside the organization, it may be a good idea to be able to have just a little bit of flexibility with regard to equipment
replacements and so on and so forth. Right now, we have a three-year borrowing capacity, and you're suggesting we might want to consider going to five years or to the useful life of whatever it is we might be leasing or borrowing. Paul, you had your light on first. Yeah. So, what you're suggesting is that not
that we have the because we we can we can say go buy a greater and do eightear terms, right? We we have that ability. It's your ability, right? And this can't it's the town in general. The town in general can't say we can't say that. Okay, that's a million dollar piece of
equipment. So, we can only finance three years. So, in three years, we're going to spend 350 a year, right? And that's a big hit to us, right? In terms of, you know, correct. And the last time this came up, I believe Jamie was the town manager, right? Correct. Yeah, that's
when it came up on correct. And you were very vocal about it and I understand your concerns. I'm not bringing anything up about going out to do big borrowing or anything. This is strictly to match a useful life to a piece of equipment if the council so chooses. Nobody says we
have to go to five years, but if we need to without raising taxes, we might want to. Paul, you done? No, I'm sorry. Lisa get blinded. So, uh, that obviously in the language that's current, that's
the least lease purchase contracts, um, would be the the one considered, but, um, I know the town has, uh, inquired about purchasing land for, uh, water retention. So, I'm assuming that's, uh, also, uh, lease purchase contract with
purchase of real property or the construction, any capital improvements. So, I know that this has gone to the voters twice and the voters twice have said no. Um, so obviously it's it's unpopular. Uh, but I I don't know if we're going to a
referendum vote on something else. It it might be something that we want to explore. But I would caution don't want to get into a lot of debt. So, I don't think we can afford a lot of debt, but I'm not sure that we could afford to buy anything without a little
more flexibility if we need it without raising taxes. Well, and and this again would be something for them to consider and not that we have to use it, but that if the possibility came up and we voted and wanted to use it that we could. Right now, we we can't. We
don't do it anything. This is the people voting on that. I understand they vote on giving us the ability to do that, however, to finance something for five years. Yeah. Um, which we don't have right now. We only finance for three years. There could be further language to that if if this is approved and to
extend past that three years, it would take a supermajority or whatever to be to make that happen, right? So, I mean, so you have some control over it. But again, the charter review committee could do that and supermajority language, which is a really good idea. So then we would sure it's a it's a then
we'd be sure it's it's a really controlled item and not just right a political whim. I think that's a great idea. Um anybody some of you out there that I see sitting on the charter review committee already? Um are you hope you're listening? Okay. Do we have any public comments on this
item? Mr. McClendon Todd McClendon 341D road. So the charter prohibits you from borrowing more than three years. However, you still have option to borrow more than three years. You could do a special referendum and ask that question. So it was discussed that maybe water retention. So if you decide you want to buy 50 acres for
water retention, you want to do a 20-year loan, you could still do that. You just have to do a special referendum for it. I'm against changing that three years and extending it blanket for anything. We can do we can do special election, special referendums for specific projects. Thank you. So, so we
can spend $20,000 $20,000 to to to say, "Hey, listen. We're going to we have the ability to uh purchase this, you know, at a 10 cents on the $150 acres, but we need to borrow six years instead of three years. So,
we're going to spend 20 grand ahead of time for the special election." You wouldn't need to do a special election. You could do it in March, like she just explained on a referendum question, and there's no additional cost. I'm just being devil's advocate here. I hear what you're saying, but you wouldn't need a special election. You do it in March. The cost is very minimal and we're not
you're not going to try to do 20 years on a greater, right? It's going to be a big project, right? So, if you spend $1,000 on the March election to have one question on there, so be it. You know, if it's that important, that big of a project, we spend $1,000. We don't need to have a special election. We do the
referendum question in a March election. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Suchi Cassie Suchi. Thank you, Todd. Thank you. Um, this was put in place and it was voted for, overwhelmingly rejected by the residents. They don't want us to
get into debt that way. And exactly what Todd says, if a project comes up and it's important enough, then it goes to the next election to vote for. But to just have a blanket statement that allows it to extend the borrowing limit. It was overwhelmingly rejected. Over 80%
I think was the votes. People put this in here to protect this town. And it goes back to we have a spending problem in this town and to increase the limit to borrow debt. That doesn't make sense to anybody out in in the audience that
is tightening their budget and they they can't buy something because they don't have it. But we're going to go ahead and extend us our thing for a project that may come about for six years. Keep it in and if they if you guys have something
land you want to buy, talk about it, discuss it, put it at the March election and then let the public decide. Thanks. Anybody else? That's it. Okay. So, is the consensus to keep this in and let the charter review
committee consider it or to remove it based on the public comments tonight? I'm a no. And it's not just the public comments. So, no, not for me, Marge. Uh, I don't think it's uh necessary to begin there. Okay,
Paul. Okay, Phyllis. I just want to say uh when was the last time that went for referendum vote 19 2019 okay so 2019 I want to remind you guys that we had the paid the road
project which cost us about a half a million dollars in repairs and that the town is changing and if you don't want and I agree we don't want to increase our property taxes. We don't want to increase our taxes. We need to look for
other revenues. But I need to remind you that 2019 was 6 years ago. All right? So, we need to look at some of the things we've done in the past and re-evaluate. We just can't say no to everything. But I agree with Todd and
that if we need it in this particular circumstance, we could put it on a referendum. Okay, sounds like the consensus is to not put borrowing power into consideration for um the charter review committee. Okay,
next one is town attorney's contract execution authority. I I would like to say it's not the town manager suggesting that this don't be included. What I would like to clarify
is is that until recently um we have not had um the attorney review every contract because every PO um and I'm just going to remind you all that you see every PO over 10,000 and every item
over 25,000. We have not brought every PO to the attorney. We have which is a template language. It's a standard terms and condition and um the attorney does review our professional services
contracts as well as any bids that we send out and any awards of bids and any contracts that we do on any of those items. So I'm not suggesting that we cease attorney review so that we don't have you know so that we don't have
prudent management of risk. I'm suggesting that we can find another way than this wording because every contractor and so for a $100 PO it cost us $50 to have it reviewed by the attorney. Well 250 but you know it cost us 250 to have
235 I think an hour. But I'm willing to do whatever anybody wants. I just don't want it to be on the record that the town manager proposes removing the requirement. The town manager proposes a
riskmanagement approach to using some cost benefit that would be determined by the charter review committee some way other than to incur those kind of fees. Okay, any questions? I would suggest that that the POS the POS are not an issue because once we
have a standard PO once we have a standard PO as long as the town staff uses the standard PO that's not a problem. And you know I can't remember the last time we were asked to to look at POS that we generally don't as long as they using the standard when the concern that I expressed earlier and I
use a different town as an example is if a purchasing agent doesn't use a standard PO and they use a vendor's PO and the vendor's PO is ob purchase order is obviously in favor of the vendor and the case I referred you to that particular city had to pay a4 million dollars because there was language in
that contract. So, as long as we're using the PO that we approved the form, and that's what it says here, approve the form and correctness. As long as we're using that standard PO, we're fine. We're not asking to review every purchase order that goes out. This language, if this does go to charter review committee, my suggestion to them
would be to look at every other city in Palm Beach County because every city has every city and every county. I mean, we get contracts every day from Palm Beach County. Don't they all say approve this to form a correction? You get something from the state that says approve this to form. Every government agency has their
lawyer signing off. Why would Lockachi Groves be the outlier and say we're not going to have a lawyer review a contract that could be for hundreds of thousands of dollars? I I don't think it says not to review contracts. And I I I mean, personally, I feel like our legal fees
are out of control. Nothing to do with this clause, though. I would say just simply I'm simply I don't want to argue about it. I'm simply saying I personally believe that our legal bills are out of control. They're out of control and anything that
can be done administratively within best management practices and within making sure that the town is taken care of to to reduce those legal bills. I think it should be considered. I'm not saying we need to pass it, but I think it should definitely be considered by the charter
review committee of how we could handle or tackle some of these things and I've heard conflicting things about this PO situation coming out of your mouth, Glenn, about whether they need to be reviewed or don't be need to be reviewed. So, I think this is definitely
