That's my house >> today. >> Going out or going in? >> Okay. >> You got to call me when you see it so I can catch it. I have to catch it.
>> Thank you. I know it's hot. >> Yeah, a little bit. Yeah. Especially this full of We are ready to begin. Sorry about that.
later. Bang, bang, bang. Okay. Problem be January 6. So, I have to go to town council meeting to order. If you all please rise to the flag of the flag of the United States of America and to the for it stands one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. We just have a moment of silence. Okay, Valerie, if I could have a roll call, please. >> Council member Coleman, >> present. >> Council member El Ramy, >> here.
>> Council member McClendon, >> here. >> Vice Mayor Herszog, >> here. >> Mayor Kaine, >> present. >> Town Manager Ramalia, >> here. Town Attorney Curts >> here. >> Community standards director Gardenner Young >> here. >> Public work superintendent Craig Lowour.
>> Okay. Any additions, deletions, or modifications? We do have a modification. Um if you would be so kind, can we add in the presentations
an introduction of Ramsey Buckley? have something to say. >> Yeah. Um I'm assuming this is an up-to-date agenda that I have. Hold on. On the
receive and file portion of the agenda. Um I would like to pull some for discussion. or to get more further clarification
from from staff on these items. Would you like the ones that I'd like to pull? >> You mean you want to move them to discussion items? >> I want to move them to discussion. Sure. >> 15 and 16 are related. Um >> 15's already a discussion item. So you
want to move 16 to >> well 16 is related to 15 and to receive and file it without the context of of discussing it with 15 would seems to be out of context to me. Um >> I think they would kind of go together actually.
>> Yeah. 17 um only because I think I have a question about the paving on that one. uh the update on the RV program and 19 um specifically and 21. >> So why don't we just have discussion on
all of them? How about that? >> Sure. >> Is everybody okay with that? >> Sure. >> Okay. We'll just change them all. The administrative transmitts are all going to be discussion items. >> I'll make a motion to approve as amended. >> Second. >> All in favor? I >> I
>> Okay, we have a pre-legislative session update. >> There they are. >> Here we are. >> Hello. >> Hi. >> Hi, everybody. Good evening. Uh I'm Ronna Brown with Ronaldo Book PA. Um
Sam, you want to go ahead and introduce yourself? >> Sure. Good evening everyone. Sam Pelt here with the Pitman Law Group. Thanks for having us. >> So, as you know, um this is obviously the week before session. Uh everything
is um I like to compare it to trying to get everything done before we all leave town um with the plate spinning in the air and trying to get everything completed and ready to go. And so, um everybody is going in different directions. And so you have Sam and
myself tonight. Um, with the holidays that have just completed, uh, everything kind of went dormant that not much has happened since we gave you a report the last time. Um, however, we expect next
week to begin, uh, full force. So, um, we have in the package, I think we helped rewrite the, um, legislative outlook. You have two funding funding request uh projects that we've submitted on your
behalf. Um as you know they're being sponsored by your representatives and senator Senator Harold and Representative Weineberger. Um the control structure resiliency improvements for 750,000 and the storm water system rehab phase
three for the same 750. Um these are solid projects. Uh, one of them we received funding two years in a row for um, and I think that the manager has developed very good projects that we can
pursue in Tallahassee on your direction. Some of the other issues on the on the legislative package are uh are pretty pretty big issues. I think this year the entire discussion on property taxes has gone on. I think this the house is very
focused on it. They had eight proposals that have gone down to four proposals that have modified into one that's still moving and four possible that can move. And the speaker has also said that um he doesn't rule
any of them out. He has said that they're not necessarily his direction, but he has allowed the members to bring forth good proposals that they feel strongly about and that the legislature could can then weigh in on and promote
or or not promote. And so that's that's the beginning of that process. Now, conversely, the Senate has decided that they're going to wait and see what the House does. Um, that is not atypical for a huge issue like this, whether it's the
House waiting for the Senate or vice versa. I think that from the feedback that we've gotten from the Senate, they do not at this point understand yet how the financial numbers are going to work for small communities, small
counties, small cities, um, fiscally constrained counties. I think there are 28 or 29 of them across the state. um of which the state would then have to supplement. And so it begs the question
that the h the Senate and some House members have asked, is this a property tax savings or is this a cost shift for money that would have to be made up in other revenue sources? Um all of that has yet to play out. I expect that to be
front and center for the rest of session and other issues could hinge on how that goes. One of those issues that could hinge on it is the rural renaissance bill. That's a comprehensive bill that the Senate President um who is from
Hardy County, which is in central Florida, very rural, has promoted for the second year in a row. and it's really comprehensive. Um whether or not the version that's out now is going to be the version that moves through the process if at all remains to be seen. Um
I know that there's a lot of uh trading of issues. We'll give you this if you give us that type of things that do go on in the legislature. So I wouldn't rule anything out. Um I think the House has said back to the property tax issue that they feel very strongly something
will be on the ballot. And I think the Senate has kind of said that yes, we expect something to be on the ballot. Whether that's all or nothing, all eight, everything the governor wants uh or not, again, really and truly remains
to be seen. That's a lot of highlevel negotiating. Um mentioning the governor on that specific issue, that's one of his most important issues that he's been in the press for a very long time on. Uh the governor as the executive uh of the state of Florida
in this process does not have a veto on whether or not the legislature puts something on the ballot. He can't approve it. He can't veto it. It's a completely different type of process. If there is one or more um constitutional amendments passed by the legislature, it
goes directly to the ballot. that th those that item or items would be on the ballot in November of next year. Then the following legislature would have to come back and then put together the conforming statutory bill to put in
place the process by which whichever has passed how that would be uh put the process would be put into place that way. So vote on whatever gets on the ballot in November and then it's another whole year before it gets implemented. So, that's something to consider as well. In
that time, the governor is going to be out of office. This is his last legislative session. Um, and the legisl the senate president and the speaker would also turn over as well. So, it'll be a whole new leadership team that will be addressing this issue. Um,
so I wanted to just kind of spell that out for you. Like, not, you know, whether or not you already knew that. I'm sorry if I'm being repetitive, but that that is a very long process that we're going to have to be part of. Um on Senate Bill 180, which is the law that
passed last year that really restricts um what a local government can do uh specifically after a hurricane and uh etc. The manager spelled it out in the report very well. They've got a bill this year that tries to address some of
the problems that it 180 caused in how a local government um addresses development uh or non-development or um recovery after a storm. Uh so I think that that is a positive step toward
giving back control to the local government which is where it should be um on that type of issue. Um, let's see. Some of the other issues are self-explanatory in the package. Um, I just to touch on a couple of others.
This short-term rental, vacation rentals, I think that issue has gone to bed. I don't think we're going to address it, but we've got it in the package as direction. Um, and the sovereign immunity bill, which has been called s lawsuits against the government
as well. I think that is going to be a bill that is going to continue to move this session. and I think it's already been heard in one committee. Um, but that also coupled with the prospect of property taxes and other fees reduced,
etc. really will severely hamper local governments because not only will it, in my opinion, spark new lawsuits against local governments. Um uh the fiduciary responsibility of a local government is such that you have to have you know
money funds, city funds and reserves to offset any unexpected lawsuit and that that all of those things combined really will hamper what you're about to what you're able to do um as a local government. Uh, so I I I don't want to
say that I don't think it'll pass because anything could happen as you know, but I think that that's a really tough one to to do. Um, I think that if you try to say, okay, well, let's just exempt small communities or let's exempt fiscally constrained counties. I
think once you start chipping away at the statute and the the the statutory caps on what what are allowed, I think is the slippery slope to a full removal of caps and the sliding scale based on um consumer price index as far as what a
lawsuit can be against a local government. And that doesn't sound like a really jazzy issue, but it really does affect your bottom line. Um, as far as that goes, I think that's all that I really wanted to cover. Uh, next
next week everything starts up and you know, we'll all be working 70 80 hour weeks for the next nine weeks. And so, um, wish us luck, I suppose. Um, what I did want to touch on
one more thing before I, uh, ask Sam to fill in whatever I've missed. your legislative package as you pass it tonight or approve it uh modified is where we take our direction. We only work from what you've told us through
this legislative package that we're allowed to work on on your behalf. Um that is in every meeting any anyone who asks us an opinion. We we go by the direction that you have given to us. Um, and that's that's why it's so important
to have it inclusive of issues that we feel are going to come up this session that we feel we can uh advocate on your behalf. Um, but that's that's where we get our direction through you from what
you pass on this legislative issues um and the appropriations funding requests. And so, um, if Sam, do you want to add anything or >> Yeah, I mean, and thanks for that, Ron. I co-sign everything you said. I do want to, you know, re-emphasize that this is
the last year for both President Albrittain and Speaker Perez and their roles. So, I think we're going to ant we're anticipating I think we're going to see a lot of jockeying over this rural renaissance as well as Speaker Perez's signature healthc care bill, which he introduced in December. um
which which aligns Florida's policies with the new federal guidelines regarding SNAP Medicare um put forth by the Trump administration. Um obviously last session was a marathon and um relationships are still a bit fraught
following that special session. So, you know, we've heard from leadership on on in both chambers that they're still trying to amend those relationships. So, you know, I think we're trying to um to gauge how much substantial legislation can be passed this year, but like Ra
said, I mean, nothing's off the table um and property tax has taken up a huge part of committee week so far. So, you know, they they got a lot to do in the short amount of time when session starts next week. Um, additionally on SB840,
which is the response to um, 180 that Ronald was talking about, you know, I think we're really encouraged to see Senator Diggley file this bill, right? >> It's clear that he's really been talking with local government stakeholders about their concerns and is and is really trying to find a solution.
>> Um, as the packet put forward, no house companion has been filed yet. So, we're still trying to gauge the appetite in the House, but again, we'll we'll keep monitoring that and and let you all know as we get updates on that. Um, lastly, I I really just want to touch on the
firework preeemption bill. That's the local bill you all have filed for this legislative session. Um, it's fully checked all the requisite box with regards to publication. and the delegation has signed off on it and we're in communication with Representative Weinberger right now to
um to make sure that's all um by the way come Friday. So that's all I had. Ra again, you know, we're looking forward to next week in session starting in Palm Beach County days, but um again, thanks as always for the opportunity. We, you know, are honored to represent y'all and
really take pride in um advocating for your issues in Tallahassee. >> Does anybody have any questions for Sam or Ra? I do. >> Okay. Go ahead. >> So I mean this is kind of for our discussion as well. I think it's it's
clear that we support in general some of these other things SB180 840 etc. Obviously what affects us directly is the funding request which right now requires a 50% matching. So what's the likelihood you guys are going to get us
our our rural designation so we don't have to match those funds? So, I've had extensive conversations with the Department of Commerce who has gone over all of the demographics of Lockxahhatchee Groves. Um, they feel based on the statutory
requirements for a rural designation that Lockxahhatchee Groves does not meet the standards. Um they that takes into account um use of the land, economic um
viability of residents, um taxable uh I have a list somewhere. I didn't pull it up. I'm sorry. But there's like the all of the different statistics of a community. Um there aren't enough of the metrics that meet the the statutory requirements for their the department to
give that again. Um, >> so short answer is no. You don't anticipate we're getting the royal designation. So that'll require 50% matching on those appropriations. Should we be fortunate enough to clear that hurdle? >> Yes. >> Okay. And then on the uh fireworks, uh
this is not the first time we've tried this. And um given that your firm also represents Phantom Fireworks, I mean, how hard are you guys going to be working on our behalf to to get this across the finish line? That's a great question that um our firm is separate
from the Pitman firm and the Pitman firm is leading on this issue. >> That that's correct and council member we um are fully committed to getting this bill through. We've spoken with the whole delegation as well as staff. So um yeah, no issues on our end. We're we're full seam ahead on it.
>> Right. And it did pass the local dele delegation unanimously. So that's good. That's like >> and thank you mayor for presenting on that. This is an aside. >> Thank you. >> Great. Thank you. Anybody else have any questions for them? Okay. So, I'd like a vote or a consent. Oh, I'm sorry. Go
ahead. >> If you look at agenda item number 20, which was an administrative transmitter discussing SB 180 and its likely impact on the different items of the ULDC that council wanted staff to
address with the committees. We have gone through and we have shared this with our lobbyists and their recommendation to us is to hold off on um as much as we can until the outcomes
of the legislative session have occurred. On agenda items um I believe seven and eight, we talk about what's going to the PCB committee. We believe um based on
our town attorney that we can have committee discussion on certain topics where we say proceed now in agenda item 20 but we don't believe that we can bring any of these items to the council for completion until we see the outcomes
of the legislative session. And um Bronna and Sam, if I've said that incorrectly or I need to say more, please help me out. >> No, I think I think that's absolutely right. I think, as you know, the legislative session is only 60 days. It ends on uh Friday the 13th, March uh
13th. And um I think that's a short amount of time for you to kind of put it on maybe a pause until you get a more clear um indication from the legislature as to where they're going. They've made a they've made a definite statement that they understand the issues that the
previous bill now law has caused and they've filed legislation to address some of that. So, um, you know, obviously you all make that decision, but we both recommend that it it's probably best to hold off and wait and see what they've passed and then move
forward. >> Well, why but but however, we could let our ULDC start kicking it around because nothing happens in 60 days around here. I promise you. Um, it takes a lot longer than that. So there there would be nothing prohibiting them who are an
advisory board anyhow from starting their discussions just not have whatever the outcome of their discussions brought forth to council prior to the outcome of the session. Is that am I interpreting that correctly? Um
yes I think so. I think though that I mean again as I said before on the other issue nothing really is guaranteed but I do feel like they've given some indication that they're interested in changing some for lack of a better term changing some of that back uh or
lessening the impact. So um but I think you know to review and go over it. Yeah I think that that's I I wouldn't say no. Okay, Paul, you had your >> That was our direction anyway, right? That was our direction to
>> publicly, right? Our direction was just to, >> you know, kind of work on >> creating the ammunition and then when it's all done, we can pull the trigger. >> Okay. I believe Lisa was next. >> Yeah, Paul, I'm I'm with you on that. I council never indicated that we wanted things brought to us. We just wanted the
glacial pace committees move at in this town to um to start jumping in earlier rather than later to have things on the shelf ready to go. So I I don't know what your impression was, but I don't think any of us misunderstand what SB80
does or doesn't do. So thanks Todd. >> Yeah, I wanted to bring up the rural designation. You know, there's people that are actively fighting against the rural designation and actively fighting against some of these, you know, these funding requests that we have that are here in the town that say they want the
best for the town, but they're actively fighting against that. And to bring up your point about the 50/50 match, that might cost us a million half dollars when somebody actively fought against that rural designation. And that's it's not not good for our town when that happens.
>> The the fact of the matter is our town does not meet the metrics set by The only thing that's changed is people fighting against it. >> That That's not true. >> That's not true. As a matter of fact, our local lobbyist assured me years ago that our town didn't qualify and magically we did, >> right? >> Congratulations to Mr. Book for getting
that done. >> And what's changed since then? Nothing other than people fighting against it. >> If you read the Florida Commerce outline, we don't qualify. So, >> but we did. And the only thing that's changed is people fighting against it. >> Your interpretation, Todd? I I think if
I might I think if you'd like I can I can call you and give you kind of like more detail on it that we don't have to go over here but um I think it had to do much much more I've been assured that that's not the reason. I think that um
it had to do more with the previous uh administration and staff um within the department. And so, um, but I'll be happy to go over more detail with you if you'd like. >> Could you clarify what what is the difference? It's not people campaigning
against the town's designation. >> Yeah, I've been assured that that's not the case. I think it it was previous departmental um staffing. >> I understand there was administrative changes, but does it help when there's people fighting against it? That doesn't
help the situation, right? Well, I know that well that never helps anything, but I I've been assured that that's not that that wasn't the case. >> Okay. And so what what I think we're looking for here is a consensus from us
all that this is our legislative agenda before we before we go up there. Uh the people going up are going to be council member McClendon, council member, and myself. And um I'd like us to go up with a a full consensus from the council that this is what
you want us to try to achieve while we're there with our lobbyists. So Lisa, you're thinking you want to Okay, Marge. >> Yes. >> Paul. >> Yeah, I think we probably need to have a vote on it. Is that fair to say or is a consensus a
>> um a vote is always a motion and a vote to further? >> So let's do that. motion to approve the uh >> this be a resolution if we're going to have a motion to vote on it. >> Yeah, I think it's just >> I was just looking for a consensus. >> I mean, can can we have a vote on it if
it's not a resolution? >> Yes. Motion is a de facto resolution. >> Your motion is support >> the legislative agenda. >> Yes. I I move we support the legislative agenda as as written.
>> Okay. Second. All in favor? >> Opposed? Passes five to zero. >> Okay. On to item 1A, the introduction of Ramsay Buckley, please. >> I'm sorry. Could I add one more thing before we >> Oh, yes. I'm sorry. >> Goodbye.
>> That's okay. Uh >> I I do I do want if if you haven't already registered for Palm Beach County Day, uh they have public events and then they have people they have events for every uh registrant and I think that those are also very important for you to be included on those. So
>> we're registered. >> You are. Oh, wonderful. Okay. And I I we encourage you um to participate in all of those meetings. They're crucial. >> We are. We're registered. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you all. See you next week. Well,
all right. Now, on to item 1A, the introduction. >> I don't have that agenda. Do we have an agenda with 1A on it? >> During admission, additions and deletions, Francine asked to >> add it. Just a introduction. Yeah. >> Okay.
>> And it really relates to item 19, I think it is. So, I don't know if you want to take 19 out of order. >> What Ram? Who is I guess we're going to introduce them. Okay. >> We're not the introduction. This is an item 19. >> So, it's not um Mr. Buckley is here in
the audience. Council has long discussed um that we need to start taking more aggressive action relative to the unpermitted uses on Okobee Boulevard. We have had numerous um code enforcement
violations, things that have been lingering over years and we need to um take a very methodical and focused approach that um um invigorates our um
our um I guess what would you say um rebirth of Okobee Boulevard into what it's supposed to be. Mr. Buckley is um the past planning, zoning, building director for Palm Beach County. He has
spent numerous years working on those very same properties prior to the town's incorporation and looking for the institutional knowledge that we need to go ahead and address those properties properly. Um we
couldn't find um a person more better, more well suited um and with the um institutional and um experienced background that he has on these
properties. I am planning on hiring him under my spending authority of up to $25,000 for the next several months to come up with a game plan and to assist us in more vigorous um attempts to bring
properties into compliance and to move them off the stall mark that they have sat on. And um I wanted to introduce him to the council formally so you know that we are doing this. He will be coming
back to council um to give reports and um he will be hands-on in his working with all of us as a team and I wanted to have the opportunity to introduce you to him. Um, we did plan on coming back to
you in February to go ahead and give the first of those reports. But without further ado, I would like to go ahead and introduce Mr. Buckley. He has presided over a lot of the trickiest code enforcement cases in Palm Beach County and he will be handinhand with
Karen Gardner Young, her staff, and also our town attorney, Mr. Curts, and myself. Thank you for being here, Mr. Buckley. Great. Well, thanks very much for having me here. So, I do appreciate it and do look forward to sharing some of my knowledge and experiences and trying to get the control corridor
somewhat cleaned up. Uh, obviously in the county, we had the exact same problems just magnified and were able to somewhat work through those. So, I'd like to good bit of experience to try do that here. Um, some of the issues you guys are facing.
>> I'll be your you have first. Yeah, just point of order on my part because everybody knows what my regular job is. I by no way or means had anything to do with this arrangement. So it's not something I facilitated or whatever, you
know. So I just want to go on record to say there was no >> Oh, because you've worked with >> because I Yeah. Ramsay was my director, you know, what, two years ago? Three years ago. >> Three years ago. >> Yeah. So you know, but that was we've met three times. So just I just wanted
to put it out there before it becomes this big thing. So >> it's all over Facebook. >> You said it. Thank you. >> Great. Uh Todd, you had your letter on >> to to be clear when you say hire him, he's not going to be an employee. He's going to vendor. >> That is correct. He is being hired under my purchasing authority of up to $25,000
on a professional services contract. at some point in time that um framework will be done and then he would be assisting us under a cost recovery arrangement which is direct build to applicants at no cost to the town.
>> Okay. And and the idea is um like you said is to go after these industrial uses on up boulevard, right? And try to clean >> industrial permitted uses that we have been unable with our toolkit and resources to move
as quickly as we'd like to get them moving. We currently have um probably around 10 code cases ongoing on OPI Boulevard and obviously there are a number of other unpermitted uses
including uses that have been there decades >> 23 years. >> Yeah. >> Lisa, I mean this is something that you and I talked about before me getting on the council and before you on the council, right, about >> Darlin, I don't disagree. I I'm just saying I've been talking about
>> I'm just saying 19 as presented as a receive and file to me is a slap in council's face given the number of times multiple councils have gotten up here and said get Okchobee under control. It is so underwhelming what they have proposed to get the problem under
control. And no offense Mr. Buckley you said that you've struggled to get these things under control in the past and we inherited from the county. I can't wait to hear your proposal on how you're going to help us get it under control. And I would propose that item 19 is the
whole of Okachobee Boulevard and we get presented with a comprehensive plan to get all of it under control simultaneously >> and and a timeline to do it. >> Ma'am, >> no, that's not what 19 says. 19 has six cherrypicked properties to start with.
That's exactly what the plan is in this agenda. >> That is not I am fully with you. Yeah. >> Well, it's kind of like, you know, eating an elephant one bite at a time. So, I'd rather see start with the most egregious ones. >> They're not the most egregious one. The only two of the six are the ones with vested rights applications.
>> That doesn't just because they have an application doesn't mean anything, right? And he's going to >> But that's the ones we cherrypicked. We got one that's already in compliance. Maybe it's got an FDA, but the tractor trailers are gone. There there's a lot of questions about why those six properties when there are worse
offenders on Okobee. I'd be glad to see one of them taken care of to be honest with you. Right. Let's try to start with that. Right. >> I say we have a comprehensive plan for the entirety of Okchobee Boulevard. If we're hiring an expert, >> well, what happens with this? Once we start citing these properties, everyone starts turning everyone in and that's how it spreads and that's how we get
everyone. Also, with all the satellite imagery, we can see everything that's out there. So, it's just a matter of one bite at a time. I don't want to load everyone up with 200 cases and then we we're stuck. >> I'm not proposing 200 cases. I'm proposing you set up a timeline looking
at the entirety of the road that says that says this many properties are in non-compliance, right? And that this is the timeline where we're going to we're going to set the code violations in place. We expect 90 days to get to X,
you know, six months to get to Y. But you I don't know. You're you're talking about a 5% proposal of cutting budget in one of the items with special magistrate. Isn't that going to impact 19? >> It might, but that's when we talk that's that's the funny part about when you say non-essential spending. I see this as
essential >> 100% essential spending. >> But that's that's the problem when somebody says you need to cut non-essential spending because what I think is non-essential and what somebody else might think is non- essential are two different things, right? I see this as very essential. This is an item that we could have multiple council meetings
on explicitly because this is not a singular item of Okachobee Boulevard. This is a code enforcementwide problem of inconsistent application and enforcement and lack of follow-through by staff and inconsistency and performance in that that particular
department. So, >> and like you said, this had been going on for years, and I heard about the rolodex somebody was going to bring, right, that was going to bring and fix all this, and we finally have somebody that's bringing it. >> Well, let's see. >> Well, I agree. Let's see. Let's give them a chance and see what >> happens. Give them a chance. >> But don't start with just six
properties. So I I believe to be fair and to be a little bit calmer here that what Miss Elramy is asking for is that when you come back at the February meeting and report to us, she'd like to see some kind of a comprehensive outlook at the entirety of Okachobee and where
you see as problem properties and where we might start and where we might get to. >> Okay, I I can bring something like that, but just keep in mind every single property is going to be unique and different. So I have to treat everyone fair and everyone consistent, but some of them are different. So I can't it's
not a blanket approach to every single property out there. So you know there are going to be some differences and some nuances we have to work. >> I can give you a general guideline of what we believe she's do is bring >> the vast majority of the offenders up to a magistrate to get a ruling to get something in the book so then it's done
and we don't have to continue to babysit this the whole time. >> We don't have to defend what you're going to do here. I I'm just asking that we have a broader approach presented than narrowing in on six properties. >> Narrowing in on six was just the scratching the surface of getting the thing going. Well, as I'm looking, I'm
I'm going to start fixing all of it. >> You know, to clarify the public record in all the conversations that we've had with the council that met with us in preparation for the agenda. We have talked with Ramsay in those meetings, outside of those meetings and before
this meeting about his scope being a comprehensive plan for Oak Chopi Boulevard. The problem is that we aren't looking at the whole thing and the whole thing means that we can't forget about the uses that are there. There may be
some zoning changes. There may have to be, there may not, but those items will all have to come forward through the council and they will all have to consider the code that exists. There may need to be code changes or there may
need to be long-term agreements on how to get people to relocate what they have had here for decades. It does not happen overnight and it has not been funded and there has not been a council that is as
serious as you all in terms of understanding what needs to be done. Miss El Remy, you are correct. It is a whole Okachobee approach, not just six properties. This memo is from our code, our community standards department and
it's starting with those six because those six are all in active code of engagement. and we would be happy to have your input on what you see as a comprehensive approach and I'd be happy to have our clerk set up a meeting with
you and Mr. Buckley so you could go ahead and give him more detailed input. The other council people have had that opportunity. >> I I believe that happened during our agenda review meeting. had the opportunity to speak with him and share what our vision was for Okachobee and what our so I believe that
>> most of us have a comprehensive approach and he will be back in front of you with that. >> I mean I I ended mine with oak trees along all along it and then a canopy over the top. So that that's part of my vision. Anyhow, Marge had something to say. >> Yeah. Um during the introduction of Mr.
