Okay. Good evening everyone. I'm calling to order the August 5th Black Satic Roadstown Council meeting. If we could all please stand for the pledge of allegiance. To the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it
stands one indivisible with liberty and justice for all. And if we could just have a moment of silence. Um it seems in over the last couple of days
that anger has reigned and there has been a lot of um mass killings around the country. And so I would just like to uh have a moment of silence to recognize the people who lost family members and uh
let you know that the mass killer that was about a mile and a half from my brother's house just got caught about an hour ago finally after killing a family of four. So that's one one one community safe this evening. Hey, if we could have a roll call.
Yes, your honor. Um, Councilman Todd McClendon. Uh, Council Member Lisa El Ramy here. Council member Paul Coleman here. Vice Mayor Marge Herszog
here. Mayor Anita Kaine present. All are present and accounted for. Thank you. Do we have any additions, deletions, or modifications to the agenda? We have a lot of Just everybody note, it's going to take us a while to get from item to item. We have a lot of
supplementary information that was here this evening um for us. So, please have patience for us, those of you in the public. Um could I have a motion to approve the agenda? I'll make a motion to approve. Second. All in favor?
I I opposed. Passes five to zero. This is the time of the evening where we um allow for public comment on non-aggenda items. Mr. Clerk, do we That was like Mr. Curts. Mr. Clerk, that was funny.
Mr. Clerk, do we have any comments from the public? Uh yes, we've got three. The first is Mary McNicholas. Oh, I've got a my turn on. All right, it's on.
It is on. Thank you. Good evening, Mary McNicholas, your government relations person. 500 South Australian Avenue, Sweet 710 West Palm Beach. wanted to give you a quick update as far as the uh North Lake closure. I hope that you all
feel the same that in essence your town and the surrounding community has planned together to make sure that there's a smooth transition. I want to thank your public works director and also your uh town manager as far as their assistance. I believe that it's
all gone well. We have had a couple of accidents um on the evening the sa the return um not this evening close to us but last evening we had one at southern and c road and then another one at southern and d road um so could have
been to the weather just depends but you know I wanted to make sure that you all knew that at least the construction project is going as scheduled and hopefully we will continue to have you know progress as far as that goes. Um, what they're calling it now is, if you've noticed, there's a lot of traffic
out there, but they're calling it streamlined congestion. So, everything's moving. It's all moving and things seem to be going well. If anyone has any questions or if there's any um, you know, concerns or anything that you've had, I'd
appreciate hearing from you all. Also, we had a a moment to go over uh Craig was with us, um Craig Lowour, and also your mayor, Anita Kaine, was with us over at the command center yesterday. Um
and PBSO and public safety have a great presence there. And you know, as far as their operations, it was just pretty impressive. I thought it was very impressive. Very impressive. So, um the resources are there, the plans seems to be working
well. Um, if anybody has any questions or whatever, you can either see me in the back or feel free to ask. Now, do they still anticipate the same deadline? They're hoping, they're trying their hardest. That's why I said the construction is going as planned. It's
going well. They're really hoping to beat the deadline, but that's not, you know, we're planning on having it, you know, through the 10th. Yeah, they made an announcement that I got that that they are on track at this time to be completed by the 10th, but
so they're really they're working 24/7 and have had you know I don't know how much rain they've had in that area, but that's a good question. Thank you. Yeah, it thunders Yeah, here here we've had a lot of rain raining sideways yesterday which is I'm sure added to some of the um accidents.
Anything else that anyone has? Otherwise, you're happy to um ask me in the back or in the lobby or outside. Okay. Thank you all so much. Thank you, V. Okay. Uh the next person is Robert Austin. Robert Upson, 746 Hyde Park. Hello,
council and staff. I understand that our town has a limited budget, limited staff to deal with all the issues that our small town has, but the fact that some issues never really get resolved and actually only get worse is horrible. One is the RV issue that we have is out of control. As I've warned before, the town can't control having a limit number of
occupied RVs per lot and only for equestrian related people during the equestrian season with a few exceptions like the security guards at nurseries. Then it needs to be stopped. No other city, town, or municipality allows single family residential a lots to also have any full-time occupied RV lots on
the property. Since year-round camping has been allowed, we now have hundreds of RVs and tiny houses throughout our town. Not to even mention the illegal apartments that are on our street that are still operating at full capacity, even as even has ads on Facebook for new tenants when ones move out. That's
absurd. They give the town the middle finger and the town acts as if it has no power to stop it. Not only have we been given the runaround about the apartments literally for years now, if you look on Facebook or Craigslist, etc., you will see many new ads for full-time RV spots for rent in the Groves. Yes, full-time
any time of the year, totally unrelated to the equestrian crowd for the equestrian season. The same people who have lived in campers in our town now for several years are still there. Why? This would not be allowed in any other town but Lockacei Groves. They laugh at us out here and say any you can do
anything in Lockache Groves. We don't have the money or the staff to control this issue. If we don't have the money or staff to control this issue, you haven't even made a dent in it. And it's actually growing. We have people up in arms about high-end campground that is in a one way in and one way out onto a
main road that is southern that is already going to explode with even more traffic because of growth. And the campground would be a tiny fraction of that traffic on Southern. Yet, we literally have hundreds of people in campers and tiny homes and yes, even our illegal apartments that drive all over the interior of our town, scoping out
our properties and looking our garages. And as with the apartments, uh men taking pictures of little girls riding their horses. And yes, my neighbor has called the police about that issue. We still have people buying or renting expecting to use our residential lots as tractor trailer storage or food truck
storage. You have very large landscaping businesses with dozens of daily employees that should be in light industrial lots, not a single family a residential lots. If the town is really going to control this issue, you need to totally stop allowing occupied RVs and maybe then enforceable for the
equestrian season only or the people who have already applied for permits that are trying to do the right thing. Let them continue. Also, the town needs to re really foreclose on the worst offenders and quit letting them get away with making our neighborhoods unsafe for the residents who live here. I don't
keep my garage door open just for this reason. It's also why we keep big dogs out guarding our property 24/7. So many transient strangers drive up and down our little dead-end street. These people drive all over the interior of our town when they shouldn't even be here. Something needs to be done. These issues are out of control. Thank you for your
time. Okay. Uh, the next person is Victor Lee. Can you hand him the microphone? How you doing? Victor Leato 15665 Collecting Canal Road. I just wanted to talk about the added expense of thinking
about hiring our own lawyer. Uh when the town first started, it was going to we were going to be government light and open to the public and stay with three employees and stay in boonies.
The thing is now with us hiring a lawyer, I hope the council thinks about and a parillegal paying for the medical, the drop program, the workers comp, and I'm sure he'll get a golden parachute if we get
rid of him. And then we have to remember about his pension. And don't forget that could be 20 years for each for the parillegal and the um lawyer because that will cover his wife
or spouse too. Um you can ask our neighbors moving in from New York and California. The government is just getting bigger and bigger. So I just hope the council thinks about that.
uh just getting bigger and more and more taxes and it seems like that's all they think about is get new taxes and new uh code violations and just um need to make
more money because they have so many expenses. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you. I think that's all the uh comments we have for this portion of the meeting.
I don't know whether you want to adjourn until 6:30 or move on with the meeting. Council's pleasure. Uh Bel. with each other's here. I think that we've got some traffic
issues and things. So, how about if we take like a five minute break, five or 10 minute break and start Let's come back at 6:20, 6:20. Start 10 minutes early. Is everybody okay with that? Yeah. Yeah, that's fine. Okay. Okay. All right.
Still 6:20. Yep. Yeah. So much more to read. I was like, there's pile and a pile and a pile. Like, oh, I thought I was so prepared. Yeah.
said he spoke to him. He's your mentor. Did he work for you? No, he's a good leader. Jack probably he's really taking away an agenda. I apologize everybody for letting us
speak about an agenda item, but he came all the way out in his wheelchair, so I just I'm with you. I just let it go. Part of that big machine. I said hi. Yeah, me too. Did I get it all?
Some of it via email. No, that we did not get that's new. building around That was the letter. Well, ahead of
What I'm Oh my god. Anyway, So come on out. everything that master Well, you're welcome. I remember a sweater.
It did initially. Yes. Okay. done the uh he checks in. Is he on already? I told you, but he was not kind of instead Billion
was just alive. Yes, ma'am. The one firm is there. The one firm is back there. The other firm is this gray hair gentleman here with the glasses by himself.
thing. You want me to go check on Mr. Coleman's? He's his calling name. Yeah, you have his caller. Looking for Paul. He's looking for folks so we can reconvene. Okay, ladies and gentlemen, we're going
to come back to order. Guess I might have to say that a little louder. Okay, ladies and gentlemen, we're going to come back to order. No, things like that. Okay, guys, we're coming back to order. All right, having no presentations,
we're moving on to the consent agenda. Can I have a motion to approve the consent agenda? I have some items to pull. Well, okay. Let's let's go with the motion to approve it. Do I have a second to approve it? Second. Okay. All right. Now, does anybody have Lisa has some items she'd like to pull?
I'd like to pull one, two, five, and nine. One, two, five, and nine. Okay. So, all righty. We will move one, two, five and nine in that order to
after nine. Uh after regular. Yeah, let's do it after regular. Let's do it after 14. One, two, five, and nine. After 14. Okay. Um we have a person.
Excuse me. Um sir, we need a motion. Yes. Hold on a second. Wait, you got a public comment. Hold on a second. I'm sorry. We have a comment card on the consent agenda from Brian McNeel.
Okay. Is it on one of the pulled items? I don't know. Hi and thanks for affording me this time to speak specifically to the five members that basically represent us aly this is not political but this is a
hornets's nest that I'm going to hit it's going to affect me Corporal Lewis PZ or PZ deputy deputy Ralph Butler Waller Deputy Ignasio Dan Diaz were slaughter slaughtered on
Southern Boulevard last year horribly doing their job and doing it for 30 years, many of them just before retirement. It's horrible to think of it. And it's very, very important that they be
memorialized. The Southern Boulevard placards, whatever. Great. Let the Department of Transportation put them up. These men were heroes. They deserve it.
The next gentleman under consideration is a convicted felon. He pardoned the cop killers from the January 6th insurrection of the capital where feces were being smeared on the walls by his supporters that he freed.
He admits to fondling girls genitals at the beauty pod pageantss he bought so they could have the privilege of going in their dressing rooms. This is not a hero. This is a sick man who does not deserve your vote. Your vote. Your vote.
Your vote or your vote to be memorialized in my community on my stretch of road that I live on as a citizen. Please have the courage. Have the courage to honor the three men who died instead of this morally corrupt
puppet that's pulling all of your strings. Thank you. Okay. Can I have a motion about the consent agenda? Well, does it need a modified motion for the room four as well?
The motion to um put uh one, two, five, and nine after 14. Second. Okay. Anybody want to address Mr. McNeel said we want to pull four as well? I I do not It's not really It's It's just us
agreeing to something that they're going to do basically. That's It's already been approved. It's already being done. It's just us agreeing with it, too. So, do I have a I have a motion and a sec? Do I have a second? I would point out that the portion of
Southern Boulevard that affects that is east of us down in that's why I was saying do we want to pull it just to clarify that because I know we don't like to discuss things now. So let's just we have a motion. Do I have a second?