something that I would want to see go to them so that they can give us, you know, tell us how the people feel about what's going on with this and and what we can do to stay fiscally responsible, legally responsible at the
same time. Paul, yeah, I my life I didn't agree. I mean, if if we're if we're uh you know, I as I'm hearing it one way, maybe I'm just not comprehending the whole process, but I
mean, if we're writing if we're paying $250 to review a PO for $100, meaning I'm buying a case of widgets for the public works for $100, and Glenn's crew has to spend an
hour on it, right to that that even if we're doing 10 of those that's I think it's too many right I mean if the if the purchasing power is here for the town manager or for the stat whatever then that's then we should have a blanket PO and that's what we issue for the
purchase and there should be a blanket procedure that I we should not have to you know that we should be paying the attorney or whomever to review every single PO I mean because if you think about it if and I'm not saying it's happening but if We're paying Glenn to review every single PO. Then we're we're
paying the staff to write it. We're that $100 case of widgets just to cost us dang near a grand. Yeah. Because then the then the accountants got to, you know, you know, review all the itemized for the for the budget to actual, etc., etc. So, you know, I mean, I yeah, I
think we leave it to the charter review committee, take a look at a couple, you know, couple three, four, five examples of what the language is around. And, you know, I don't see why we can't tailor something to our, you know, our our
situation that fits in with our policy procedures. And I just want to keep the record clear. We do not review every PR. I didn't say you did. I was an example. Well, but I'm just that becomes the example and my suggestion would be let's pull the last three years worth of POS
and see how many my name's on and if it's probably less than I was just using as a hypothetical if you know if that at 250 bucks a pop that's times 10. We all do the math right. I was just saying if again I've heard conflicting things coming from your office that's check the
same issue so I think it stays in but um anybody else phyis you have something to say. Yes, thank you. So, um I was glad to hear Manish actually, you know, that the fact is looking at the attorney's bills which
are absorbent and in 2024 I wanted to find a new law firm. Okay. And Mr. George Civia was going to reel everybody in and what we're 200 250 over budget. So, that didn't happen. Um we've had
ordinance written that were not asked for and resolutions that were not asked for from the deis and I would like to take this opportunity to say I am extremely dissatisfied with the current
attorney uh his legal services and fees and that I would like maybe the charter review committee to discuss would we like to hire an in-house attorney or send out for an RFQ. I'm
done with this law firm. I'm not sure that's a charter review committee decision. I think that that's a a council decision that could be maybe added to the next agenda if you'd like to do that. I would love that. Thank you. Okay. Well, then we can add that to
the next agenda. Do you have anything? Um, but are we are Lisa? Do you I can't see you're good. No. So, we're in consensus to leave this there for the charter review committee to take a look at this and see what they suggest. Everybody agrees to that. Yes. Okay. All
right. The next one was Marge. I believe you brought this up. A council member salary increase, right? Yeah. Um with the increased amount of work that um our um our mayor
is assuming um we're supposed to be um uh mayor light, but that it seems like um we're getting to be more and more and more mayor heavy or strong mayor, whatever
you'd call it. Uh so you know we we either go back to mayor light like we were and whoever was doing that work before go back to doing it or continue
if if you know if we're happy the way it is now. I mean it she's got a full-time job and she's being pulled on quite a bit for for town responsibilities. So,
my thought was to to increase uh the mayor's position by at least $1,250 at least, you know, and then all of the others, whatever. You know, leave them the way they are or increase them
uh you know, it's it's up to increase it by or two the what? increase it by 1250 or to 12. Oh, I'm sorry, Lisa. I can't see Robin Horn. It's hard to see. Sorry,
Lisa's first. My bad. I'm sorry. I put him up here. Yeah. Do you want to expand on how much more the mayor is doing that's that is provided for in our actual policies and procedures? I would like to defer that to the mayor
because um uh in the review um well there's a lot of times when when she's spending hours meeting um you know planning for our meetings. So so let me get deferred too. So first of all I didn't ask for this. Um I'm not in favor
of it. Um I I do do a lot of extra things. I do go to a lot of meetings and you know I go to League of Cities meetings. I go to legislative things in Tallahassee. I go to legislative things in Orlando with the League of Cities. Um I I do a lot of
things, but I do it because I'm committed to this town and devoted to trying to preserve the town as it is and I love this town. So, um I'm honestly not in favor of a council raise and I'm certainly not in favor of a council
raise for one position as opposed to any other one. So, um, I I I appreciate the fact that you see I appreciate the fact that you see and acknowledge what I do. Um, because, you know, not everybody does. So, I certainly do appreciate
that, but um it's not it's not for the money. Okay. Mayor, may I chime in? It's been what 16 years since there was a last raise. And so if you're proposing a
a raise for all council members, I I I you know, I would say that we can let the charter review committees consider that. But proposing a raise for just one particular council member, I don't think is appropriate or well within our charter
that,50 just as a starting point. I mean, and I did say and the others uh could be less than, right? But I I well, I'm just saying I don't agree with that. So I I I just don't agree with that. But anyhow, Phyllis, did you have something
to say? Yes. What I wanted to say is um I understand where Marge is going. However, what I have noticed you are uncomfortable about getting reimbursed. All right. So maybe we
should talk about that when and that is your personal preference. But I think at time that is my personal preference, right? But I I do I do not put in for reimbursement. You are correct. But maybe there can be a line item for the Tallahassee and all
that. So you're not so uncomfortable about being reimbursed when there could be. as as and my term as mayor for the next however many months I'm mayor till March and then I'm not mayor anymore I won't be putting in for reimbursement I don't put in for reimbursement so you've only
been mayor one year policy I'm sorry but thank you doesn't need to be considered maybe for future mayors it could be considered but not for this mayor Paul you had something to say no I was just curious if she was saying to 1250 or I mean I I you know I I appreciate what
you And and you and I before I sat here had many conversations about stuff. I I know what you do. And actually every time I pulled up here right after I got elected and I was like, "Oh crap, Anita's here. Can I even go in the building? Am I going to break some kind of, you know, but honestly every time I pulled up here to pick up something or
whatever, you know, Anita's car is here." Um, so I mean, yeah, I I was just curious where the but you know, I can appreciate what you say and what like you said, it's your personal choice, you know, whether you want to be reimbured or not. that's your that's your prerogative. So, um, as far as the
blanket thing, I'm the new guy here, so I've never been here. So, um, I came in knowing what it was and I I did, like you say, I did this to to to help benefit the town and do better for the town. So, if the town's people say give them an extra $5, and they give us an extra $5. If the town's people say nope,
they're good. That's not what this item says. This is this is changing a supermajority vote to change what council gets paid. So it it's not it's not a referendum to to paid council members. I was wondering why. So So it's
changing it to change it from a supermajority to say yes, we get a raise. Is that it's just saying what it currently is. And um so it's saying changing it from requiring a charter amendment to just requiring a super majority of council.
That is what it's specifically saying. It's not specifically saying currently the charter protects it and requires a charter amendment. No, actually it's a super majority vote. It is a super majority vote that could you could increase your salaries now by a
supermajority vote and it would not be effective until the next election after that occurred. So I I don't know why this would go to charter unless you wanted to change that. You could change it for example to say can't get an increase without a supermajority vote. Sorry, but but the chart already allows
you to give your give the council an increase effective in the future after there's an election. But I think Marge's premise is that she wanted it to go to the charter review committee to have citizen input. I guess larger impact
citizen input on a salary raise. I think that's what I'm hearing. I'm not I'm not in favor of it. So So we're changing it from a 4 to one to a referendum basically. I don't I think it goes to the ch they're suggesting it go to the charter to change it but that's what I'm asking. So what are we changing? We're
not are we going it's not changing anything suggesting whether this should go forward to the charter review to suggest a possible change. Ah okay right that's it's suggesting to go for a suggestion request for suggestion. What happens when you use 300 words to say five? I'm
just, you know, and I'd like to say that the the first seated council which is described on uh uh 648 uh the way the way um everybody was
seated, you know, uh they they all served for all of the creation of all of the charters and all of the rules and regulations and setting up town hall and and doing everything and never took any
money. So for the amount of time that they served here and were reelected and everything, it was the choice of those council members not to take anything. So I think we were what
maybe nine years. I I was off uh my first two terms um uh before any money was being trans transferred to the council members. So what six years,
eight years um before any money was awarded to any council members and then there were two increases over the course of time. So, I just felt that now maybe it's time. We've gone so many years.