Buckley. Um I heard that it is going to be uh hired as a cost recovery. >> Part of it will be cost recovery after we get the comprehensive plan or framework in place for how we're going to proceed. That will have to be
approved by council and then we will have applicants that would be following that process. Once we end up in a place where Mr. Buckley is acting as a consultant as our other planners in our
toolkit work. They become cost recovery at no cost to the town. Let's just take um Joe Smith retail nursery. We don't allow retail nurseries. So what are we going to do to address the retail nursery? Giving it a code complaint
isn't going to change it because the cost of doing that's just a cost of doing business. Will we approve a zoning change for that? I don't really know. But the process would be that they would file for a zoning.
They do a zoning application and they might ask for a conditional use or whatever it is that we come up with in the framework for long-term users that we want to afford an opportunity of x number of years or one year or five years or whatever it is. We don't have a
plan in place right now, but he would turn into cost recovery once we have agreed on the plan and people start applying. Well, and I think that um given the fact that he has worked on these properties and he has worked with
the county and he's aware of the issues from way back when before we incorporated that who else could be more qualified to come out and represent us. agree. >> I I I think it's a win-win for our town,
whether it includes the 5% uh that we're going to uh save or or whatever. Uh we need to do it. I mean, we can't continue as as residents say, kick the can down
the road. We have to stop this nonsense and get it under control. Paul. >> Yeah. I How long were you the director of Pal of PZ&MBB? Just just to kind of get it out there. >> I'll say 10 years.
>> 10 years. Okay. So, it's very likely to, you know, say that a lot some of this stuff did not happen while while he was there. Just f I'm just saying and code complaints happen just like they happen here. It's all on complaint basis. But, you know, I agree, you know, with Mr.
Buckley's background. I I think it's it's very fitting that he's here to help us do this. I think is I think it should be a a good thing for us. Um and that being said, I think we can scratch 19 off the off the list because I think we just discussed it. >> So, I think we can amend the agenda and
>> just say when we get to 19, we've already covered >> Well, I'm just trying to save time. I We're already discussing it. So, I think we can just kind of scratch it off and move it next time. >> I'm doubting his his qualifications. >> No, I didn't say I didn't say that. I didn't say that. I >> Paul.
>> Yeah. And I mean I I would recommend having a discussion with him. Um >> that's such a problem. >> Yeah. Because I mean he dealt with the illegal, you know, tractor trailers in the acorage. He's dealt with all the things that we're having to deal with here. Right. So >> there's so many nuances and and
underhanded things that try to get I'm more than happy to meet with you and go through some of the >> sir. I'm more than happy too, but I work up here with a board of four other people. So, I'm all for a full comprehensive look at Okachobee that can then be extrapolated off to the side roads where these problems continue to
um exponentially >> increase because they all know, well, you take your trailer off of this property, so and so on D- road will take you, >> right? It's just a merrygoround. >> Musical chairs. >> Yeah. So, you're familiar with that. But >> that's what happened in the acorage, right? He ran them out of the acorage and now they're here. Now, we got to pay
him to get him out of here, right? >> Yeah. >> But you know, >> don't forget the ones that came from down south to >> Doesn't matter whether I meet with you individually or not. I thank I prefer everybody get up here together and discuss it. >> Thank you for being here. Thank you for answering our questions. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Bley.
>> Francine, thank you for opening your Rolodex and bringing us someone who can hopefully solve a long-term problem for the town. We're on to item number two. Oh, actually, we're on to the consent agenda. Does anybody have any changes they want to make to the consent agenda? >> Like to pull item two.
Item two. Okay. What else? It >> Okay. A motion to approve. >> Approve. >> Second. >> All in favor? I I passes five to zero. >> Is this a long reason for approving question? Okay. Then let's try to knock it out.
>> Okay. Uh the just the two uh actually you did just the two >> uh minutes. This this came before us before where this council and of course now Mr. McClendon's on council. So, that changes some of it. Um, I would like to know if anybody would reach out through
staff to the previous council members to make sure that that they're okay with those two that predated us on April April 1st. So, that was it. >> Okay. So, we can go ahead and approve them from our perspective with the cottisil. We have a mot a motion to
approve. >> A motion to approve uh agenda item number two for uh town council minutes. Um with the caveat that uh previous council members are um contacted regarding the accuracy of the June 18
and August 20 uh 2024 meetings. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> Oppos? Passes five to zero. Okay, we're on to old business number six. Renaming Okchobee Boulevard. That's probably you, Jeff, right?
>> Uh yeah, I think it is >> because you uh did uh number uh three on the agenda. Uh you have now renamed a a road um by
resolution in the in the town. Um as far as we know, that's the first time >> rename we've given a name. We have given a name to it. Um and uh as far as we know that's the first time that that has been
done. The power uh definitely exists um with you as the governing body of the municipality. Um the question had come up with regard to Middle Road. There is a resolution um
that is attached that would rename the portion of Okachobee Boulevard within the town limits to Middle Road. Uh, I think the question comes up and it was much of a lesser issue with respect to
um the Lockache Groves Park Drive is do you want to give notice and an opportunity for people to be heard uh prior to a renaming event? We don't have a process and a procedure um on
this. Uh you have the authority. It is up to you as to whether you want to take this item on now and notify people later. Um but uh uh for those folks who
would be on Middle Road, it um would affect things like their address and those kind of things. So >> Paul had something you want to pass. Yeah, I I think it I I think it would be good to have at least one meeting prior to and like leave it open for comment, but I
mean I think we need to if if going forward and maybe I I should have pulled for discussion. I apologize. Maybe I'm off step, but I think we should give like a if we decide to change, you know, Okachobee within our boundaries to
Middle Road, then I think it should be there should be a term as to how long it takes place instead of just going, hey, listen, you now live on Middle Road, you know, or if it was, you know, we just try >> there's a whole series of like different things that I think we should definitely consider like notice and I mean this and
and when does it take effect and everything? Um, I just would have a quick question. When Royal Palm Beach just renamed uh Crestwood Virginia Baker Boulevard, what what kind of did they did they follow? You have their process in here, correct? Do you know
what their process was when they did that? Did they do a notice meeting? Did they just rename it? Do are we aware of how they handled it? >> If Road had no facing homes on it, >> I'm not sure of the the circumstance
with with that. um and whether uh they did it as a slash or um uh a full renaming. Um >> by the way, just for the record, I'm not opposed to that. Virginia was a wonderful, hardworking lady and she
deserved that honor. So, it's not that I'm opposed. I'm just wondering since that's a road that was recently renamed if we could >> somehow follow that model and how they did it, not and not reinvent the wheel since it was just >> correct. Yeah. which is about how long
ours our little stretch of Okachobee is. So, I don't know. I was just be curious what their what their model was. Um >> the you the usual model in municipalities is where you've got existing um residences, homes, businesses. Uh
that you let those folks know that you are contemplating this decision so that they have an opportunity to come in and say, "Yay, nay." or don't show up because we don't care. Um, and then after uh you
advertise for a public hearing, send them individual notice. Um, and then you take the action >> 30 days, 60 days, whatever. >> Standard public hearing. >> I think you were next. >> Yeah. Could could we approve this and say there's a 90-day timeline that 90 days is going to change. We notify those
land owners that live on there and if any of them come to object object to it, we could have a motion to reconsider before that 90 days is up. That way it's done and it doesn't have to come back to us. >> You can do that, >> Lisa. >> Does that sound fair enough? >> I would like to um establish the policy
as far as we give, you know, a notice that this is going to be >> this could be the policy. We approve 90 days, right? And we send out notifications. I'd like to see the affected land owners, property owners alerted first that we're considering it at the
February whatever meeting um this change and you know if you would like to come in person or provide us with your written deport or um objection to that and then it's then it's could be passed that night right so and then it takes
effect after so many days. So is it a sixmonth or 90day or you know something to give people time because obviously then you got to alert the post office. Post office makes their changes. People have to make address changes >> and I don't know all the processes therein. >> Yes. >> Property.
>> I mean we make changes here every meeting that affect the entire community and it's publicly noticed. It's on our agenda tonight. It's been on our agenda for a couple meetings, right? So, I'm not sure why this would be a special notification to everybody, but I I think
meeting in the middle is approve it where the 90-day timeline, send it out, and we could have a motion to reconsider if somebody comes forward and says, "Hey, this is not good." >> Well, real quick, if we're going to do How long does it take to do all that administrative type stuff, Francine or Jeff? How long do you know how long that
takes? notifying the property appraisers office, all of those type things, because we wouldn't want to have direct staff to start making those changes and saying that they're going to take place 90 days from now and then 30 days from now say, "Oops, we take it back." I mean, we wouldn't want to waste everybody's time like that. So, what is
the timeline for >> I think 90 days should do it. >> But would 60 days do it if we if we didn't start till after next month? That's my point. >> 60 is a little tight, >> right? So then I think the only way to do it is the way that Lisa is saying is
because if we we can't direct them to start the process. Do you understand what I'm saying? >> Yeah. >> We can't if we direct them to start the process now. >> Well, the process would be the first thing is they would send out letters to everybody on Chung Boulevard. >> Right. But to notify the all the people that need to be notified, the post
office, the private she's saying is going to take longer than 60 days. >> I'm saying we could do the notification, but I don't know, you know, how long their process taking. What I think what I think Council Member McClendon is
suggesting is that if you were to approve it tonight, we would send out notice to um all the affected property owners and indicate to to them that they
would have x amount of time from the receipt of the the letter, probably 30 days to let us know whether whether or not they have any objections. If they have any objections, we would then schedule um a meeting and you all
would consider their objections. So, you're talking about realistically um a 60-day time period before the matter was fully considered and and done. We would not notify
that. It does not make sense to me anyway that we would notify all the agencies to begin changing the addresses until after that uh notification time frame had had gone by the wayside. Um in
some senses it's six of one, a half dozen of the other. Uh because um if you were to do a prior notice um we would send out send out the notices and
in all likelihood um to if you were to really expedite this um we'd probably try to get it on your February workshop meeting and burden you with one uh one item uh just so that we could get the
notices out to to folks and have them have an opportunity to to show up. Um so it would be drafting the letter and saying that one. So in the one circumstance uh it could be a done deal in midFebruary. In the other it's done deal
in um March assuming that there is a uh no objection or an objection that um you all would be satisfied with moving forward on >> is the process.
>> Yeah. Is the is the process just we notify engineering and pop and property appraiser and whomever else just by a notification. You know what I guess I I I get what's
>> going on, what everybody's saying, but I I see what Todd's saying. So, I mean, if we if we approve this tonight, hypothetically, we approve this tonight and we send out the notification, right? What has to be prepared for the notification? Is it a matter of you're
the attorney, you send a notification to uh the property appraiser, the tax collector, the the C and D and and then it's official or do we have to do a formal application type of scenario? I
mean, what are we talking about? >> Well, it becomes official whenever you decide that is official and effective. That's not where I'm going. >> And so, um, there is we're contemplating
notification to the property owners. If you are interested in notification to the property owners, what we would do is we would send out a >> Je respect. All due respect, I get how we notify property owners. I get that. We send a letter to everybody whose
address falls on a on Okachobee between 162nd and Falsam. I get that. I I get that. What is the process past the point when we notify Palm Beach County, any entity in Palm Beach County that this is changed and and the postal service and
whomever else? What is that process? Is it we're just sending a letter to all those agencies saying this is what's happened by resolution blah blah blah that the yeah the new the new road name is this, you know, please adjust your your records accordingly. >> So So we're talking those address
changes that would be done. Um and you would have the address changes done on a pro uh probably on a free basis for those folks. >> So obstensively we're talking about a letter with a copy of the resolution attached to it that gets sent to these agencies. This is what's happening. Correct.
>> Yeah. Okay. >> That's a that's a notification. That's not that's not an opportunity for them to >> No, that's not what I'm trying to get down to if you if we stop going back to you said we have the right to do this. So the county can't object, the postal
service can't object, >> you know, the almighty himself can't object because we have the ability to do this, right? >> Correct. Okay. So I guess where I'm going is if we send out the notification this week, >> right? >> To to all the persons that are on Okobee
Boulevard because those are the persons that are affected. Correct. >> We're not doing a mass mailer to the whole community, >> right? >> Is that that that's what I'm getting at, right? So we send that out. If we approve it tonight, they when we send that out, you
have 30 days by, you know, those objections could be on the February workshop at that point, right? That gives ample time for the to go out and the 30 days to transpire, right? So we hear the objections at which point
we still have not notified said agencies. >> There may not be any objection. I I'm just I'm hypothetically worst case scenario, we can address those and whether it takes, you know, Palm Beach County or the postal service or whomever
another 120 days to fix it is regardless, right? We're saying at the 90th day, it's official with us according to resolution blah blah blah, right? So, the process is there. We've notified, they have the ability to object, and we can we can resend it at
that point. We have not notified any other agency. Right. >> That would like you said to 30 days and then after that then he'll start if nobody objects he'll start sending the thing and say >> well I say we don't even we yeah we get to that point if nobody objects then then we're good. He sends it out right away. If we have some object objections
and we need to address that then we can do so and we can even have another meeting exactly if need be within that 90day time frame from from now. >> Yes. >> So I mean I think it I think that meets everybody's criteria >> is where I'm going. That was a long way to get there, but I that's what I was trying to
>> s I said 90 days. >> Lisa has something to add. I believe >> clarification >> approved tonight 90 days with a 30-day window of of objections or from the affected property >> from the mailed out from the mail from the post date of the of the mailer.
>> So, we would not feasibly be sending out any notifications to other agencies before the 30-day. Correct. Correct. there would be a 60-day notification. Um, and obviously people with address labels and stuff, they throw those all away. Right. Right.
>> Yeah. We could say March one. >> Hold on. I got I'd be willing to bet in five years from now, if you still wrote OK Boulevard, the post office is going to deliver it. >> Probably. >> Probably. >> Right. Right. >> Some public comment. Would you guys like to hear from people? >> And if somebody was there 30 or 40 years ago, they might have their old ones for
middle room. >> But I still I still think public notification is >> absolutely >> absolutely >> absolutely >> is appropriate much like an ordinance would require a certain amount of time um before we change something. >> I think our direction could be even be
to no staff action till May till March 1 even. That way we have time to >> still don't see why we can't just bring it back at another 30 days to >> see if things keep going back. If we can approve it tonight and it's done and nobody objects, it's done. >> Then we don't have to see it again. >> And does that establish our policy? Are
we going to have different policy the next time it comes around? If it comes around again, >> that's what I was going to say. It's been 20 years and we've done it, right? >> Maybe southern comes a new name. >> Well, I think I think if somebody's on 24th place and whatever and they want to do they want to name it after their father who lived here for 40 years and
served in whatever war and da da da da or was a big imp, you know. So policy they could they could come and apply and that's a whole different scenario. >> I think Mr. Curts brought this forward one to establish policy. So I just think whatever we do tonight
>> we're establishing policy. Yeah. Well and you could you could say this is the way we're going to do this one and in the future um the practice would be advanced notice to to people so you don't have to worry about the objections
on the back end. >> Yeah. I don't necessar think we need a policy and five years from now if it comes up again. We can go, hey, we did Middle Road, it worked out great this way. We'll just do it the same way again. We don't need to get tied down in policies and all that. I mean, we're a small town that, you know, that's >> Yeah, but policies keep people from
thinking they're they're being treated unfairly. We had some public comment, Val, >> Miss McNicholas, >> Mary McNicholas, 12845 Raymond Drive. Um, a couple things. I've obviously represented you all as far as trying not
to bifurcate the town as not to so that we do not expand Okchovi Boulevard so that we can have crossings so that we can have pedestrian walkways, trails, a lot of different things. I understand I think why why you're trying to change
the name. I'm not really sure. But what I would like to know is you're going to go ahead and change a pop. you're not going to establish policy. I think I'm hearing that you are thinking about just doing this in 90 days. So in essence, you are establishing a policy that she
could do forward. What about the people and the businesses the cost of their stationary there what all kinds of things. I mean I know you all are taking this a little lightly but you don't have a business or a residence on that street. I'm not sure I would love for
the town just to come in and state, you know, this is all of a sudden this is going to be a change and now this is going to change. This is going to be a cost imposed to me. These are not necessarily large businesses. I just think we need to look at this and you know really contemplate looking at the
public input. My personal opinion, Miss Miles. Good evening, council. Good evening, council. Maryanne Miles. Um, I must have been doing my life because I haven't been here in a while. So, this is the first time I'm hearing about
contemplating um renaming Okobee Boulevard. I am not for it. I wish you guys didn't spend the time, the energy, and the exercise to go do it. Uh I agree with what uh Mary said. You know when we have
people and you tell directions even now when I have to say to somebody if they don't rely on their GPS when they call me and say did I pass your address on B road because I'm still on F. I'm like no they're backwards. F E D CB A all the way to Seminal Pratt and now you're
going to change Okachobee Boulevard that to middle road. Well we don't have a middle road. We don't you can't get out on North Road because it's blocked. I could see if you could then you call okay middle road it's the middle of our town but middle road why you could have
named it Lockahhatche Boulevard but probably that's already taken up. I don't understand the exercise that is being done and the time wasting when you guys can be doing other things to promote and protect the town rather
than just changing its name. You're not even changing the name. You're changing Okchobee Boulevard. And of course, I didn't know that legally we could change something that we don't own. As far as I knew as a council person when I sat there, we could control speed. Okachobee
Boulevard was Okachobee Boulevard. If we want to name another name in through our streets throughout the town, that's up to us. We're a separate municipality. But to rename a road that has been that way
for years and years, you have GPS studies. All of a sudden, now you're going to be traveling and you're going to go, "Okay, I'm coming up Okachobee Boulevard going through Royal Palm and what the heck? Where did I go now? I didn't turn. All of a sudden, it's
called middle road. Why? We have deliveries and stuff that come in. Now you're asking to change anything or everything like that. This is the first time I'm hearing about it. You want to do something, you put it on the agenda and you get people and you advertise it
and see how people in this town really feel about that. Because I agree again with Mary. You're asking people with an address to change their stuff. They're not asking to come in to do that. If somebody comes in on a small road and says I'd like to name this because of my
grandfather or whatever that affects that small road and even then may pe maybe people on the road won't want that depending on how many people is there. So take into consideration you guys are supposed to be representing us. Ask us
if we want the change. Thank you. Did you have your light on? >> No. Mary, I'll call you tomorrow and fill you in as to why this is getting done. Um, I'll make a motion to approve resolution 2026-01 with the 90-day uh window when it becomes effective in a 30-day
notification of the land owners on HB Boulevard. >> At which everyone will have a chance to come and object correct if they would like. >> Correct. >> We have a second. >> Second. All >> in favor? I opposed. Opposed? Opposed?
>> Passes three to two. Okay, we're on to item number seven. >> Here comes Miss Gardner. Young for seven and eight. They're kind of partner items. Good evening everybody. Sorry it took me so long. Uh if you don't mind, I'm going
to do seven and eight together. As Francine has indicated, they're basically the same item. It's just regarding the committee that is going to be hearing the particular items. As the council has discussed in the past, you wanted to make sure that the committees were meeting in order to address
potential zoning text changes in order to basically workshop them before they came before the council. In the past, typically the the committees were meeting, for example, the planning board would hear petitions. So if there were no petitions, we wouldn't meet as a board. But since the council has
indicated that you do want them to look at several things and back earlier this year in May, June, we brought forward a list of items that was brought up before by the council or some staff items that we thought needed to be addressed. I brought that forward and we kind of
presented it to the council that we were looking at process as well as which ones you really wanted to bring forward. Uh what I did for the planning board and for the uldc is I looked at that list and if something was uh had about three whether it was going two to the uldc,
one to the planning board, but if it looked like there were at least three council members who felt it needed to bring forward for consideration, I added them on the list. as Francine has said uh you know kind of taking the approach on this until the board really um comes
up with the ideas regarding the particular topic I couldn't tell you it was going to be affected by Senate Bill 180 or not so it's for the committee to kind of hash out these ideas at that point we can decide whether it is restricted by Senate Bill 180 or whether
we wait until Senate Bill 180 is done and bring it forward uh so for that I'll start off as number seven has the planning uh board. Uh at the last meeting we had the equestrian estates. So that is the first item that I'm bringing forward to the planning board this month. I'm going to have them
decide um bring back some ideas of what is an equestrian estate, what items you may want to consider for those. And then I've also listed down here on permitted uses in the AR district, conditional uses, special exceptions, concurrency requirements, and a nuisance baitment uh
regulations. I was also trying to keep those towards the ones also that wouldn't be impacted by Senate Bill 180. For example, to me, the nuisance abatement is not a development regulation, so it really shouldn't be affected by Senate Bill 180. But again, I'm here to listen to this council on
whether these are the topics that you want us to discuss. Again, this is just the beginning list. It doesn't mean it's the exclusive list. Obviously, again, as we go through discussions, things may come up and we may decide to add things or we may decide to delete things. So, that's the list on the planning board.
And then on the Sorry, let's stop there. I think you want to do them together, but got two lights on. So, Lisa, you were first. >> Oh, okay. Um, so some of these I don't agree with. Um, the permitted uses, I think that's been
hashed over many, many times. Maybe I'm wrong. Um, does anybody think that that something that should be reopened and revisited? Um, nuisance abatement. Um, Karen, maybe you could extrapolate on why you included that one.
>> Um, I think it's to strengthen it, Lisa. The way that it's worded right now, I think we need to give our ability to be able to utilize it. >> Usees the same thing because we've got a lot of unpermitted uses happening in the AR zoning to strengthen and redefine. Would that be accurate in what you're looking for there?
>> Yes. And I'll give an example like the veterans uh the veterary services and so forth. Um they you know how do we I think it's a vision to be honest with you particularly on uses. uses are a vision of what do you see that zoning
district ultimately being, you know, because again, we've kind of talked about this in other situations where you have to have supportive services, right? So, if you're going to allow horses to be stabled, they're going to need, you know, medical needs, they're going to
need hay, they're going to need feed. um you know, are those the kind of things that we want to include in the AR zoning district or is it something that they have to ship in from another location? And I'm not saying right or wrong. I'm not saying I'm encouraging them one way or the other, but that's typically what
you would be thinking about when you're in the AR, you know, zoning district or the opposite. Maybe you don't want to allow them in the district. Maybe you want to just leave it as a residential zoning district and or agricultural base and not have the other supporting um services. And again, we talked a lot
about what's on Okchobee. You know, we allow to have wholesale landscaping, but we don't allow retail. Do we want to allow retail? And I again, >> nurseries, not landscaping. >> I'm sorry. Nurseries. So, I you know, again, >> we've got landscapers, too. >> That's a different kind of comfort. But
again, you know, it's really a question from the council and Lisa, again, appreciate the feedback because again, you know, and you're out in the field what you feel as a council that you need to give direction and guidance to for us to bring to the count committee so that
they can bring it back to you. So, each one of these were brought up in the past and I do apologize because again, you know, I've only been here since April. A lot of this, as we've noted in the past, has been way before my time. uh and didn't want it to drop off if it was something that was important. Councils do change as was noted. Um you know, one
council maybe decides something's important, one's not. >> Can we get back to the question on nuisance abatement? Can you give me an example of why that one's on there? >> Um I'm trying to think of an >> said you wanted to strengthen. >> Let me um can I I I don't I would like to have the code in front of me to be
able to tell you the exact It's much easier for me to do that. So Lisa, if I can get back to you on that and I'll let you know. I think all of it should come back to us again. Um, and I'm curious why June was the deadline. Um, is that
anticipation of SB180 perhaps being resolved? I think June was a date that had been thrown out by um, Ron Book's team. Um, so I just thought that was an interesting deadline. I know um previous council when they did the comprehensive
plan review, one of the things that Todd, you might recall the language to restrict access points to the town was not included in the comprehensive plan. It was it was provided as a resolution and we all know that those don't hold
the same weight. Um I'd like to see that comprehensive plan come back um uh restricting access points in the town. Um, we know specifically some of those that are troublesome. So, I'd like that council's input on that as to >> why that never came back. >> Yeah.