Second. All in favor? I opposed. Passes five to zero. Okay. All right. On to item number 10. This is a followup from the last several
meetings. Item number 10, correct? It's the consideration and approval of agreement for the town attorney legal services. All of the firms can't hear and capturing. I'm sorry. I'll try to talk louder. Is that better?
Okay. Um, this is a continuation of the conversation that council had at its last meeting. Um, they wanted to carry that conversation over to this meeting. Each of the attorneys has reviewed a
contract. Mr. Torivia is on the line and can speak to that. Um, we have sent out a detailed matrix comparing the hourly rates. um and the estimated hours and so on and so forth.
Um all of the firms and the representatives are remarkable professionals and so there you have it. Any discussion council? Anybody want to make a motion?
I do I do have a question uh for one of the applicants. I'm trying to find my place still because Yeah, they have the extra handout too with the matrix in it. Yeah. So, there we go. Sorry. We have a lot of extra handouts
tonight and so it's just taking us a little while to get organized and make sure we have all the information. So I certainly apologize for that taking a minute. All right, Lisa, you have a question?
I do for Mr. Famro. Uh when you were here last, you mentioned uh you had uh researched if you had any conflicts of interest and I understand that you have a manure hauler that you represent in the town of Locks Hatch.
No, in Wellington. Yes. Yeah. So you know that manure is a big issue out here, right? So to me that is potentially a conflict of interest. um because that's going to be coming before us and has been something that this council's been considered for some time
now. So, I just wanted Thank you for answering that. Yeah, that's not a legal conflict. That that may be a perception issue, but that's what attorneys do. I represent a residential development and you have one here doesn't mean I support it or oppose
it. That's what attorneys do for No, I understand. Yes. Thank you. Anybody else have anything to say? Anybody want to make a motion? I make a motion we um entertain um Jeff
Kurt as the um in house attorney. Second, I do have a question. Oh, Paul's got his light on. No, it's okay. Go ahead. I'll defer, Lisa. I want to pull this up real quick. I I did have um a concern about going whether it's with Mr. Curts individually
or with a in-house model. Do we have a plan? Should he be unable to attend a meeting and and how do we deal with absences? Um in that in that scenario, well, I think we have an excellent
example here tonight. um we are in have the benefit of modern technology and Glenn is here but he's not present at the the meeting. So that's a possibility. If there were a situation in which um I was totally unavailable for
whatever reason, um we do anticipate that we would uh retain some outside counsel um for various matters um and would probably secure somebody from one of those firms to cover in my absence if
I was truly absolutely absent. But as I said, modern technology does help. Okay. Thank you. What has your attendance been? 100% now. Okay, Paul, you have your light on.
Yeah. So, you know, and and this has been brought up to me multiple times in the past few weeks and and you know, I kind of low I I kind of estimated a number um but nowhere has
anyone since we got the first um proposal of in-house council and the line item for the budget, nowhere has anyone addressed what the benefits package cost. It's just been strictly salary for two
individuals and then possibly some additional. It didn't. So the 330 covers FRS covers medical covers the whole because every time I bring it up, it gets kind of we get on something else and whatever. Nobody has ever said, "Oh,
no, that 330 covers this." Right. So, so, so at 130 and then you know what estimate on a parallegal? I mean, just so we're dealing with apples and apples because, you know, and nobody corrected me when I said, "Oh, well, you
know, with salary, etc., etc., you're looking at over $400,000 anyway, right?" So just just so we're clear with respect to the budget that was presented um or in house um what it included uh for
salary all benefits um for an attorney and a parallegal that came to a total of approximately $310,000. Um there was an additional $50,000 that was allocated for uh potential outside
legal services. Um, so you have a total of $360,000 um in the proposed budget allocation uh if you went inhouse. And that equates to on an outside
council basis um at the lowest rate that was presented to you um about 1350 hours. um uh to somewhere just uh uh around uh
1,100 hours, right? That $310,000 salaries. What about No, no, no. That's not salaries. That's the whole package. That's salaries, the pension, um your FICA
payment, everything is in that $310,000 for those two positions. Okay. You hired Mr. Curts externally at the 225 an hour and he worked the $1,500 hours. That would be $337,500.
That's no benefits. That's 1,500 hours. If he is in house, the total amount for the department, including a parallegal, is $310,000, not including specialized legal services cuz each of the firms said that they
might have occasion to use specialized legal services. So everything being equal, it's 310 inhouse. Statistically speaking, an employee is supposed to work 2080, 2,80 hours a
year. With holidays and vacation schedules, that number drops down to something like 16 to,700 hours. But for an exempt employee working in local government, you're generally getting 1,800
productive hours because they're going to night meetings and so on and so forth. If we did the math on last month's meetings or this month's meetings, we've had 10 count 10 hours of council meetings, 10 hours of council
meetings at 225 is um a dollar amount. 10 hours of council meetings at an in-house council is no difference in the salary, benefits, or anything. So that's why the tradeoff is in the hours. You
get productive hours closer to $1,800 per your exempt employee versus the 700 to,500 professional hours of your contract employee. There's pros and cons
to both, but if we're trying to go ahead and strictly look at dollars, that's how they shake out. Well, I'm not I'm not trying to go ahead and strictly look at dollars. I'm just trying to, you know, every time I've brought up benefits, nobody has said, "Oh, yes, now that includes FICA, that includes,
you know, ex xyz." Presenting this, but I will say this, when we did the presentation of the external versus the internal services. Last year, we prepared a complete line item budget with Paul was in his
defense, he wasn't No, I understand that. And so that's why we resent it out in the very first conversation. And so if we didn't explain that when you met with us, it said sorry. Yeah. It said it said salaries. It was
one it was a line item budget and it said 310 330. That was for the legal department. No, for the legal department. That's what it said. But that would include everything. They're separate. That's not how it read. How about if we just giveailed apologize for my ignorance in the in the
fact, but that's not how it read. It read that the legal department was going to cost $310,000, right? And that was, you know, didn't it to me that didn't stipulate that mean and then it broke down like uh paper and
this, you know, supplies, etc., etc. You follow you follow where I'm going? I didn't see where it was and I I don't have it right here handy to bring up. So, I mean that I apologize for any confusion. No, that's I mean it's all included. You know, I kind of feel like, you know, I brought it up numerous times and nobody said, "Hey, Paul, wait a minute.
It was there." Because I would have gladly looked at it, you know, before. Um the other thing is is is you got 225 hourly, right? You know, like we we got some breakdowns.
uh one one one firm is what 3:15 and then an open a blank spot you know for any non I guess nonpartner activity um another firm kind
of breaks it down menu wise and you got 225 in the in-house model you're saying you need a parallegal so I'm assuming if you're thinking that you need a parallegal that you're going
to need a parallegal on the other model as well. So, does that mean your parallegal is billing at the attorney rate at 225 or is that Couple of them have parallegal rates in there that are One has. Yeah, one has. The other one didn't provide the other had a blank. That's why I'm
just asking for clarification on his you know, does that mean you're you is it just 225 a manh hour or is it 220? I mean, you see what I'm saying? would the 225 is for uh in in my case the $225 is for um lawyer time
lawyer time attorney time um the parallegal I don't know whether that would be necessary or not it's a different model and it would it would excuse me Mr. But didn't you say if you had to hire a parallegal that would be
an expense you would bear as an independent contractor? Yes, I would. Well, that but that's the that was the parallegal would not be build at $225. I was going to say that was the clarification I didn't get la at the last meeting was that's what I was trying to ask. Is it 225 just a manh
hour? So no matter who's working on it, whether it's Jeff or the parallegal, it's 225 an hour, right? Or is it 225 for for Mr. Kurt and you know 70 for one 125 or whatever for
the parallegal and then because the flip side is is if he doesn't need a parallegal if he's working as a contract why do we need a parallegal if he's working on the inside or is that a catch bingo is it a catch just in case we need a parallegal where we could come back and
we can amend something later but I mean you see what I'm saying to the question it's a different service model um as an employee uh you would be here in these offices
all the virtually all the time and and um uh whereas if it was done as an outside council um as I indicated to you I would probably be here more than other firms would be um in person but I would
not be here all the all the time so it's a different work model. The parallegal services when you are inhouse are going to provide more contact and more services to um the uh other departments.
Uh for example, code enforcement and those kind of things. The parallegal would be um charged with uh assisting them in the preparation of their um uh of of their agendas. Um, and there
would be in all likelihood if I was here more time spent in in meetings um and the parallegal would be doing things that uh were a matter of routine. If you're
talking about a outside legal counsel model where I would be providing uh in the neighborhood of 1500 hours um that would be a different model. It is not as high a service level model as in-house
is. I don't think anybody would I'm not trying to be rude or anything but I'm not that ignorant. I understand what the different service models are. Okay. I understand um you know I come from the construction world. We have hourly folks and we have peace working folks which is the same without you know
diminishing anybody's trade or whatever you know that that it's the same concept right you know I I get what you're saying my point is is if you can if you can do it out here and you know I guess my point is
what you're doing now right if you're transitioning to the to to in if you if we do the in-house lawyer uh model and you transition there. So, you know, you're not wearing 20 hats anymore. You're wearing the lawyer hat, right? And
I mean that I just don't see how I I understand what you're saying about well, they would be here to assist code enforcement. Wouldn't you also be here to assist code enforcement? I mean, I that's why I'm confused. If if if we go with the outside model, they're not going to be here to assist code enforcement unless we're paying a
billable hour, right? So I mean you feel you understand where I'm coming from? You understand what I'm I'm asking I or saying or am I being Yes. There I I think so. The answer is if you go inhouse there's going to be a higher level of service.
Okay. Anybody else have anything? Go ahead. Uh Paul, I'm with you 100%. Um, it looks like when it's on the taxpayer dollar, we're going to run up the bill and have a parallegal and when you've got a full-time attorney on staff. And, um, I
will reiterate again my grave concern of communication from the town attorneys, past and present, uh, communicating directly and reporting directly to council, which is part of the reason these legal costs have skyrocketed in
this town. Thank you. So, I mean, excuse me. So, with the firm we have right now, I don't believe there's a different rate for parallegal. I mean, every bill I see, I don't see a rate on there for parallegal. Um, I don't know if they just don't use parallegals there or what, but our rate
is 242 an hour, right? That option is off the table. So, our option in front of us tonight is 315 an hour, 325 an hour, 225 an hour, right? Right back to the rate, actually a lesser rate than what we're paying today
per hour of an outside firm or going in-house. Do I think going in-house and having a full-time attorney and a full-time parallegal is hard to digest as a small town? It is, but I think it's going to be more cost effective. As crazy as that sounds, um I would like to
see monthly reports come to us that show what the legal department has spent and what it's projected to be for the year. And we can watch this for six months and see where we're at. We're not locked into a contract. If it doesn't work out, we could look at this in six months and go, "This isn't working. Look at our
costs are through the roof." We can readress it. We haven't tried this model of going in-house. Try it and see what happens. Go ahead, Paul. Go ahead. You were you were leaning forward first. So, I hear what you're saying, Todd. And
um just like the current model we're under where the manager handles all the hiring and firing, he has full autonomy over his own department. So if we give him a parallegal now, we can't get rid of the parallegal. Sure, we can
if we do it in because we're doing such a great job of managing it now. All we got to do is defund that that department. Just defund the department. Well, we've heard about defunding bad employees in the past and that didn't happen. So, but those bad employees are gone, right?