Maybe it's time. So, can I make a suggestion that maybe this item didn't really belong here in the charter review committee and that maybe what would be appropriate is to add it as an item to the next agenda and let Marge discuss it at at that and let us discuss it at that time with how we feel about Sure. a
salary raise for council members. Does that sound appropriate? Yeah. Yeah. And to give the sound appropriate everybody can show up and the public can show up and say how they feel about it. Yeah. Does that sound sound good to everybody? Okay. So, let's pull that from charter review. Having reviewed all of Mr.
Torivia's letter of what he thinks needs to be with the charter review committee. Is there anything that anybody else can think of that needs to go on this list for the charter review committee? Paul mayor. Yeah. Um, with regards to the item
pertaining to uh the town attorney's contract execution authority, we did have some public comments on that that we didn't call for. Sorry. I'm so sorry. That's okay. So, Mr. McClendon, go. Thank you, Valerie. No problem. Todd
McClendon 3481D road. So, it wasn't specific to his contract. It was more about the charter. Um, so in the charter, so I heard a couple things here. I heard one that he's not approving all the contracts. However, in all rights, if you read the town charter, he should be because it says
that the town attorney shall approve all contracts, bonds, and other instruments. That means all contracts. So, if they go down and rent a pressure cleaner at Home Depot, they got to get that contract, bring it back to him, and say, "We need you to approve this contract." And we talked about POS for widgets, right? So,
if there was you're going to buy widgets 10 times throughout the year, you just get the first time. But if you're going to rent a pressure cleaner at Home Depot this week and then Lowe's, you go for a concrete stamper or something. You're going to rent that or a drill bit. Town attorney's got to approve it again. So, if he's not approving all those
contracts, he's not following the charter. If he is following the charter, it's going to be astronomical how much it's going to cost. So, yes, the town charter review committee needs to look at this ASAP and this needs to get addressed because this is horrendous what's in there. And I remember when I
was on the council, the OIG went through some of our stuff and they said the town manager approved a lease agreement for a storage facility without the town attorney agreeing to it. Great. So, you had to get the lease agreement, have the town attorney look at it. Of course, he couldn't make any changes because it's a, you know, a huge corporation. They're
not going to change the contract just for locks at you droves. So, basically pencil whipped it and said, "Yeah, it's fine. Here you go." What a waste of money, right? Could you imagine if everything we did at home we had to pay our attorney to look at? Right. This is this might contribute to why our bills
are $500 $600,000 a year. He says no. But in reality is if he was going by the by this it might be a million dollars a year then. Right. So this needs to be addressed quickly. Thank you. Anybody else? Miss Standish, Virginia Standish 15410 North
Road. Two items and I will start with um council uh salaries. You know how hard you work. it's already in there that you can make amendment, you know, in suggestions. I don't think we need to reinvent the wheel because the public
will comment on whatever you suggest. So, I don't think that needs to be in charter review. Um, legal, if you want that to go to charter view, great point. That was just brought up on what could increase the costs. But um charter review committee should also be given an
analysis some type of analysis of what ran up the bills as an example when residents become well but in a pie chart or something. I mean I I would easily go through that and could flag a lot of things and have a lot of questions.
Um as an example over the years residents come to you say you know you shouldn't be doing this you shouldn't be doing that there was a road issue an easements resident said this is a no no council voted to sue the resident let's go to battle with
the residents I can't remember what that cost you but I think it was up there so part of keeping the legal costs down is incumbent upon council is incumbent upon staff have and great point about the POS. Let's get a system. Let's get a
dollar amount. But yes, if you want charter review to review this information, give them some information to work with and so they can set parameters for you to help reduce costs and perhaps use some legal common sense when you try to fight the residents who
end up being right. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else? Miss Suchi? Cassie Suchi. Um the cost to the residents I think was almost 400,000 for this town to sue the residents. So that was astronomical and
that was because the town widened the road beyond their legal limit. Um with the if the charter review wants to review that, that's fine. But I'm very concerned about pulling a lawyer's oversight out. They go to schooling to be a lawyer. They look at lawyer
documents to protect he works for the town to have an added protection. If you want to do a resolution to maybe say all POS that are the way I understand approved by his his firm, those can go for uh forward and they don't need
another approval. Once the PO document is approved, we can use this approved document. I was very concerned and I his example is you know it protects the town if we're using somebody else's PO and then somebody gets hurt and then we're liable that would be a lawyer thing that
some lawyer would know. So I think you need to have some type of oversight. I agree with Virginia. We can look through those things and finds all kinds of issues with it as well. So maybe outline specific things. Maybe he can come up with a different rate have a standard
document to approve. I find it kind of hypocrisy in a way that we want to hold the charter to certain things, but the charter says I brought up a charter review committee. We don't want to worry about that. So, we're just going to have a charter review committee even though
it says every 10 years. So, are we picking and choosing what's in the charter and what we're going to follow? We want to follow the attorney. No contracts. We need to review that. We want to follow term limits. But the actual inception of a committee that's
addressed in the charter. So I question the legitimacy of even having a charter review committee till you change that wording. Maybe that should be the first thing is a referendum to change that and then we can do all the other stuff once we change that. I'm sure there's people in Congress right now that don't like
the pesky second amendment, but they're stuck with it because there's article 5 talks about constitution and the state state conventions. I'm sure they don't like that. So, we have the wording in here. We're going to follow the charter. We can't pick and choose what we like. So, change the wording on the charter
review committee formation, make it legal, and then we can go about doing all the other stuff. So, maybe if you want to do all this other stuff, maybe don't call it a charter review committee because it violates what's in the charter. I think maybe call it something else. The attorney said it doesn't
violate it. Whatever. Okay. All right. Um, we're good with this item. Everybody's happy, I believe. So, all right, let's move on to item
number 19, which is that was 17, right? We did 18. We're on 19. It's only 8:30, Paul. It's not 10:30. It's 22 and not 20. I think Miss Gardner Young is on her way into the
meeting. Here she comes. There she is. Okay, we're on item number 19, which was proposal of updates to the ULDC. This was the one that we all had homework for. Did everybody do their homework? I think Mr. did a lot more
than homework. probably call it lazy for around 25 pounds. I believe when when we were at the last meeting, Paul, you were ready to Yeah. make a proposal of ones. So I think I as as I recall the decision we
were making was which ones to send right to ULDC and which ones we would send to an outside agency such as Treasure Coast because we're looking for a more comprehensive and independent review. Um
is am I correct on that? Is everybody in agreement with it? That's what we did. Some just to get rid of and and and perhaps some just to get rid of. Um, I I handed that in. Um, I think if we I I kind of feel like what we need to do
is give it to Karen and let her assemble all our votes and then come back with some kind of report other than go through each one of these items which could take us until next week. Um, but how does everybody
else feel? I mean, the way I did the homework is I picked three things to go to Treasure Coast and the rest of them I said to go go to uldc with one language change to item number two and changed the community standards director as the interpreter of the uldc, not the town
manager. But that was that was kind of how I did the homework. Um, but uh I don't know. Does everybody want to sit here and go through each item or does everybody I mean you're going to have to tally the votes at some point of what we want to do, right? That is
correct. So, does it make sense to you for us to each hand you our sheets and then for you to do some kind of a tally and come back in two weeks at the June meeting with a consensus report? Yeah, I think that would make sense with that. I I also want you to look at it. The my
understanding the way that the ULDC committee presently works, their function and duties is dependent upon what the council provides them. Right? Okay. So, they're not a proactive board. They're not supposed to come up with their own. It's only what you are
referring to them. Right. Which we So, that's why I wanted to bring this forward because there are some items that might make sense to go to the uldc. An example is we're going through the sign code right now. So that again, and I think Paul, you might have mentioned it. You don't want to spend a lot of time on something. You want somebody
basically to get through it so that it comes to you with only the major issues. That's really what the function of the ULDC is on the bigger items because your planning board is your recommending body and they review all of your amendments.