>> But, >> can you think can you think of another one? I thought there were two or three associated with the comp plan that to me was the most important one that needed to come forward and strengthen the language in the comprehensive plan. But perhaps we can go back through our notes from that time and see if there was
something else to bring. I can't think of any off the top of my head right now, but I'm I'm not opposed to any of these, especially where where it especially where they provide more where they're meant to provide more clarity, okay, and more definition. And and if and that's what the ULDC can do for us is they can
provide more clarity. Look at it and say, is it vague or is it is it well defined? But but I'm a little concerned with the let's look at supportive businesses to agricultural uses and we throw out
horses because that's always a good buzzword. Um are we happy with a horse trailer repair shop on North E road? Correct. >> Probably not. Right. And you know some of the veterary uses county stuck out here. I don't think we've approved any
specific veterary um clinics out here. Those were all predated to the town. Um I I do get a little bit queasy when they start to talk about what kind of businesses we like to see in the AR district. That that is a concern for me and um so
that one I'm not really keen on. So, >> right. And I I I think most people on planning zoning might agree with you, but the the I mean the hitch is they can bring it to us in June and we go no you we're not deal no we're not changing it
that way. We're not whatever. My my thing was is I with the nuisance abatement was the I mean I are we just dividing and conquering these topics is that we're just splitting them between the two because if we're talking about
regulation etc that's that's more false to ULDC as to what our nuisance nuisance abatement regulations are versus you know um you know permitted uses and things like that. That's more
of a I see that more as a planning and zoning board. So whereas we that that that nuisance abatement could go to ULDC and we can move the comp plan things into this one. I think this is just like a >> a nutshell trying to get some stuff done
to have as I use the term you know to have in the clip. >> Yeah. So if if everything happens the way everybody hopes it should or if we get some relief in June or you know we can load it and pull the trigger you know >> so you'd like to see us what I'm hearing
>> I I I just I kind of made some statement is is number five is that why is that under planning and not underc >> the only reason why is if on the um tally that we had from the council before if it indicated like the majority said to take it to the planning board
That's why I put it in the planning board. But I don't disagree, Paul, with what you're saying. Again, the planning board sees all zoning changes. Right. Right. But I understand, right? >> It's not really development. I think that's what it is. I have no objections if you you know, again, certainly your
we can bring it to the I can add on the comps. Absolutely. >> Yeah. Good. >> I don't Lisa's tough. >> Well, what Lisa what Lisa spoke on, >> right? Sorry. Right. >> Another thing I'd like to see added to
the ULDC list is um special events permits. Um so, but we have a lot of people who don't have don't get the per I think it's something that goes along with our this board's desire to educate people.
We have a number of of entities in town that have special events frequently and and don't get the permits. Um, and then we have ones that come at, you know, a day before, not realizing that it's like a 30-day process. And then my question for the ULDC would be, does it really
need to be a 30-day process? Like, could there be some So, I I personally would like to see them look at our special events permitting process and see if that can't be tweaked a little bit. >> I agree wholeheartedly. I think it's great. Do you want to go to the planning board or the UL? This is planning board. >> It goes to ULDC.
>> ULDC personally, I think. >> Yeah. It's a it's a code compliance issuing. >> I'm sorry. I didn't realize we were going to go over the uldc item. So, the landscaping code, >> we kind of jumped. Sorry. >> Is that commercial only? >> It's uh article 85 and 87, which affects
both. >> Affects both. >> Mhm. >> So, you're going to tell me what bushes I can put in front of my house? >> Again, uh we have um we have an expert who went into it because I know enough about trees to make myself dangerous, but not enough to know it to be the
expert. But again, the idea is to bring it forward and maybe I will tell you like if for example I brought the sign code Joe will tell you, you know, they they're not in favor of signs and that might be the answer when we come on the landscaping code. I don't know. >> Simple answers, Karen. >> Okay. >> Does the landscaping code that we
currently have tell people what they can put in front of their house? >> It does. >> It does. Is that really what we signed up for as a town? I'm curious about that. So, I don't want to I don't want to get too far off base. Um, the sign
code, you've got it listed here. We just had the sign code presented to council to all of us say, "Please enforce the sign code." Did we not just have that like less than 60 days? >> Well, we said we gave a starting place. So, I'm not sure. >> Why is it coming back? >> And I think the ODC is probably really
tired of seeing the sign code. Like, they've already done a lot of work on the sign to see. >> Well, the sign the sign code is there is because you're right. They did do look it's a two-fold process, right? The first process was we wanted you to be aware that there are illegal signs that
are out there that haven't been enforced and we just wanted to know because honestly you as the policy makers are going to hear the push back. So that's what we came forward to you. We are bringing it forward. We do have the prohibited signs that we've already started on code cases on on some of
those and we are looking at the flags but you know they do come back. The snipe signs we try to take out, they do come back. So those by direction of the council. If it's a prohibited sign, it is to be removed. If it is a sign that was approved by either the town or the
county that has changed, we're not prohibiting it, but we're notifying them that they have to get into compliance with their permit or they need to come in and amend their permit. So that's what we're doing on the sign. The sign code has been through the uldc. We're waiting from the attorney in order to have an ordinance that we can bring back
to the uldc for them to finalize so we have that document ready to come when Senate Bill 180 is finished. So that's really what the sign code is there is that it hasn't been included yet. We're at the final stage. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Uh gentlemen, were you done?
>> We have a signed ordinance. Why would SB 180 apply in this case? Because the ULDC is proposing a much more restrictive sign. Are >> you talking about the new sign ordinance? >> That's what this Yeah. >> Okay.
>> This is a two- thing process, right? There's enforcing the existing >> I I get it because the sign ordinance was all kicked around the new one, who who requested it, why was it coming forward, blah blah blah. So, I get that.
um agurism committee recommendations they need to go back to uldc well the idea was is that it the agricultural committee is a recom is not a recommending body right and we're
thinking of taking it to the uldc because they do the code changes I can take it to the planning board if you want to take it to the planning board it's got to go to another board before it comes before you >> they think it plans. >> Yeah. Okay. Why? If we're gonna switch
things around, >> go to ULDC and then P and Z and then to us, right? >> Okay. >> Right. Exactly. Yeah. Let PC look at >> I if it honestly if we're and I don't mean to jump. I'm sorry. Um if we're kind of using this list as placeholders, right? Because I think that's what the
sign code on there is. It's like a placeholder that this is still actively being, you know, it's not, you know, on the back burner. Um, I'd like to see Royal Vista listed there. >> I like that >> at PZB because
Hasn't ULDC kicked Ro around enough? >> But Ro Vista doesn't need to go to PB PCB or to planning. Doesn't need to. >> From it comes straight to us as soon as as soon as we're able. >> Okay. >> It's ready to go. >> Why does it need to be on the list?
>> Because it doesn't fold. This list is a todo and a and a it's a placeholder >> placeholder. This is ready. >> I don't want I don't want to be sitting there in June in a meeting going, "What the heck?" >> Starting to the ones that are ready to rock. >> Okay. >> Yeah. So, a note.
>> Thank you, Karen. >> Um, okay. Anybody else? Because we have some public comment. Would we like to hear that? I've got a lot of lights. Okay. Go ahead. >> So, it was brought up about how we gave you the authorization two months ago to go after existing. We're using the existing sign code. How many letters have gone out regarding those signs?
don't have any. Diana Deanna Thomas, who's our lead code officer, happens to be here tonight. >> Hi, council. I'm Diana Thomas, lead code officer for the town of Lockxy Groves. Um, as of this weekend, our code officer has
issued, I believe it's three cases. However, we have gone around and picked up what we call the snipe signs. These are the little signs that you see on all the corners of the
properties. They are prohibited. Um, I can give you another example. Our car wash over here on Southern had one of the balloon guys that flutters in the wind. Um we
told them that had to go. They took it down. Um the ultimate compli ultimate thing is compliance. Um, the next step I'm doing actually before the end of the week,
all the dental signs over here. I'm taking those and I will store them here in my office if they want them. They're prohibited. I can just take them. They're snipe signs.
They're not allowed. Not allowed. I will go there to the office and I will let them know that they are not allowed. I will give them a copy of the code showing them it's not allowed. If they don't like it, too bad. Short answer is
three cases, >> right? Yeah. I mean, it's nice. We didn't need approval for that because they already >> I mean, public works should be picking those up when they're driving around town. The way I see it, I don't think code of course needs to be >> the other thing that we needed to wait some time. We we had to put in a request to the county because a lot of these
signs were approved in the county. So, I didn't know, you know, I can't site somebody if I don't know what they were approved for or what they weren't. So, it took us a while to get the building permit actual documents from the county so that we have that to be able to compare to what's out there, which we
have several now. So, now, you know, that would be the next step. We're going down southern and then we'll go down Okachobee. Now, I will also tell you that on Okchobee Boulevard, some of those signs are in the county rightway. They're not on private property.
I'll be happy to site the county if you all want me to. >> Can't we just notify the county? Hey, >> I already have. >> I already have. >> It was during the holiday, the Christmas holiday. I will be calling them tomorrow. Actually, the code manager is who I attempted to speak with and he was
not in. Um, but it's got to go. I'm tired of seeing them. I don't want to see them. >> It's ugly. >> If it's a sign in the county right ofway, the county didn't approve it. So, it's already an illegal sign. >> Yes. But I want to have it in writing
from them because they have you >> jurisdiction. Yes, ma'am. I understand. So, just to piggyback on that because we were I was uh we had a conversation um earlier with I I had a conversation earlier with Craig. You know, there's a
couple of vendors, fruit vendors, etc. along Okchobee Boulevard that cause a lot of debris problems and stuff like that. And they're actually trespassing a little bit. their their patrons are trespassing in the in the woods and you
know and the vendors themselves are on the county rideway. So albeit Sammy went by and asked the guy to leave. >> I do the same thing, >> right? And he leaves and then he comes back and you know so while you're in contact with the
county about the snipe signs and whatever unofficial signs because we can't touch them, right? It's not our place. The only thing I've done is ask them to see do they have a license and their answer is no. I said then you have to go but as we all know they come back.
I cannot tell you how many calls we get for B in Okachobee, C and Okchobee, D and Okchobee. It's like they >> So, do we need to continue So, do we need to continuously >> file a complaint with Palm Beach County
to get that squared away or is it Cuz we can't >> Yeah. You know, you understand what I'm saying? I mean, >> yeah. >> Or is it a matter of of you file a complaint, they go away, and then they just don't follow up or you know what's what's the case? >> Can can the county empower us to do that
in their right of way with a with an interlocal agreement? >> That's beyond my >> Mr. Kurts, >> my knowledge, >> because it sounds like this is a bit of fingerpointing where well, we'd like to pick them up, but it's in the county right away, so we can't really do anything about it. And if it's something
as simple as going over and pulling a steak out of the ground, it's a little different than cutting down one down with a chainsaw. So, right. >> Yeah. Can we do that? Although, that could be fun, right? >> Could that be accomplished with like an ILA or something like that? I I think we can get permission from them to do that.
>> Okay. But back to my original question. We we sent out three letters in two months for signs. >> That's not impressive. >> Sorry. >> Understood. >> If I may, because
um I don't know if if council knows what goes into putting in the time and effort for a code case. Is it easy? Is it repetitive? Yes.
Okay. But in one day, we could do maybe five or six cases along dealing with answering phone calls, dealing with residents who come in, um helping other
staff members out. It is timeconsuming to do this. Now, if it's a priority, I get it. But we have other priorities that range at number one, too. Everything can't remain
at number one. And I'm being honest with you, okay? We have the signs. We have the Okachobee properties. We have the RV issues. Okay? Well, those are all high priorities. So, if I had eight hands and I was an
octopus, I could do more. Okay? The work is there. We have me as a full-time uh code officer. We have a part-time code officer that works three days a week. And we have a guy that works on the weekends.
So, when we give a compliance deadline, we have to give reasonable time to correct it. So, when you don't see a turnaround right away, just know that you're not seeing the result that you may want right away, but
we are working on it. I promise you my list is long. >> List of what? >> Activities that have to be done that are a high priority. >> Okay. I I don't think anybody's challenging how hard you're working,
Deanna. We We all recognize that this is a behemoth problem. I do believe that ULDC received what 164 photographs of sign that Mr. Lowry and and Mr. Kurts went around town taking pictures of um I
know not all of them were quote illegal signs, but it seems like there would have already been a ready list of identified signs. I think maybe the disconnect here for us is it was brought forward to us and it sounded like it was ready to go and to hear that only three
three uh citations have been handed out is a little disappointing. >> Yeah. And I and I think I said at that meeting that in my mind signs were a low priority. We should be going after these industrial uses. Right. >> Well, and yet you brought up Okachobee. How many citations have you given on
Okchobee in the last 60 days? >> Probably six or six or seven >> to six or seven Okobee properties in the last 60 days. >> Time to research it. Okay. Because I mean I'm not going to lie to you. Um, the files pre me, I've been here since
May. Not all the files were kept exactly right. That makes it more difficult for me to research a property. If it shows that a case went to court, okay, for Okobee, one of the Okchobee properties,
and then it stopped, meaning it didn't go forward to another hearing for a fine assessment. >> The court, you mean the magistrate? >> The magistrate. Yes, ma'am. Um, so that takes time to research that and I can't tell you how many times I've gone into
Karen and I'm like it never went forward. So now I am finding more and more cases that haven't gone forward that should have gone forward that I will be bringing forward for a fine assessment hearing. Well, I think the
people in this audience that have spent their time listening to magistrate hearings and stuff are thrilled to hear that because nobody understands why these things fall off the face of the earth and are never revisited and everybody continues to see the violations go day after day. So, good
for you. I hope we >> I want to make the council happy. I want to make the residents happy. I do love my job, but please understand that it is not an overnight process. It is not.
>> Nobody's nobody's attacking you personally. >> I know, but I take it that way. >> Okay. >> Because I'm passionate. >> Well, remember she said she sight her mama. Remember when we first met her, she said, "I'll sight my mama. I don't care." But um no, I I we all I think we
all get that there are hurdles, incomplete files, things that have have gotten dropped off of people's plates and um >> that have been kicked down the road for 20 years. >> Yeah. So, you know, it is it is a large problem and it's a lot to fall on one
shoulder, but I think we all up here look forward to that process and hopefully Mr. Buckley will take some of that off your plate and come back with a lot of information. Well, for those of you that follow the hearings, I guarantee you February 2nd is going to
be a big one. >> Uh, neighbor, huh? Okay, good. >> And so will March. >> Thank you very much. We have >> I hope the magistrate brought her lunch. >> We We have some public comments on um seven and eight. So, can we take them
kind of together? >> Miss Standish. beat you to it. >> Virginia Standish North Road, I am being forced to watch code enforcement hearings again. That's just too exciting. But thank you for your work.
Um, one thing I would suggest on signs, um, my comment is really towards the LGC, but on signs, something that may not take code enforcements times, uh, I'm seeing a lot of posts in the canal right ofways. Um, so if public works can
simply call those people because those are expensive posts that are being put in the canal rightways and just there's phone numbers on them. if public works can give them a call and say hey come get your sign because if we remove it it could be severely damaged just and code doesn't have to get involved or they
could uh my comment is on the uldc portion I have written two emails to council and staff I have noticed in reviewing a lot of the town regulations in PNZ and ULC and I did serve on the
very first ULC in this town um I would like to suggest Just stop kicking the can down the road on historical legacy. Have ULDC remove historical legacy. It was not supposed to be there forever. It was supposed to time out and it keeps getting kicked
down the road. Feel free to remove historical legacy. That was the intent of it. Not supposed to be there anymore. Um but somehow it just keeps hanging out. I've noticed that the uh FDA's and the tree mitigation and the
vegetative process, everyone is treated as if they're a developer. In my research, I'm noticing that even Palm Beach County gives leeway to certain small properties. I have sent you the email. I sent you the links. Please
review them because I will be attending these meetings to bring this information forward. uh this town is very aggressive with individual land owners and treating them as developers and that is not appropriate. I brought
up the last question when I said to you why are you looking for tree mitigation fines on a property that could turn around and be bonafideed a egg? I have not got an answer to that. The answer is you shouldn't be doing that. Um there
there's just a lot of information that be needs to be reviewed by ULDC or PNZ and separated as this is what a developer does. This is what an individual land owner of 10 acres or less or five acres or less can do. Thank
you. >> Okay. >> You know I think Miss Standish has brought this up before and with our list from items seven and eight. Is that something we all agree should probably go back for clarification? >> The legacy thing. I
>> think so too. I think it should be removed. I agree. >> Removed, right? But the M thing about development versus private land owners, people with an FDA and a site plan that goes with the sale of a property as a private thing versus
>> I'm not sure how you I'm not sure how you differentiate who a developer is and who a land owner is. They're they're one and the same. So, I'm confused by that. It's >> clear. >> Well, I I know in in the case that Miss Standish brought forward before that uh
there was a tree mitigation question for someone who had decided they could not proceed um from a cost-effective standpoint with the the site plan as the engineers designed it and were told that no, you have to pay this. You can't sell your property with this approved plan.
And I think that's something that could ULDC clarify that or is that something that just gets clarified at staff level? >> No, I think that was something we we were talking about with the whole bringing up we we there's some things around here that we don't have procedures with. Right. There's no
there's procedure but that there's not procedure, right? So it's it's depending on you know you come in I come. Huh? >> Don't you be government talking to me. That's why we got into the conversation about Nicholas and >> yeah, but you know what I'm saying. So
So when so you come in or I come in, we both get two different answers, right? So if there's a check, >> I think that's something we can send to >> I I don't know that that's a ULDC issue. That might be a planning issue. That might be a um we have we not brought I wasn't done
with my statement. Have we not brought um the the new gentleman on board for the that's our um >> FDA >> flood plane manager? Is he on board yet? >> Yes. >> So that's a process that maybe he could look at and say, you know, no, this
doesn't this is no, we you need to be I don't see why you couldn't sell your property along with an existing FDA. Now, if you move buildings around, that's going to adjust the FDA, right? That's going to adjust the >> that would affect the new landowner. I
think the concern in this particular instance was you have to restore or mitigate or pay pay for something that was done in a process that had already been put into place and approved. And now you're saying it doesn't matter what
the new landowner does, you have to pay us up front. and and I get some of that concern as far as we've seen properties sell with the problems existing with code enforcement and falls on the new owner to bring them into compliance. But
I think if if the property owner is selling it along with that obviously that's that should be okay from our stand because we've already approved the whole thing right and and I is that a procedure thing >> but if I if I go buy a a property that
was developed by an agricultural entity whatever the case may be let's call it a horse farm right and >> they didn't develop it they just got one >> know but I'm saying stuff doesn't carry though some stuff does some stuff doesn't if I go buy a horse farm that the house itself was permitted but the
barn wasn't the tractor show all that when I when I buy it if I don't maintain that bonafide a I don't assume I it's now I got to legalize it >> I think that's not apples and apples though here in this case so maybe that's another discussion for another day sorry I came back from the bathroom
>> actually like an individual case that needs to be worked out you know maybe you could sit with the landowner and staff or whatever and try to work it out or something I don't know >> I think with respect to the particular case you're talking about the code was followed. Um I think Miss Standish is
saying that maybe the code should be revised um to take into consideration some of those changes. and she's indicated that she's going to um be at the the meetings monitoring the
situation and the um board is going to take into consideration uh people's comments and review 85 and 87 and I think if there are changes to be made they'll bring them back to you but that particular code um was applied
correctly with respect to the individual that you're talking about. Okay, we don't really have any I think we're done. >> Yeah, I'm good. >> We're done with seven and eight. We're on to number nine, >> which is an easy one. We have a
confirmed forum or we did for January 26 for a joint staff and council meeting as requested by the council. >> Okay. Has council directed what we're going to cover in that joint meeting? >> It's open-ended. you know, if they want
if they have some some things they want to discuss. I know one of their issues is they're concerned about not having meetings. You know, we'll discuss all. >> All right. I'd like to propose that we put this 5% um proposed uh budget reduction on that meeting discussion between the
>> I'm not in agreement with that. >> Well, since >> I think we charged staff with coming up with a 5% reduction and they did. Does anybody have a problem with the 5% reduction they came up with as you read through it on either on item number 10? Well, I'd like to know how much of it was AI generated.
>> How much of what was AI generated? >> The 5% reduction. >> I'm not sure why that would matter. Staff said that they thought that was a good idea where they cut it. I'm I'm curious because we're now paying for chat GPT enhanced services and
there's several reports on this agenda that were AI generated and I tried to read through the 5% reduction and there was phrasing in there and stuff that I couldn't make any sense of. So I personally would like to see FAC and council go through that reduction
proposal 100%. We've got the new uh public works director part-time slash as a consultant. Is he part-time or is he a consultant? Are we using a part-time person and a consultant? There's a lot about that reduction that doesn't
>> I didn't have any trouble understanding it at all. But >> okay, >> but let's see if there's a consensus. Does anybody think we need to make this part of the fact meeting? >> I I I've seen some of these fact meetings where one item ends up being two hours, and I don't want an item become 20 hours. That's my concern.
Well, talking about their concern about not meeting, I mean, that that should take a few minutes. I mean, what are we going to get into? I mean, I we've got the last quart the first quarter of fiscal year 26. So, we've got the first quarter
spending, you know, is that something we want to look at? >> Like I said, I thought it would be open-ended, but I don't want it open-ended for many, many hours. >> No, I don't think it should be open-ended for many hours, too. But, you know, much like the budgeting process, I do think that a proposed reduction in
spending should be looked at, like the special magistrate being cut when we were talking about really moving something forward that has been kicked down the road for too long. That's not a number I'm comfortable with saying we're going to cut there. So, we never get into the budget.
>> Isn't the magistrate uh some of it's a cost recovery basis, right? >> No, not the special magistrate themselves. You cannot charge for the special. >> I know we can't charge for it, but under the >> You can't recover the >> We can't recover that through the No, thank
>> we went down to one meeting this year. We used to have two meetings, we're down to one meeting. Our meetings are a lot shorter, but with each council person that we met with, when we talked to Mr. Bley when he brings back the plan we're
probably going to have to talk about whether we need an additional code enforcement officer um for Okachobee. So um having that money in contingency as it is council can reallocate that money as needed. And um there is a $40
spending for CH GPT. It's number like three or four up from the bottom on the total cash dispersements list. I will try to find out who that is because I pay for my own um personal AI accounts. That is not something that I am using.
So I'll find out who who purchased that and happy to have anybody's input on any of it. an answer to the question on the um staffing. I was actually asked to eliminate the public works director position for the whole last year. There
was a lot of discussion on it from the previous year's budget all through the year to this year's budget. I did not cut that position. When that very professional staff member found a higher paying job and left, I cut that
position. I gave a working out of class adjustment to our superintendent because we are tasking him with the same responsibilities as the public works director. He got a 5% working out of
class in accordance with the HR manual. And in addition to that, I talked to all of you in our meetings about hiring um a retired engineer at a less a lesser than market rate to do the FDA so we could
get better customized service for our applicants because we the reason we had to part ways with Ingenuity is because it was an exorbitant amount of money and it cost our clients and us too much time and too much grief. So that process has
a checklist and it is going a lot smoother and that bills out now at $110 an hour post recovery. We do not pay for that as the town. We also use him on a very part-time basis. That's not a full-time job FDA. He's spending about 8
to 10 hours a week on that. And with regard to coaching our superintendent, he is coaching him on several things. For instance, the A- Road paving bid is out. Our part-time
public works coach, if you will, h helped write that so we could get it out fast. He also did the um mandatory pre-bid meeting that we had 13 vendors come to, which is, by the way, a landmark for us. We've never had that
many come. 16. >> 16. Okay. Sorry, I thought it was 13. Um so he is not doing daily public works. He is strictly doing coaching in public works filling in the learning that um
Mr. Lauer doesn't quite have yet and we're being very judicious with the time that we're using. So I don't care if we talk about it in public again or privately. There's nothing made up in those numbers. The other big cut that we
had was the fact that we took $100,000 out of the um community projects budget because we had three community projects that were planned for in the budget in capital. We took about
$100,000 of the cuts which put us over the 5% because we don't have the staff capacity nor do we have anybody knocking on the door. We have two or two maybe locations where we have community
interest in doing those projects. One is the horse trails up at 160th. And we also have had conversations back and forth with 11th Terrace and conversations back and forth with Robert Swig and conversations back and forth with
Casey. But nobody has been in to actually say let's go. So I think we only think we can get one or two done. That's why that was cut. that those monies allow the town to reallocate the funds towards the priorities that you
all are coming up with in your workshops. That's not, you know, to cut a level of service. It's to um reallocate the resources. That's why those two big cuts came out. And the
magistrate, again, I explained because we did the one cut. We also went back and looked at where we historically do not spend the full amount of money. By the way, if you look at our spending for the first three months of the year, you
have to add from land resource management on page one and go all the way down on the total expenditures and go all the way down to the end of the um
last page in order to get to 113,000 which is um what we have paid paid um for PBSO. And so those monies that are in that 5% cut are just like PBSO.