Yeah. By attrition with fabulous let let you see you buy go retirement plans. So, I don't have a problem with what you're necessarily saying. I just say we fund it at the minimal level if we go inhouse and without a parallegal. Without a parallegal,
absolutely not. Not completely opposed to that. Um, let me ask you this. If we had a parallegal, would that take away some of the work that is on your department? It would definitely take away a lot of the work that's on
Valerie's department and my department. Um, but you know, we can follow council's direction and come up with something that we can try to make work. So, I guess my point is, can we take half an employee from the town manager side and move that over to the legal
side? I I think the charter clearly states that that is not the case. No, no, I'm saying funding wise. I understand. I get it. It's It's not a question of where the money comes from. Our town's already in the hole. If you guys haven't We're going to get to hear that later, right? So whether the there's money or not is irrelevant. That
parallegal can't do other work, right? That parallegal has to work the legal department. Technically, you can't work out of class. Technically, you know better than I. technically te technically
you cannot work out of class and that's what you know I mean not to get on another subject but I mean that's what every time somebody says oh we we hired all these people we're doing all this stuff well everybody wants this level of service you can't have the clerk out there running a weed eater you
can't have you know that's a real extreme but you know technically you can't have the permit tech doing parallegal work because they're working out of class Right? Then you get into pay structure issues and things like that. Right? So, you know, and and we
have services and needs that need to be funded. I get that. But I mean, I I just I I and I still go back to, you know, it's it's I call it three to four, the three to four world, right? And you
know, it's it you say 6 months, but I bring back the same argument. 6 months, great. But it takes four of us in six months to go. This ain't working. No. No, it doesn't. Is it? Yes, it does. It It's still a contracted lawyer that takes four votes for this company.
No, he's a he's a he's he's not he's not a employee. He's a charter employee. So, it's three and four, right? It's a three- four rule. It's a three four gambit. I mean, and no offense, I'm not saying you're going to mess up, Jeff. I'm just facts on the table. That's what it takes. So, you know, and that and you
know, I've heard kick the can. I've heard I've had you know phone calls out the why is it taking so long to make this you know this decision and I said we need to do our due diligence whatever you know this is the problem you say 6 months it sounds great 6 months I don't think 6 months is I mean it's great
because it's shorter but I don't know that's a real good period of time to see how things are working cuz we can't get past this but you know I mean crying out loud it's still it's the still the 34 rule so you know I mean Three of us up
here could could think that the legal the in-house legal is not working. But until you get that fourth person, it ain't going to matter. Whoever was hired for the in-house spot is going to be here until four people stand up and go, "We're done." Well,
you follow what I'm saying? If I if I might, um, regardless of which direction you go with the town attorney position, the town attorney position is a charter position. Um and if it is the
appointment of an individual as an in-house person or outside council um that decision to remove them is a 4 to one vote during the pendency during the
pendency of their contract. All of these contracts whether it is in-house or outside council at this particular point in time contemplate an ending date of January 31st,
2027. So that right and it takes three to it takes three to renew that that would then be the natural expiration of any of the agreements and then it would take a three to two vote to uh
reseelect them select somebody else any of those kind of things. I'll tell you what I'm have a commitment to to the council sitting here. There's three council members that want to fire him in six months. You've got my vote. But what if you're one of the three, Todd?
I'm just saying. I mean, if you're one of the three, if you're one of the three going, "Paul, you're right." And then you're going to be saying, "Well, here we are. Paul, I can only commit." I know. I'm just I'm just saying. I'll make the same commitment. How's that? I would also like to state
that if we're going to go inhouse and we're not going to hire a parallegal, we also eliminate the project coordinator position because we are looking at serious budget shortfalls. Well, that's a separate issue. That's a separate that. We got we're coming on. That would be part of my motion if I were to go there. Well, the motion is already on the table
and already seconded. I think it's a little premature. I mean, we I think I think maybe we maybe we need an organizational workshop or whatever to look at what's you know what's floating around and what's going across, you know, who's doing whatever. You know what I'm saying? I
I'm Yeah, it's not. All right. So, we have a motion on the table. We have a second. Do we are we ready to hear public comment on this matter? Sure. There is one card that we have. Um
Cassie Succi. Cassie Suchi. So I'll lessen the sting because you guys did say some comments that you guys hadn't said before. Um, I think this whole thing was rushed and I don't think there was enough effort
put into it to look and I was amazed that we even got two firms that even applied. And it seems rushed that you guys were limited on any choices or decisions and you're being pushed towards something which was always something that was in the in the back of
everybody's mind and the concern was already answered. as long as we don't have these long-term legal liabilities of another employee. That was that was a big concern because it one model said he didn't need it and one model said he he did need it. So, I just wanted to
reiterate this was all about saving money and there was recently somebody posted um some information and it showed some of the legal fees from 2019, 2020, 2021 and they were like 160 170 175 and
then in 2022 they doubled over to 300,000 and then it went up to 347,000. That's where it stopped the chart. So, if this was always about reducing costs, how is our new cost at 350,000?
Um, I think this whole thing was rushed and I think there was discussion somewhere along the line where we talked about maybe um it wasn't we were going to be without an attorney. We'd have an attorney on board until we could could have done it. Um, but I guess we we passed that. So, I do appreciate Todd
putting the effort in on some of the things and doing some of these so we're not stuck into a two-year contract, but I do think this whole thing was rushed and you guys kind of were forced to, you know, look at very limited pools of
stuff and it was I I just think we we we could have done a better job. Thank you. Um, okay. So, are we Marge made the motion? Are we sticking with that same motion or are we amending the motion to remove the
parallegal at this time and rec and maybe if in maybe we want to amend the motion to remove the parallegal from from the in-house and then review I mean it's a hire that could be made later if it's something that we decide at some point or that Mr. Kurts decides at some
point that he really needs and he wants to make a case for that hire he could come back to us for an amendment in the budget to have it. Do we want it? So, do we want to remove it at this time? I think we need to hear from him because I talked to him about this back in the beginning. Okay. And he was concerned we're setting him
up for failure and he's not going to get done what needs to get done and it's going to look bad on him because we defunded that. So, but he can speak. Speak for yourself. I'm sorry. You were the negotiator. I forgot. Okay. I'm sorry. Okay. Hold on. Go ahead. Um,
sorry, Glenn. I didn't see you piping in. Let's let Jeff answer and then you. Okay. I'll wait. the the the issue is um whether or not you want to go in-house and then the secondary issue becomes um whether you want to go
in-house with me and enter into a a contract where I am the town attorney. The third issue um is whether or not it's going to include a parallegal
um administrative support and that is a budgetary decision. Um that does not necessarily have to be decided tonight. Okay. Um you have scheduled uh a number
of workshops and you've got two public hearings. Um and the finance director um needs to see how this issue plays out to get all the rest of the the numbers
um together. um and the manager would have to to weigh in on how things affect the reorganization and so forth. So I if I'm hearing you correctly vote on this motion would be just to vote on going in-house
and appointing you as that that in-house person and it has nothing to do with funding the entire $367,000 or whatever it is because that's a budget. Nice. And what you should know to be fair is that I will if we enter into that
contract and um I am selected, I will advocate during the budgetary process for a parallegal um to support that position. Um and I think it would be dollars well spent.
Um, but with respect to my contract at this point in time, um, as in-house, uh, there are a couple things that I do want to go over with you, and it's consistent with previous discussions.
Um, the salary that we had discussed before um, was $135,000. um uh council member that that salary also included an automatic cola uh in
October. Um and Councilman uh Coleman had at one point in time suggested uh you know uh I think with one of the the earlier iterations, do you do you want instead of a $5,000 bump, do you want to
go with the COLA? those kind of things. So once again, I would offer to the the council um I am immuneable to either $135,000 salary with automatic colas or if you want to uh start it off at 140 and
forego a cola in two months, that's acceptable to me. Um, we had discussed in the past with respect to a contract that did not have a specific end date. Um, the absence of a severance
provision. Um, in a contract that is contemplated here, there is a more limited term to that. Um, it is uh January 31st of 2027.
um with respect to if that's the the shorter term date um and the council decided uh that they wanted to terminate me without cause um I would want uh a severance
provision. I am I am perfectly you have to understand folks and I I don't know that anybody's explained severance to you uh very well in the absence of a severance per provision in the total absence of a severance provision what
you have is contractual damages and uh Mr. CBIA can uh verify this. And contractual damages um would be the payment of the rest of the term including benefits
um whereas the proposed severance pro provision is limited um to 20 weeks of salary. So it doesn't include the pension and the insurance payments and those kind of things. If you were to
terminate an employee with absolutely no severance um provision, uh then you would be potentially subject to um contractual damages which could exceed that. So one of the reasons that people enter into
agreements that have severance in them is so that if that decision is made and the choice is is made, you have a clean break. Um, and it uh doesn't completely eliminate the possibility of litigation,
but it minimizes that possibility of litig um uh litigation and gives everybody u in six months to terminate you. Yes, I just heard that. Um, thank you. Let's let Glenn Glenn, did
you have something to say? I'm sorry, Lee. I know you're waiting, but he was Jeb's kind of discussed what I was going to bring up, which is, you know, I just wanted to be clear. If you're only voting on whether you're selecting the in-house model, I'm not sure if that was the motion or if you're saying we're
selecting the in-house model and it's Jeff or we're selecting the in-house model and the contract with Jeff because eventually you're going to get to the contract with Jeff because we talked about last time the charter requires a contract. So, if you go with the contract, I took the resolution that
Councilman McClendon and Jeff had prepared last time, put it in a more robust contract form, and as Jeff's indicated, there are a couple of comments he has on that. So, I agree with him. It's a two or three-step process. Um, again, the first step is do
you decide to go in house? Is Jeff the person? And then hopefully we can come to terms on the contract. And it seems like there's only one or two issues. You would address the contractual issues that he's talking about and bring that to us and then we would vote on the
contract. Is that accurate? I think we could resolve the issues tonight. Um and then uh Mr. Yeah. Yes. Because the only the real issue is the severance issue because
your last meeting you talked about for firms an end date of January 31st of 27 which I put in Mr. Curts's employment contract as well as the draft contract for firms including his firm. Um if you
stick with that um so it's basically a 16 or 17month contract and what Mr. McClendon had proposed last time there was no severance but it was an open-ended contract. And if I'm hearing Jeff correctly, what he's saying is if it's not an open-ended contract and
there's going to be an end date, then he would like to have some level of severance pay if it's ended before that end date. So in other words, you go January of 27 and the council decides in June of 206,
four votes to terminate the agreement, the way it's currently written, he would receive no severance pay. He's proposing severance pay. That's going to be the issue, the main that I think you have to talk about. Yeah. Or as I said, if you want to not have
severance addressed and there's the possibility of contractual damages, um I'm perfectly okay with that as well. And so, you know, and uh you know, it's a difficult situation because
before you're entering into a contract, you you're talking about the the termination provisions. And the the goal of everybody in entering into the contract should be that it'll at least go through the the term of January 31st. If that was offered to me, that would
certainly be my goal. Um I think it's everybody's goal. Yeah. Uh so um and when it comes down to contractual damages versus severance, it's a it's a
situation of well contractual damages would be better for the town if you fired uh the employee, you know, 14 months into the contract into the 16-month contract. Um, and severance,
uh, a severance payment, uh, agreed amount would be much better for the town versus contractual damages if you did fire that person within that six-month time period that you're talking about. Okay, Lisa,
since I tend to be the mouthpiece of the universe, I'm going to say what everyone in this room is thinking. You wonder why this has taken so long. So, previously we had a whole meeting dedicated to negotiating with Mr. Curts.