So, it was very I'll be honest with you, it was very confusing for me because and and don't misunderstand me, there are jurisdictions that have a ULDC committee. North Palm, for example, has one. So, you know, it I just want to make sure everybody understands the
expectations, including the committee. So, that way we're we're going in the right direction that the council wants us to go in. Because there are some things that you say, you know, we're bringing the building height. That one was a request from the council, so we're just bringing it. We never brought it to uldc. We're bringing it directly to the
council. So, it's a number of ways, mayor. It's like you say, do you want to bring it to Treasure Coast? Do you want to bring it to the uldc? Do you think it doesn't even need to go to the uldc? And it can go directly to the planning board as your recommending body and then you as the final deciding body. So, that's
kind of how if that makes sense to you on on kind of what staff direction is looking for. Well, I just did it of ULDC and Treasure Coast. But if other people have other distinctions, I'm happy to consider them, but I think that we don't spend all night on this. I think we just, like
I said, give you our list so we can have some kind of compilation. Paul, what did you Yeah, I was I was a little confused by the go to ULDC, do not submit forc that meant. Um, you know, I just kind of basically all the stuff that I was going to say, hey, the other night, you know,
minutes ago say, hey, let's just push this on cuz it's just, you know, changing a shall to a should or, you know, some verbage changes like that. You have that all delineated on there so she'll understand it or do you need to go over? No, it's it's I can I think if Karen calls me, we can I'll put my name
on mine. How's that? Yeah, let's I'll put our names on ours, too, so that so that she can just out of curiosity. So, so basically anything that go So, what you say? Anything that ULDC says, "Okay, this is what we want to do." It has to go to the planning board before it comes here. Yeah. So, you're making three
stops. So, so, so the the ret the rule vista guidelines that were approved months ago that waiting on corrections da da da to come here have to go to planning first before they come
here. No. So if if if it is a if it's a change to your uldc right then you have in 2024 amendment was made that the planning board reviews those as a recommending body. I want to make that
clear. So we have two recommending bodies. So correct the you all of your bodies that sounds so weird. I feel like mortterary um uh you know your uldc, your audit committee, um you um your
your trails, those are all recommending bodies. They have no authority to bind the town to anything in particular. And and Glenn, please correct me if I'm wrong. I know you're shaking your head. I'm right, so I just want to make sure.
Um so what happens is the planning board is just the same thing. It's a recommending body. So that it gives you the idea that they've already evaluated it, took a look at it. Had another public hearing, right? Because we want transparency. We want to be open to the
public. So the planning meetings are open, the ULDC meetings are open, the trails meetings are all open. So you get all that input and all that recommendation and then it comes to you as the town council. And depending on whether it's a resolution or ordinance, it could be one reading or two readings.
Okay? Does that make sense? Yeah, that sounds like a lot. Is there Yeah, good question. That sounds But that's I don't understand it because like we So, we have a just I don't mean to beat this, but so we have the ULDC committee looks at the sign this the
sign code and says these changes need to be made, right? And they recommend they're recommending these changes. So, it has to go to another committee to go, "Yeah, they're right. These changes need to be made." Correct. And then it has then it comes to us for a first reading and then
So, so for clarification, if we say go to uldc, that means go to uldc and planning and zoning. Correct. And if we say no, just bring it to us. Then it would only go we just skip all that. Well, it's still you still have to go to the planning board. It doesn't go to the
it doesn't go to the ULDC. And look, I'm not I'm not suggesting to eliminate the uldc or any of committees. I want you to understand that there is a purpose for those committees. And typically committees are usually specific topics like you got a specific issue that you
want to bring forward. It's not that you include them operationally with everything. Um so that's why you could see where you're confused as much as I was because again there's no set rule uh regarding what you know your advisory
boards do other than the planning board who's very specific with their duties in your code. Right. So, so hypothetically, uldc says the sign code supposed to be 30 or back up. The height that building height is 35 ft max above grade, right?
AFG. Okay. Goes the planning planning board and they're going, "No, it can't. It's not 35 ft. It's 40T." So, now we have a conflict. Could be. Well, that both of both of their recommendations come to us. you say 35
ft planning board says 40T council what do you say you get to decide and and that's why I'm saying on certain items such as that it may not be something that you have to bring to both of the advisory boards but on something that you're doing substantial changes to that
would be typically or if it's a topic that you want them to investigate okay you know you you have a feeling that there's a problem you're not sure why it's occurring and that might be inappropriate to have can I ask you a favor Sure. Can you email to all of us
tomorrow this list again with more choices? Oh, the choices being Oh, yeah. Yeah. option more options. The boxes being maybe go to Treasure Coast or an independent agency, go to ULDC review,
go straight to planning review, or just come to council. No problem. And give us Have I covered all the choices everybody? Does everybody hear all those choices? And then we'll and then we'll redo it and get it back to you before the end of the week so that you have a
week or so to compile it for the So, let me let me just make sure. So, I I'm basically looking add categories as you want. No, no, that's why I want to make sure. Go to uldc and PNZ. Go directly to PNZ. Uhhuh. Go to
Treasure Coast, then to PNZ. Mhm. And was there another one? Yeah. No. directly to counsel and then no nothing. Don't change anything. Yeah. Yeah. Leave it alone. Yeah. Leave it alone. Take it off this list. Right. You got it. Take it off this list. Okay. We'll take off
that list. No problem. I can get that out to you with like four choices. And then I think because I think that the homework was unclear. So I think we've all done it a different way and that to get a more accurate reflection of where we all stand if you offered us those choices. Can everybody commit to getting
that back to her by the end of the week? to compile it before our next meeting. Okay. All right. Thank you. I do have one last question there. Sorry. Huh? I have one last question. Okay. He's got one more question because this this is a this is a we want to get the homework right. This is this is something that I'm I'm very passionate about.
Um Miss Francine, the rule Vista guidelines. Yes. Are all the corrections made? They were not all made. believe that um Karen is working with Jeff to get the last changes made and those changes
are listed on page 677. That's Yeah, that's one of the items on here. Okay. Color palette reference, outdoor gathering place requirements, murals and artistic expression, and applicability to remodels and out parcels. And then it's going to go
when's the ULDC meet again? Uh, yeah, we just met yesterday. June, that's right. June 9th. June 9th. So, is that Thank you. Was that before or after our next meeting? Son of a gun. What's wrong?
I no it was like this vision that I had um when we were when I was sitting on the chair of this last fall into the winter and before the election that you know couple meetings into this term this would actually be sitting here and we
could finally codify this document that's been hanging around for how many years? Long long time long long time. And it was it I mean the edits were not that big a deal. They were just little kind of prescriptive things. Um, shake your head, Joe, if you agree. They
weren't like it was Karen. Yeah, they were on the committee with me. So, I I just that were sitting here and we're still So, okay. All right. If that's I I would like the people that you because most of the is still sitting. So, I would like them to take a look at it to
make sure that those are the the changes that we wanted and then we can is that is that something they can look at like a consensus of the committee if if they sent an email out and they all separately said this is good. Can they
do that? I'm going to Can we do that or is that a sunshine thing? They can all talk to Karen. They could. That's what I'm saying. So Karen something that could be effective as a a workshop like no it honestly it's like
this close it's this close it all the government when I when I went through the phone calls here for clarification on how to do this I I agree with you oh look look you got notes I made check
marks Marge I mean I I agree I guess my point is if Karen if it's Okay. And we and we have a consensus that Karen could send once the corrections are done, send it out to the five members, they come back and say, "Yes, this is what we were looking for." Done. Maybe you need to
add a comments box to each one, too, because it sounds like we have a lot of comments. You're going to turn it on landscape and say, but you know what I'm saying? And they come back and say, the majority of them say, "Yes, this is what we're looking for." And then we can have it at the next meeting. Okay. You you
feel free to write that on your form. No, no. I'm not talking about writing that on my form. I'm talking about I mean it's one of the items here. I know it's here. Can we Can we just Can we give that direction? Is that possible? Is that some is that out of okay with giving that direction? Are you okay with giving that direction, Marge
to send the Royal Vista guidelines which have been beaten dead as well? They committee's already had the guidelines. We leave it alone. No, no. We're talking about just pulling one item. We're talking about pulling one item off the Bring it. Bringing it
right away. Yeah. This one item is sitting here staring at me like a Yes. You know. Okay. Are we under consensus too? Since most of us thought it was already in part of the rules. Yes. Bring it yesterday. So So pull the roar Vista off. Send it with the corrections to the ULDC. I just want to make sure we're all
agreeing to the same thing. Send it with the corrections to ULDC and hopefully bring it back to us next week for a first reading done in Dustin. Okay. That's what I was going to ask. first reading or discussion to make sure. Yes. Is it going to ulc? No, it's just going to ulcer.