They're put off to the side in the contingency and council can allocate them as you wish. We are totally transparent. Every member of the council and the FAC have access to our accounting system. You're not going to
find any place else that does. We're also providing you this detailed list. We will also schedule time for anybody that needs it, but we have not um had even any questions from anybody on
the fact since the last budget. And the only recommendation for any cut that anybody made was for travel and training and for lobbyists. So very happy to have the discussion about the cuts.
Here's some. If you want others, just let us know. Again, if you look at something we're going to talk about later, RVs, we're supposed to bring that and talk about that on the agenda. I'm going to talk about it now. We got maybe
$12,000 in permit fees for RVs. Do you know how much money we had to spend to get the $12,000? We spent part-time public works. We took full-time all of our code officers. We
had an enormous amount of time by Jeff getting all of the original permit notices and we also had our building inspector and our building techs out doing inspections. We had the equivalent of at least one full-time person doing
all that RV work. And I think Paul, you know what it's like doing a permit, doing the inspections, blah blah blah. Last year we had 60 people who didn't even pass the inspection because the season was over, but they didn't pass because they're graywater. And so we
have to go back and forth, back and forth with the health department before we can permit them. So more time, more time, more time. And that's money that we're spending. And we don't really get the most offensive people with that program. So we end up spending if I said
the equivalent of one person maybe that maybe that number is 80 to 100,000 net of the revenues of about 10,000 that means we've spent you know 80 or 90,000 60 or 80,000 60 to 90,000 on the RV
program. I'm not saying it's not necessary but let's talk about how we have to decide what we're going to cut. We want the RV program. there's $100,000, >> right? So, I mean, and I had this discussion earlier today. We spent $60
to $80,000 on approving RVs that we collected $10,000 on. So, that means and I think there was 20 or 30 that were approved, right? So, we're talking about the town spent $3,000 to let somebody have an RV on their property. We spent it. The community as a whole spent
$3,000 per RV so my neighbor could rent an RV space. I'm not sure that that's cost cost effective for the town, right? And we might decide it's worth that as a town for the community to spend that money to spend $3,000 for each one of those RVs. That's a discussion that we
need to have, right? So, like what was talked about when we talk about cutting costs? Well, $3,000 per RV out there is what it's costing the town. So, those are serious discussions we need to have. And when we talk about the, you know, when staff came up with the 5% cut, are
we going to micromanage and say, well, no, you shouldn't have cut it here. You should have cut it there. And when you start doing that, and then you say, I'm going to hold you accountable because you're not getting these things done. Well, I'm not getting them done because you cut it over here and I needed it cut here. So that's why I'm not I'm not
comfortable with going after the 5% and saying you shouldn't have cut 5% on the magistrate. Now, if if she comes back to us in six months and says, "Hey, I'm short of money here." Well, you're the one that said that you could cut magistrate. And so explain to me how you
didn't foresee that, right? So that's why I'm not crazy about going over the 5% and trying to micromanage that. May I? So, uh, I will go back to this is a proposed cut. This is not set in
stone. We're still working on our strategic plan, right? We've got Mr. Lower and the new gentleman's report in here. Um, it doesn't include the A-RO paving that's out for bid. So, there there's questions here. I think that
time with finance committee would be best spent looking at these proposed cuts, seeing if it aligns with with what the capital improvements plan is. I'm not saying that we're going to, you know, go through this and we're going to micromanage staff.
Putting words in people's mouths is ineffective and timeconuming. How many times have we discussed reduce the demand to comply with the RV permitting? Make it simple. Make it a
one-page document. Make the fee cheap. Maybe we do random inspections. We don't require an inspection. And then we just throw it out there and make it super simple to comply. Again, there is a threshold of of human behavior that
you're going to see who's compliant, willing, if it's easy enough to comply. We start there. I see Francine nodding her head. Yes. You know, it's it is really, really hard to force the horse to drink the water, right? So, you have to make it keep it simple, stupid,
right? The simple simple simple, not cost prohibitive. we're losing money to to enforce only to the people who are willing to comply in the first place. Make it simple. See what the threshold of compliances. I would say BTRs we
probably have almost an equally abysmal um cost to, you know, it's not that bad. It might be break even, right? But it's not a net revenue generator, right? So, you know, focusing on something like the Red Speed, which is apparently a net
generator, right? something that that does something like that. So, back in in town council in a workshop setting that have been so successful in our own workshops going over this, this is just a starting point, right? A strategic plan is
another starting point. Can we can we align these things? I just don't think we should all sit down and then just look at each other with no idea what it is we want to kind of what can we, you know, move the the chess pieces around on the board and get something done. That's my point.
I wasn't attacking anybody's cuts. I do want some clarification on is Mr. New flood plan man is he is he just the PT is he the PT person, the consulting person, and the FDA person? Is it all the same person? >> He's doing both. >> He's he's the coach and he's all stuff.
Is he hired as a part-time basis or is that just an hourly thing? That's part of his rate. Sorry. >> He has a professional services contract. He has a 50 $50 an hour professional wage for when he does the >> No, he's a part-time employee,
>> is he? I think you did a contract employee and a consultant. >> He does the cost recovery work at $110 an hour. >> That's the FDA stuff, >> correct? Yes. Okay. >> And he also does the coaching for public
works as the part-time. He's parttime for both. It's 20 hours in total. >> Oh, >> there's an hourly max for him as a consultant. >> Not a max necessary. >> He is not a he's an he's a part-time employee.
Um and he has a differential rate of pay depending on what things he is doing. Um got so for development review and those kind of things, we pay him I think it's $110 an hour. um for ordinary
administrative work. Um it would pay him $50 an hour and and his hours are limited as a part-time employee um to a maximum of around 27 28. But I think the
reality of the situation is and I haven't reviewed any of the bills um is that he's spending uh in the low 20s. Uh, >> I apologize because we originally were hiring him on a contract. I did defer to
Mr. Coats to do it in the cleanest, safest, most legal way. So, I apologize for my error. >> As a part-time employee, there are no better. That's fine. >> Are we talking to >> multiple people, one person wearing multiple hats and
hat Jeff, were you just answering my question that no benefits apply? >> No benefits. So it's strictly a salaried basis. It's it's yeah it's yeah sorry not salared but a >> hourly compensation is his
>> monetary compensation there's nothing else >> and there's a there's a recovery mechanism for a good bit of it >> good bit of >> well so I I still stand by that we charged the manager with doing something she's given
us a report if we have questions on the report that we should individually ask her for that but she's given she's answered our request asked that we show a 5% reduction and put that into contingency. Um, what I would rather see us do, and I also concur with Todd, that
we don't want to have too many things scheduled to talk about because we don't want it to be a 10-hour meeting. Um, so I would suggest that what we put on the agenda is the first quarter reports and that we go
over the first quarter reports and talk about the spending and what's spending what's been done in those first quarter reports where it's looks like overspending, where it looks like under spending. Um, and that by virtue of doing that, we may delve into some of this anyhow. And so that would be my
proposal. >> That's fine. It's unfortunate Mr. Buckley won't have anything back to us by then because it would be interesting to see what his projections will be um given his expertise. So >> you talking about projections of recovery basis like
>> just projections of the cost to there's administrative costs that will not be recovered as as Mr. K point we're starting with with a no payback situation before we get into any kind of a payback >> situation. It kind of goes like to FEMA money, >> but I think well I think but his his his
his if I remember correctly, please correct me if I'm wrong, but his his deal is not to exceed 25K. >> That is correct. >> Until and then after >> talking about the cost of the gentleman doing his job. I'm talking about the
cost >> of what he is projecting it's going to run. Right. >> Well, it's a good thing you're asking for that because I don't think that would have came with that information. I guess is my point. I don't think it's going to I don't think you're going to get in February, you're going to get a report saying it's going to cost you
$15,000 to go after this. >> I understand that, too. But if we're looking at, hey, you're probably going to need another code enforcement person full-time. Hey, you're going to be looking at, you know, four magistrate hearings to get to X, right? this this process is historically taken this to me
when we hire an expert that's what we should be getting back not some vague you know it's I spent my $25,000 and oh by the way here's a report I made for you >> well and that's why I thought we should start with six and not comprehensive
>> I I'd rather know the whole enchilada upfront right so let's see it but I have no problem with what you're proposing okay >> and I think f would love to hear all that. >> Yeah. So, we'll get we'll all get well in advance the first quarter financials
>> as soon as we get them from Mr. Delena. We will send them right out. >> Okay. So, can we make sure that Mr. Delena recognizes the urgency of getting them to not not not a vague as soon as but that they get to >> he understands I personally contacted him today.
>> Okay. Because this meeting is scheduled for the 26th of January. It is now the 6th of January. Some of us are more comfortable with numbers than other people. I'm sure that the people in fact are very comfortable with numbers, but not everybody on council is. So, I would like us to have at least 10 days.
>> Clarification, this cash dispersement, this is not the first quarter of 26 that was handed to us. >> No, that's not what I'm asking for. I'm asking for a complete first quarter report that shows >> accounts funds and everything funds. It also shows what we spent last year, what
were the first quarter, what percentages are used. That is not the report that I want to see. Francine, you know what report I want to see? Okay. Because that how much was Alex? >> Got it. I understand. But is this not the first quarter? >> Yes, it is what we spent. >> But that's just expenses. Yeah.
>> It's a very slim narrow view of what a very slim narrow view of what we're asking for. Okay. >> All right. On to number 11. Um, who is this? Is this you, Valerie?
>> Number 11 is a housekeeping item. This item was on the December 2nd agenda originally as a a preview of what was going to be on tonight's meeting. Since we didn't get to it on the 2nd, it carried over to the 16th,
>> and we didn't get to it that night, so it carried over to tonight. We didn't change any of the wording on it. That's why you got a supplemental page tonight at your desk to update this to show you what is on this agenda and what was
deferred to the February or March agenda due to um the competing um priorities and um timing to get January 6 to review. staff. Um
hopefully that updated memo is the clarity that we needed for the carry forward items from December 2nd and 16th and the deferred items to February and March. >> I'm sorry, Francine, can you clarify
town council rules and procedures rewrite um per October 4th direction? Um I can't actually do that right this >> because I don't remember what they were either >> that um November the first meeting in November we had an agenda item
subsequent to the council's first workshop and there's about a paragraph or so of some changes that you discussed you wanted to do to council protocol. Um I can get up at some point when you're on another item and get it off my desk
because it's on my desk. No, no problem. That that reference I can go back to that. >> Hi. >> One of them was I didn't like the fact that Phyllis was removed from the deis during a meeting and I thought that should be removed. >> Right. Do you remember that incident? And and that was one of the things that we talked about remotely. And then the
second thing was where each council member could have their own agenda items put on the agenda. >> Okay. >> Those were the two things that we were discussing. >> Okay. You don't have to go to your office. >> Good. Awesome. Thanks. >> Thank you so much. I appreciate that. I'm sorry I forgot it. >> Okay. So, this is more just an
informative >> this is where we're at thing. Okay. >> Right. This is what we were doing to let you know what was coming at the future agendas. I stopped doing that because we're adding stuff in every agenda. Um, and so in order to accommodate those
items, we're pushing off some other items. >> When will that policy change come back to us for the two items I just discussed? >> It's up to Jeff. >> We're anticipating that it'll be on your uh February meeting. Okay. >> Okay. We are on to number 12, which means we need to open a public he
hearing. Jeff, I assume this is you. We're opening a public hearing. >> We need to read the ordinance uh title. I don't know whether you do it or >> consideration of approval on ordinance number 202521 on second reading. An
ordinance of the town council of the town of Lahachchi Groves, Florida relating to plat review processes. Amending part five development review procedures and requirements of the unified land development code of the town of Lockxahhatchee groves Florida by amending article 115 public hearing
notices section 115-010 table of public hearing notice requirements to delete reference to plat amending article 120 quasi judicial hearings section 120-115 quasi judicial matters to delete reference to plat
amending article 140 subdivision of Land division 1 platting to provide for administrative review and approval of plots in accordance with section 177.071 Florida statutes providing for conflict severability codification and an effective date.
>> Okay. >> Hi. >> Uh public hearing has been scheduled. Uh this is the item that you have seen I think twice before. Um uh there was between first and second reading at the
direction of council uh there was a rewrite of uh section 140-040 on procedure uh to add some reference to the uh Florida state statutes and the
time frames um that exist there in um and make sure that the uh one of the things that has to be reviewed by the administration is that the plat is consistent with the approved site plan.
Um, and there are some site planning changes that are coming forward in a future uh meeting to deal with your plus 20 acre deal. >> Anybody? Lisa, >> uh, I had a couple questions, um, that
constituents had brought forward to me. Um, and I guess I wanted to thank Jeff for including the language that it was pretty extensive that we we asked them to do. Um, do we want to make a motion on this item before we take up discussion?
>> Have a public comment. >> We can still make a motion first and then we can hear. So, let's make >> motion. Motion to approve ordinance 2025-21 >> and a second. >> Second. >> Okay. Uh public comment,
>> Miss Dish. >> Uh basically something I'd like to point out in this section of information that was provided for this ordinance. It references I'm not disagreeing about the plat approval process. I'm bringing something to your attention as I review
all the town's information. Section 155 that is in your documents tonight states that no site plan is required for less than four lots. There's additional things that go with that, but there's a lot of things going on between platting
and development and this is all coming together where I'm finding the errors that are occurring in this town. Thank you. Lastly, >> do we want some clarification on that?
>> I'm not sure I understand the question. the that's that is accurate that if you are talking about residential lots um the town's um code for ever as far as I
know has been uh to allow um up to four lots to be subdivided without the necessity of a a site plan. So you can take your 20 acres and divide it up into four, >> right? But that only applies to 20 acre or larger parcels, right?
Yeah, because you can't go less than five. >> Correct. >> Yeah. Well, you canal. But that means if you have a 10 acre piece, you can divide it into two. >> Two five. >> Yeah. >> But you can't go less than five. >> You cannot. >> So I think >> and if you had
>> even even with a even with a site plan, you can't go less than five. >> Okay. >> On a residential piece. So the administrative policy that we're approving tonight does require a site plan except in those circumstances, right? And it would still
make it an administrative process. The >> the the site plan requirements already exist in your code. What we've talked about is amending the the site plan um to say if you're dealing with a property
that is um more than 20 acres, regardless of the number of lots, you're still going to have to come in for a site plan. Um what this revision does is say that
one of the things that the the administration is required to do is to make sure if there is a site plan that the um the plat uh conforms to that site plan. And as we discussed, with the exception of residential
lots, uh, subdivisions that are less than four, um, everything has a site plan. So, your commercial development does. >> Okay. >> Are you good? >> No. >> So, the questions posed to me were, does
this apply to replplatting or only new platting? >> All platting. >> All platting. >> All platting. replplatting in Dubai. >> And then the question was raised, should the administration process approve a
plat incorrectly, like it doesn't align with the site plan or it uh basically falls below the one and five zoning. Would the town be legally bound to that approval that the
administration had done if it if it broke any rules? I guess does that make sense? >> Yeah. Um, and that's really probably a that depends
question. Um, because it depends on how long uh there was um between the error being discovered and um and whether or not they implemented things
based on uh the plat um you know because they relied on it, there would be issues. But I I don't >> What kind of um reassurances can we have that a mistake like that has some
oversight to prevent it from happening that then the town becomes legally bound to to um I guess recognize that that error in platting. I think we had talked about
that the the if there was a plat that was approved it could come back to the council not for approval but just for notification right and if the five city council members said oh whoa >> oversight >> right >> okay >> otherwise we're not voting on it just forformational purposes and if any five
see a problem with it then we could try to correct it at that point right is that fair to say >> how how do we include that in this process >> because it's not in the language of this ordinance >> right that wasn't wasn't really discussed previously, but what you're looking at,
I think, is a notification that um >> and you could do and you can do that by by resolution or by by practice that whenever there is a plat that's approved, the the town council would be notified.
The reason I'm struggling with uh the question is right now you're in a situation where the folks that monitor the platting and make sure that it is in conformance or something is built in conformance with it is your staff. And
that doesn't mean that the staff's not going to to occasionally or every once in a while make a mistake. Nobody's perfect. But the same reliance that you have now over the situation that okay if
there if the plat was approved by you all then somebody built it not in conformance with the the plat that's the same oversight if you will or the the same people are responsible um for that
um and as I said it really kind of depends on what has occurred in reliance on the uh the plat approval as to whether or not um you could uh reasonably seek an
amendment um there too or say, "Oh, we're going to stop work because it's not in conformance with that." >> The solution might be for them to come in and request a site plan um modification. those it's it's just a
nebulous kind of thing >> in the interest of not burdening council. What if what about having something like that go before PCB? >> Well, what happens if they don't meet for several months and they have a meeting just for that? >> They have meetings just for one thing all the time.
>> That's a lot to have a meeting just for them to see it and go, "Okay." And they're not voting on it. >> Yeah. They they wouldn't be approving it. It's almost like you're you're saying they're >> it's just more eyes on it. Like if the >> How many happen a year? >> How many
>> flats? Um >> yes. You know that would be a lot. >> Yeah. So I don't know why it can't be on the agenda that a plat has happened. They don't have to put backup material or you go in the town office say, "Can you show me this plat?" Okay. And if
there's an issue, you come to the next council meeting and say, "Hey, we got an issue. I looked at this plat. I'm not in agreement with this. >> So, how how >> and what you're doing is you're not just so we understand each other because the administrative the the law requires that there's an administrative approval and
that you guys don't don't get at it. But you're looking at it from an oversight >> and and that the and the the staff the the staff would have to have to explain to you what occurred or didn't occur um as a
result of the concern. So you would have the ability to ask the question and that might alert uh the administrative process to >> Could we make it something Todd like council is alerted and has 30 days to review or something like that as as
individuals >> that like >> well it's going to be approved before we see it. >> I understand but as as a review process right that it's just >> we're satisfied. I don't know >> the law really prevents us from getting
>> real oversight on it. >> Yeah. Getting in the in the middle of it. But if if you want to make sure that the process is happening in an adequate way, you always have that ability to to have oversight of anything from what >> you would have to be at at the very
least alerted that it has happened this five times a year and would be the onus would be on us as individuals to come in and look at it. I think that that's >> I think I think the reality is the majority of the time that we're going to see this happen, this repling of something is going to be during some
kind of >> I hate to use the dword development type of situ developer type of situation whether it be an equestrian development or it be a commercial develop whatever the case may be this repling I mean when we talk about I mean it says no site
plan but a site plan is a survey and a survey is a site plan right so if I have 10 acres and I want split it into five. I'm going to have to provide documentation of where my where my survey is and where I want to put the line, right? I got to prove that this is what I'm doing, right? And where that
where the deed access is going to be for the back five, you know, things like this. So, there's going to be a site plan involved even though it says no site plan. >> Okay? There's going to be a survey involved, right? And it again, it's it's an administrative thing. So, I think I think it's going to pass through a bunch
of hands before it gets to this point anyway. You know, much like other developers. Hey, can I do this? Can I do this? This is our, you know, we're going to see stuff. I mean, I I think a very rare occasion we're we're not going to see something. >> Well, but I I I do think that ultimately
the buck stops here, right? I mean, ultimately we're responsible, the people sitting on this st. So even though I understand it's an administrative process and I in no way, shape or form I'm questioning staff or the the levels of staff to do it, I think something as
simple as whenever there's a repling and we're talking about five times a year adding to the checklist for replatting that one of the steps is as soon as the replatting is approved by administratively that an email goes out to council and and we have
>> inviting review inviting a review. Yeah. >> I mean, I I don't think that's >> I think my suggest the suggestion based on what you're you're talking about is that um we would give notice that a plat
has been approved. Um uh we would send you the copy of the plat and the site plan if there was a a site plan >> or the survey >> and we would make it as a starting off with a receive and file on your next
agenda and so that that would give you all the opportunity to discuss it if there was anything that anybody wanted to to bring up and then you would be able to address it as a body. Um, we would we would hope that in
99% of the time the the it would be a oh yeah, we got that good check off. There's no problems. >> People would hope 100% of the time. What do you mean? >> You know, >> for 100 expecting 100. >> Okay, everybody ready to take a vote?
>> Remember that's 20 years worth. >> Does he need to motion to include that administration? Does he need to does she need to amend the motion to include that administrative policy or not? >> No, because I don't think we're not going to put it into the ordinance per se. That's going to be a procedure that
we will uh adopt. I'll I'll throw it into the um >> policies. >> The policies and procedures. >> So, all in favor? >> I opposed. Passes five to zero. >> Okay, we're on to item number 13. Jeff,
you're the big winner tonight. >> 13 too. No, that one. >> Lucky 13. >> Lucky 13. >> Uh, the council at the the last meeting um had directed me to prepare a um
mutual release and termination agreement. I have a draft of uh it here for your review. I had sent a copy of it uh to Brian Schutz, their um legal
counsel, and I talked to Brian uh this morning. Uh he indicated that he has um not reviewed it with uh command staff um and he's not sure when uh they will
review it. Uh so it is before you for consideration. Uh there has been no movement on um the sheriff's uh the the PBSO uh with respect to any of the
contractual issues as I indicated in the the letter based on um conversations that I had with um Mr. shut and based on newspaper reports and their uh the sheriff's public
statements um it appears that they have ceased the enhanced services within the the community um and that's why uh I thought on your behalf it would make sense that uh they would consider the
mutual release plus the fact that you had directed me to to do that but I think based on their public comments it seemed seems to fit in. That that makes sense. If if they've ceased and and you have not authorized payment, um then
mutually releasing each other uh would be the appropriate thing to do. >> Okay, Todd, I think you were first. >> Yeah. So, PBSO has been easier to work with this time as opposed to when this issue came up quite a few years ago where last time they were saying they're
only going to come out for emergencies and that sort of thing. And I want to quote what PBSO said this time. The residents can be assured that PBSO will continue to provide timely, professional, and uninterrupted law enforcement services as needed. That is a drastically different approach than where we had last time.
>> Where was that statement made? >> This was made to the media in writing from the sheriff's department. So that puts us where they have said that we can expect the same level of service as the unincorporated area, which is what we've been asking for, right? We paid for it in on our taxes
with the county already and we're just asking for that same level of service. You know, I'm proud to sit up here with this council that's had the courage, you know, to do what we've done so far with this contract. Um, we saw the all cash dispersements that came, you know,
supplemental to our thing here. They were the large largest vendor per month cost for this town. And it's a huge cost savings by eliminating this. I don't think we're going to see much if any changes to the community and its safety.
The sheriff's office has guaranteed us that we're going to remain safe here. There's not going to be mayhem and they're dedicated to us. The men and women that work in the field, they're fantastic and they're going to be here for us. Without this contract and um I
I'm pleased to move forward with this. So, they pulled back their services like Jeff mentioned. Um we haven't had it for a month and a half. Everything's been good. As far as I'm aware, I haven't heard any kind of craziness going on. Um, people are saying, "Oh, I can speed on Okobee Boulevard." No, you can't
because they still are going to patrol Okchobee Boulevard and give tickets there. And if you want to you want to risk that and go 100 miles an hour down it, have at it. But they're going to come out here and get you. No different than if you were on Seminal Pratt in the unincorporated areas. So,
this puts it to rest if the sheriff signs off on this mutual agreement to terminate the contract early. I know there's some displeasure about not paying for the contract because we're still in in contract with him and this rests that issue. This puts it to rest
where the contract is over and I'm pleased to proceed forward with it. Paul, >> were there crossing guards present at the elementary school today? Do we know? >> Uh the report that we got was that um
they were going to continue to supply. >> Okay. Oh, that that question was answered because I know >> it was >> up to recently that wasn't answered. >> It was answered based on a conversation that uh uh we we had with um school district. >> Okay.
Um, you know, I I I agree with what Todd's saying. Um, I I still have a concern regarding, you know, contractual requirements and things like that. I I
you know, if if you know, it all depends on if they're willing to sign this mutual termination, you know. So, I think I think we got to kind of hold off on more and see if they're going to sign this mutual termination and then we can make a better decision at that point. Um, I
would say, you know, I would >> you would be approving it tonight. People can sign it off and that's it. Contract's done, right? There is no lawsuits. There isn't anything to worry about in that regard. >> Correct. But, you know, there we we have no indication whether they're they're willing to sign off on it or not.
>> Yeah. You could you could approve it subject to their uh execution as a mutual agreement. >> Well, it hasn't doesn't have effect until he signs it, right? >> Well, that's correct. So, I mean, >> so the idea is to put it back into their court. We've done what we can do by
approving it tonight and now it's back in their court. If they want to agree to it and be done with it, then that's where we're at. >> I don't want to send it to them and say, "Well, if you agree to that, then it comes back to us." We >> This is right. I mean, well, I mean, listen, we can tip for tat back and
forth with with with uh what wasn't. I mean, I think we've held up until now when we've decided we're not going to fund it. And let's get it straight. We're we're we're decid we have better things to spend the money on, right? Projects that are needed within our town. It's not necessarily a fact of of
being bankrupt or anything like that, right? It's a it's a fact that we we've been spending an inordinate amount of money. In addition, our public safety is is handled. >> Absolutely. So, the public safety is handled by our base pay that we already
pay. Just like when you call 911 because you're having a heart attack, fire rescue shows up under their MSTU that hasn't changed in 17 years, right? You know, they they get paid on that base rate. We pay a base rate.