We suggested not January of 27 for the end date. It was actually December of 26 was the end date that was suggested last. Mr. agreed, Mr. Curts agreed that he would take a contract that had an end date with no severance, basically taking
the resolution to that. So, I don't know. How come we can't come to a decision in this town? I don't know. The the contract that you're talking about with respect to the resolution did not have a specific end date. In your meeting, Mr. Curts, you agreed
to put it into a contract form. We actually discussed it and Mayor Kaine said, "Please don't take more than an hour to write this contract." That was the meeting on July 22nd. It was the actual final discussion. So, Mr. Torcivia, did you meet with Mr.
Curtson write a contract that had an end date. Hello. I there you are. I um Thank you. Sorry. I drafted uh I took the previous employment agreement that
uh Jeff had prepared and I converted it to what Mr. McClendon had proposed last time with the only exception being an end date. And that's based on your conversations at your last meeting relative to firms having an end date of
January 31st of 27. And to me, whether you're contract prepared, pardon me. So that's the end date you've prepared and put in there is the end of January 27th, right? And you can pick whatever. So just the record, right? All right. Thank you. Thank you. Just
and and I didn't have any problem with that. And I talked to Glenn last week and had this very same conversation of severance versus contractual damages with him. Okay. So vote we we have a motion on the table which
is to choose Could you repeat your motion to to to choose the in right choose the in-house um uh attorney um uh and um you know hold off on the
parallegal we're not doing that just to choose it and and to appoint him or just to choose that model which what is your motion to choose Jeff as the in-house attorney. Okay. And Todd, you're there. And Todd seconded it. Okay. So, we're ready for a
vote. We having heard public comment, having heard everyone's comments. All in favor? Opposed. Okay. So, it passes three to two. Okay. On to the next. I'd like to thank both the firms for
your time. Yeah. Thank you very much. Appreciate your diligence. Thanks for putting up with us. Yeah. Yeah, I'll be calling. I'm brand new. Only been here since March. Madame Mayor, now that you made that selection, the charter requires there to be an agreement with the town attorney.
So, um, we have an agreement in front of you. It sounds like all of it is acceptable other than the severance provision. Well, the the agreement that's in front of us now is is 225 an hour outside council. The other earlier is I didn't see it.
Yeah. There was an is very similar to the I'm sorry very similar to the agreement Jeff prepared two meetings ago I believe it was two or three meetings ago the primary difference was I took that agreement and shortened it in accordance with Mr. McClendon's resolution what was
in there the salary the the two changes that I think would be one is the current proposed agreement does not have an automatic cola increase you can easily add that if you want and it does not have any severance those are the only two issues that I'm aware of that are
standing in the way of you reaching an agreement tonight okay Lisa you've got your light on when we close that meeting on July 22nd go back to the recording, but it was to make it a specific date. It was not an
open-ended resolution agreement or whether that would was changed into a contract form. And here we are still negotiating with somebody who has had three opportunities to negotiate with this council. I I believe that our attorney is telling
us that there are things that need to be cleared up. So, I I don't think the end date is one of them. He's still negotiating a severance and and a raise and a new salary. He said don't put the severance in. Okay.
So, if that's what you want to propose the severance in, don't put the seance. No, I believe Mr. Torcivia is saying to discuss and work out one or the other. So, that's what we're doing right now. May I'm sorry, Mr. Torcivia. Let's make it
easy on us. Tell us the first issue that we have to decide at this moment. Severance. Just break it down one issue. Severance or no severance? That's it. Severance. Do you have something to say on severance or no severance? I I don't I don't think I should get
hemmed into severance or no severance. Um I I was trying I had my light on before he got to the breakdown, but No, that's fine. That's fine. Uh and then and then Oh, sorry. No, I don't know. I I I've got a I've got a suggestion. Okay.
And uh with respect to to the severance um versus the contractual damages, we can write a provision that says that
it will either be 20 weeks or of severance or contractual damages, whichever is better for the town. So, and what that what that means is
you're never you're never going to have to pay more than you are contracting to pay for right now, which is uh the term um until January 31st, 2027.
Paul. Okay. So I I think one of the biggest issues with the severance package, Jeff, was the amount, right? When you just we're going over the whole contract, whatever, every time it came back, the biggest issue with the severance package was the amount because
you just add five more weeks to it and it's half your contract. It's it's half of it. Uh it's 20 weeks, 52 weeks, half. Okay. Five. Sorry, my bad. You know, I was off by a week. by a week and
a half, 6 and 1/2 weeks to to it. And it, you know, I think that I think it seemed 20 weeks was a little little large. Um, you know, I I you know, I I get, you know, whichever is best for the town, etc. But I mean, still on the
severance bit, you know, I don't think that when Todd negotiated, I don't remember when we came back. I don't remember that whole six-month period. If if it was determined that the in-house model wasn't working, that the in that six-month period that the severance was
even eligible at that point, it would have taken it would have taken effect after because then that would kind of codify the contract. This is kind of like a, you know, trial run six-month period. Um, you know, cuz again, we're in uncharted territory here because, you
know, every other small little bitty town in the county has outside council, right? So, this is we're we're uncharted territory. We're saying this is going to save us money, etc., etc., you know, but, you know, I I
I don't know. And I still have an issue with, you know, you start the contract today and yes, you've been here, you know, all year, but say you start the contract today or you're starting the contract today and we're going to go ahead and start at 135, you're going to
get a cola bump in October. that that that's you know that's remember I I broke out the math and I was like so it's actually the what was negotiated for the the second time was actually it started $5,000 more a year
annually and then bumped out when it got to 27 it was actually more than what the original one. So, and those are kind of right off the top of my head, the two. But yeah, the severance, I think the big issue with the severance to me, I think I even
said something when we first sat down was that 20 weeks. I thought 20 weeks was a little little large, you know, but I mean, I don't deal in high corporate stuff, so I you know, Mr. Tuvia, can you speak to a 20we seance where that came from? Is that
something that's standard or is that something that's unusual in this case or that's the maximum that the law allows for a city government to pay any employee. So that's where it came from the maximum. Um years ago people had the
golden parachutes of one year severance. So the legislature acted to put a limit of 20 weeks. Um usually this is in the context of a manager. It's you know again there not that many in-house city attorneys. So in terms of managers, I
would say that 20 weeks is probably the standard for 60 70% if not more of manager contracts. But I've seen different variations where they've been stepped. In other words, for you know, if it's a two-year contract in year one,
it's five week severance and year two it's 10 week severance. So some and year three it's 15 week severance. So, you know, you could and I just pick numbers. You can make any numbers up that you want. Um, if there's a I'm hearing Mr. Coleman that 20 weeks is a little rich
uh for his blood and if the council thinks you want to do some severance, is there a number between zero and 20 that could work? Um so that's what I would kind of suggest as maybe a middle ground and if you need
to do it in two steps you know x amount of severance for the first six months and more than x for the remaining nine or 10 months because you know I keep hearing people say well we don't know if this is going to work it's it's new. So after 6 months if it doesn't work and
you say no and four votes saying no then Jeff would get four 5 6 7 8 whatever that number is and if he gets past six month almost like probation then that number would increase to whatever 8 10 12 14 up to 20 whatever you think.
Yeah. Okay. Lisa thank you for answering that. Lisa did you have something to contribute? Yeah, I I was actually going to piggy back on what Paul was saying and yes, it's a 20 20week max by state law. Um I would like to say I came in this evening willing to support Jeff as
an in-house council model. Um and I find the the greed at the management level in this town is a little unsavory to say the least. Um, I want to see performance standards put around the jobs that the people are doing. And the only people
now that we can touch by the charter is the manager and the town attorney. So, if he wants a severance package, I say he earns it. So, if you guys want to build something in that's tied to performance standards, I'm okay with like playing with that idea.
I I don't even mind Glenn's suggestion of the of the step, right? So, it to me it would be but it would start zero to the six months and after the six months it would kick in and do the step, you know, and and it's kind of a, you know, it's and again I've said this at
previous meetings, but I just want to say this is nothing personal against Jeff, okay? This is just me trying to be diligent and and frugal, you know? Um, but I I think the step is a it's an incentive on you know on everybody's
part really. I I think you know it it gives us some leeway. Um it's I think it's you know it actually works out better because it get as you get closer to the term than doing the half and half. Um you know it works out a little better if we get closer to the term because he's going to get you know
actually a bigger severance. So you know I I don't mind the step. Um, but I mean, and as far as to Lisa's point about the uh about the performanceesque portion of it, I think if we do like a a by I
always say that wrong, so I'm just going to every two months or every other month or every quarterly. I always I always pick the wrong one, so I'm just going to, you know, um so quarterly type of um you know, report from Jeff. We'll make it part of the agenda, you know, we can either
review it, you know, but you know, this is something new. So, it's a little different, you know, where you know, kind of state of state of the legal department's, you know, address, not just, oh yeah, well, we wrote we wrote 30 resolutions or what, you know, whatever the case may be. Um, and I
think we'll kind of get a barometer of how it's working. Um, so I mean, we're moving forward with this, so we get we need to, you know, build it the best way we can, right? Let's start off on the best foot. Do you have a suggestion? Do you have a a number for the step or a suggestion for the step?
I I I like Glenn's the the five per or whatever. I mean, you know, start at five weeks at the when the six months hit. Everything's working fine. Everybody's happy. Jeff's happy, right? I mean, it's an investment on I'll say it plain. It's an
investment on your part as well. The six month is a trial period for everybody. So to say to say the trial period didn't work out, we don't think it worked out. So, but you know, I mean that that's to me that that that makes a lot of sense to me.
Yeah. 10 5 10 15. What is your suggestion? Well, it can be progressive. If we renew it can be 15 that they're I mean, you know, that that's a possibility because if we're 10 at the max I'm just trying to No, I I get what you're saying. I guess my point is if we get past right if we
get past that that two-year mark right which is 27 right call that the two year seven months yeah yeah so we get past that mark you know then it's it's it yeah that means we feel everything's comfortable everything's working well Jeff's happy everybody's happy and you know
everything's working properly and I why wouldn't that it's kind of an incentive on that part you know I just you know but again I don't you know the whole cola is two months is and then 10 at 6 months. No, I'm I'm suggesting at 6 months the five kicks in.
Uhhuh. And then when that calendar year, we're going to go fiscal year because we're right here. We do a fiscal year. Fiscal year kicks in the next fiscal year kicks in or when everybody else is I think everybody else is is at fiscal year. Correct. Right. Everybody else in the town including the manager is fiscal
year. Correct. yourself calculated the budget on fiscal year, but no one has a contract besides me, right? And your your contract is till it's till September 30th, which is kind of fiscal year, right?