We're c We're codifying. But they're not meeting till June. No, they going to pull them and then poll them individually. They're not polling. Sorry. She's not going to pull them. She's going to make sure that the corrections are correct. Got it. They're just confirming us. The corrections are
correct. I'm all for it. Okay. So, that one comes back next. Whatever. Got my direction. I'm making a note. Got it. Thank you. Got it. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. So, that covers discuss that covers number 21, too. Mayor. Yeah. We have public comments on this item. Oh,
you do? Yeah. Go ahead. All of them. I have Diane. Diane can. No, Diane. Bianca. Oh, she's cancelled. Brian Holden. She
can't. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So, we can also cross out number 21. Is that not correct, Francine Valerie? Because that was We just discussed the rule guidelines, right? Oh, sorry. So, 21 goes, but you just killed two items. Go Paul. Go Paul. Go Paul. High five Paul.
High five on that. Okay. Go Paul. Okay. No, we still got number 20. Okay. Number 20 is a discussion of the community strategic planning which is you should have where's the list of
the consultants. I thought they were in the list. Where'd it go? There is my list. I got it. There was a list of consultants. Oh, maybe it's it was in the new packet. It's in the new the list was updated to include the
Treasure Coast planning as I believe they're doing something for it. Oh, that's right. It was a separate little at the left. All right. Just remember that the packet for today has the updated information. It it's okay
with everybody that this information wasn't in the original original packet, but we're looking at the consultant list in the new packet. Is that okay with everybody on council? It was a memorandum for the last meeting and was handed out. Right. Correct. Right. But you say Treasure Coast has been added
correct to the list. Correct. Do they do SWAT? Do they do SWAT? That's what we discussed when we when we brought this up beginning with a slot. That's ex She is exactly correct. Are we conflating this with the Southern Boulevard
corridor? We are not. Okay. Cuz I don't see how they do SWAT. See, I'm looking for my list. You have a extra copy that it's on page 70 of the new agenda is where they begin.
There are one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight um consultants listed that came from a variety of sources. I believe Karen suggested a couple. I suggested a couple. I don't know. I suggested one.
Paul suggested one. So, they come from a variety of uh of s resources. Is there did anybody have time to do a little research and make a decision? At least it sounds like you're not in favor of treasure coast that you see them as doing more other stuff for us. Yeah, I don't see what their role is on this
particular item. Okay. So, we'll I'm okay with looking not looking at them. Uh I met with a couple of these people. Um certainly not the whole list. Um I really liked Laura Gambino. Um I liked
her personality. Small town girl. Um, and I what I really liked about her was the fact that she was willing to um work with us whereas with I met with three or four different of the consultants um and
all of the other ones wanted to sell a package um and that package was somewhere in the range of 25 20 to $28,000 I believe was the range. Um, and Laura was willing to do more of a kind of a alle cart hourly
rate of what do we actually need as opposed to that we're buying a service. The other reason I liked her better was one of the questions that um I asked all of the consultants was
um what's going to be different? I said the last time that we did something like this, we all left there, you know, and it was a kumbaya moment. Everybody was, you know, it was kind of after 911, right? Everybody was an American. Everybody was together. Everybody was on the pa same page. Everybody had the same
vision. Everybody was planning and talking about the future. And then within six months, we were right back to a lot of pulling in different directions and I wanted to know what kind of their plan was for doing things differently to try
to keep that from happening, right? Try to keep the progression moving forward in unity. and I and I liked her answer best. But did anybody else have a chance to talk to any of these people or help them to make a decision? Most of mine was research on the internet, but yes, I I spoke to um at
least one of these folks. So, um but I I I would want to make sure that these people are independent. Um that there's no personal knowledge or relationship already existing within our staff with any one of these possible consultants.
Uh-huh. So my question is is who's already known to the town? Do we know this? Who's already known to the town? Is it is can we honestly say that every person on this list has no connection with somebody in town? No, we can't. I've
worked in Palm Beach County. I've lived in Palm Beach County Western Communities for 40 years and I've worked in Palm Beach County government for like 30. And so I know pretty close to every person on this list. Um I have not personally
met Shakri Bryant. Um but every one of the other people on this list I have worked with in Wellington and or um Del Rey or professional organizations. Do you want to make that
your standard for choosing Cheree Bryant that she's not known to Francine? Well, I it's not not necessarily a knowledge of, but having worked with or utilized in the town already because I don't know who historically we did use. Are these
all new people? Um, no, we've used Treasure Coast for a number of things. We've used um who else have we used? We've used uh who did we use for the last Oh, they're not on here.
No, that was Kevin N. Not on here. He's not on here with SG. Yeah, he's not I thought he was on the list. Okay, I'm specifically referring to SWAT. Who have we used for SWAT? Who have we used for employee mediation? Who who Anybody on
this list is my question. Have we used any of these people for employee mediation? No, we haven't used any of these people for employee mediation or SWAT. No, we haven't used any of these people for slow. Okay. Internally
done SWAT with the full senior staff and management. We also had all of our employees do SWAT. Um, and we had the lowest level of employees, field workers do it, and we had them do it based on flipboards. They also rate stuff on
strengths and weaknesses whenever we have lunch meetings and lunch and learns. Um, we had all of our administrative employees do it. And again, like I said, we've had all of our management do it and we have a fairly
thorough list that has a lot of concerning themes on it. And I'm pretty sure there's not going to be something new, but I'd love somebody to come in and facilitate us through that. And I'm pretty sure any one of these people could do it. Didn't didn't you refer to
somebody having done SWAT when we had the emergency meeting that employees did a SWAT analysis? But there wasn't there wasn't an outside consultant. No, I said I said let's bring in an outside I understand. But you you referenced specifically somebody who said that the
manager was the strength of the town. The SWAT that was done by the staff. So okay. All right. The SWAT analysis that was done by our staff independent. The impression was that there had been an outside consultant and you had that
impression. I thought it was clear. I don't recall that. I recall talking about bringing in an outside consultant. Lisa, I did hire somebody for conflict resolution because the biggest problem
that every organization has is communication. You all see it amongst yourselves and with the residents. And who's to say that it's not going to be the same in every organization? Did you hire any of these people for conflict resolution? Okay. All right. No, I did not. I also reached out to another
training company that specializes in public works so that we can have coaching and mentoring for our public works folks because some of the things they do are just a little bit more technical and a little different than, you know, what we might do in other
areas of the organization. So, um, and conflict resolution is a voluntary means for people to get on the same page with one another. Um, but no, it's not anybody on this list. And that conflict resolution, while I offer to do conflict
resolution with every member of the staff, nobody has taken it taken me up on it. Um, but it has worked well in the areas where we've had some conflicts internally. Stress does get to everybody. I I thought it was clear because I had
the clerk send us the SWAT analysis that came from the clerk's office where it was being kept when it was done internally. So I apologize if there was some confusion, but that was there was no outside consultant. This was an internal thing that was done departmentally. Okay. Well, okay. And and independently like each person
filled out theirs. Nobody saw the final results except for the clerk. Okay. So, since this is a very long list, um perhaps staff can ask how much each one
charges and and what they're proposing to do. I I'm It's a bit um vague for me. Anybody else? Yeah, it's just a I mean, it's just a list of consultants. I mean, I can tell you I'm I recommended
Mrs. Bryant. That's the one I recommended. Who did you recommend? Shakre Bryant. because I had I I know her from one other encounter to be clear. Um but no, I we had an opportunity to um be part of
a program that she was doing and I just her demeanor, everything, the way she conducted herself and the way she was going about what she was doing, I thought was a very um effective procedure. you know, it's like a little you see a little interview with
each member of staff, etc. And then, you know, I'm okay with going with Paul's recommendation for at least for the initial for the SWAT analysis to because we want to get that done quickly. So, I I'm okay with moving forward with with Yeah, I don't know. agree for the the SWAT analysis part and then deciding
whether I mean letting that be a chance for us and staff to meet her and decide whether we want to use her for the full thing or whether we want to do more research on get you know get a finishing it off from another one but if you know you know what she's going to charge is she going to sell a package I have no
idea we don't sell a package yeah I'm not on the bill I'm not on the billing end of things I don't know I just I you know we just want to use it for the Scott analysis of staff and and and council. Is everybody okay with that? So that we can get it moving. Yeah. Yes. You okay? Yep. Phyllis, you're okay?