I I would I would I would you know venture to say I haven't crunched any numbers but I would venture to say that the crime rate here has not increased in a substantial amount over the past 17 to 20 years right you know and we're paying more than higher densely populated
communities with higher crime rates right because of why right so I I I think it's it's you know but I do still have a concern for the contractual obligation part of it. But I mean, but again, like I was saying, where I was going was I mean, we could probably
point back and forth and say, "Oh, well, you didn't do this, you didn't do this, whatever." You know, the idea is that we want a mutual agreement here, >> right? >> And and this does this doesn't close the door on any future agreements, right? This contract goes away and I want to have a contract with them moving forward. I want to have some the ability
to have extra services. I want that. So, we can open that door up after this contract is closed. Okay. Do I have a motion in a second? >> What are we discussion? >> Oh, >> may I Sorry.
>> I'm sorry. I thought we were supposed to >> I agree. I thought I heard him say we >> Let me Let me comment. >> Okay. >> So, we have a town attorney. He represents us. We're the client. He has taken this draft to them to get them to
react to >> in any other circumstance. We're not pre as the client signing off on something until we get back what our attorney has provided to the opposing party. >> But they didn't get back to us. >> They haven't gotten back to us. This was dated December 30th.
>> That's a limited time period that they >> Yes. So >> So we send it to them and they might send it back and say we want this line changed. Okay. So then it comes back to us. >> Okay. them. I say we wait >> go until it comes back. There's a legal process here that is now playing out.
>> And what happens if they don't come back for 60 days? Then what do we do? The whole point is to put it back in their lab. >> Mr. Curts, is there a time limit on this in your conversations with their representation? >> There is no time frame on this. >> Okay. Well, >> another meeting in a month. >> There are two whereases that I would like stricken from here. If we want if
we want to look at that before I make the motion, it's on page 458. I I I got you. Thanks. >> Just trying to get there. >> It's not 458. What I got >> 458? >> That's not what I have.
I'm I'm looking at the same print out of what says following his letter. >> It's It's the warehouse. >> The warehouse. Okay. >> The budgetary con. >> Yeah. It's definitely not 458. >> It's 458 in our book. It's it's 447 in
the on the on my agenda that was posted online. >> Okay. Go ahead. So there's the first the whereas that says the budgetary constraints of the zone. I would like that whereas struck and uh whereas PBSO is unwilling to modify the terms in the
agreement. I want that struck also. >> Oh my god. >> Because I don't want to, you know, I don't want to say that like Paul just pointed out, we have budgetary constraints because I don't see it that way and I don't want to say PBSO is unwilling to work with us because I don't see it that way either.
There's no advantage to leaving those two in there. >> Is there any detriment to removing them, Mr. Curts, legally? >> No. Anybody opposed to removing those two warehouses? >> That makes sense. >> That makes perfect sense.
>> So I make a motion to approve the mutual release of termination agreement striking those two um >> sentences that whereas the budgetary constraints of the town and the PE whereas PBSO is willing to unwilling to modify. >> Uh before you vote, I think there was
some public comment. I don't know whether you want to take it or not. >> Well, but he just made a motion first. Do I have a second to his motion? >> Second. >> Okay. Now, do we have any public comment? >> Uh, Miss Miles.
>> Well, she's walking. Let me ask a quick. So, by approving this, we're we're signing it. >> Correct. >> And then if they sign it, then it's done. >> Yeah. I don't >> I agree. And we've made notice, right? We've made notice. It's on them to sign
the agreement, then we sign it. I I tend to agree with Lisa on this. >> It doesn't take effect until both parties sign it. >> I I I get that. But >> so if we if we approve this tonight, he doesn't sign it or he wants something changed, he can change it and it gets
sent back to us. We have to vote on again. He might say, "Okay, I'm willing to cancel the contract." I'm not comfortable, like Lisa's not comfortable of having this contract open. We're supposed to be paying 58,000 a month and we're not. I'm not comfortable with leaving that months and months on end, which is what we're doing
>> this. >> But there's a there's a contractual obligation of so much time frame to to to to notice of the termination of the agreement, which by we we haven't met, >> right? And that's why that's why this is written up in the way it is. It says,
"Forget the original agreement. We're we're willing to cancel." And he has to be willing, >> but you can't backate it. >> Sure. Well, the the termination this termination agreement um one of the provisions in it that says we're waving the notice provisions >> for
it's in >> Miles. >> Sorry, Maryanne. I didn't mean to. >> Okay. Uh good evening, Council. Maryanne Miles. I'm going to go back a little bit in history. I'm not going to go back all the way to 2017. I will do that in a minute. Um, resolution 2000, excuse me,
2023-51, um, was approved by five council members to have the contract renewed. The contract date was 2023 to 2024. The following council members, Laura
Dowski, Robert Shaw, Marge Harzog, myself, Maryanne Miles, and Phyllis vote. Phyllis uh Manilia voted 50 to renew that contract. Now I'm going to go to to resolution 2024-34.
The council members that were on there were Anita Kaine, Marge Herszog, Laura Denowski, Phyllis Manilia, and Robert Shore. That was a 50 vote to renew the contract. There was a
uh memo that came also with that resolution and the memo was from Francine and it was dated June 4th, 2024. And on the bottom of it, it says the chart below shows the changes in prices from October
1st, 2017 to September 30th, 2027, in which you will see the increase of 13.7% over 10 years. Now, why am I saying this? Because the original amount of October 1st, 2017 was
$610,000. The next 2018 was $622,200. 18, 19, and 20, and 21 stayed the same. There was no increase. This town did roads. It did the
sheriff's contract and we had money. Now, you're going to say, "Well, we had the gas tax money." Yeah, we did. But it's up to you guys. We don't have a payout problem. We have accounts receivable problem. Now, I'll get to
that in a minute. on October, excuse me, addendum 6, October 1st, 2023, the price went from 2022 to $640,866
to October the addendum 6, October 21st, 2023 went to $660,92. This is not a bill that just popped up. This is an ongoing expense that when you guys budgeted, you
should have known, not to go say, "I was appalled when I heard I was watching the meeting saying that you guys just wouldn't going to fund it." I need to I indulge to go on just a little bit further so I can explain something.
Addendum 7 took on October 1st, 2024, 2025, and 2026. You guys, two of you approve this. This is a contract. Each item a 1%
for for October 24. October, excuse me, 2024, it added $6,61 to that contract. The next year, 2025, added $13,334 to that contract. 2026 the contract
would be done. 2027 and you guys want to break it. It added another 13,61. I've >> Please wrap it up. >> I will. I've watched raises go out. I've watched adjust every budget adjusted.
You know, um you guys don't see a necessity for the sheriff's contract, but yet you want to break it and get us into a possible lawsuit. Since when does council members that do a contract and see do what they
see fit? Now the other council comes in and breaks that and Margin and Anita, I'm I'm really shocked at you guys for for doing this. Get the money to come in. You talk about Okchobee Boulevard. >> You have money coming in. Do it. Don't
just do what you want to do. Bring the money in. >> Mr. Joseph >> Will Lill. >> Thank you. >> Good evening everyone. Uh Joe Leilanic. >> Um I'm going to keep it simple. Uh, I
know that a lot of my tenants have seen the news reports um and been wondering asking me the same question, which is now that you've done a technical default on your contract with the sheriff's department, can they expect a reasonable
response to any problem they have from the sheriff's department? and do we have evidence of that from the sheriff's office and not some public report in the newspaper so that I can at least go back to them say that no they haven't um completely disart disregarded your your
policing powers uh or your policing for the area but you're doing this as some other mechanism can I get that assurance from either this council or the sheriff's department that they can reasonably accept or expect that somebody's going to respond to issues
that they have and can somebody provide that information to me? >> I I'd just like to address the first comment. I don't think anyone up here um was surprised by the This isn't to Joe's
comment. Um and thank you for being here. Um I I don't think anyone up here was surprised by by the amount in the contract. I know myself personally, and I think we've had conversations before any of us were sitting up here together,
um, since we've been paying this amount, you know, saw it as double taxation, saw it as a as as this exorbitant fee, um, that it was not necessary. We were told for years that it was a requirement.
Nobody was ever, you know, able to provide that information, that we were required to have a police force, things like this. So I you know I I don't think we pardon an enhanced police force. Yeah. So I mean we pay for it in our taxes already.
So I I don't you know and and it was said multiple times throughout this whole scenario and on the record that we were uh going to be provided with the same services that unincorporated has. So I'll finish there. >> Todd, I think you were next.
>> Yeah. So Joe, you have my word. You'll have it by Friday in writing point. The sheriff said they assured us that they will provide the services that we need for this community. >> Lisa, I think you were next. >> Yeah, I I don't know Mr. Mundon how you make that statement. Um, have you gotten
reassurances or has the town attorney because this letter is waiting for that assurance? >> I have seen it in writing from the sher and I will get a copy of it to them and I will provide it to the rest of the council. >> How do you have it in writing? Has the town received it? I don't know why the town hasn't received it. That I can't
tell you. >> But you personally have received it. >> Received it. >> Yes. >> There's been no correspondence directed to the town on the issue. >> So, how do you have it? >> I have it. I got it emailed to me and and I will get it on the letterhead from PBSO.
>> Why didn't you forward it to the town attorney? >> Because I was letting him do his job, which was supposed to be getting it from Brian Shut and they didn't come through. Why they didn't come through, I don't know. March. >> Yeah. Um I I think the significance uh
of this whole issue of um you know the the price going up just goes to show that how many projects that were critical health and safety issues that we
couldn't do because we had to pay the bill to the PBSO. No. No, they are not correct in their assessment of why we're not paying the bill.
>> Thank you, >> Lisa. >> I'd like to speak to that. I had requested that all of the sheriff contracts and addendums be provided to council members, and they were. And if you go back to the original 2007
agreement, it's pretty vague. Um it's just like it looks like we were paying more just for county level service it seemed. Uh and then in the 2012 agreement it bumps up to a 247 zone coverage with no um guarantee of an
officer being in the town which is weird. Uh and then in 2017 that agreement we got our name on a car. We had certain guarantees. We had 247 coverage of an officer in the town outside of exigent circumstances and
that requires the hiring of five individuals as was explained to council. And I can certainly see from a budgeting standpoint that by not paying the contract, the sheriff has to absorb the cost of resources of
five officers that were being paid for by the town's contract. Right. And that's what that contract um by both parties signing it recognizes. So um there seems to have been justification
of the increase in the pricing over the years. Um one could argue how much of that that's worth, but I think that revisionist history is always interesting to hear from the podium or the deis. So just want to clarify that.
So just so Joe Holanic's aware, so 75% of the time from the sheriff department per their report was at B- Road in Southern Boulevard. That's half a million dollars a year we were paying for them to police those two that one intersection. So that's where it came
down to is is it worth us as a community spending $500,000 for those two shopping centers? That's an exorbitant amount of money and they're still covered under the taxes just like the public's is at Orange and Seminal Pratt, right? Same thing. We're still paying the same county taxes. They're going to get that
same level of service, which is what the sheriff has been inviting, which I will get a copy to you by Friday, hopefully tomorrow, but by Friday. So, I don't like having this contract open-ended where we're just not paying every month. I'm not comfortable with that. And this
agreement settles that so long as the sheriff agrees to it. I think he will agree to it because they've already pulled their officers. They told us that they had no problem absorbing those five officers in their, you know, into other areas. They probably have a 100 openings for new officers, right? So, they just
now they only have 95 openings for new officers, right? So, it's not a big deal for them to absorb those five. And they did it. They did it on a moment's notice, right? December 1st, boom, they were gone. So, they have shortages, right? They have staff shortages there.
Their budget is $1.2 billion dollars. So five officers for them, they're not going to go broke. They're not going to be concerned about our 58,000 a month. That means nothing to them, but it means a huge amount to our community. >> Paul, >> I I'd like to see us table this to the I
I I you know, I despise this, but the the half hour before the workshop, I I and let's see what you're you're propos you're you're producing and writing, etc., etc. I >> you think I'm lying to you? >> No. No, Todd. But I mean, tangible stuff
in your hand is is different than, you know, yes, you've been told that you're gonna something's going to be produced to you by Friday. >> But keep it keep in mind the level of service provided by PBSO can change on a moment's notice. >> I agree. >> So, they could have put in writing that they're going to do anything and
tomorrow they could change that. There is no guaranteed level of service anywhere, right? So, we have to take them at their word. They said that they're going to provide the same level of service and we'll take them at their word on that. And like I said, without them signing off on this agreement, then it doesn't doesn't mean anything.
>> Well, and who knows, maybe Mr. Shut will get back to to Jeff by then regarding this letter >> because they've been in such a hurry since four weeks. They've done nothing for four months, right? You know, I I don't know. I think I think you know saying that you know
uh 7 days they've known this was coming for months. >> I I I there's a motion and a second on the table. >> There is a motion and a second on the table. Are we ready for a vote?
>> All in favor? >> I >> oppose. >> Opposed? >> Opposed. Okay. So, it's tabled. Would you like to make another motion, Paul? >> Oh, is this a majority a super majority situation? >> No. >> No, it failed. Two to three.
>> Oh, it failed. >> Um, yeah, I would I would at least like to let's let's table this to our to right before the workshop. And you all know how much I despise adding to the workshop meeting to see see what >> I'm I'm sorry. Um,
it was confusing to us as to who voted with the A's and the A's. >> I B voted for it and voted for it. >> I didn't hear that Anita voted against. Sorry. >> Oh, yeah. I didn't hear that.
>> Against agreeing to sign. >> Yes. Yes. There you go. >> I am not changing my vote on sending it and trying to get the sheriff to do. That's why I'm asking Paul for another >> Yeah. I make a motion that we >> can we give direction that if they've had a response by our workshop that it
be added. >> No, I would like it to be added regardless. >> You want it added regard then we need to >> that way it's on it's it public notice. Yeah. >> Paul, would you like to make >> I'd like to make a motion that we table table item. I'm sorry. I'm I'm on the page of the >> 13
>> 13 to the the workshop meeting. >> That means you have to come early. You do know that. I mean, I told you I hate doing this. You know, I hate extending to the next day. You know, >> what is the date of our special meeting? >> Um, >> 26th or something like that.
>> Are we are we doing in areas is that going to be our special meeting for this >> this go around? >> It would be the >> it's supposed to be the 20th, which is the day after uh Martin Luther King. >> It's the 20th. No, >> that's our special meeting. And then,
>> right, your joint meeting is the 26th. 26th. >> 26th, >> right? And then your regular workshop meeting is the 20th. >> Yeah. >> So, we're starting the workshop meeting then on the 20th. Everybody's agreeing at 5:30. And this at this point, this is
the only item on that agenda. >> Okay. >> To remain the only item on the agenda. >> Okay. >> Uh I have a motion. I have a second. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Okay. That passes five to zero. All right. We're on to item number 14. in
our first discussion of the solid waste and recycling collection services contract that um expires at the end of October. Is it at the end of September? >> End of September. >> Okay. 1st of October. >> So, we're keeping our promise to talk
about things in advance. >> Um >> we just did a quick outline of some of the options. um Solid Waste Authority um does a two-step process. They issued um an RFQ. They received it before the
holidays. I believe that they pre-qualified today. Um there are changes in the service areas. We used to be service area 2. We're now service area 3. I believe next week they open up
the pricing. Um I believe FCC and Coastal were considered the qualified vendors or haulers for district or area three. Uh but we don't know the pricing. So one option for the town is an option
that we looked at seven years ago which is to piggyback off the solid waste authority contract. I do not know how the solid waste authority is going to award the bid because they have a 6 cubic yard and a 12 cubic yard
vegetation pricing. They do price by line item. However, they do award the total contract and they do a contract with a price list for commercial and the
recycling, the vegetation and the garbage are considered one other award. Um that pricing is what we do the assessment for. Um our assessment has been
almost the amount of the contract. we subsidize the difference with the franchise fee that we get off the commercial. um section or district three is now I think the largest area in the unincorporated
service area and therefore we can expect those prices obviously to be a little bit lower than what we would get on our own because obviously there's the the the volume discount if you will. Um, so
that's one option, but we can't really tell you anything about that because they haven't actually opened the pricing. So, >> now we missed the boat on that. The previous council missed the boat on that seven years ago, right? Because they they Yes, I know. I was just bringing
that to light. Um, yeah, they they missed the boat on that one and it was marketkedly less than than we >> It's about $200 less a year. I think it was 248 or 247 per game >> per per container. >> per container. Yeah. So, it was
marketkedly different like 50% different. Okay. So, we're going to make sure that we stay on top of that and jump and jump on looking at that when it comes in. Correct. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> We are. >> All right. In the meantime, do we put
out I mean, do we >> Well, in the meantime, we have other options. >> Correct. There have been discussions over the years during our coastal contract and Mr. Kasa Grande and his um compatriate
Bella are here this evening um so we can talk about that particular contract and some of the different things we've talked about over the years. One thing that was brought up was to move to community recycling and to take recycling out of the collection process.
Mr. Cross Grande, I am going to ask you to give info that I don't always have right at my fingertips. Um, we also talked about switching to one time a week collection. We also talked about
trying to do a separate um, franchise for the vegetation and livestock waste. So, we have talked about a lot of things over the years and um, Coastal and Mr. Kasa Grande have been very amendable to
looking at those changes. So the other option is that um we can consider renewal with some or all of the contract with them. Um I >> but we're less than likely to be able to do that with S SWA. With S SWA it's take
it take it as it is. Correct. >> Pretty pretty much which is again why Mr. Pastor Grande is here because he proposed on that um solicitation and can answer a lot of details about it if you do have them about that solicitation.
Um the other path is that we can do our own solicitation and break it up into um the garbage collection once or twice a week, however you all decide. For those of you that were on council when we did
this the first time, we came up with a matrix of alternative proposals. We had an outside selection committee composed of um local peers plus um I think it was
seven, five or seven members of the town um and they actually did the review of the the the um proposals. So >> right and then they did that and then >> council didn't select what what would be what we proposed. >> The council did actually sit again uh as
the selection committee and did two or three more negotiations. So Mr. Kus Grand is here if you have any questions for him. But I laid out those options. That doesn't mean those are the only options. We >> those are certainly ones we'd like to
see numbers on because not only do they have the potential of reducing costs, but they also have the potential of reducing wear and tear on our roads if we went from one collections a week to one collection a week. And if we stopped the recycling truck from running all the way through town and just going to a
couple of collection centers, both of those things would have actually larger impacts as far as reducing cost to the town. But anyhow, I'm sorry. Lisa, do you have a question or do you want to let him give his spiel or >> Oh, he's given a spiel and then we can ask him a question. >> I think that sounds like a great idea.
>> All right. >> Can I Should I leave it on? >> You retract your can leave it on. You could leave it on. >> Good evening, mayor, vice mayor, council members. John Cagground, Coastal Waste and Recycling. Again, Bella Martinez,
the mun municipal marketing director for Palm Beach County. Um there's a lot going on obviously. Uh first of all I want to thank you all for uh seven years of uh service uh with us allowing us to give you the service. The uh Coastal's
been around for seven years and Laka Hatchee uh was our first contract and you never forget your first. So uh so >> let's leave that one there. Okay. So, so anyway, um there's a lot as uh as the manager has said, seller waste authority
opened up the qualifications today. Uh four there were six companies that participated for qualified. Uh the zones are uh different and the zone that the town sits in is uh zone 3 has 83,000 homes. So, there's absolutely no doubt
about it. the price that that you will see for uh your zone if you will looking to piggy back as you said mayor uh the town missed the vote the last time but it will definitely be cheap I believe your price right now as of January 1st is $39.70
per per month per home so uh you'll have that option now that option is uh what you know it's uh not one from column A one from column B it is twice a week garbage once a week recycling once a week yard waste once a week bulk and uh bulk uh options were given uh a price
for six yards and a price for 12 yards. And that's what it'll be. That's that's the that's the cookie cutter, if you will, for a lack of a better uh model, but that's what the solid waste uh has offered uh to its its unincorporated residents as well as any municipality wants to piggy back on there. Uh as far
as staying with us, we provide uh the same service. We also give Wednesday and Friday extra bulk uh with the uh clam shell truck. So there are things that we have done and the things that we can also do to your point Mary we can customize it to once a week. We can do uh community recycling which we've
talked about a lot uh in the past. So there's a lot of things we can do uh but you have the option and u the pricing uh is set to be opened on the 16th I'm sorry the 14th. And then as far as organics you've heard the manager talk about organics. There's another RFP that
was that is going to be evaluated on the 16th for a piece of property off of Bonoite Farms Road that was about 4 acres that the solid waste authority wanted uh to see uh what uh they can get for it and in usage to produce uh or
handle the uh livestock waste as long as with the biomass. We coastal has the contract to uh recycle, if you will, the about 150,000 tons a year of yard waste produced by the Palm Beach County uh solid waste authority. So, they were
looking to, you know, they're looking for someone to try to help the uh the livestock waste situation here in Palm Beach County with that RFP. And again, that evaluation's on the 16th. So, you have a lot going on that you you'll be able to pick and choose something if you
if uh you know if uh alerting you want to want to take your services for the town. That's it. That's my spiel. >> Okay. Go. Lisa, >> I had previously asked a council member prior to me returning to the deis.
What is the difference in tonnage of um residential waste? So household waste um for uh season because we're really affected seasonally for a lot of properties versus offseason. Is there a significant tonnage difference of
seasonal household waste garbage versus So what would that be like November through April? November through April >> as far as uh what we produce in our in our homes in our kitchens doesn't fluctuate that much. We I mean >> we met what our town produces. Do you know the numbers? probably not off the
top of your head, but it would be something we'd want to know. >> Sure. >> with whether it's suddenly your trucks are below halfway through their route instead of all the way through their route November through April particularly. >> And I know for myself um I don't really
I might put my can out once every three weeks in the summer when my barn is empty. And boy, when that barn is full, I have to put it out those two days a week or I'm begging my neighbor to throw a bag in her can. So, >> we could get you the tons. Absolutely.
>> I would be curious as to >> And would you like them broken out by by by recycling and uh vegetation bulk and and garbage >> and and the manager indicated you might be able to speak a little bit to a bulk recycling center or putting a couple of
recycling centers in town. I understand there's a a cost associated with doing it, but what it would save on the wear and tear on the roads that you have to set up to have to have a designated recycling center. Do you have to have it standards? I mean, can you explain that
a little bit more to us? >> Well, we talked about having it over your public works department where it's fenced in. It has to be fenced in and and manned because it becomes a a public dumping site. And you can have that there uh open select your own hours, select how your your own days, and the
residents can bring their recycling there. And we'd have uh uh dumpsters uh for cardboard dumpsters for your uh you know your your cans and bottles and things like that and your glass. We can take glass out of it. Glass is still not a commodity that uh really isn't uh
recycling uh recyclable. Uh it's uh it goes for beneficiary use but I mean some cities have already taken it out of their their waist stream. But we can customize that. But again it'll be located at a place that needs to be fenced in and manned and have hours. be a significant reduction.
>> Without a doubt. We without without a doubt. Without a doubt. >> Sorry, Todd. You had a question. >> I mean, I'm conf I've heard that before that. >> Go ahead. Go ahead. I've been sitting over your patient. >> I'm sorry. I didn't go. That's why I
moved it. Go ahead. Go ahead. that that that the community site would need to be banned and closed gates and all that when we already have a community site at the fire station for cardboard and I don't see any craziness going on there. >> Oh, I don't know. I >> there's one there's one there for cardboard now. I don't see any.
>> But that's through S SWA though. >> I know. But my point is that the fear is that people are just going to throw couches and refrigerators and all kind of stuff and and junk the place up, right? That's that's what he's saying that it needs to be monitored to make sure it doesn't happen. But it doesn't happen now at the fire station.