It's a day off or whatever. Yeah. So that's that's I'm just keep it all the same, right? Um that's just my opinion. Let's let Mr. M Are you done? Let's let Mr. McClendon talk and then we'll let say whatever it is you want to say. So when I went into negotiating with him, I
made it very clear that I didn't think contracted employees should get other benefits that somebody like Craig doesn't get. Whatever it may be, he doesn't get a severance package, right? What? So if Craig's not entitled to a severance package, why are these two sitting over here? He was there was
other things that he was proposing originally that was above and beyond what the typical employee gets. I don't think that should happen, right? He gets a dollar amount that he gets paid. He's treated like every other employee. If everybody in the town's going to get a severance package, then that's so be it. That's what we decide. But I don't think
there should be special carveouts for the upper echelon that he gets something special that Craig doesn't get, that Linda doesn't get, that all the other town employees don't get. So, I'm against that. Am I willing to bend to to make this happen because I know I'm not
not going to get everything I want, but that's where I stand is I don't think there should be special privileges for the upper echelon. Thank you, Todd. Lisa. Yeah, Todd, I think you're you're in the right place. Um, but uh the town manager
is an employee of the town and has a contract. He is a charter officer as an employee of the town and he will have a contract. I disagree with Paul in that I think it's way too generous what you're offering. Um that the 20 weeks state max. Again, I think everything should be
tied to performance and it's not, oh, I wrote 30 resolutions. I mean I can go on chat TPT and write about 50 resolutions in about 50 seconds. So not a problem. It has to be tied to actual performance datadriven standards deadlines met
things returned things that we have struggled to get consistency in with. So I'm with you on if it's an employee it looks like that but I don't think we're talking apples and apples but I think it has to be drastically reduced as far as
what the steps look like. Yeah, I I agree. You know, it is not It is I'm sorry. It is apples and it's apples and oranges, right? Um you know, because as Jeff already told us and Glenn, you know, backed it up. It it's,
you know, you you got two options. You can do this or you can do that. What' you call it, Jeff? The contract. Contractual damages. Contractual damages. Right. So there there has to be since it is a contract and it's not a standard employee, there has to be something built in
that it just has to be either that or we're just taking a shot in the dark because employee So if I'm following you, I'm just trying to make sure I'm following you. If you're if I'm following your logic, what you're saying is while they are town employees, they're different than town employees because they're under contract. And so
because they're under contract, you're feeling that they should have this special privilege, for lack of a better term, this this extra additional thing that Todd doesn't feel that they do do should have because it
places them in a different class, so to speak. Okay. Um, but when you look at the contracts we have with anybody like like Keshvarus or anybody else that we have a contract with, right, that we that we have contract services with, they don't have,
but they're not an employee. paycheck. That's true. That's true. I mean, I'm just try I'm just trying to look at all the what I mean. So, I don't know that necessarily the fact that it's under contract is what to do it. So, I think the consensus that I'm hearing is
to have no severance in there and then let the chips fall where they may. I believe that's that's what I'm hearing. Is is that accurate everybody? I'm okay with that. No severance. No severance for my day. And what you're saying is that contractual damages might apply.
Correct. You haven't resolved the issue. Okay. Okay. All right. I just So Glenn, we've got I just want to clarify. So that means if we do that and we sit here and I hate to be the just the negative Nelly here in 6 months, six months, four of us sit
up here because you know we got two commitments and no matter no four of us sit up here and say it's not working. We need to go back to to a contract model just outside model, right? It's not working. We We owe him contractual damages potentially. Yes. But he could potentially But he could sue for contractual damages.
He could do that without a contract. Without a contract. So it doesn't matter. Well, it's it's irrelevant. Yeah. I mean, Glenn Glenn can tell you that he's experienced this in other jurisdictions. U Belglade actually made a choice, I think it was Glenn, and then they fired him at the next meeting and
they ended up paying him for his contract because it didn't have a severance provision. So, um, okay. But we're those things those things can happen. Perfectly okay. I think we're betting on that it's going to work. That's what I think we're we're betting on and and not putting the severance in there, not putting that
long-term liability is what I'm hearing is the consensus of of council. So, okay. What other issue do we need to resolve? I think the only other one uh that Jeff raised me recently was uh there's no cola in this agreement and if you want to have an automatic cola it's
it's a cola at your discretion. If you want to have an automatic cola the question yes but we haven't even voted on whether we're going to give a a cola or not this year or what it's going to be. So I I don't know that cola in the contract I think if correct me if I'm wrong was based on the staff
cola that we approved. Correct. Right. That was a that was the discussion that we once again under the theory of treating be like every other employee that too stay with the lower salary and whatever cola we give gives to everybody. So that's what I'm thinking.
Is everybody okay with that? Absolutely. Yeah. Since since we're we're playing poker up here tonight. So well and I mean listen all intents and purposes every you know pie in the sky everything works out peachy right? We come we come into December of of 26,
everything's working great and you come begging me to renew and we're going to be begging you to renew, you know, but I mean you could you could go, "Hey, listen guys, this really worked out. I would like to renegotiate, right? I mean, that's, you know, that's well within your right, right? Because the contract's coming to an end. So, you
know, we could we could tweak things, massage things at that point. So, let's, you know, I think it's, you know, we're we're moving forward here. So, we're that's our mantra since March, right? Let's move forward. We've had a hard time over the past month and a half. But, you know, here we go.
Yeah. So, I think we have a decision, Glenn. Those are all the issues that needed to be resolved. I'm sorry. Is the decision that Jeff will get the same cola as all other employees each October 1st when we vote on whatever that cola may or may not be.
Okay. I can put that language in and have it to Jeff tomorrow and to you all tomorrow and you guys can then sign the agreement. Um, what day did you want to make it effective? Uh, Jeff, I'm not sure when you wanted to start.
Um, probably uh, Thursday, August 7th. I think that's the day. That's well before your 21st holiday, Glenn. So, that gives you that gives you two weeks to pack. That's okay. That's okay.
So, Thursday, August 7th. Okay. That'll give us tomorrow to um to wrap this up. We should be able to get that done. Okay. All right. We are on to item. Thank you, everybody. One one last thing, Madam Mayor. We need to vote on the contract thing or
we just told what Yes, that's what I was about to say. Could you please vote? Okay. So, Todd, you want to make a motion? No. Do you know what it is? It was It was your negotiation. Make the motion a motion. My negotiation. Glenn can Glenn can frame the motion. Well, it's just slightly amended.
Can you frame the motion for us so that we don't get it wrong? Thank you. Sure. Uh, a motion to approve the employment agreement with Mr. Kur with the only revision being that he will receive the same cola as every other employee uh each October 1st.
No severance. Well, it already had no severance in it, so that's fine. Well, it's it's it there won't be any reference to severance. Correct. Period. Correct. It's not that there's no severance. It is. That's what the discussion was.
Contractual damages. No. No. I have to jump in. The contract in front of you specifically says no severance. It says the words no severance. If you take those words out, then you are creating a bigger risk.
That's exactly what we just discussed was the possibility of contractual damages, but they had the contract in front of them that says no severance. So, if you take out no severance, you you've now really given Jeff a potential contract
claim that he didn't really have. That's your choice. You can go in with your eyes wide open. Um I think that's what I've been saying the whole time. I'm not sure either. I'm okay with the being better better for the but and I thought that's what you all understood.
You seem you certainly seem to that's really the question and if if you want no we said we did say we were willing to take the chance. So okay so take out the word no severance wherever it is. Correct. Correct. Okay.
No mention of severance. No no no severance is awarded. Correct. That was what we said. Okay. Okay. All right. Can I have a second for the motion? Does anybody want to make this motion that he
said or you don't have to restate it? Just say yes. Are you keeping the no severance in the contract or you are moving that language? No. My understanding is from the conversation is the words no severance will come out. This will be just a straight contract from now from August
7th until January 31st of 27. Uh there'll still be the clauses in there for termination without cause and termination with cause, everything else that's in there in standard. Um but the words no severance will be taken out. And no severance being take being left
in there prevents Mr. Curts from pursuing contractual damages. Correct. Correct. I'm confu I'm confused why we need to have with or without cause then. Why does that need to be there? because if it's if it's without cause, you
generally have a 30-day or so period of time to give him notice and you can terminate without any reason whatsoever. Uh and that's more protective, frankly, of the town. With cause is if there's a whole laundry list of items in there,
you know, crimes, fraud, things like that. uh if you decide to terminate with contract cause by just Isn't every contract with cause by virtue of that? I mean crimes and things like that or they it has to be specifically stated. No, it's got to be stated because you
can argue all day long what's with cause. I mean without cause is always the safest way. I always recommend to a client do it without cause because you're not but there are occasions where someone get cuts with their hand in the cookie jar and the council wants a fire with cause.
So that's why you have those provisions in there. But with cause negates a severance or any kind of contractual damages, correct? With cause. If you actually have cause, actually have cause. I mean there's Yeah, that's if we actually have cause
that just negates the whole thing. It's a violation of the contract, right? And without cause. Thank you. But I I think you'll leave both options in. That way you have the choice. Why would you give up one of your choices? All right. I make a motion to accept the
um suggestions made by Glenn and agreed to by um Jeff. Okay, I'll second it. All in favor? I opposed. Opposed? Okay, passes three to two. Congratulations. Thank you all very very much. I really
look forward to working with you in this role. Um, and I hope that there is never a mention of termination or severance after January 31st of 2020. You and US five, sir. You and us five.
So, you can quote me on that. Okay, we're on to item number 11. I believe that's you, Mr. Deline. Yeah, we're gonna see if I can also do my role as chief clerk. Oh, Glenn, are you leaving us? Doesn't start till the seventh.
No, I'm I'm still here. I'm still here. I mean, Jeff Jeff's not going to start till we do the contract in August 7th. Okay, good. All right. Just I did commit and I did commit to Jeff to you all that I'd be available till August 20th in case Jeff has a question
or any or staff has a question to assist in the smooth transition. All right, you tell me. Thanks, sir. Need a bunch of devices. It's up there. It was up there. Does our remote not work? Don't we have a little clicker? That's
Yeah. Okay. And so you're going to uh I know what Oh, you got the little clearers. Good. I am relieved of duties here. Fair warning, Mr. Delena. We've been primed. The pump's been primed. No problem. But here's the beautiful
thing about the budget. You ready? You can change it at any time you want. Anytime. At any duly elected meeting. We're getting better at I know you guys are getting great at this. I'm telling you. So, but anyway,
so let's walk through it. It's kind of a a different year, right? So, let's look at uh let's face some facts, right? So, uh rates haven't gone up since 2018. Uh gone are the days of ARPA, right?