Yes. Okay. So, we're going to use Shakree for at least step one of the strategic planning. Madam, I'm sorry. We need to reveal it or what? Do you want a contract with her on the June agenda, seeing what her services will be, what her hourly rate will be, what the cap
will be? I think we we should see that. Yes. Yeah. Okay. Okay. So, we'll put together we have our professional services agreement. We'll just really ask her to send us a proposal and we'll attach that to SWAT analysis with staff and council. And should I limit it to SWAT analysis? SWAT analysis and other
items as assigned by the council in the future. But I would limit it to SWAT analysis. I think that's what we're saying here. We'll limit it to the SWAT analysis for this initial because that's the thing that based on all the other things that have happened that we said we wanted to get moving quickly. So that's why I'm I'm okay. I think that's
a good thermometer. Yeah, I think you know I think it's a great start. I think it's a great start. I agree with you 100%. Wow, that was great. Consensus is wonderful. Okay, so and Paul, you killed again. High five 19 and 21 at the same I
try. I try. So we are on to st town staff. No, no, item 20. It was item 20. I added a couple discussion items to that. Discussing the schedule. But you added them when? They're here. They're
on the agenda on item number 20. No, the one we're on now. It's only on the actual agenda itself. On the original agenda or the original kind of on both. Oh, you know what? We missed the scheduling thing and went right to strategic planning. That
was a two-parter, right? That's actually a four-parter, but okay. Okay. Um, are we talking about scheduling? That was part of that council and strategic plan. Is that all that one thing? Yeah. I'm not really sure how that works, but go
ahead. Council and strategic planning. Counseling. We just started that. We just did the strategic planning. So, you go ahead and do the council. Is that where you're coming? The council. My my ask was to put on um What page are you on? I'm not on any page. Okay. It's uh
it's on the agenda from May 6th. discussion item. There is no page, but we're still on that same number because that's where my request got stuck. Um, so council discussed on March 18th. Um, no late agendas and other things and having
consequences to those those things not being met for our discussion. And then it came up again on April 1st because these things continue to be late. So, I reviewed um what our policy is in our HR
manual for disciplinary action and I've also if we're going to proceed with the town manager's contract, I think um these are important things and and I created a list um for uh receive and file on uh issues that I have seen just
since I got here on March 18th. and um my big concern of uh setting performance standards, goals um and targets to meet and disciplinary actions that go along with that. So um I'd like to hand out
what I brought with me and I also made additional copies for So can we receive and file? I have a question for council member El Rey. Sure. So,
what? No, go ahead, Phyllis. Oh, so who did you do your research with? Was it Glenn Torcivia or are you doing research with another attorney? Uh, no. This is my research and my my uh
basic um I guess just observations. talking about staff. So, I I would imagine you would get with the town attorney. I never said anything about staff. I said the town manager's performance. This is based on agenda items being late. Some
of these in concerns of the public that people have brought forward to meetings. This is basically everything that has happened in public meetings that's on my list. Okay. Well, there's a lot of things that happen in public meetings and people say a lot of things, but you you don't have any backup. Do you have
backup? Uh, yeah, I do. So, okay. Well, I'd like We can receive and file if we can. I'd like to know where you did your research. Okay. Also, and got your information. Thank you.
Okay. Can we receive and file my list? Sure. Okay. and then the remainder may. So when we get to disciplinary action,
uh we discussed that these agendas would not be late, meetings would not be advertised without a certain amount of time. I had asked at the previous meeting that um we also do um a resolution for those meeting
deadlines to be advertised. But in our HR manual, we have types of discipline beginning with verbal warnings, a written reprimand, a suspension without pay, and then it talks about terminations. I think that um this
should be if this is the standard for employees, this should be the minimum standard for the town manager as well. So I think as this is not anything necessarily to discuss tonight, but I wanted my concerns to be shared and I
wanted to discuss what is in our own HR manual as part of your negotiations if that's what's going to be happening um to also come up. So that was that. And then based on my discussion item, I also
had concerns about the spending that I know I was on council when we increased the spending limits to 25,000. That was during COVID. Lots of things were going up very rapidly. We used to every single agenda we saw tons of of spending um
thresholds that had to be approved. Uh, so I would like to see any spending because one of my concerns here on this list was that we hired a lobbyist. I can find no evidence of council publicly discussing hiring additional lobbyists
for the town and I can find no discussion publicly of the southern boulevard corridor being the focus. So I would like to see any of this type of spending at least come forward by resolution. Um, that's my other item. So thank you. I may I
of course I'm a No. I mean, are we taking a consensus on this or do we just are we doing a consensus? Well, I mean, I think what Lisa is asking is to put a punishment section of
discussion onto the next agenda and for us to all consider this and how we're going to punish everybody for being human. So, yeah, I'm Okay. Well, I think when it comes up for discussion, I think when it comes up for discussion, you'll have the opportunity
to um state your opinion as will Paul and Marge and I that this is just a list that's just being handed out and spread far and wide so that we can continue on the course. Well, I think you need to add legal to that list because many
times when the agenda is late, would you like to put on the next Okay. Would you like to put on the next agenda discussion of legal? Hell yeah. Okay, great. We'll put that on there, too. Can you add that, please, Francine? Okay. Thank you. All right. Are you done with
your discussion item, Lisa? Yes. Thank you. And I want footnotes. If somebody's going to give us stuff, I want to know exactly where they're getting their information from. If it's not coming from our town hall legal or other
reliable sources. Okay. Thank you. Uh we're on to town staff comments. M manager, I'm very happy to have this list and I will go over it with all the staff tomorrow and we'll try to put
together some responses, but because it's so vague and generic, it will be difficult to be able to give um really the the proper attention and and and uh discussion of each of those items. Um,
the other thing is, um, I have requested to meet with council member El Ramy since she just started running, um, for election. And to date, she has not um, wanted to meet with me or with any
of my staff, nor has she talked to me in any meaningful way. I have received um emails, some of them reprimanding, some of them um accusatory. Email is not the best way to communicate and broad statements are
never easy to answer definitively, but we will do our best to do that. and I absolutely welcome any visit to discuss any item and I will meet with absolutely any member of the public to talk about
any of these items. So, and I think the whole staff would be willing to do that. Additionally, my contract was written with an organizational review in there and that organizational review is a process. It is not a one person standing
alone pass or fail. It is how do the organization do as a whole. And one of the big things that we've done every year is we've used the whiteboards and we've gone up there and we've had council do tallies and we've done all kinds of different things with capital
projects because we didn't want anybody to feel um pressure but we still wanted to be able to have priorities. And so we have done the best that we could over all these years. Um I would definitely
like to see things be more on time, but it is not always possible to be more on time. One of the agendas that we're talking about went out at 7:42 on the Wednesday night. We did get it out at 4:30 or a little bit before that last
week. So that was a good thing. Um, with regard to some of the comments made here tonight about our financials, um, we have done exceedingly well financially for the last several years and we have
used fund balance to keep the rates from going up. We have not had any rate increases for seven years. Everyone around us has had rate increases. I'm not saying I want rate increases. I'm thankful to God that we have had the mana from heaven from the county, from
the state, from the federal government, and through the recent appropriations, but all of that looks like it's going away. The statements that were made with regard to our spending, I do think it's important for you all to know that
um some of the information that you got tonight was not accurate. And so for the record, I do wish to go ahead and give you accurate information on the financials. Last week, I sent you the same presentation that was simplified
into two pages to go over with fact that they did not listen to or did not want to hear. But um as of March, the general fund is performing quite well. Revenues are ahead of budget by $570,000.