>> I would say I'm sorry to jump on you your your clock down there. Um, so I had a little house up in Connecticut. Community was about the same population as this town. They had you in your taxes. You had a sticker that they sent you for your car and you got to go in
and it had the individual. It had a recycling. It even had a little shed that was like you could bring three items and take three items. was sort of a low local, you know, but it was manned. And um if you wanted a can in front of your house, you contracted with
other local providers for that weekly can pickup. >> So, I mean, that's a pretty massive, you know, recycling transfer station, I guess, technically what it really is. >> But, um, it worked great. And, um, but
they you had to have that sticker on your car, boy. You weren't getting in there >> for recycle, >> for all of it. You take your household waste, you take your paint, you could take it's basically what they have over there behind Walmart, except it was a small local, >> right? You take all the non trash related items. You >> wanted can pickup. You contracted
privately with a provider to put a can in front of your house. >> But if you go to solid waste, you can take all that stuff there. Now, >> I understand. But the town did that. It's obviously not this state, but anyway, it it >> right. We everybody here is not going to throw the recyclables in the in their
car and drive to Fairgrounds Road. I mean, >> um and look, listen, when I when I was a kid, we used to we used to burn our trash. So, um but that's a whole another ball of wax. Um, so you're talking about the the proposed site on Bono Farms Road
or Pike or whichever it was for for uh farm waste, right? >> Yes. >> Biomass, right? >> So, would other haulers be able to dump at that site? Is it going to be a county site or just your site? >> Um, it'll be well, not just my site.
We're one of the where one of the uh responders. >> That's what I was clarifying. So, so Jimmy's poop hauling could dump at that site just like you would take your construction debris to to Jog Road, right? >> Yep.
>> Okay. Um, also, um, and correct me if this is wrong, but um, currently, doesn't the recycling go to the same facility that the trash goes to? >> No. >> Is is recycling sorted from trash currently? Because I mean I I know that
there's folks that have seen the trash truck go ahead and dump the recycling bin in the trash truck on the trash day. So it I >> It could happen. I'm not I was trying to be ambiguous, but I'm one
>> Hey, listen. Yo. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Driver behavior, but bottom line is totally different facility, totally different building, totally different truck. The stuff the garbage that's in your 96 gallon cart goes to be burned for electricity and the stuff in in your
in your bins goes to uh goes to the um material recovery facility uh a totally different location >> and is separated. >> Okay, cool. Thanks. And last question. So if we did do the standalone recycling facility, would we need to have hazardous material removal uh disposal
sections as well? Cuz now we're talking talking about larger area that we need footprint that we need, right? >> No, but not hazardous waste, >> dust, cardboard, plastic. >> Yep. >> Okay. Thank you. >> May I make a comment? >> I I have one more. Can I ask my one more question or
my question is a significant portion of what people pay per month now is for vegetative debris removal. That's a significant portion of our of the monthly charge that you have. It's it's I believe 24 or $27 of what they're of what people are paying a month.
>> Correct. >> Is it possible? And yet there are some people like myself who never put out vegetative debris. I have I have five acres and I burn um when I need to get rid of my vegetative debris. Um, in addition, one
of the biggest transgressors in our town is the nurseries and landscaping companies that aren't allowed but that do exist who not only put out their own vegetative debris by the road, but also put out what they
bring in from other neighborhoods. So, in effect, people like me are paying for them to haul debris off of other people's places and paying for the people who use it. So, is it possible to
have vegetative debris for your company to give us a contract to have vegetative debris and potentially even manure removed on an alle cart basis? In other words, I and Kain subscribe to you
hauling my manure and drag the cans down to the road once a week or twice a week or whatever we agree on to do that. But but Todd, I'm just making this up everybody, but Todd, who likes to put his vegetative debris and his manure
out, subscribes to both of those. And Lisa, who doesn't like to do any of that, doesn't subscribe to any of them. So therefore, she doesn't pay a cost for it. Is it possible to do it all cart like that? >> There is alart there is alocart service uh for garbage. It's called subscription
a subscription service. You sign up for what you you >> I'm not talking about for the garbage. I'm talking about. Yeah, >> it would be it's difficult in this town to do that because >> you see the over these seven years we've seen a lot of the vegetative waste from those uh landscapers and from the other
people who are dumping it who and when it doesn't belong to a resident who picks it up that >> you you guys do but I pay for it. I mean that's really effectively what's happening. I'm paying the cost of you picking up their debris. I get it that you do. And that's why I'm saying if you
had, you know, out of the 1,200 residences we have, if you had a list of, you know, 900 that are the ones you stop at, you don't stop at the other ones and pick up the vegetative debris and then they get cited by our code officers for leaving
the debris out there. Right now, you just pick it up all through town. So, I'm just asking, is it possible? But then I don't pay for it. Okay. But then I'm not paying for it because I'm not using it. But then I can't have it, right? Or I can call you and then start subscribing to it. And then not everybody has horses. Not everybody's
going to want poop. I'm just thinking if we had one hauler, wouldn't that be great? I'm just throwing out ideas, guys. So don't anybody cut my head off. Okay. Um I'm just thinking if we had, you know, but Lisa and I need pooping, but Marge doesn't need it. And well, Paul might need it, but Todd doesn't
need it. So why should they pay for it? So, is is it possible to do something like that to have like an alle cart proposal for services like that? >> Absolutely. >> Okay. All right. Just a thought. >> Okay. Um I don't know who was first, Todd or Lisa. Do you want to put each other? >> I'm concerned that we would even
consider an exclusive franchise agreement for manure hauling. >> I I'm just throwing it out there. >> No, I I would really be concerned about that. Um, only because I I personally use GIT because it works for my setup.
>> Um, but my barn renter for season, she just found a new hauler that is significantly cheaper than the 20-yard dumpster she was using before. So, >> but I don't know that I'm saying you have to use them. I'm just saying that they offer that as a service. >> But currently, their dumpster rental is
exclusive for certain streams. So I see a hand over there. You need a light. >> I just need a light I to this particular topic. Um that is one of my questions as
well because we would do that in the solicitation with a price list, right? >> Yeah. >> That's how we would do it. We would have to put out a price list whether it's exclusive or non-exclusive franchise. We would put out they would bid a price
list for subscriptions. >> It doesn't have to be an exclusive subscription service. >> I mean, I think that's how you would >> I don't believe I I understand what you're saying because for the dumpsters it is exclusive, but we don't have to agree to that part being exclusive, but it's just something I'm asking >> you offer that part and then you could
decide if you want to stay with GI or if you want to >> well, similar to construction. >> Not there's nothing stopping them from offering manure pickup already, right? They they could already be offering manure dumpsters in the town. >> Coastal. >> We can. >> Yeah.
>> Yes, they can. >> That's that's certainly their option to offer service to the uh >> to the livestock needs. >> Yeah, they do pick up. >> But it also doesn't need to be. See, but like you need a dumpster because you have >> 400 horses. A lot of horses in your I
need a dumpster. I fill up one maybe two pins a week depending on the time of year and how much time they're spending inside and outside. So I don't need that. I just need the little trash can. So that's what I'm looking for is for me to be able to subscribe to >> I guess my question is why would we as a
council consider that when they can already offer that to the the population that is >> asking him to offer it? >> He does offer you offer manure hauling already in the town. >> Correct. >> Oh. I wasn't aware of that. So
>> which is not part which is not part of the app. >> No, of course not. >> Right. >> It's a part it's part of this is why I jumped in with my hand raised. It's part of the price list for commercial collection. But I believe our community is unique enough that we should have
subscription service for the different collection. But I don't know. I mean, should we have a farm service or, you know, a biomass franchise? >> I think these are all their questions.
>> But she's saying as a franchise, not fine. Not an exclusive franchise. >> No, it's not exclusive. >> Nobody follows that anyway, >> right? There's plenty of construction dumpsters and construction debris coming in and out here that's not that don't belong to this gentleman. And we clearly
have a exclusive should the contract calls for exclusive >> I followed the rules >> but >> you know I did >> it doesn't enforcement >> won't go down that path but the the exclusivity calls for the CND dumpsters to be
>> right correct my my point was is is it's there and whatever but I I don't yeah they're I didn't weren't aware you were hauling manure either but you Sorry Todd you had your light on >> you you only do dumpsters or do you just do the trash cans or do you do both? both. >> Okay. Well, how come I don't know about
this? I I can't be the only I'm the freaking How like how come I've never seen a price list for this? How come I've never >> as commercial? That's what I'm saying. It's not a service that is um tailored to our community. It's done as
commercial service is. >> Yeah. I mean, it's it's part if you the contract calls for residential and commercial and construction dumpsters. That's what it calls for. Well, I'll >> I'm just saying I think it needs to awareness needs to be raised. We need people need to know their options. That's all I'm saying.
>> You also have the overhead cans for commercial use as well, right? Within the town. Yes. Right. Yeah. >> Yes. >> So, there's there's lots of options. >> And the town gets a franchise fee from that charge. >> Okay. Todd, >> to to go back to the vegetation, you almost have all the cart now because I
don't Are we allowed three yards or six yards? Six yards. >> Six. Six. But if somebody puts out 12, they would pay the additional six yards for you to pick it up now. Right. >> Correct. >> So it's kind of all the card already. It's just you don't pay for the first six yards, right? >> But there's communal >> the subsidized vegetation waste. >> I don't either. I don't communal spots.
Right. So So to your point, if if you wanted to do the allocart thing, so say there's a communal spot, that means even if this guy on the say there's five people on the road, two of the people burn their their their trash and the other three. So now f two people that are burning their trash are going to
have to pay for the other three that don't burn their trash because it's a communal spot. >> Well, I don't know. You have to see how that play I'm >> just devil's out. >> All I'm saying right now is we got four months to look into options. Make sure we look at let's make sure we look at
all the options and be creative and try to figure out a way to reduce this cost. If we can reduce everybody's crash trash costs by 50%. Those of us who are already paying for manure hauling are already paying it one way or the other, you know, and just that know what our
options are, right? Um and and and try to take the the burden of the vegetative debris, like I said, is it's 50%. It's almost 50% of everybody's cost for >> probably 90% is not from regular people like this. And and while previous council missed the boat on that thing,
Francine can probably remind everybody that there was a lot of complaining at the county level of the service that year when they started. >> I remember that >> it was bad >> gotten phone calls about how wonderful coastal service is, particularly your
vegetative service, by the way, and how keeping that keeping that vegetative service. Well, I mean, I have gotten actually a number of bug balls that for the people who are getting more for bang for their buck too. >> Yeah, that's that's the >> they were not landscaping companies.
They were actually one of them was actually a person that was extremely concerned about preserving the tree canopy and said that you know having a service that actually picked up regularly and did a good job about the picking up and everything. encouraged them to do the work and keep their place
and that and that's you know keep their place cleared out taking care of their trees you know to preserve them and everything and that they felt that that uh a disruption of that service would uh possibly be a disruption of people caring about the tree canopy and taking
care of it. So, um, you know, I just want I just want us to look at have all the pieces on the table and not have to make a major decision that you have in the past. That's why we're here. >> No, exactly. >> Ahead of time, >> Madam Mayor, >> may comment. >> I'm so sorry. I totally blew you away.
>> So, my comment was towards the central recycling area. Who's maning it? Is it the town or are they manning it? So if we're manning it, that means we're more employees >> talking to man. >> And then do you have to be a trained
faced person who's paying for the training? Are we building the facility? >> So more questions to throw in. >> I mean, we have to build a facility, concrete, everything, a whole containment area. >> So that's more to add if we do a central. >> Well, that's And do we have enough room to
>> That's what I'm saying. If if we're talked about doing a central recycling area, >> I'm not sure we need to go to that extent. I just want to throw that out there because that's we would have to man it. We would have to pay for it. >> $40,000 to build some special thing. I mean, I'm just throwing out it's
something that has to be looked into. Let's say it cost 40,000. I wager to say not having a recycling truck running up and down the roads saves us a significant amount of money and wear and tear on our roads every year and over the long haul it might be worth it financially. I It's just something to look at.
>> Why does throw that out there? because that is something that was brought up to me by waste management, one of their representatives. >> Why does the fire department offer cardboard, >> right? I I don't see >> why can't they offer plastic too? >> But I think it's a it's a it's a county facility and it's a county dumpster.
>> It's wa >> county taxes to solid waste. >> Could they put a plastic one over there too? >> It's that simple. >> It's that simple. >> Making a big >> I don't recycle by the way. >> A lot of time with one behind it place, right? Who knows? You might say, "Yeah, this will bring customers to my place
that are going to recycle and they go in and buy something from Publix." He might be good with it. We don't know until we start asking these people. Red Bar might be good with it. Who knows, right? >> We got we got four months. >> Yeah. And I brought this up like four months ago and >> so these are the kind of things we we
need to look into all of that. >> Correct. >> And it may not need to be manned. I mean that may there's I mean it may only need need to be manned if it's >> anytime somebody brings something in you have to have somebody man there to make sure they're not dumping stuff in. >> That's not happening at the fire station with the cardboard. >> But that's but that's the cardboard over
there. So >> we did put together one option for doing it. >> Yeah, I understand that. I just threw that option out there. >> Bring it back. That's part of the options that we're going to take a look at. >> And >> I mean we have room over here potentially. We would build something over here. You guys are you guys clear
on the side or 247 >> times right on all the things we want to look at. Is there anything anybody else wants to add to be looked into? Covered all the bases. I do want to just say um appreciate the early thoughts on it. Um
I just want to confirm the pathway to put something together with Coastal is still >> 100%. >> Yes, absolutely. But listen, we have you have four you real I mean the contract isn't over to se September 30th. We're not go obviously we'll be here servicing. We have continue having these
conversations. You'll be able to have the uh uh decision. You'll be able to make that decision or have that, you know, uh the one decision to go with the solid waste authority when you see the pricing pricing next week and then you'll be able to have plenty of time to talk about what we want to do, what we
want to customize. Um again like I said whether it's recycle drop off recycle which this council was very very close to getting a couple years ago the solid waste authority came in did a full court press and you know convince council not to go that way. So um it's not the first time we we've talked about it. It it's
very we we're ready to work it out. We have the plan already in place for for the recycling piece for the veg piece. Um we can do it. So you have you don't have till four months. You have till September 30th. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. >> Thank you. Are you ready for public comment? >> Happy New Year.
>> Oh, did we have any public comment on this, >> Miss McNicholas? >> I'm sorry. Before you leave, can you just stay one minute in case something you have to address? Did you call me? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Yep. You have public comment. >> Good evening, council. Mary McNicholas,
12845 Raymond Drive. I just want to mention having being one of the people that pick up the trash off the roads, it's all either cigarette butts or plastics. Totally. The next thing is we're supposed to be the town that's
writing grants and trying to get trees and promoting the tree canopy and all of this. There's people that live on nonconforming lots, legal non-conforming lots that can't burn. Okay? If anybody's been on my street, you'll notice that at
least half the street, a lot of people have put taken trees down a lot lately, but and I'm not going to say that they're taking equestrian waste out, too. I'm just saying that in essence, we're supposed to be protecting the tree canopy. Everything that we says that we
say, our charter, our, you know, legacy tree thing, it cost us a lot of money to maintain trees. I'm just saying we can't burn it on those lots. It's too close to our neighbors. I mean, they're twoacre lots.
We can't burn it. So, bottom line is is that Coastal I mean, I happened to know this gentleman for a long time. But even if I didn't know that, this company has done a phenomenal job. You guys changed it from the hand pickup everything for vegetation. I mean, all I've heard is
vegetation because, you know, we've had these conversations with a lot of bottom line is that now there's a little bit of a problem with erosion on the banks. I'll get with you on that. But bottom line is it's phenomenal. Why are we
changing anything that's not broken? I understand y'all. If we can reduce cost, if you know, we can reduce cost and maybe, you know, shift things around because they're great. But this is one thing that's working for it at least at the live stream and there's a lot of us
on there who don't have the large lots like you all do you know go ahead and bird honestly it's really working very very well. Thank you. >> Okay on to item number 15. Who is this? Jeff again.
>> Jeff again. >> Jeff again. >> Item uh item 15. This is the sheltering palms foundation request and I think um Tony Flame is on the on the line. He's
their representative. You'll you'll recall that this is the property in which um these folks uh sheltering palms foreclosed on uh a mortgage that they
had on the on the property. When they foreclosed on the property, uh it became apparent that there had been a conservation easement at one point in time on the property. that that 2acre
portion had been denuted by the prior owners. Um, and in addition, there was an adjacent piece of property that w had been owned by the property the the previous owners of this property.
um 1300 uhd is the property on which there were some code violations that go back to the 2018 2019 time frame. Uh there's an outstanding lean with respect to
that case. It is in the neighborhood of $250,000 um at this point in time because uh the property owners owned both pieces of property that lean attached to this
property as well. Um and so they have come to us. They had previously come to us with respect to the conservation easement. Um and asked the council to consider whether or not they would um allow for
release of the easement upon payment of uh monies. They had previously offered $150,000. The council had two issues at that point in time or since then. Number one, what
was the appraised value of the the property? Um, we have gotten an appraisal. Um, the property owner has gotten an appraisal. Those appraisals are uh pretty close. Um the appraisal
that they uh they got was for $2.1 million on the entire um 20 acres. The appraisal that the town got was $196,000
for the 2.12 conservation easement uh 2.12 acre conservation easement. Um, and the property owner is now offering the town $200,000 for the
release of the the lean. And I should say leans um because they would also like the um the partial release of the the lean that's really associated with 1300D
uh to be released as well. Um, tenatively the way I've broken that down would be $196,000 for the uh release of the conservation easement and $4,000 um towards the
uh code enforcement lean. The code enforcement lean is the uh subject of foreclosure discussions um that'll be coming before the special magistrate um uh at the February meeting relating
to the actual offending property 1300D. Um so that's the that's the situation on this property. The council had also uh requested um well what's going on with other
similarly situated um conservation easements that the the town has. Um we previously reported on those item 16 is somewhat of an update on um those parcels. I think there is I think the
number is uh 13 um parcels that are conservation easements. Uh three of them I believe are in a denuted state and um I stand to be corrected by Karen um if I'm
incorrect in in those numbers but that that report has been before you and is the update is before you. So the question with respect to to this item um is whether or not the council will
consider uh the payment of $200,000 for the release of the conservation easement and the partial release of um the uh uh code enforcement lean as it
affects this property. the um the issue. If you decide to um go forward, we would bring back the uh
formal releases um and necessary documentation to your February meeting and they are prepared to make that payment. >> Hey Paul, you've got a light on. Yeah, just just to confirm the $4,000 is is
just to release this portion this property because from the obligation with 1300D, correct? It doesn't by no means affect 13. It it reduces 1300D's bill by $4,000 and that's it. Correct. >> Correct.
>> Right. But then increases the amount that they were willing to give for the conservation by about 4546,000. Right. >> Yes. They're willing to to pay our appraised value on the conservation ement. >> Thank you. Just want to refresh my memory. Thank you.
>> Yeah. >> Anybody else have any questions? >> We're considering 15 and 16 together, right? >> They're two separate items. Really? >> I understand. we talked earlier >> they are they're related you know in that that part of
>> I think that one of the things that I had said last time and I think everybody agreed with is whatever we do here why we want to be careful and tread lightly whatever we do here we are setting policy that is ongoing and if we
do this with these people and we are now aware that we have three other denuted ones then it is our obligation by the fact that We're setting policy to go and and take some kind of a >> payment >> either a payment or uh restoration some kind of a restoration to all of them. I
mean we we have to be consistent. It's one of the things that we've been not not us particularly well although us particularly as well but that councilman town has been accused of is not being consistent. So whatever decision we make here tonight has to be one that we can live with as a policy.
>> Right. Can I Can I ask for Karen to step up to the podium? >> Karen. >> Karen. I >> Sorry, I didn't hear you. >> I literally >> No, no problem. I >> Is my microphone working? It's working. >> I was too far away. Um so it appears
looking at item 16 that um while we had a contract expert cl you prefer to clarify who that might have been a contract expert.
>> It's um Jerry I'm sorry Renick. Jerry Renick. >> Yes. So, >> arborist, >> the arborist, he can look at an aerial and see that there's no trees or there's trees. I think I could probably do that.
>> I don't have to be an arborist to say there's trees there. I I could probably identify a Florida pepper tree as well. I don't think I need to be a an arborist. So, I'm curious why we paid an expert to do that. Um, and it it appears
that this is really incomplete at this stage. So we don't have full communication with land owners. Uh so I think while sheltering pines is clearly adamant that we get an answer to them and they're clearly pretty pushy on
this. I'm with Anita. I don't think we have a full picture of what it is we're facing and establishing a policy now that says you can buy your way out of conservation in this town is really bad precedence. So,
>> well, it's not necessarily buying your way out of uh out of conservation and and each each circumstance is going to be somewhat different. In this particular case, you're not dealing with
the folks who actually did the denuding. >> Okay. Well, let's let's put it in a different term. Maybe that's more understandable. These people didn't have an FDA on this property. anything else that we're now requiring people to jump through hoops to do to develop their property. And this is an opportunity for
us to hold some accountability, albeit beyond what we set in place, right? So, I don't I don't I personally don't see a full picture of what we're deciding on here tonight. I I think there's a lot of information provided but and that's
regarding this particular tract of of land but I think on a whole policy-wise this is still incomplete. What's what's the the hot deal with sheltering palms? Is it >> sheltering palms? They they would like
an answer because they've got it marketing. >> They're hot to sell. I get it. This has to be resolved before they have a contract in place. I mean, >> apparently it's a >> once people find out they're not >> Oh, well, >> there's uncertainty with outstanding on the
>> They are doing their due diligence. That's why it's not closing >> and they came to us months ago. >> I mean, they should have done their due diligence when they bought >> due diligence when they said, "Oh, yeah, >> we'll give you a loan." Exactly. So, anyway, my point, >> you were next.
>> Yeah. So, I don't like that, you know, that we're getting paid off to do this. I get that. Um, if we were to do this, I think those funds should go in the tree mitigation fund so it would get used for something like that. Um, where it's not like, you know, we're just hiring, you know, putting a new
roof on the building or whatever. So, I think if we were to move forward with it, those funds should go to the tree mitigation. Um, if our code wasn't written where you can have the ad classification, then clearcut the whole thing, we'd be in a different story. But the fact that our code is written where you could clearcut it, you know,
>> not conservation easement. >> Well, no, I get that. But I'm saying let's say it wasn't a conservation easement then you just clearcut right because you're a I don't think our code should be written that way. I think it should be changed. But the way it's written is is it could be. So
>> well >> that that's a debate for another day. Um but I mean the reality is is even if we were to and we had this conversation the first time they were here. If we were to say no, we're not taking the money. you need to invest that money and and
reestablishing that conservation easement. You're not getting it back. And the real I mean I haven't seen an arborous study from back when the conservation ement was was given out. The reality is it was probably all holly anyway. I mean that's
and and yeah, they loaned a guy money to buy the property, right? They didn't come buy the property. The guy defaulted on the loan and they foreclosed on it. They were left holding the bag. So I mean I again this is kind of a sticky situation. This is the first one we we
do we do need to you know figure out which way we want to go but we were saying that back right after we we said this all this before. Right. So I yet we haven't touched it since >> because we've been waiting for this
policy to come forward and the results of researching all these other ones >> because we said we wanted a full picture before we picked one property out and made a decision on it. >> I don't even see this as a policy. This is just a kind of a report.
>> Oh, once we do it. Yeah. But I'm saying so out of the I mean so we got three parcels that have been denuted. Am I saying that properly? I >> guess. Yeah. >> Out of the 19. So all the other the other
16 are intact conservation easements. >> Not necessarily. >> Not correct. Lisa is correct. Not necessarily. >> This is why we need the arborist to because the code enforcement officers aren't certified to be able to say this is a Florida holly, this is a palm tree, this is whatever. >> Yes. >> That's why we need somebody to say
>> no. >> Yes. I mean, and the reality is you can go you can go pay off army corps or or whoever for for eradicating improperly, you know, 300 foot of mangrove on the
back of your your your uh inter coastal property just cuz you wanted to. I mean, this is the world we live in right now. Currently, a few miles away from here. >> Thing what is the policy? because if we make it 15, we're affecting 16.
>> I I agree, but I'm >> creating the policy and you know, and at the end of the day, it's a very difficult decision. I mean, that that's all there is to it. And what I what I don't want to see is,
you know, all 19. There's a it also goes back to that some of these conservation easements were applied by the county originally >> as as punishment. >> Yes. >> Right.