That was that was kind of a famous word back in the day. Uh oh, and sir tax is ending. So, that's about 385,000 that we're going to be a little short. Uh and um it looks like, you know, we we used to have and everyone still loves it,
right? The the the double-digit uh increases in their assessed value, right? Properties are much more expensive. Matter of fact, so much more expensive, people can't even afford afford them anymore. But uh at the end of the day, um you know, property values
have come down and and we'll uh and we'll look at that. Not come down, let me correct that. just haven't grown as much. But, but we'll look at that. Um, and you know, we still have uh so this year in 2026, you know, property values
are were half of what they were in 2025. So, and we'll and we'll look at all that. Uh, you know, our goal really is to is to protecting essential operations. You know, I heard one of the guys uh that that came up to to speak publicly, right? He remembers a town
when it was three employees and uh uh you know yeah the world has changed drastically now you either keep up or you don't and uh and really it's it's a you know it affects your service
standards. Uh we had one public person come up here complaining about what's going on with RVs and things like that. You know, one thing that we have to keep remembering is uh government is uh expect oh by the way we are nowhere near
like New York. Okay, I heard a reference there as well. But at the end of the day uh and there are different classes of people. Your pension class is the highest class amongst all all people. Uh you know I mean it's just fire
department, police department. This is this is the normal course of business. in Florida local government. Um, but at the end of the day, we'll get there. Now, we do have something that we are we are monitoring. I'll tell you that. And that's the last bullet point,
right? Maintaining 25% reserves, right? Uh that is something that you said and trust me uh the uh finance committees, everyone in the state of Florida agrees that you should have reserves because
hurricanes, tornadoes, whatever it is, your citizens look to you for help. Who's going to clear the roads? And I know that this is an agriculture community and there's probably more tractors out there than than I'm aware of that can do that. But at the end of
the day, this is part of your responsibility. And the fact that you don't have access to cash doesn't matter. This is part of what is the responsibility of local governments. And so we'll we'll go over that.
Um you know, we're trying not to get into a debate. This is why this is a beautiful process. The reason why we have to have this process right now is because statutoily I've got to provide you with a budget. And oh by the way, it's not a line item budget, it's a fund
budget. The reason why we got different funds, and we'll go over that, because there are restrictions. I didn't set the restrictions. State of Florida sets the restrictions, right? I just have to adhere to it. And we'll look at all that. Okay? But what we should be
focusing on, what you should be focusing on, in my opinion, what you should be focused on is big picture. Big picture. And we have to start looking at that. We have to get out of the weeds so much. Take a step back, look at big picture.
What's going on? And we'll look at that. So right now we did a maximum millage which really what staff does on your behalf is we fill out the portion of uh
this is not a bill t no tax notice that you'll be getting soon. You know this is not a bill that's either blue and yellow and and colors. Well we filled out that half and and we put three and a half mills. Right. Uh we based the budget on three mills. We would love to have that
extra half mil to and you'll see to build up some reserves, but you know what? Not everyone's in agreement. And that's what makes local government a beautiful thing. But we did also put in there road and drainage. And you'll see
uh since 2018, everyone says, well, you know, you know, 2018, inflation has gone up. Uh costs have gone up. You've experienced costs just in uh electric, your homeowners insurance. Local
governments experience that same level of costs just on a bigger scale. Everything that you're responsible for that the town owns, you have to maintain. That's just how it works. So, we'll look at that. We kept for now, by the way, we
kept the solid waste assessment the same, right? Other clients of mine, they've seen their solid waste contracts double 100% increase. So next year, we'll see what happens, but we're working on 2026 budget for
now. So let's see what happens. So here you go. Here's here's your chart, which everyone is talking about, right? Uh probably not everybody, but at the end of the day, yeah, this is property growth, man. Things are great. It's great to be a Florida homeowner, property owner. This is fantastic.
Everything is going up. My property's worth more. Uh, and we can see those increases. You can see, you know, double-digit increase. 14, 19, 16. Oh, we're getting back down. And we're trying, again, we're trying to look
longterm. Not sure yet what 2027 is going to look like, but right now, we know what 2026 is. And by the way, those assessed values, they're not done by us, right? they're done by a separate local government that does uh that uh
appraises the the property values, right? But at the end of the day, we had seen these double-digit increases. We had when when COVID wasn't was was around, we had the federal government just giving local governments money
based on the size of their population. But those days are gone. Okay. So here's the thing that we're trying to keep an eye on, right? Your reserve policy. That's what we're trying to keep an eye on right now, right? And so we
sit there again, we break things down. We break things down by general fund, how much is in road and drainage, transportation, local option. So right now it's at a level that basically says, "Hey, the prior years of
just moving it down the road are are kind of here now. Someone's got to make a decision, right?" And so and we know that you're the board to do that. So that's fantastic. But at the end of the day, uh you have a policy and you can
see some are green, some are red, right? And uh but as staff, we're sitting here and we're letting you know, hey, this is what we see, like it or not, and all the justifications as to why,
we have to start looking forward. This is reality. So this is what we're looking at. And so, you know, right now, the the general fund has enough beyond their their their their 25% goal. Oh, by the way, that's 25% of operating
expenses, right? No transfers. Okay. Uh transfers are something that you can only do if there's there's two times when you can do transfers, right? There's transfers in a current year because you have a budget surplus. You
can transfer the excess money out to other funds and we'll see that. And there's also a transfer from my reserves. It's just like a business. You had said that uh Mr. Coleman, you had said you're in construction, right? You close your books every year and what
happens is it drops to retained earnings or and sometimes retained deficit or whatever, but right, it drops to the bottom line. Same thing with government. We're no different. We just call it something different. We call it fund balance. That's what we call it. And so
it drops to the bottom line. Now, of course, there's timing differences with receivables and payables and all that jazz, but at the end of the day, we'll start with a 2024 audited figure, which is very important,
right? An audited figure and that's called unrestricted because you also have money in there that's called restricted funds, right? So, but anyway, so what we did is we tried to roll it forward. So, I took your 2024 audited numbers right there on the top. I rolled
it forward to what I think you're going to need in 2025. And what I did is I said, "Okay, let me take 25% of your operating expenses, those were for each of those departments." And that's what it comes up to. So, we have to keep an eye on
this. This assumes this right here assumes getting through all of 2026. Okay? So, and we'll walk through that. So, first fund, you have six funds, by the way. One of them's going away at December. So, next year at this time,
you'll be at five funds, but two of your funds have labor and payroll. That seems to be a big discussion. Uh, but yeah, I mean, you know, we'll we'll look at that, but let's look at really where your revenue comes from. You know, 42%
of your revenue Yeah. is from people that sit here in the audience and you up there for your property taxes. Yeah. Yep. Yep. And then and then you have other services, license and permits and and franchise fees and and things like
that. When when someone buys gas in your town or buys something in your town and they get charged 7% sales tax or whatever your tax rate here, 6% goes to the state of Florida. The 1% comes back to to Lockxahhatchee. So that's very
important. Oh, it doesn't. No, share with the county gas tax. I I'm sorry. With gas tax anyway. Right. Right. Right. Thank you for that clarification. So, but anyway, this right here is just an overview. And so, and so the next the
next one you'll see, okay, what are we looking at here? This right here is from 2023 all the way to their proposed budget here for 2026. Now, in 2024, the reason why I highlighted that is you had you had some
money come in, right, for uh for um uh tree mitigation. Tree mitigation. It was a it was a landfall. I'm not sure if that's going to continue to happen, right? So, what we do is we look at how much uh your property taxes. So the uh
at 3 mills with your property rate with your pro with the property increase in appraised value at three mills, you know, that generates about $172,000, you know, less than half of your legal legal fees. That that's what gets
dropped to the bottom line, you know, uh that's what gets to come in. We estimated, remember, I'm estimating what your revenue is going to be like. I have a pretty good handle on the property taxes because we know that calculation
and so but all the other ones taxes license and permits charges for service. I don't know how much how many people are going to come in your front door and want a specific service. So we look back at at the historical data. Sometimes
you'll see TTM that means trailing 12 months, right? I'll look back at the historical data just to try to keep everything in 12 months. We're looking at trying to get it apples to apples. Okay. But at the end of the day, you
know, we're looking at having a total amount of total resources of about $4.5 million, which looks like it's about $29,000 $210,000 increase from our 2025. Okay. It's about a four 4.9 a little bit less than 5%
coming up. Now let's look at the expenditures. What are we going to do with that? What are we proposing? Again, the same idea, right? We're propos we we break all of your general fund only, right?
Expenditures down. We break salaries and related professional fees, operations, and then other types of types of things. Now, historically, you've had ARPA funds, you've had doubledigit increases in property
values. Uh you there were great times to be had, right? And so, you were able to transfer out to other funds, right? Those excess dollars, right? But as we said before, things have changed a
little bit. A little bit different world. So, but we're looking at there. I bumped up. Oh, by the way, these are all estimated figures, right? I I it's it's a budget, meaning that uh when we go
when we come to our first public hearing, we're not approving line items. We're approving the total expenditure for that fund. And we'll get to that later, but anyway. So, uh, health insurance. Last year or the or the
previous two years, the big increases were property insurance, and we've all felt that, right? Well, the next thing is going to be health insurance and things like that. We're already starting to see that, especially, it's interesting on this coast. On this coast, it it it really seems an
interesting an interesting uh dynamic there. But, you know, we increased. We'll take information back from tonight's meeting. But you know, you can see, yeah, there's your legal there. Yeah, you were as high, you know, 2023 521,000
build on an hourly basis, right? 300 trailing, you're trailing 12 months was already, you know, $475,000. You know, we we knew that we exceeded our budget last month. We came to you for with a budget amendment, right? And
that's how we that's how we do we we look at things. We we say, "Hey, we're over here. We're under here." But at the end of the day, I budgeted my best guess for you right now is $400,000. I I hope that I I hope that I'm wrong in that and
that more can drop to the bottom line. But we also look at uh law enforcement. By the way, you you have an unbelievable contract here for law enforcement. I and and what I'm saying is a 1% increase who
signs an agreement with I mean that that's fantastic and I would never lose that. I mean these are things that provide value and I know that that maybe everyone's not on board or what have you but at the end of the day uh that's a good contract in my opinion uh but it it
the increase is only 1%. Um so actually negotiated last year. Oh was it? Oh, okay. No, congratulations. That's what I'm saying. That's long-term thinking, right? That's really long-term thinking. Uh, so so but
anyway, so what we're looking at is yeah, we're looking at where we are investing in open positions and um and that's how government gets things done here. Uh we uh I would tell
you that when I look at other clients in South Florida, most local governments are having trouble filling positions because everyone thinks they can do it right. Everybody thinks that they can be the
town manager or public works director or whatever. Takes years of experience, knowledge. I mean, your your town manager I'm a big fan of because she's been in the industry for a very very long time. Now, whether whether or not you agree with that is is is
indifferent, but I would tell you that uh across the board, you're you're not even your salaries here, and we can look at that later. The salaries here are not even in the median of what other local governments, matter
of fact, other local governments will be glad to pick your people off one by one. And what are you left with at the end of the day? So anyway, we're looking at that. But what we're trying to focus on is the fact that we're not going to have
excess surpluses to fund capital improvements. It's just the reality. That's all. And so long-term thinking, what do we do? And so we invest in staff. We invest in
positions that you had approved. Matter of fact, we had a budget amendment where where we had approved a a certain number of of of staffing positions, which that's the right thing to do. you should invest in training and education of your staff because the stuff that happens in
Tallahassee constantly changes every year. And so those these are important things. Um and you have several open positions that we're trying to budget for. Uh many people here wear multiple
hats and that's good for a short period of time, but it it's a challenge because it things just don't get done. But anyway, so that's your general fund. We tried to be reasonable with the amount of of the expenditures.
Uh here's what it looks like. Yeah, you know, approximately 39% of every dollar Yeah. goes to salaries and related. I don't think that's exorbitant. I think that's probably a little bit on the low side. Uh uh but but at the end of the at
the end of the day, that's how the dollar in your general fund is broken down. You know, you have cost recovery, you have law enforcement, you have operating expenditures, but government is done by employees.