We're 26% ahead of the budget at the 50% mark of the year. That's because we get taxes early on. Expenditures are under budget by 30 $371,000 or 17%. A lot of times you
spend slower in the beginning of the year and you spend faster towards the end of the year. But nonetheless, right at this point, midyear, we are $941,000 ahead of budget at the midyear. We do anticipate narrowing this margin
and being closer to the budget as the year progresses and expenditures are incurred. Regarding capital improvements that we heard about earlier tonight, we absolutely have a slower pace than we wish to have. The number one biggest
problem for last year and straddling into this year was getting easements for the paving projects and the draining project drainage projects. This year in the fall, we had a significant disruption to our public works schedule due to storm response and recovery
efforts that have continued to be ongoing and we're just finishing up some of them right now. We're in the process of working with FEMA and we are very lucky because we're not just getting the A and B category, we're getting the D
category which means the mitigation that we're actually fixing things after the storm to make them preventative of future damage in years to come. For public or spending is relatively in line
with expectations even though they've been delayed with some of the storm cleanup. um their revenues are 5% ahead and expenditures are about 11% over. Again, we do anticipate some FEMA um
reimbursements. And lest I forget, we just awarded a bid that will likely be several million dollars and spend our state appropriations for drainage projects. Most of it will be coverts and replacements that have been in the
capital plan for the last several years. Solid waste revenues as of right now are ahead by 55%. Expenditures are 26% over budget at midyear. I think maybe some of the hurricane cleanup is in there, but I
don't know. We haven't finished a midyear audit at this point, but typically these balance out as we get closer to year end. Transportation and sir tax fund are both lagging in revenue and spending. These are the primary
sources for our capital programs and we're closely monitoring them. As you know the certex is sun setting before the end of this year. Hopefully we will have it through December but we may not. It depends how much is collected and
distributed. Those were the funds that we used to fund our capital and maintenance. So our future capital investment capacity is down. You know what? It's really important to look to save pennies because pennies turn into
dimes and dimes turn into dollars. But what we have done here is we have shifted an organization from chaos to culture. And the culture that we have here is a very committed culture. There is not a person here who is not a
professional. You have three three city managers including me on your staff. We don't pay them at city manager values and you don't pay me at a city manager value. We are here because we can help. You have two attorneys on staff. They
are not paid as attorneys. They are here because they can help. We have two certified planners on the staff. They are not paid as certified planners. You might be noticing that we took in the building and we took it away from
contractors who weren't getting the job done, who didn't collect the right amount of money. We also took the code enforcement back. We do have a very hard time hiring people. You know, you might know that it's not really easy to do
work out here. I believe one of our council people did it before. It's not the easiest. Not the easiest at all. And certainly not for code enforcement because you can't see anything from the road. The stuff that people give you, you have to be able to confirm. It's not
suburban code enforcement. Most people aren't really, you know, up to what we have to do here. Um, I do agree with the processing FDA's. It's way too high. We're putting out a bid, a new bid for
development services because we can no longer use the engineers that we changed to when the last set that were doing them were complained about. This is an age-old problem. We had an offer from an engineer to do the work for $100,000.
It's all cost recovery. We can't take that offer. We're putting it out for bid and we're going to get back and bring it to you so you can see how we can maybe do the FDA's faster, better, cheaper. But all in all, we have pivoted this
place from where it was to where it is. And you know, I've noticed a trend here for the 20 years. It's always the manager's fault. It's always a problem with code enforcement. It's always a problem with something somebody said. But if we start listening to stories
instead of looking at facts, we're always going to be right where we are. And I'm really, really proud of the work that this team has done. And I really, really, really appreciate the family environment that has been built here. And we don't all agree and that's why
you get a better result. So I'm happy to answer any accusations, but you know, they have to be a little bit better than this vagory. And additionally, I think punishment is for bad children, and there aren't bad children here at all.
So, I look forward to um a little bit more conversation about this with um Council Member Elramy if she wishes to speak with me. And again, I've invited everybody in to talk to me about my contract. I'm very, very happy to talk to you about my contract. I wrote it a
number of years ago with this day in mind because this is what happens. That's why there is no public performance evaluation in my contract because all somebody has to do is say something and all of a sudden it's true.
So I learned something a long time ago. People can say anything they want. That doesn't make it true. The work we do here, it speaks for itself. And I'm sorry I took so much time. long time in coming that I'm saying it. I do believe in the high road. Hopefully, you
understand what I said tonight is me on the high road. I have a whole lot of other things I can say, but I won't because that's not who I am. Thank you very much. The budget is not approved for June 2nd or June 6th. The um legis
legislative session is extended now until June 30th. for June 3. We have asked the lobbyists to be able to be available in the meeting on a Zoom so we could discuss it. And um if we do need to have a conversation in public about
this then I will have all of our staff seated at the table to answer for this because nobody here is a success or a failure on their own. It's a team. Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you. Thank
you. Uh, Mr. Tivia, no report. Uh, Mr. Galant, worthy mayor and fellow board council members. Um, I have two items I just wanted to bring up. First, there's a correction on my quarterly report on the
amnesty days. We had commented that we have one day in June, one day in July. Um, and it also said in there which is subject to change without notice. U, there is a letter that has been sent out. It was supposed to be mailed Friday. I'm actually going to confirm whether it actually went out Friday or not, but what we have a text message but
not it's an actual letter. Yeah, you guys every it was sent out to all residents of the town. Um it's a it's a letter. It's got actually got two letters in it. So we save the town money by not sending two different envelopes to people's houses. Um the first one was on the amnesty days. And what we have
decided to do this year, which is different from previous years, is our contract with Coastal is for X amount of tons of vegetative debris. And then every time they pick up, they just deduct accordingly. Last year, we paid,
I believe, was $24,000 for the two pickup amnesty day pickups. This year, what we're doing is the amnesty days is going to be for the entire month of June. So during the month of June, you put out all your vegetative debris. They will come on their normal day and then they will
deduct it accordingly from our contract. If we do go over, we're pretty confident that we will still below be below what we paid last year. So it'll actually save the town money and we'll be providing the additional service to prepare our residents for hurricane
season. The second thing is um as Francina mentioned, we have our CIP uh projects that are running up. If you've driven around town, you've probably seen some of the Culbert pipes and stuff in some of the work areas. Uh they were supposed to start work today, start mobilization today. They're going to
start on Bunny uh move from Bunny to Carry and from Kerry to Fro and collecting and then F-RO and collecting to Falsam and 25th to do those first four projects. Next month we'll be bringing work authorizations uh five and six which will be the culverts and catch
basins for a road and collecting canal. And then 18 of the 40 uh the first 18 of the 40 ones that 40 catch basins that were supposed to be installed as part of the FY2023 projects that were never done. Um, so those two I got the quotes
actually today and the idea is to bring them forward to you in the June meeting uh to approve so that way they can go right from doing the four big culverts and go right into the to the rest of them on the other projects. And um that
is all I have. Thank you, Mr. Lot. Your name just bleeped right out of my head there for a second. I was like Mr. I was gonna call you Mr. Oaks, but okay. [Laughter] Well, that would be a first. Um,
I apologize to you both. I'm sorry. Valerie, no report. No report. Okay, Phyllis. All right. So, um, I would like to talk to my fellow council members um, regarding committees. So
[Music] um committee members uh first I want to ask Mr. or civia question. Um actually I'm not um committee members are not kicked off. They are
normally just replaced with other people that would like to serve. And that could happen if maybe they don't show up or if they don't understand their role.
Um while Anita was on fact, it was extremely productive and I as a council member do look to fact for information and I expect all fact information to be
factual taken from the auditors the auditor's record blackbod and speaking to staff. pass. So, I would highly suggest to my fellow council members
that if your member is going to use this audience for their personal agenda and their committee is not doing what is expected of them, then please, there are
people that do want to serve and let's keep these committees is um advisory, factual, and on point. Every committee, it's in the
charter what their function is. Read it. Thank you, Lisa. So to clarify, I don't care who the manager is, the town council has failed
to bring forward a performance standard and targets for the town manager historically. Um I think that if disciplinary actions need to be spelled out, then they need to be spelled out. They're right there in our HR manual for
our employees that they have to live by. Uh, it has been my goal since running for this council to to serve in in a way that did bring accountability to council to hold any
manager accountable. I have chosen not to meet with the town manager to date because I prefer to have things in writing and I prefer to have things spoken out here in the public. And um I don't think anybody thinks I'm
uninformed. So if anybody thinks I'm uninformed, please share. But um I will continue to take the tact I've taken and uh I I think that uh I bring plenty of uh positivity to this day. So thank you.