>> Um so that's a factor. Um >> requirements too. Another factor to me is that not only did some of these people not know that they had a conservation easement because some of them aren't actually clearly marked in their deeds and that to find them had to really be
uncovered deeply. Um, but we didn't know it and we haven't been doing anything about it for however long since we got them from the county. So, >> thank goodness we only have three that aren't compliant. >> Well, we don't know that we only have three, but we have three there. I I mean
I'm actually at the end of the day um I think based on the fact that the cost of restoring it and the cost that the town would get for the mitigation is about the same was the estimate that I saw was about roughly the same amount of
money. I mean >> I think restoration is more still >> was more still >> than that. But h let me ask you a question. How could somebody determine what restoration was when we have no proof of what was there in the first place? >> Well, um, >> what do you tell what what would you be
telling them they had to restore it to to be a conservation easement? I mean, you can't say you have to restore it to how it was because we don't know how it was. >> Yeah. We don't even know what that mean. >> We don't even know it. We have no clue
what we have no clue. So, I think that has to factor into, you know, >> can we relocate it on the property as long as we keep 2.1 acres? My thought is to my thought is to take the $200,000 and use that money to buy something and
truly make it a conservation even like Todd said to put it into the tree mitigation fund until we have X amount of money that we can buy something for, you know, retention water retention areas and and and make them real
conservation ement that we create in a in a way that we need and that is useful for the town and that is I don't know that's just >> the public would have access >> and that the public would have access to um I don't know that's just that's just my one of my thoughts. Um Marge you've
had your light on for a long time. >> Yeah. Um, >> I would uh think that uh the Bailey's and uh their neighbors over there would have evidence of what vegetation was on
that lot because I know when Wagflow owned it, the that's the uh name of the realators. Um it it was full of uh pine trees and and large large trees. So, you
know, to um to just write it off like it's nothing. Um I don't know, sheltering palms. Did anyone look up uh who they are and what they are? They're a not for profit. They did it as a per, my understanding is
they did made the loan as a personal favor and they regret having done so and had to foreclose on it and are now just trying to it's not something they do. Um, >> and they concentrate on low to um
moderate income development >> forum. >> Yeah. For people in need. for people in need for being >> but they're not they're not looking to develop this property at all. Um they want to sell the property and recover
the money and go on to their charitable acts that they do. >> If you figure how many how many housing units low income to moderate could be put there, how many would you get? >> Zero. >> Zero because you can't go less than
five. It would be >> what? You You could put four four houses on that property, >> isn't there? Four houses. >> Yeah. It's still subject to the five acre zoning that the town has. So, they could potentially subdivide, >> right,
>> the the property into four or five acre lots. >> Okay. So, um I I just think that knowing who owns it now, uh the 1300 uh
D-Road and the um Sheltering Palms Foundation not doing their homework. I I I don't trust the two of them. um coming up with something that the town would be proud
to be part of. >> Well, Sheltering Palms wants to simply pay the town money. they wouldn't be part of anything and then they want to sell the property
uh separate and apart from 1300D is not associated with this property on any longer other than the fact that they uh that that property >> used to have a >> we we have no guarantee that they're going to follow through with what
they're saying either. So, I I I'm inclined to not be in favor of the uh offer that they're making to free up um their
obligation for those two acres that um were denuted. >> I I've got five lights on and I have no clue whose was first. >> I just did mine. So, >> go right to left. Go Le. So,
We talk all the time about people can come forward with waiverss. Whoever is interested in buying this parcel has some plan for it. Whether it's an investment parcel and it's just going to sit or it's it's parcel that they're going to put an equestrian use on or
something else. They come forward and we see that there's one of these easements on there. That's not anything that can't be addressed at that time, right? So their claim that oh they can't sell it for as much money because this this much land is set aside. We know through all
this FDA requirements now that there's only a certain amount of of water retention and displacement that can happen on a parcel anyway. And doesn't this prop this particular property doesn't it have an ingress egress access issue also? >> No. >> Yes.
>> Well they access via canal. >> They access off of road just like anything else. They would somebody would have to put in a a bridge >> along the >> but they've got legal access onto um >> they said the last time we talked about this parcel it needed a covert to get to
it from >> the only legal >> legal >> yeah they don't have to go >> that's that that's a factor that goes into the pricing >> it doesn't have an access currently like a bridge to it >> potential >> it has the potential access >> needed access would be a bridge
>> it doesn't have deed access through the front parcel >> you have to belongs to somebody else that no >> vaulted on their loan. >> It's it's it's legal access. If they were to come in and somebody wanted to build a house on there, we say sure, you need to your
access is by putting a culvert bridge across >> by boat. >> No, no. They would they would have to show the access just as everybody who is in that same situation. They build a >> current way to get to that property
through a deed access on another parcel or an existing culvert bridge. >> Right. That's normal situation on a 20 acre piece of property >> on a back parcel. >> No, it's got a it's got frontage on road. >> No, but it was Yeah, it's frontage is
road. At one point in time it was in between it and the road >> at one point in time. I'm sure it was conjoined with 1300, but at this point in time it was not. >> Now the E- Road, the parcels that are on E, their natural access point is E-
Road. The parcels on D road, their natural point is D road. >> That's they weren't >> they weren't 40s. They were they were 20. >> Yeah, it's not a back 20. It's a it's an adjacent 20 >> dro. But my point is
>> because the same the same guy owned the two properties. I >> my point is this parcel has more problems than just this, right? So >> yeah, whoever buys it is going to have to put in a bridge. >> You know, >> more problems than just
>> those problems aren't our problems. If they got to put if they got to spend a million dollars to get access and that's what they've got to do and this thought process as to who owns it and what they potentially might do with it shouldn't be a factor. How are we going to put that in our policy? It says, well, we're going to make a policy, but we're going to start scoring the owner, right, as to
who it is, and then we can't create a scoring. So, we can't make a decision based on who owns it, right? And I don't think law. >> Yeah. And I don't think we should be making a policy as how it got to this point. If they're looking to to mitigate it, like Paul said, you can cut down, you can fill in wetlands. We had six
acres of wetlands filled in. It's a side farm up there, right? Town didn't get a nickel for that. It got mitigated. wetlands were bought somewhere else and it went out of town and we didn't get anything for that. So, at least if we get the 200,000 here, it gets mitigated in our town. Maybe we'll buy some property somewhere, two acres somewhere
or 10 acres because we got all this money sitting at tree mitigation and move forward and try to set up a site like that that the public could have access to and that sort of thing. So, >> yeah, Lisa, Lisa was correct on the access to the property because the
conservation easement is alongside E- Road. >> Yeah, but there's a There's an end at the north end of it. If we remember the map that was brought to us before >> conservation ement to get access to the property, >> but I don't think I don't think the two acres doesn't span the entire >> stop. It's short of the northern
boundary if if I remember the correct absolutely correct. >> Right. So I guess my point is we we keep saying all the money can go to tree mitigation. Nobody's made the point that this is the same process that we have when you have to do a tree mitigation, right? you get busted for clearing your
land without due cause without being ad without regardless of your thoughts and my thoughts. Right? This is the idea is you have to pay for the trees you removed and it's x amount of dollars and this is one of the Virginia was here earlier talking about the one that's you
know having an issue. So it is a tree mitigation scenario. The only the only little detail sticky part is that at one point in time, for whatever reason, the county said it had to be a conservation easement. >> And who's to say that conserv It's not
like they said it's a wetland, right? It's not who's to say relocate the conservation, but I'm just saying it's the same thing. >> That's a great point. And I think that you're you're is there is there a
average cost per so many square feet of mitigation? Obviously trees are different maturity type and all that stuff, but is there got a hand. Is there is there a average scenario?
>> Section 87 of our code provides for tree mitigation. So, if we were going to go ahead and use a tree mitigation approach, then we would go to section 87 and we would look at whatever the arborist said the native trees were in
there and we would charge three. >> What if there's no way to determine that? >> Well, I think he would be able to tell us a general idea of what they were. That's why we hire an arborist and we would then do um time if I remember section 87 correctly but you we have to
go to it and look and a policy could be based on doing the same thing that you do with tree mitigation. You pay three times what the cost is. What's not clear in section 87 and these are the kind of things that need to be cleared up. Do we
pay three times what the cost is today of native trees or do we pay three times the cost of when we think they took them down? I would say today. >> Yeah. Today. I mean, >> but to just to my point is is we already
have a mechanism in place that so so to say, oh, we're just I'm not saying we need to use that mechanism. That's not what I'm saying. What I'm say what I'm saying is >> for sale. >> Well, yeah, that's the point. There's an alignment with that what you're saying. >> Yeah, there's a there's it's the same
it's the same thought process, right? You know, this is different. It's a we don't have a set policy. So, we've done I mean, what's the percentage per value? So, 2.1 million or whatever. So, it's just a little under 10%. >> Is my math good there?
>> Yes. >> Right. So, we're saying if you bait this conservation easement, it's going to be 10% of the value. That's kind of what if we accept this right now. I'm curious to see how that aligns with Fran what Francine's suggestion was if it's three
times the cost >> right >> um associated with it >> but you're you all said today's value >> less than >> 10% of the value >> right what trees were removed at what point were they removed >> I have to answering the mayor I'm so
sorry council member >> no no please say >> no I was saying you got to determine at what date we're going to when they were removed so you I mean, >> oh no, I I don't agree with that. I I think that the cost of it would be what
it was cost to replace them today. I get that cost of the trees today. >> The cost of what was replaced is because if you don't go back and you got to go back and find out and figure out by a satellite view of these little green blobs. >> The arborist could do that, >> right?
>> The arborist can do that. Or we can look at our list of native trees, which is also in section 87, and we can decide that we want it to be all oaks, and price it out that way. I mean, there are certainly options for a way we could
negotiate the tree mitigation that it isn't, you know, two acres of palm trees because palm trees are, you know, not >> Well, I think that goes to back how your options, right? And how we're going to set this policy forward, right? and what your option. You have an option to mitigate it or put it back or to to pay,
right? There's a there's a fee involved. So, we just have to determine where that is because we're already doing something along those lines. >> There's one other thing I have to make sure you understand and that is section 87 allows an alternate mitigation. So, giving us land is an alternate
mitigation. The question is whether the value is acceptable. So this is acceptable in tree mitigation to take land to take money um you know as an
alternate measure money based on value of land as an alternate measure. That's why 87's coming back, >> right? >> I guess my point is this isn't saying, "Hey everyone, run out and cut your trees down because we already have a thing, a mechanism in place to take care of those folks, right?" I think it's a
it's a matter of, you know, if you want to change where it is, you can apply for variance like you can apply for variance for anything else. I think this is a one-off scenario that we're having to deal with where somebody lent I I lent Todd some money, Todd defaulted, so now
it's my property and Todd went in there and clearcut all this all this and he messed up the conservation. Now we have to >> off oneoff. So >> 19 off. >> It's a 19 off. >> It's not a 19 off because >> parcels, >> right? >> Well, no, I mean it's it's a one-off
because of the situation, right? We know there's three or four that aren't compliant, right? So, we have to deal with those, I think, on a case-by case basis. I think it's >> going to be different. >> Yeah, exactly. >> Yeah. There there's there's not going to be it's not going to be a cookie cutter
that you've established a price for this. It depends on where the land is, all those kind of things. >> That's why they weren't one and the same. They're they're similar, but different. back though to and and I'm sorry to drag this on, but you know, we talked about can we provide some sort of
trust that takes on conservation easements so that those people can they'll get a discount obviously on their taxes if they have a conservation easement of some sort potentially. >> Correct. Right. So, you got these this
20 acres, somebody buys it and says, "Oh, well, I'd like to put four acres in conservation easement." Right. So then we end up getting it back and taking I think we should be encouraging more of positive reinforcement sort of stuff through that process and I know Francine has mentioned that they were
>> right we have we wanted to establish receiver sites and conservation easement sites. We actually did talk to the sad farm about allowing us to use that property. Um so yeah that's again section 87.
I'd like to hear how that becomes a receiver site for the sod farm. >> Um because they have areas where they should have had trees and those trees died. >> The mass of palm trees that was the ridiculous row of palm trees that they
let die. Yeah. Those why I don't I don't see why we would help them out with their problem that they didn't comply. >> I'm very sure another day. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. I think I think the question that we uh or the answer that we owe this person and these folks is are we
willing to take money for a release of the conservation easement whether this amount is correct or not or are we going to demand that they replant those that that seems to be the central question
>> mitigated because we can create a better conservation. I think the answer is if it's x% of the appraised value or three times the cost to remove trees plus administrative cost to determine what
those trees were by the expert or you can replant. >> I think that's a policy, right? >> I like your and you get to choose from that, right? And those those funds, right, >> by nature go into the tree mitigation
fund because in essence they cut trees. >> We buy ourselves a concert. So, so what we're so >> excited, >> so what we're looking at is uh a matter of price and correct >> the the question is whether or not the mitigation
analysis or the value analysis through the appraisal will yield the higher number and we would accept the higher number. >> Okay. And then Francine, I guess there would potentially be again an expert involved to determine what that
>> mitigation would look like. >> Yeah, they do when they do the the arborist does a mitigation report. >> Okay. So, worst case scenario, Paul's right. And it was a bunch of Brazilian pepper, Florida holly, right? Um >> just
>> that would be to you just don't mow the grass, right? They would grow back. So, uh >> Well, probably having the other ones. >> Yeah. Right. >> So that would not by forcing them to take the the highest cost of those scenarios, right? Is that what you
proposed? That's that's what I the greater of those two scenarios is what we would accept so that that we have direction and and they understand what we're asking for >> conservation for replanting if it's the >> because that if we get money
>> then you all can make the determination that we're going to put it into um a site that is denuted or we can yet we can buy a a property that is worth
preserving. Um, and you invest that money. And as has been mentioned, the big advantage to property that would be owned or controlled by the the town is unlike these conservation easements
um you could develop a concentrated area and you could also allow um public access because remember all these conservation easements are isolated. on public land. If we do something like an equestrian center kind of oriented thing,
>> we could actually have that. >> But you could have that landscaped properly except properly the way you know instead of palm trees and I mean that's that's the thing. We can use it for education. We can use it for whatever. I mean, that's >> I'm not I'm not
>> not sold on that idea, but I just want to make sure that if we bring this policy back that >> we're still promoting conservation over getting money, >> right? Absolutely. >> So, if the if the most expensive option
is always going to be to put trees back, then that helps our cause, right? So, I'm just curious and I don't know, Francine, if that scenario could be projected. >> Well, I think the whether the greater
than or less than thing would be if if the the three times the the tree cost or the 10%. That's where the greater than or it's either one of these two or you can re you can replace the plant. You can plant or
>> you can provide. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, you could. Or you could provide another property within the town limits, not in live in Lake City, right? You couldn't do that whole thing, that swip swap. You could provide conservation. So, say somebody found a
piece of land that was undevelopable without, you know, spending tons and tons of money because it's all wetland, but they could they could get it for $150,000 and lose the $200,000 and they buy it. Can you say that in really
straight words? >> So, so say say I'm say I'm say I'm I'm >> three times the tree cost >> whichever one's greater or >> plan everything out >> expert arous determination
>> or youate within the town boundaries. >> Yes. >> So that the other two are up to them >> and the the monkey one is the greater. >> Yeah. It's they have the choice of the three. This is like a two-part thing. The money is either
>> 10% or three times the the tree cost. Whichever is greater. That's one choice. >> Second choice is >> is replant >> as per our arborist. >> Yes. As per our arborist >> or find another >> or find it boundary town
>> within within the boundary of the town. Yes. >> But that could be swamp land >> or the town. >> Does the town want to own swamp land? Well, the thing is you could create a you could create a boardwalk in a in a wetland area want >> and we need ret but we need retention
areas, right? Remember um Randy sat here and told I I know but we but we need you know and and that's helps with water filtration and things like that, right? So it's all going toward our our water resiliency
>> acquired mitigated property. >> Yes. because it natural state or we >> dig a big hole and pump water into it. >> No, >> I mean that's that that's step three, right? We need this is step one.
>> Going to try to maintain it in some semblance, but we're going to try to make it also able to be enjoyed by the public. So, but if it's swamped, >> I understand. I would say that's the worst case scenario for us because cost to maintain it tornado come through and
trees out. >> Absolutely. >> That that is >> well it's it's no different than a line of oaks down Okachobee. We still have to maintain it even if we get them for free. >> West we still have to >> I understand but ideally that would be
refunding this money and some cost associated with rent. >> Yeah, I hope so that but I don't know. I I would say from a taxpayer standpoint that the fourth scenario, the third scenario is probably the least desirable for us.
But it's another option, which I can't believe would cheap. >> Nobody's >> Yeah, but that's that's the thing. >> Get land swap land. Yeah, maybe they have >> maybe they have, you know, a wetland on another property that they own and they
want to convert that to conservation, right? So, say there's two acres of I I own this property and I own a property on a road and it has two acres of wetland in it. >> Oh, you can't subdivide your twoacre wetland to seven acres and they want to take two out for us and they keep five.
>> I mean, it's it's it's you know, >> all right. So, >> I think we have something deep for you to bring back as a policy and to tell them that we we're working. >> We're working on that. >> Let me ask you, they're listening. >> How long would it take to get the dollar cost for the tree mitigation part?
>> It it can be done within the month. I don't know whether it'll be on for your February meeting, but it you know, >> stop. He's go I know where you're going with this. It's not going to the workshop
>> where he was going. He was gonna add it to that five. >> He said I can do it in a week. >> Yeah. No, I don't think he >> We have to Yeah. >> Do we have it by by February? >> We need a motion. >> Marge has something to say before we wrap this up. And we need
>> Okay. >> As I said before, the original owner of this road property was the Droad. Um they were both 20 acre parcels hooked together and Dro Property is the one who
owned the E-Road property at the time the trees were removed. >> Correct. >> So therefore, what is the status of the code on Dro
for what they did when they owned roads? Can can you explain if the con ement was still there when they denuted? >> There was there was there there is no um
code enforcement action associated with the denuting of the um of the conservation easement. It was done at a time u before it was done
without the town's knowledge. It was done by the previous owner. Um there are other violations on 1300D um that were the subject of code enforcement actions but not this uh
conservation easement. >> So Dro does not owe any >> unaffected road. They're unaffected D-Road property. >> Now I understand what she's asking. She's asking if the D-Road parcel is being encumbered by any of the
requirement on the E-RO property. >> They're they're punishment if you will. Um if there is a punishment or the justice has they lost the property. >> No, that's not what Marge, I'm sorry. Am I your mouth? Go ahead.
She wants to know if the the land owner on Dro >> they're not being >> that's not her question. Your question is do they have any fiscal responsibility or association with the property in the back and the conservation eite? >> No.
>> The answer I think is no, right? >> Okay. >> No, they don't own the property anymore. >> Action. They would have to sue the guy and say, "Hey, >> the point was that Wagflow owned both at the time, but only the back parcel got hit with the conservation easement. It doesn't affect the front part."
>> Correct. >> Right. But the E-ro parcel got hit being owned by the same guy with the code infractions from 1300D. So that's where the $4,000 the lean on that's so they're actually being penalized for the the
actions that were cited on 1300. >> There's nobody paying for the tree mitigation >> because Dro is not affected now. Well, is that what is that is is that what they're code is that what the code case is for tree mitigation or
>> No, that's what we're saying. It's not >> different things. >> That's what we're talking about by establishing this policy. >> I think the question she's actually asking if I think I just got it is is Dro currently in code violation? >> Yes. Well, we have a
>> D road in code violation for I believe that is what we what >> it is. It is unrelated to the conservation easement deni >> there are there's FDA vi there's a >> FDA yeah >> there's a FDA violation
um there were some use violations um and >> I think there and there was but I think that just get paid some BTR >> yeah that was paid >> um and so
unrelated >> that wag flow is the one that denuted that conservation is that what we >> absolutely yes >> not not the present owners of >> correct >> d >> when the present the the
uh Wagflow was an LLC the principle of Wagflow it was also the princip principal of SQ Farms. SQ Farms is the current owner of
uh 1300D. Now, the actual manager the the the actual manager may have changed. There may be some ownership differences um now with SQ Farms.
Um but it's essentially the same person. It's two corporate entities and What they did was um they quick claimed Wagflow quick
claimed the property at 1300D to Escu Farms. Um and uh so that's the that's the situation. But you know in reality as far as who
those people were um they're the same they're the same principles. Well, per the aerials, what year was it determined that that was cleared? >> It was that conservation. >> It was during the time that Wagflow owned the property. I think it was between 2012 and 2015.
>> Recently, >> yeah, >> we were a town when they >> Oh, yes. Yes. Yes. We were >> see what they were doing, >> right? The sun. >> The answer The answer The answer is yes. We were a town. Yes, we had the
conservation >> happened in 2000 or 1990. This is a relatively recent clearing of those. >> I think it's safe to say the clearing took place while during incorporation. >> I'm missing
uh how how do we get um did the town ever get anything for the uh the tree um cutting? No. Right. >> This is this would be it.
>> There was no code. >> There was no code case that was initiated during the time frame that Wagflow was um the owner of the property. >> Okay. So, are we still talking about the offer that the um
>> Sheltering Palms is making? >> Sheltering Palms is making. >> Yes. And it's not the value of the trees that may have been there back when the >> we're talking about looking that is a that is >> that's going to be part of this
>> what what I what I understand the the direction is is um assuming that the property owner wants to continue on with this exercise um that we will we have the appraised
value on the properties We're now going to try to ascertain what the mitigation value is. Um, and it is my understanding that the council uh
would be interested in releasing um the conservation easement for the higher value >> that is there. In the alternative, as has always been an alternative, they can do a restoration project on the
conservation easement. >> Correct. That's where we're at. >> Okay. I need a motion to extend, which we're officially >> So moved. >> All in favor? >> Okay. I think we beat up 15 and 16 pretty sufficiently.
>> Mayor, we have a public comment. We >> do have a public comment. Great. Miss Suchi >> Cassie Suchi. Uh, I just thought it was interesting that the owner of 1300 contacted me last year about how he could get out of things and he wanted
information on FDA and his RV. So, I sent him all the policies. I just found that post. Um, we're about preserving our town, preserving ochre spaces, preserving land, whether it's grass, trees,
whatever. It's we're a rural town and the message you're sending. We have conservation easements which preserve those and now they're for sale to the highest bidder. You know how much they can replace it for three times the tree
cost or whatever. Todd, you say, "Oh, we can use that money and we'll buy it somewhere else in the town." Fine. If they want to trade their two acres, then they have to provide an equivalent two acres somewhere else in our town. And they do an immediate swap because, you know, anything with
government. We're going to have to hire a professional here for 25,000 a month. And that this guy's going to get paid and that money is never going to get used for what it was intended to. And I don't know about you, but I'm not a real estate person, but land in this town, I
don't see where you're going to do it and trade it. We're supposed to preserve our town. We had an easement that was an east and west easement that past council gave back to the residents that own that land. And today, looking back, that
would have been a great trail system to have in our town, but past council gave it back. It's a conservation easement. We're a rural town. We have a charter to preserve. Let's not sell it to the highest bidder. If you want to give him
back his land, then he has to immediately provide us with another equivalent size land in our town and we do a swap. That would be the only thing that we should be considering. We shouldn't be just selling land and then
putting it into the government coffers because we all know what's going to happen with that. Please be the stewards of the town. Please be our voices and please don't do that. >> Okay. >> How much is currently in the tree mitigation fund? Just just just
>> is that threequarters of a million that we've collected over time that has not been spent on anything. Right. mostly from I think one one large >> right but I guess my point is that nobody has spent that money on anything it's still sitting there >> waiting and we actually have discussed
you know maybe brought up for educational purpose stuff like that for community education but I think she made that I think she made that point too that we're not doing anything with it right we're not conserving anything it's just sitting in a bank account so >> well I I I agree but my point is is is it's not just going in the government
coffers my that's my But it's just fitting there. >> Okay. Semantics. It's not going there being spent on on uh apple butter cookies for snack. Yeah. >> And as much as I would like to see >> almond butter. Would you like you ready
for another one yet? >> I would. >> Okay. >> I mean I would like to see a time machine too, right? That we could just, you know, click a thing. The fact of the matter is is where are you going to find in this case 2.1 acres that hasn't been disturbed, >> right? It's an
>> there. Unfortunately, we are a culture that recognizes money is making people whole again. And I think by trying to create the most expensive scenario to to let them buy their way out and give them
the hopefully putting the trees back is a cheaper option given what's the most expensive that that's what results from this and we won't know till we see how the policy goes. Well, listen, the example I gave earlier about the mangroves, you know, the fine was a fine Uhhuh. or wetland.
>> Well, if I was a mosquito, I would be very upset. >> But listen, a fine was levied. 100k >> was levied snap and >> and guy walked right w right in the office and cut a check and goes, "Here you go." No, you know, >> I understand it's going to happen. >> If if >> All right, let's wait and see.
I mean sometimes the cost of the trees is really an astronomical number. Then they go and they put the trees back. >> Yeah. And when we come back with the policy, I think there is going to be a difference between whether or not you are the person that is the violator as as it were. We're not going to encourage
the violation. >> This is an option based on this circumstance for somebody who is quote innocent. say you're actually the violator, which could be you have to give us the land,
>> right? And as as land values increase, then that may change the policy, but correct. >> I I think this is an interesting way to look at it, and I look forward to seeing the policy come back and see if it comes out the way we think it might. >> Yes, >> I do. >> All right. >> Um I do want to note that uh Mr. Flame
is is here. I don't know whether or not he wants to say anything or not. The owner Tony the owner is general monitoring this >> I don't see a hand or anything so >> doesn't appear >> he's on mute
>> he's >> okay on to on >> he probably fell asleep you was >> his name up on the top of >> yes >> yeah but he has he's not saying anything mic it's 10:19 let's move along because we've got a lot more to discuss because
we pulled all this for discussion. What was it that you wanted to discuss about the the district works? >> So Craig, I'm not sure. Yeah, Craig, I'm not sure you can answer this. I mean, the the paving of a road wasn't included. Is is that a fiscal 25year
thingy? How does that align with this? >> Uh this, if I believe right, with Gary set this report up, this was for the water for all canal and uh culbert replacements. This report was set up. >> This is report is only limited to that. >> Yes. >> Drainage.