You can only outsource so much in a world that gets more and more complicated. So, uh, we also included, I guess, you know, we we needed, uh, $90,000 for for software upgrades. Everything runs on software.
And so, at the end of the day, it's designed to make not only is this software upgraded to what the current standards are, but it's also taking a lot of your historical documents and uploading them and scanning them. Who's
going to do it? Right? So, uh, this is what it looks like by department, right? Town council, you know, stays the same. Financial all the way across. Yeah. Town administration. Yeah. That's that that that's going up.
That's that's the that's the reality. uh and and and when you look at okay uh you know we've estimated an amount for legal that may be coming down because of tonight's um uh potential agreement that
that that has been passed. But we'll look at all that. But whether or not something swings uh uh it it it really won't affect the bottom line that much. But at the end of the day, transfers, the focus that we're trying to focus on
is the fact that, hey guys, this isn't a staffing, this is the focus should be on what are we doing about capital work that still needs to be done. And if you say, well, we're going to get grants. We're going to get funding from Tallahassee.
Unfortunately, funding from Tallahassee only works with paying lobbyists. I'm not saying you got to go crazy with it, but you need your lobbyist because if your lobbyist isn't saying your town of Lakahhatchee to those people in
Tallahassee, then you're off their radar. And when they sprinkle money around that the state of Florida does, they won't know who Lockxahhatchee is. And that's why you'll see later that we're also investing in uh engineering
because no longer can you have a plan that says, "Hey, we want to do this project. Here's a rough sketch." No, no, no, no. They want engineering stamped certified what the plan is going to be and how much you're looking for. So,
it's again, it's a different world. This right here is when we talk about the increase in salaries. Yeah. uh council liaison, legislative ed, temporary part-time staffing, a full-time code officer. We anticipated a
5% increase in most salaries and and in most positions. Yeah, 12 Oh, by the way, 12% is probably conservative. I have most of my other clients are in the 18% for health insurance, but yeah, health insurance is gonna is gonna go up. Uh,
and yeah, finally we're we're at a little bit reasonable price, but there's been a 2% increase in in in the pension, which by the way, the Florida pension is what school teachers are on. Police officers, typical town employees join
the Florida pension. And yes, is it expensive? Yes, it is. But at the end of the day, uh it's mo the most Florida has the most reliable funded at in the high 80 to 85% range being fully funded and
you know people are entitled to a retirement maybe possibly one day. Um so we we we looked at all that. Uh let's oh this will be this one will be quick, right? Your loss fund that one's going away, right? So now we got
to prepare for not only this year but in the future years that looks like about $385,000 that or yeah $350,000 that that's not going to be coming our way. So those are funds right local option sales tax those
are funds that go back into our CIP. But anyway that's just another challenge that we have to face. So transportation fund, right? Transportation fund is that that there's money that comes in. All of this money here goes to either the road and
drainage or the CIP fund. It all gets transferred out. You have no employees in this, right? But those two other funds, you need employees to be able to get the work done. There's no doubt. Uh road and drainage, let's talk about that one. Road and drainage. This year,
what we are asking for is to go from $200 per computed unit to $300 per computed unit. Now, it hasn't it's been the same since 2019, and yet all of our costs have increased,
but we've kept that that's the can we keep on kicking down the road. No one wants to do it, but but everyone wants all the services, but no one really wants to pay for it. And it's a small incremental increase that you saw on
some of the beginning slides that hey guys this fund has no reserves or it's getting close to it. It's yellow. We're holding up the hazard sign to tell you that hey we we need to react with that. Right? So but anyway, so we're going
from 200 to 300 there. This right here is what it looks like. This right here is your is your average here from 2023 to to 2026. You can see that in the good years. In the good years, they were able to
transfer that in or pull it from their reserves, right? That's what that appropriation from that fund's reserves, right? No longer there. Can I can I just ask a quick question? Sure, you can. Absolutely. There's I'm
sorry, but there's this like huge increases and decreases in computed acreage from a low of 600. Yeah. I mean like if we are 9 square miles and we are
so how do we have a 6,851 in 2017 and a high in 2020 of 9,154 and now we're back to down to 7,8001. Is that because of like not forprofits and
things like that in the town churches and things that don't I mean I thought everybody pays the the the the anchorage assessment. So, how could there be nonprofits such a big Well, I mean, they don't pay the taxes, but they pay the acreage assessment. It's my understanding. So, I'm trying to figure
out how we have Yeah. Why isn't the same a 3,000 acre? Why is it fluctuating? Don't match on the dollar figure either. It's it's the same number. It's like Yeah, it's Well, that's a good point, too. Um it's it's uh I let's try
to solve this problem of how we have the different computed acreage. First look into that in in the in the in the earlier years. We pull this from the the uh the county property appraiser provides us with the data. I was just showing it answer that question of how
it went from 9,154 to 7,8001. Is that something that has to be brought up with the property appraiser? Oh, we can look into that. Okay. I mean, I'm just curious because that's a that's a huge lot of dollars. That's a hu huge discrepancy in a lot of dollars.
Yes. The number that is correct is the 7,81. So, we just got lucky a couple of years. Um, they made a mistake. Go back and take a look at that. And it probably has to do with some of the Royal Palm Beach properties and parcels.
Um, if you recall, we had to remove those. I do, but we also added we also annexed in that the corner where Grossmans is and all that stuff. So, yeah, I'd I'd like some kind of a accounting for this wide discrepancy.
I'm sorry for interrupting you. No, no, no. That's okay. That's okay. We'll we'll we'll we'll look at that. Uh but anyway, so now if we look at the uh expenditures on that side of of uh of that fund, uh you could see that you
know we we we have a small increase in in salaries and related the the biggest increase in this fund is going to be our estimate for how much engineering you know and again it's just an estimate right uh back in uh but but already for
the trailing 12 months you know it's been about $249,000 $250,000. But at the end of the day, we're going to need to spend more money on uh engineering to have shovel ready projects that if you're going to be
seeking uh grant dollars, then they're going to want they're going to want you to have engineering, right, associated with that. And so and so at the end of the day this fund here uh goes up uh about
about 11.3% predominantly driven by our estimate of now we we don't have any contracts for that value. It's just an estimate and and again if I'm higher on the expense side it just means more dollars drop to the bottom line.
Uh but this is how historically this is how it it it breaks down you know it breaks down salaries and related in increases in pension costs professional services operating expenditures you see there that that that's that's uh that's
primarily related to uh engineering. Uh and so yeah the the problem here is that this fund here doesn't have any access to kick over again to the uh constru uh to to our capital plan. and we'll see that
uh this right here is is is the the the payroll for for that department uh for for everyone in that department. Um and uh then we move to solid waste. Solid waste is is is pretty pretty interesting, right? Yeah, we we we do
have that that down curve there in uh in 2023. For some reason, you you decided to lower it by $50. uh per but I you know uh but at the end of the day we can't budget 100% of it. We only we can only
budget uh 95% of it. Uh but yeah, so this right here is the one that that you know our our idea is to keep this assessment the same. But if you look back at the current uh previous slides, we're we're running close on on our
reserves. Uh, and I think this one here, if I'm not mistaken, uh, we're going to be renegotiating this contract as well. And so, we'll see what happens. But at the end of the day, if we re renegotiate
a contract that's more um, we're going to have to pull from the general fund. Well, we've traditionally subsidized our solid waste, but but we saw, right, but we saw where reserve levels are. Okay. And so this
right here is the balancing act that that we have to constantly look at. Uh this right here, right? This right here is your your your solid your solid waste contract that that that we're anticipating. Um a a slight increase, but uh but yeah, you can see there see
the transfer in there. Yeah, that that's that's obviously from the general fund and we'll and we'll get to those transfers. Uh capital improvement fund. This right here is going to take a hit again. you know, we had the luxury of having
ARPA funds, doubledigit increases, whatever. That's that's the mantra. Well, all that comes to an end. And so, in order to fund capital, yeah, sure, you can do pay as you go capital, right? Yep. Yep. Every everyone's doing it, right? But the thing that you're
fighting is you're fighting the cost of inflation with projects and you're also fighting the fact that projects don't get better over time. The the project need usually gets much more expensive and the damage just continues to to assess on those. But I know that
currently we are waiting on funding from FEMA and other grant reimbursements that we haven't got. That stuff takes a long time. That's why the mantra really is let's uh let's take a look at what our reserves look like because those things
take two to three years to to kind of get it back. So, but anyway, so this one here down Yeah. you're down 75%. You know, in in the good old days, right, you were funding capital projects, you know, $2 million a shot.
Now we're down to a half a million. Um, and remember all of the town's assets you got to maintain that it's just the reality. Uh, oh, here's your here's your capital
project list, right? And here's 2025 capital projects, right? Uh we're not we're if you were to fund all of these capital projects by uh an assessment not not an assessment by your property taxes,
right? That'd be equivalent to over 4% or an additional four mills on top of your three, right? And so you have a lot of capital capital work that needs to be done and uh waiting for things to fail
and hoping that government steps in to save you. Those those times have passed and but you know but but that's why we're saying you have to invest in uh engineering. You have to get some grant dollars. That's got to be the new mantra
going forward. Uh so but but we'll look at that. So you know we have deferred projects and and and this is not uncommon. This is very common but we have to have a long-term plan on how we're going to fund those. And so there you can see the
the uh the different uh the different uh project list of of unfunded needs, right? Uh here interfund transfers, right? So when the general fund when the general fund has has surplus, right, it goes
out, right? When the transportation uh tax uh gas tax comes in, right? Well, that that gets shifted over to to road and drainage. The local option sales tax dollars when that comes in, that gets moved over capital. But at the end of
the day, uh Oh, yeah. And then the general fund also has to give money over to solid waste. You know, our goal is to get road drainage to be self- sustaining, right? And and we're almost there. We we
obviously have to have to uh fund it uh with with general general fund dollars this year, but the that's the goal. And then maybe next year we look at tackling the solid waste once we get that contract look looking uh at least we
know what that contract looks like. Uh so but at the end of the day this is what this right here are all your sources. So this is broken down by your six major funds there and and what you have is this is your sources. So this is where we're going to get the dollars
from right and the next slide is you know what we're going to spend those dollars on. and uh and yeah and so uh you know so uh this is the budget that we're we we
provided to um the the fact uh we had a little bit of a discussion with it. Um uh but again the great thing about the budget process is you're not married to it, right? But statutoily we do have to
we do have to set a budget. We we have to set a millillage. We have to have two public hearings. Got to allow people to come in and and say whether they love this idea or not. This is how local government works. Uh this right here is
our calendar. you know, we are going to have a uh a budget by uh you know, by for for our first two public hearings, you know, and so uh but you know, it but we have to we
have to sit to this schedule because that's what the state of Florida mandates. uh you know the bottom line you know we want to try to focus on essential operations and preserving the the rural identity and I and I get that and you
you have a lot of things here that you have to manage. Um the town is growing Florida is growing. Uh we want to try to keep it small and we love the small town
feel. Um but uh but but it is growing and uh with that comes additional challenges that uh we've got to meet head on or at least have a plan to and uh uh that's uh that's the bottom that's
the bottom line. If you have any questions uh please feel free. I got I got your other question there but maybe you want to ask questions now or wait till the August 18th meeting. Oh I got questions now. You got questions now? Okay, go for it. You You
look like you're ready to go. Um, this one's going to be asked. So, I'm going to go back to the beginning of your presentation because you were going really fast. Sorry about that. I was used to the back committee. They like to go fast.