Okay, Paul. Um, I gotta say this was a much better meeting than the last meeting. Um, started out it was Yeah, it started out okay. I I just I you know I I I like to think
that you know before I sat here I think I had enough conversations with each and every one of you to understand that I the whole reason I'm here is to and help this town move forward because
it seems to me that over the past 5 10 years that we have done very pointed projects. We've done very specific things that were, you know, in
a direction for one reason or another and not for the better or one person, but not for the betterment of the town as a whole. Okay? Um, you know, anybody knows me adamantly against paving roads, but I said if we're gonna if you're going to pave them, right before we
started doing it, if you're going to pave them, do it with a plan. You know, for reasons. It was for fiscal responsibility and things like this. And, you know, on that note though, I mean, the the the whole purpose I'm sitting here is to help this town move forward. You know, I've lived here my
whole life. I, you know, grew up here. I was two years old when we moved here, and I want nothing but what's best for this town. And I think everyone needs to keep that in mind as we move forward. Not to say that we aren't, but you know whether whether you're some and even when I was
sitting out there and I was standing at the podium making these com every comment I ever made wasn't something for Paul Coleman. It wasn't something for um you know John Smith who lives two doors down. It was for the town as a whole. And I honestly believe in that
mentality today. I've believed in it ever since I I you know went out and talked to people about voting for incorporation. So to to you know last week was kind of reminiscent of the old water control days
almost right I I I you know Amen. So you know Yeah. Exactly. So I I think we are we are in a good spot. Um, I think there's a group of people up here, you know, who can get things done. And I
think that's where we need to move forward to. And sometimes it's taking some, you know, pill to swallow because you might have said something to somebody before you were elected. Now you're doing something different and explaining what you're doing or it might, you know, I I don't know how to
explain it. Um, but I think we, you know, nothing but forward from here is my is my mantra, my motto. So, thank you for my however many minutes. I'm not used to not having a clock. I feel weird. Get to talk more than Thank you everybody. You get to talk more than
three minutes now. Well, don't tell me that. You know, I can go. Stop. Yeah. Um, I'd just like to say that um, this agenda was a a challenge. Um, I I
felt very um, uh, I don't know. I don't I don't know whether it was um, I wasn't getting the direction that I felt I needed uh, with that thing. Well, we all got it wrong.
I I mean it it was so frustrating because it it seemed like I reached out to four different people seeking direction and guidance and it was difficult to know from what they were
trying to guide me what to do with with the form after they guided me you know so it's nice to know that uh my frustration wasn't uh alone, you
know, that uh if if you give us something, we're going to get into it wholeheartedly. And and I think every one of us, you know, suffered and tried to do what was
expected, but reaching out, who knew what was expected, you know? So um time is valuable. You don't know how much you have or don't
have. So um just going forward. Okay. I would like to use my time to discuss um some of the things that were uh on the additional agenda that was prepared that staff took their time to
prepare for us so we could have backup for additional things. So, I'd just like to point out that um staff is requesting that we all hold June 17th, July 15th, and August 19th as possible second meetings based on um I'm not in town
June 17th. You're not in town June 17th. Well, okay. So, I'd like to ask if you're here that you hold June 17th, July 15th, and August 19th open for potential second meetings because that's budgeting season and other things that need to be done. The second thing I'd
like to address is the committee appointees that um we made that Lisa and Marge made at the last meeting and that I made subsequently after I spoke to the person. Um so both the person that Marge
appointed as well as the person that I appointed are not actually residents of Lockahuchi Groves. They're land owners in Lockahuchi Groves. Um, in the past we have had a policy where we let land owners be on ad hoc committees but not
on um our regular committees. I believe that that was done if memory serves me correctly because there was some concern that we had council members who were trying to um appoint developers um who were land owners. Um I would like to
consider reconsider that um for several reasons uh a because it's difficult as everybody knows to find committee members who are willing to serve. We actually have yet another committee member that resigned this week um for uh
whatever reason. It's not important but anyhow we do have another committee member that resigned this week. Um and it's hard to keep them full and I do think the committees are super important. Um, and I think that Linda, I think that we as the council can be responsible for approving the individual
people. And I also think that the way it stands right now because we allow renters as residents to be on committees, we're actually affording more rights to somebody who rents a home in the town than somebody who actually owns a home in the town. So, I'd like to
ask that we um reconsider this for the next meeting or to see whether everybody is willing to reconsider and to allow land owners to be uh appointed being Peter Lamudo for Marg's FAC and Bill Yan for mine. Both
people of which who have agreed that they will serve and who live close enough that it's not like they're out of town land owners and they're willing to serve. So, um, if we can maybe put that on as an agenda item to say whether that's okay or not okay.
If the consensus right now is that it's okay, then Marge and I won't go searching for other people. If the consensus right now is that it's not okay, then we're going to need to search for other people before the next meeting. So, how do you feel about it? I
feel it's okay. I mean, okay. How do you feel about it? I thought we had a policy in the past that there was land owners on everything possible but PZB. Well, yes, but it was changed several years ago to that. But we've but it was changed several years
ago to only allow land owners on ad hoc committees. Okay. So, I would like to go back to the previous the previous iteration um and afford land. I'd have to think about that because I'd have to go back and look at the historical reasoning and so I'm on the fence. Yeah,
I know what the reasoning, but but you're not opposed to putting it on there as a consumer. Absolutely. Paul, what how do you feel? No, we put on oppose the agenda. No, put it on the agenda. But I mean, so are you are you swinging in favor of it or because Marge and I either have to start looking or
not looking? Is it something you would be? I mean, yeah. I I'm trying to get I think what Lisa was I think what Lisa was saying was that we It was changed before because there were individuals trying to put No, that's what I said. Yeah, it's changed before
because there were individ all due respect. Um, no. That's why, you know, that's that was it was on PCNB and that was the whole, you know, and I thought that that's what the rule was before. So, yeah, I have no I'll entertain Phis swinging it back that way. Thank
you. Um, everything but planning and zoning. Is that correct? That is what Lisa is suggesting. Yes. Well, that was historically. I'm on board. Lisa is suggesting going back to the way it was. I'm just saying that's what was passed. Yeah. Yes. With the
exception of planning and zoning. Correct. Okay. So maybe I have one more question. And does the council still have with three votes can remove somebody if if if needed
from committee? Do we still have that? I didn't know that we had that capacity. I thought I thought members served at the will of the council member who appointed them. That's what council can remove them. Council can I remember um an incident where one
of my council members was removed by council? One of your committee members committee. Yeah. So, okay. Do we have that ability? Yes. So, but is it the council that removes the committee member or the the person that that put them on there can
then go either or that the committee member? It's both. The committee member serves at the will of the council member, which is what I believe the point Phyllis was getting to before is that there at any time a council member can say, "Gosh, I appointed this person
because I think they'd really be really good at making widgets, but then they discover six months later that they're not so good at making widgets." And so they right say, "Hey, I'd like to give somebody else a chance to make widgets and ask you to step down." So basically
or at such a time as the full council or at least a majority of the council becomes unhappy with the performance of a committee member for whatever reason or the committee for whatever reason. Okay. And
um the last we talked about the strategic planning thing. The last thing that I want to use my time to talk about is this water um water water resilient Florida steering committee. I've been formally asked to
join the resilient Florida steering committee. Um but Lisa, you asked for a list of who's currently on it and that is in the new agenda that we didn't do of the of the people who are currently on it. So, I don't know if you
um looked at that list, um if you had a chance to look at it, but let's make this like maybe an early item in the at the uh next meeting. I know I'm adding a lot to probably an already packed agenda,
but let's make this an early item on there so we can get this done before that they meet again um and make official appointments. Can that be a consent item? I mean it could be that you can be on the committee. I mean I I you're saying that I can be on the
committee but I don't think you have to say that I can be on the committee. I'm being asked to be on it and took it as we were approving. I think that it's uh I think that there's also the question is also do we want to remove former council from the committee is also
another question there that need to be considered. So that was the discussion at the last meeting. Correct. You wanted the full list that Yes. You wanted the full list. So, anyhow, um, do we want to handle that? Well, we can't vote on that now. Well, we don't have to
vote on it, right? Because I've been It's We'll put it on consent. Take a consent. On consent for We'll put it on consent for next time. That's fine. Put it on consent. I'm good with you being on the steering committee and definitely
removing our previous council member. Okay. Thank you. We'll put it on consent and we can discuss it then. Okay. Anybody else have anything that they need to Whoa, whoa, wait. Well, we're done with comments on the consent to get pulled
and then discuss discuss it now. Get a consensus and throw it on the consent. We just did discuss it, Bellis. We're putting it on the consent. Everybody's agreed to put it on the consent. Okay. I'm sorry I missed that.
Okay. All right. Just for that, I'm going to pull it. I make a motion to adjurnn. Second. All in favor? I to pull item number just because Oh my god.