>> Correct. >> No roads. >> This report is doesn't have the roads on it. This one was just for culberts and all upcoming and what we've replaced. >> Okay. Cuz we're looking at our strategic plan. >> Correct. And you know, I think we've I while we have asked for our money, a
hand out at Tallahassee, um we we know we have catastrophic failure potential at our gates, at the stated district gate structures. Um our pump house is also there with no dollar
figure associated. And then I know um we've asked if the Okachobee structures could not be made to hold back Niagara and you know something that you'd see along perhaps the turnpike but something scaled back to recognize the real actual
water flow potential here in our town along Okchobee. And I know we've talked to maybe asking the county if they had some sort of long-term plan for that and those culverts going over the Okachchobee section of the canals. So, I
guess thank you for clarifying the fact that paving is not in here, but um could we expect some numbers, Francine, on on those priorities that I mean, I know we're asking for for money from Tallahassee on it, but as we get into
our strategic plan nitty-gritty, um knowing what those dollar figures look like, >> we have a capital plan. Um >> is that already in there? >> I mean, the projected numbers >> are already in there. However, um we need to update that um plan when
we open our bids. So, that update to the capital plan is coming to you for the first look with new numbers at the first meeting in February along with the bid. >> Correct. With the bid >> a road >> because that'll give us the numbers on
what the paving's actually going to cost. Yeah, >> but you do I think he talks about having hundreds roads in the district. So >> yeah, there are 60 miles of road. >> Yeah. And I think I would like to see council talk about maybe returning some
of those smaller roads to those private entities that represented a subdivision long preceding us. So >> all right, we'll talk about that on a way down the road agenda. Well, that's a
good a good piece of information because um a former and current council member asked us to do a policy on that and we have one. >> That's great. >> We wrote it a few years ago so we can resurrect it. >> All right. All right. Thanks. >> We can take a look at it. Um I think we
already talked about the RV program and if I if Let me just try to summarize. I think the consensus is that we are looking for Aaron something simpler, easy to comply with and less expensive to regulate. So can you bring that to us
at the next meeting some proposals of what that might be? >> Yes. Um and and I might add from a personal note something that uh targets I'm going to look for call it
what it is targets the egregious offenders like uh these ones with four or more which breaks health code laws and and in RVs that are clearly not habitable. Um, and we've got basically
glorified RV parks occurring in people's yards. We've got about 15 or 16, I think, that have been identified. And >> I think those need to be >> easy to comply, painful to not comply, >> taken out. Yeah, those need to be Yeah. easy to comply and painful not to comply. >> Got it.
>> Yeah. Um, I >> think we beat up at 19 pretty good. >> We beat up 19 with our first guy. >> Yeah. >> Uh, think we beat up 20. 1080. Yes. >> So, we're on to 21. Our last one, guys. >> Do we want any public comment on those?
>> Um, did anybody have Did we get any public comment on 18, 1920? >> No. Okay, then we're on to 21. Thank you, Lisa. >> Um, my comment or my question on this one was um we've got uh Slug and Associates as one of our our I'm going
to use the term players in this. Is that payment going to be part of their $7,500 monthly retainer payment or are they dipping into this grant money? >> They their contract needs to be
uh renewed by council and they have not decided if they are renewing or not. should they wish to renew and we bring it forward, it would be brought forward in connection with this grant and also with connection to some of our other
lobbying work. >> So when do you anticipate the start of this grant work? >> Um we have to bring something back to you in February that shows you what our plan is because we have reached out to Treasure Coast. Not sure what their
schedule is or whether they're still amendable to working on this. >> Okay. >> So that's why this is written in here for you. >> So you anticipate this work starting after the conclusion of their current contract? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> I do. All right.
>> So we have to decide a couple of things. One, how we're going to do this project and who the players will be if we're going to do this project. And then also we need to bring back um the contracts that would relate to this.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> We would make a budget amendment if we choose to proceed with those contracts, but it would have no net effect on the budget. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> Can you can you address what you emailed us earlier regarding this opens up
commercial development without any say so from the council from Southern Boulevard to collect anything? This grant does nothing except provide us funding to do study of Southern Boulevard and the scope of it breaks
down what each of the elements are. And one, it looks at the necessary infrastructure and the best use of the land for the future of the town and the ways that we can preserve the town with
a natural buffer. And it also provides for at least two um public um outreach sessions, whether you want to call them public hearings or whatever. They are two separate and
distinct at a minimum public outreach sessions. We could always do more. This there is no impact on any zoning. There is no approval of any project. There is no impact. >> How about release of our control of the
land to the federal government? >> Of our control. There is no other authority on how we approve whatever happens on Southern Boulevard other than the council.
So there's nothing that we would do in here that doesn't have to be approved by the council based on the input of the residents through public outreach as required by the grant. I was sent two emails. I did provide the information
responding to the points in those two emails. There was reference to Florida statute 290 relative to um required public hearings. That's for the CDBG
small community um grant program. We um on intervals assign an agreement with Palm Beach County because we are less than 50,000 people. We don't have any claim on CDBG funds and that is not
applicable to the commerce grants. Um and I think that I covered everything in those two emails. Um oh the statute with regard to contractors does not apply to this. And again, we would be bringing the contracts back to council to
approve. And the goal is to try to use someone um that is um regionally appropriate with the lowest cost possible that is already familiar with the town and its unique needs. Um and um
you know that's again why we're looking at FAU so we can try to lower the cost to get any necessary research um or you know grant work. I hate to call it that but uh um ti I think so I'm going to
stop. So we we could spend this 75,000 do all this study and decide we're not doing anything. We're not making any changes and we're not bound to do anything. >> This is funding. Is that fair to say? >> That's that's absolutely correct. This is funding a study up to $75,000
that you as a council will be guiding and ultimately the determiners as to whether it's approved, not approved, and what the result of it is, >> what the and what we actually want them to look at in this study.
>> Absolutely. You are you are the you are the guiding force. So it's very similar to what happened with Okachobee Boulevard a few years ago, right? There was a study done to see about commercializing it. You had some council members sitting here that wanted to commercialize Okachobee Boulevard. A bunch of money was spent but 150,000
>> and then in the end nothing got changed fortunately. Right. Wait a minute. Whose buck 50 was that Todd? >> That was our money. >> Oh that was our buck 50 not a grant. >> Correct. Okay. >> Billion dollars of ARPA funds. >> So so just real quickly I want to do one
correction to what you and Mr. Kur said we have to provide a deliverable. So what we bring to the council also needs to go to the state, but you can vote no on what comes in front of you and that doesn't change that the grant
is ours and that's >> we have to say be accountable and say how we use the money and correct >> and this this study is is this exercise is is moving toward solidifying all the stuff that all of us have been saying for a long time that that the the
corridor stops at here audit collecting it's not you know defining things so we can have more avenues yeah >> to be yeah exactly >> so >> that is the goal I believe of most of the people sitting here
>> so we will be back in February and we will be letting you know >> how um what the contract scenario looks like in case we are unable to negotiate with Treasure Coast um we are trying to
make sure that we have a backup plan with um one of the county's planning firms. We've been looking at Kim Leehorn because we think we might be able to piggy back off of that. Um but otherwise, we are very hopeful that
Treasure Coast will continue their work and of course to partner with Slug and Associates um on public. >> Yeah. So, and finally, I did give you um something
else requested by council, and that was an update on the franchise activity or um why you call it franchise activity, an update on the livestock um waste and how we're going to come
forward and what we've been doing to try to um stop the insanity. Kudos for at least putting a slight kibash on it. I understand they're still dumping over there, but now we need to apply that >> unilaterally townwide. We are we had
code out today at some um known other illegal dumping locations and so far um I guess knock wood or drywall. >> Yeah. um you know they they weren't active at this point in time but we have
done some pretty um striden um enforcement on 1470. We're working with as you know the health department and FD which um um will be down here doing
another inspection. Um they do not have a permit. They have been under stop work order and anyone of their um known violations like if somebody gets us a picture or we can get out there while
you see someone going on site, we can use the irreparable and irreplaceable harm citation. We're also sending letters out to all the known haulers that they may not bring anything to that
site. There are no sites in town except for one self-hauling site. Uh and self-hauling means your own um um livestock waste. There are no receiver sites that are currently registered. Um
so there is no place in town that it's legal to bring livestock waste unless it's your own um at this current point in time. >> Yeah. But it's your own on that location. >> It's your own on that location. They can't transfer between properties unless
you have already been approved because self haulers are exempted. Meaning um one property may generate livestock waste and another property may use livestock waste but it has to be clearly agricultural use and it has to be
approved by me per our ordinances. What we're bringing back for discussion in February or March, we have it drafted. Mr. Curts has to review it is >> we don't have time in February. We're you know this meeting as you can hear is
like it's going to be a three-day phone. >> It's a hot topic. We need direction on you know again the idea of everything being a priority. It all can't be. But we do have a draft of a consolidation of
the legacy ordinances from the previous attempts at regulating livestock waste. Um, and we do have an interim franchi non-exclusive franchise to go along with the change we already made to the solid
waste ordinance or livestock waste, which would regulate the haulers. It doesn't let anybody bring hoop to any location. It is not anything for receivers or transfer stations. It's strictly to get the haulers to report
and two haulers. Uh part of our process is we do report to Wellington and Wellington has cancelled permits in uh for some of the haulers that operate in town. So, you know, it's not it's a one
two whammy. So, so we can come back in February to talk about it or March. Council choice. >> Looks like March to me. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you. >> I mean, it is a hot topic item, but >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I wouldn't say stop the work. >> Oh, we are.
>> Yeah. >> No, there'll be hearings. >> Say or you just got your light on for >> Well, back on the 21. Is there any sitting council member that thinks we should not move forward with the $75,000 grant? >> Not me. Okay. So, okay. Very good.
That's it. >> No, I think there's a lot of misconception about what it is and that that's >> and want to make sure that that we're all on the same page, right? >> That we're not giving up anything and we're not looking to develop all the way to collecting. Now, we're all on that same page. >> I I think we paid experts a lot of money
to provide the protection that we think we have. It's unfortunate that we have to do this, but it if anything goes north of Tangerine, Tangerine to >> past past it exceed it >> but we know there is issues I mean we're
currently involved in one issue >> and I we know that there are issues and if we can clearly define this I think we can further protect you talk about shoring up boundaries I want to further protect >> right >> and shore up our internal boundaries too >> well actually Mr. Curts and I spoke
about some language regarding the parcels that you're referring to, >> right? >> That will hopefully be brought to us sooner rather than later, but that's a shade issue. But um no, but I'm just saying the whole point of the in my mind
of this exercise is to make sure that nothing like that is ever in question ever again. That we right >> like you were saying about shoring up the great deal of work we're doing, shoring up our external boundaries. I'm talking about let's shore up this internal commercial. Let's >> we're trying to do opposite of what people are saying we're trying to do,
>> right? >> We're here to protect it, not trying to expand. >> Depending on what we try to go for, you know, a lot of grants and stuff that we try to go for, things need to be quote unquote shovel ready, right? So, I think even in this exercise, we might find a lot of things that actually help
solidify different things down the road as well. So, I think it, you know, there could be offshoot, you know, benefit to this as well. So, >> all right, we're ready for closing comments, Francine. Okay, we provided to
you late um because we just received it um the cash dispersement report and um I have asked and I have received but I want to review um a more expanded report that shows when council approved the
contract and um so on for all the items over $10,000 and over $25,000 because most of the $10,000 items were actually approved um by council pursuant to contracts. Second, with regard to
contracts, we are all in the process of making sure that we remove inactive contracts from our contract list. And so very shortly we will have a clean contract list to distribute to you with
um a recap of terms and terminations. And um the last item that I wanted to share is um unfortunately I forgot. So I'm going to say happy new year and um thank you very
much for everything. Okay, Mr. Chris, >> nothing tonight in light of the time and I've talked enough. >> Uh, quick report. Uh, the e newswsletter will be going out this month. I'm going to pass out the e newswsletter staff
timeline and kind of a proposed uh, list of what we're looking at topics for the year. If you have any questions, let me know. >> Volume one, >> pardon me. Volume one, first edition >> volume. Yes. >> Uh
Karen, are you still here? >> Yep. >> Anything to say, ma'am? >> Yeah, just wanted to say thank you for everybody coming to the Christmas party. It was really nice to see everybody. I think we all had a really good time. It was a lot of fun. So hopefully again we'll have something and wishing everybody a happy and
healthy new year. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Sorry your sweater didn't win. >> Yeah. Goa >> next year. Go with ugly 80s and you'll be good. >> It's the same. >> It's the same thing. We have an extra cup.
>> Uh and who's next? Craig. >> So, as you guys heard earlier, we did go out to we did the invitation to bid uh this week. Um 16 contractors came in. So, we are moving forward with the paving project.
>> Yeah, there was a lot. There was a ton of them in there. Um, just so you guys know, we're going 22 feet wide down a road all the way and then collecting canal will be 20. So, we know the width. I know that was one of the issues that people wanted to know about. We are
going a little bit wider. Um the next we will go out let's see I think what in February you will have the bid that will come out and then we'll be actually give you the real numbers for the um CIP for what it's actually going to cost us for the paving
on it >> like an analysis of like the different what the diff because especially with this large number will we have an analysis of the different bids and do you have like a group of two or three people that are going to rate them or rank them before we see
No, it's it's just going to be numbers. >> It's just going to be numbers. >> It's a schedule of values. So, you will have an analysis across the schedule of values. >> Okay. >> Lisa, did you have something to add? >> Questions. Um,
>> what's the status of the easements along those roads? >> Um, I believe we are just waiting on two. That's it. One one is there some firm he denying and we have I think two that we're actually waiting on. That's it. >> And the scope of work that was approved
before I got up here. Um is the 20 ft exceed that scope of work that council previously approved? >> No ma'am that was part of it already. The 22 foot wide road and then there's going to be a 10ft swale with catch basins in the swelles >> and striping. No striping. >> Um there is a 6 in a double line stripe
going down the center. We're going to make the mistake of double aligning the center of the road again. >> The w is wider than it was before. >> Okay. You've seen the the vehicles that go down our roads, right? They're behemoths. And um last question. Um any
report on the nutrient levels that come out of our canals? That's >> No, ma'am. South Florida Water Management. >> I think I asked uh Mr. Galant four times to get me that information. >> I can get it for you. I'm sorry. I did. >> That's okay. >> Can't answer for him. It's You're in the hot seat.
>> Yes, ma'am. Thank you. No problem. >> So, will you get them for us? >> Yes, ma'am. We'll work on it. >> Okay. Um Todd, you're up first. >> Um Lisa, you're you're going to Tallahassee with us? >> I'm going to Tallahassee.
>> And are you riding with us? >> No, I'm flying. >> Oh, okay. Um All right. Well, I appreciate staff working to get working on >> it's going to work out better in my timing with I got the full barn and it's just >> okay because costwise it's a lot.
>> I understand. I understand. But it's I got actually it even going through Atlanta it wasn't that long. So getting back here and just >> getting all the logistics in my life to align with that >> flying is easier. The only thing I don't like about it is when we want to leave,
you know, we're not, well, we can leave at 2 o'clock. Let's get out of here. Where you're stuck going to the airport at 7 o'clock or whatever time your flight is. >> You guys, >> no, I know. No, I know. But that's that's why I would prefer to drive. >> So, we may end up being home before you is my point. >> No, that's possible. Maybe. So,
>> how airport is literally this big. >> Yes. So, >> um, you know, I appreciate staff moving forward with, you know, trying to get these industrial uses on up Boulevard, you know, coming, you know, trying to get those into compliance. Um, you know,
we have a good team here. They're working they're working their tail off. And I mean, we have a lot of employees here. I was shocked when I came to the Christmas party as to how many were here. >> They weren't all here either. >> I was missing a couple. >> I was missing two, >> right? We're missing a couple.
>> I was missing two. There's a lot of people. Yeah. So, but >> we we've added I mean I think about when I was on the council when Bill Underwood was here. >> It was less than a quarter of the amount of people, right? >> But we've taken on, you know, permitting. We've taken on so many things that we didn't have then. So, you
know, but everybody at that everybody at that Christmas party, it was like a family. Everybody was happy. So, you know, when people are saying, "Oh, it's a hostile work environment here." I couldn't tell because all the staff that was here was very jolly and happy to be
here and we appreciate you guys. >> Yes, sir. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you for everybody. >> You're next. >> Um yes, I'm sorry I couldn't make it. Um had a frier at the barn and you know when friers show up, one has to stay put. >> So
>> at the whims of the bird. >> Um just the documentation that has been provided tonight. I just want to make sure that's going to be up on the website. >> It is. >> All All of these >> all the updates that you received. Yes.
>> Because we've got like I got an extra one. Um we've got like six. Okay. Awesome. And um I I'm sorry. I I came back from the restroom. The status of the franchise um manure
hauling thing, that's that's all still logistically getting worked out documentation wise and stuff, right? So that hasn't actually been launched. >> No, correct. >> No, it has to back to you. >> Yeah. Sorry. Yeah, we're bringing in March. That was the March.
>> Okay. I I wasn't sure that aligned. >> You said we're doing it again. >> Well, yeah, I heard all that part, but I wasn't sure exactly what it was that was coming back. And then >> inspired to not have an extension booth. >> Yeah. And now that we're getting more um committees up and running hopefully and
and more meeting times, is it just salaried employees that are going to be attending these meetings? Because I know in the past with hourly employees that's that's been an issue. So >> well, we want to make sure we certainly do run the agenda so that they go first.
>> Yeah. So, do we have consultants >> any hourly employees that are coming to meetings at on on the clock >> on committee meetings >> or even council meetings? Well, we see anybody here >> the clerk assistant once I think I think the only one maybe.
>> So, Enya Enya attends the workshop meetings for the council and then uh Gabby attends all the boards and committees. >> Okay. So, we will have some hourly cost associated. Okay. All right. Thanks. Yes, they need to be pointed and efficient. >> All right. And then, >> oh, I'm sorry.
>> Lastly, um I spoke with Jeff about vested rights um we haven't gotten together on my reading material list um yet that I should be reviewing before we sit down. And then uh Valerie and I over the holiday we we couldn't connect that.
My bad. Um, but uh I I will be working on the my champion cause of communication with Valerie and I I have some questions for Karen too on communication. So that's my report so far. >> Oh.
>> Oh, I'm up already. Um, just a couple things. I I I I can't help but try to reiterate all the time that, you know, um I don't think there's a singular voice up here. I mean, I don't I don't follow lock step with anyone. I
think we all have, you know, our own voice and we all think that we're doing what we were put up here to do. Um, so, um, but just I again I we have to look at things as a broad picture. We have to look at things like, you know, these
these conservation mitigation things that have happened and we're trying to fix it and trying to put tools into place that will prevent it from happening again as much as possible like the tree mitigation, you know, uh, ordinance. You know, it it attempts to
stop people from doing the improper thing. And unfortunately, the only people that are going to do the proper thing are those that would already do the proper thing. So, you know, and if we if somebody's doing the wrong thing, like dumping manure on the property next door to you, the course of action is to
call code enforcement, right? That's that's and allow them on your property to take pictures and stuff like that if they can't see. Um but, you know, I look forward to see what you guys bring back. I'm sorry I can't join you um in Tallahassee. And uh yeah, thanks for
letting us be involved in your holiday party, you guys. Appreciate it. Have a great night. We'll see you in a couple weeks. >> So yeah, um the gratitude baskets were very well received uh by the people that we delivered to and uh I think it's a
big hit in the uh in the town. So um I think we should continue that. Um the um a-road u manure dumping. Um I
passed a garbage truck tonight which is a way they bring in stuff trying to be under the radar. So I passed that and I didn't realize that u taking a picture would uh be helpful
to you. And uh the other morning there were five trucks lined up ready to go in and film. So they're still they're still playing games with us. So we have to keep on top of them. Um the other thing is the
conservation easements the 13 or how many others there are that um we've identified that they're there. Uh uh are we going to look at the status of >> Yes. >> Yes. That's ongoing.
>> They are u being maintained >> 100%. >> Uh will we know the reason why they were assigned to that property? Um >> yes. >> What what are the reasons in other words
that uh the county >> Yeah. We would have done that. we can we can give you that information. And yeah, once once they have completed their inspections, the the next step um is
really to develop a monitoring program um and you know keep this in check so that we don't have the denuting situations, >> right? Are we having in-house uh inspection of them? Are we getting a
>> uh Jerry Renick, our our arborist is u the person who is doing the inspections and we'll be doing the evaluation of um the uh the uh conservation easements, what's there and what's existing. Um and
we'll also be doing uh the evaluation of what the this denuted one would be. Okay. All right. And happy new year to everyone. Uh, we made it through another year.
>> All right. That's all. >> Okay. I went to the Wellington 20th anniversary last >> 30th anniversary. Sorry. Last Friday to pill for some ideas for our 20th anniversary coming up in October, which
is my what did you call it? Vanity project. champion project by champ by champion project. Um, and so as I looked around and kind of joked a little bit with uh the mayor of Royal Palm Beach because it was the most amazing sunset
you've ever seen. I have pictures of it if anybody wants to see it. It was like it was unbelievable. And I was telling Jeff that I was, you know, there to kind of borrow some ideas for our upcoming anniversary. Said we neither of us can afford that. and we both laughed. Scott
and I go, "Yeah, I wonder how much they paid for that." So, um, I did get some ideas, but it occurred to me as I looked around and was taking my ideas in and I have met briefly with Francine and with >> you have no budget. >> That's what we're here to talk about.
So, I need to know how much we want to spend on this. So, with that in mind, my thoughts in my mind without talking to the rest of my committee, which I need to do, um is, you know, I was thinking like
probably $20,000. I know that's a big number, but this is a big anniversary for us, but um I need to talk to my committee, especially Valerie, who's super great at doing things on the cheap, but still classy. Um, so I need to sit down with Val and go over some ideas with her, but if you guys could
just kind of start thinking in your mind and if Francine if you could let me know. >> I mean what if you could find out what Wellington spent, but I guarantee you that was a way bigger number. Um, but if you could find out what they spent just so we could put things in perspective of
what this kind of a suare cost would not be able to do it on that grand of a scale. I mean, no. >> Although Todd and I who were at this thing were talking about how we when we build our amphitheater to have our 20th anniversary, we're not going to have generators. We're going to have electric plugins because the generators are too
loud. But any that was kind of a that'd be way more. But anyhow, um, so yeah, if you could look at maybe, and I wasn't sure whether this was kosher, but since it's in October, could we take like half of it from this year and half of it from
next year of what the costs are going to be? Like, I don't know. I mean, I'm just like, so there's a whole bunch of things to look at that way. But if everybody could start thinking about like what is palatable to you to spend and then I'll try to have for maybe our um informal meeting some real numbers for us to look
at. >> Yeah, I have a thought >> um it because it's the America's 250th as well and it kind of aligns nice with our 20th, >> right? U maybe doing some things that you know USA 250 locks Groves 20 some kind of commemorative decal like car
decals right that could be purchased that that doesn't be something that's provided for free >> well I'm going to try to get things underwritten you there's a lot of stuff >> no I understand but that could even be something that's available ahead of time like >> you know if if we could get it you know somehow covered financially in like 60
days they'd be available because people want to promote the birthday of America and and the town and combining those two I think from a page >> and getting that out before the 4th of July. >> Yeah. And coming up with some kind of >> we could actually we could actually start because we talked about jump starting our campaign for the
anniversary in October in the summer. So that would be an ideal way to do it. So >> yeah, because some people are really starting to think in the 250 birthday thing. >> That's a great way to do it is to tie the two together and do that as kind of like a jump start. Send everybody a sticker, a car decal or a sticker or something. >> Yeah. If it's effective or they're
available at town hall to pick up and >> Right. We fling them from a float. So anyhow, both of it people chamber commerce lady. I always forget her name. What's her name? She stopped me in the hall at work. Uh because I go
down there for the post office and she was come by AND SHE GOES, "CONGRATULATIONS on winning the" And I said, "Yeah, I was a little worried because we got a little wrongus right around the judge's stand." And I said, "I believe a judge was hit by a piece of flinging candy." And she
said, "Well, they must have liked it." And I was like, "Yeah, I guess they did." Anyhow, with that, >> happy new year everybody. Thank you for being here. I I just am often times very much dread coming to these meetings. But I have to tell you
that for the last couple of meetings at least, I've been so inspired when I've left here by um the work we're getting done and the unity and um you know, like people say, we don't always agree, but we're we're really uh I think really
able to compromise very nicely. So um with that, I would like a motion from adjourn the meeting. So move. >> All in favor? I >> thanks for coming y'all. One in the book right
two nights