You can go fast. That's fine. Um, so we see the Southern Boulevard corridor. We're going to see it here many times tonight being discussed. The Southern Boulevard corridor. I don't know when council ever directed this to magically be extended all the way up to
collecting canal. So, does somebody from staff want to answer? I don't think you can answer this. How suddenly we've expanded from Tangerine, everything south of Tangerine is where the commercial is to now we're looking at expanding commercial all the way to
collecting canal. Nothing has been expanded or changed or even figured because this is something council has to discuss. Hold on. I'm asking where council already directed this. This has never been directed by council.
Where is that budget read? Where are you reading that on the spread? Page page 189. Advancing the southern corridor. It's again at the very very end. I think if you put up the last one, you'll see the Southern Boulevard corridor is now being sold to the
highest bidder for commercial because that's going to save us all on our our problems with income. It doesn't say going all the way to collecting canal. It just says that we should It does right here in this handout. All the way to collecting canal. Okay.
So, it's all in this paperwork. But I don't think this has been being pushed since I believe the January or February meeting, but that's a different item than what's in budget because what's in the budget doesn't say that. Okay. It is one of the proposed ways to dig us out of our hole of taxes. So, I'm
sorry, Francine, back to you on the explanation of how this Southern Boulevard corridor got all dreamed up to generate a bunch of income for the town. Well, I can't really give you the complete dream, but I can tell you that
in the comprehensive plan and in 2008, the town put together um a very large effort using um a company, I think it was like out of Winter Springs after having done an RFP
and so on and so forth. and they did a ton of polling and the language that was used in that and we sent that out to all of you to look at because there was a 1995 neighborhood plan and then there was the 2008
um RFP strategic plan and polling I can resend all of that stuff. They defined those terms and collecting canal and this and that and the other thing. We didn't add those. they were in those polling items. Now, I'm not
suggesting that this is anywhere near ready to even go in the oven. It's a it's a it's a conversation item. But last year as we were going through the budget process, a big question was raised with how do we leverage the cost
of our community um off of the agricultural residential properties that we're trying to protect and see if there is a way for us to be able to perhaps uh protect the tax base by using um a
business improvement district or a rural supporting business district or whatever terminology you'd like to use, but it would be based on some of the original strategic planning done in 2008 that was
pulled. And we can get all kinds of direction on what that footprint looks like and what that means today, but that's a topic for conversation that has to be described. What the council told us last year is to proceed with looking
at it. We actually had residents that stood at the podium there and said, "Let's get going looking at the business district." I understand that some of the people that are sitting here at the council are were not part of those
conversations, but these conversations did occur and it would be great if council could shed more light on that because Yeah. And I don't I don't I don't see anything in here that says that we're extending commercial to tangerine. I I I
don't see anything that says that. I see that we're just trying to actually manage that. In my vision at least, and I'm only one person, it's to manage that whole corridor to protect those areas as opposed to to change them to commercial.
I I I don't see if you're reading something that I'm not reading in here, please point it out. But I don't see anything that says extend commercial. I see that it defines define the corridor from oak from collecting canal to southern boulevard.
Define it. It doesn't say to define it as commercial. It says to define it. But I do think we all understand that commercial in our town is south of Tangerine. I think that and it has always been the I think that's the effort. the effort is because some some some individuals have
have purchased large format properties and I can see where you're you're I see I see the line you're drawing. Yeah. And I put a big circle on mine as well and I put invite MUD and PUD. Anybody here wants to step over that line and make sure it's actually protected
the purpose of the purpose of that So let me add to that please because I think one of the things that would protect the corridor are the standard 300 ft buffers. We would want those standard 300 foot buffers well past
Tangerine I'm pretty sure. But this isn't defined. This is using what is available in previous documents, which was the whole conversation of needing to start reaching out to the people who own property there, to the people who live
there, and to start looking at what is feasible in terms of using the corridor to leverage the tax base. Not to um reszone um the corridor, but to leverage
I'll agree to disagree. Um but okay. Um you mentioned uh on your slide on slide four, you said we need to look at the big picture versus getting in the weeds. Would you provide a an example of what that would look like?
Sure. uh big picture is realizing that uh what what what you statutoily what we're looking at is uh a number by fund. Um
it's like earlier we had a conversation or or or there was a conversation here that said you know what we'll just defund uh legal right well legal is is in the general fund right and so if you wanted
to reduce the general fund's budget you know uh uh then then that's what we would do. Uh but at the end of the day big picture means uh we set a budget for example here general fund 4 million52
four,525,444. You ready? I can't go over that unless there's a budget amendment. I can take it down. I can take it up. Only with the budget amendment, right? But we uh uh same thing with road and drainage, right? And so when we go over items or
under items, we don't necessarily have to come to the board for, oh, uh, paper clips are are overfunded or whatever. That's what I mean by big picture is we look at a budget for the state of Florida as well as what gets advertised
as well as a millage rate. We look at the big dollar that says, "Hey, listen, we can't go over that. If we do we ha or if there's a contract or whatever that pushes us over that then what we have to come to you is we have to come to you to
say hey listen I need a budget amendment because I'm going to go over the $4.5 million that you uh that you said was authorized to spend. So okay that's big picture. Yes. Do you feel that you've not been
here long, but do you feel like we're getting in the weeds? I mean, do we look at paperclip prices? I mean, I don't see that being a problem. Do you guys have an example of where that's been a problem? Sitting up here on the council this year. No.
Yeah. Okay. I'm just last year and a half, but I'm just curious that he threw that out. I was I was like, well, what does that mean? Well, okay. Another example, I think there's been some talk here recent in the past few months about forensic audits and things like that and
and getting down to the minutia and the line item. And I think what um Mr. Nell is trying to say is this is a broad view of everything. It's not a line item view. He said paper clips, but I think that's where he's going. So it's like, you know, there was a Okay. You know that I I think that's what he's
meaning by the big picture. Correct me if I don't mean to speak for you, but I mean Sure. Okay. Another example, if you didn't like that example of a big picture, here I'll give you another one. Uh we we we kind of go back and forth with uh uh you know, here this one here,
$450 uh uh per computed unit. Now, last year it dropped to uh $450. Right? We're sitting here. I'm sitting here and I'm saying that right now it's not a problem. But when we start to negotiate
next year, the solid waste, it is going to be a problem because the solid waste fund doesn't have that much in reserves. Got it. Okay. Yeah. So that's big picture. Um on page on slide 10, you talk about the 2025 budget. Yes.
And then the 2025 e estimate. It it's my estimate as to where I think we're going to land. Okay. So great. Yep. How do you account for that estimation being lower than what you budgeted?
How do I account? Like like how you said you have to make an amendment if you're going over under. So how oh this is revenue. We don't budget revenue. We budget expenditure. Okay. So we see a shortfall by your estimation though. So as we go forward
looking at I I'm not that great with fast numbers. A little under 200,000. Yeah. Um, how do we then account for something? We know what we've budgeted to spend. Well, this is revenue. So far, so we know what we know what we budgeted
to spend. We now know we're going to be about 200,000ish short. How do we account for that? Well, just like a a business would do, it either either is being pulled from reserves or it's being added to your reserves. Uh, but the estimate is just
that. It's an estimate based on six to seven months of actual data and then me trying to forecast. I get it. You're extrapolating. I understand. Yes. Yeah. And so I'm I'm I I usually That's not the question. How do you account for that going to come short?
Where are you going to find that money? That's what she's asking. If you don't have that, you've budgeted to spend all that money, but now you're estimating your that means it go that means it goes to your bottom line. It goes back into your bank account. If I350,000
here 315,000 800 if that's what I budgeted to spend and I'm only going to I'm only going to spend four million. No, this is revenues. No, this is expenditure. No, this but I'm looking at revenues, right? So where do So you just drop down
how much you spend? Yeah. Okay. Where does that money come from? Like what do you don't spend on? where the money doesn't come from. So you're you're saying, okay, expected now expenditures are going to match the anticipated or extrapolated monies, right?
How do you bring the budgeted down 200,000 from what you said you were going to spend to now what in reality you're going to have to spend? Okay, so you're looking at revenue, right? I understand. Follow my logic. Okay, go ahead. You I have $200,000 to spend in my house
account. I get to the end of the year, I only have $180,000. Uh oh, what do I not spend money on because I have $20,000 that I'm short, right? No, you pull from reserves. Oh, we just take money from somewhere else. Well, you have a budget amendment, but that's not the case here. The case here
is that So, the reserves that we don't really have now, we're going to have to pull out of those 25%. No, you have you budgeted your budget was 3.5 I'm sorry, $4.3 million. That was your budgeted, right? That was your budget.
Yes. The estimate is less than that. Is shy. Yes. Right. And so again, we budget expenditures. We estimate our revenue and we match the revenue. I understand. Okay. So, and in this example that you
have, I'm going to drop to the bottom line 30 27. Okay. You're going you're going to come up short. So you don't you you say if you come up short, right? So you're I'm coming up short of my expense up.
Okay. Please follow my logic. We actually have money left over. Right. You actually have money left over. We will have more money in revenue than we are expending this year. No, not the budgeted amount and
estimated revenue is 4.315 million. That's your budget. and and and and how how much are you gonna spend? Your estimated revenue is now going to be at 4 million79,000. Right. So you you did adjust your expenditures.
My question is is I just magically said, "Oh, I'm just going to spend less." Great. What are we spending less on? You that means less transfers out. Okay. So something's not going to happen. Something's going to get shorted. You are absolutely
that's the answer I'm looking for. We're not going to pave something or we're not going to fix a certain culvert. Something has to give because there's no money there that you originally anticipated you were going to have. Is that right? That is the pull the money from from the reserve because you want to pave the road, right? Thank you.
You know what I'm saying? That Thank you. Oh, you're welcome. Get my logic. Thank you. That's that was the the explanation I was looking for. You have on slide 14 a 2% increase in pension cost. Yes. What does pension encapsulate?
Oh. Uh the state of Florida sets that. No. No. What on this line represents pension? Is it just the FRS? Yeah. Uh retirement pension line. In the general fund, you have town administration, your your town council. Okay. Uh hold on.
Oh, I'm sorry. in this line 2% increase in pension. Is pension the same as retirement FRS? Yes. Okay. Well, that's a 45% increase. Well, you're adding more people. The rate the increase in pension expense set
by the state of Florida will increase. Yes. Okay, that makes sense. Yes. And then you you had said you were going to get back to transfers ins and transfers out. Yeah. So, transfer in. Hold on, I'll go to that slide for for the audience. This is just a a explain what transfer
in is. Transfer in is when you take money like the general fund money and you transfer it into a fund that needs the money. Yeah. Okay. And then transfer out would be what you use to then pay those bills. A transfer out would be a transfer in
would be like a uh income coming in and to another fund. A transfer out would be like an additional expense, right? I got I got to send I got to send my kids money. So transfer in from the general fund to say the roads and drainage. Yep. Right.
Or or capital improvements. And then we bought a culvert and then we bought a pavement and then we bought a this and we bought a that. That's the transfers out. Yep. Okay. Yep. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Um, and I think Anita, you answered the question about when we were talking
about how many acreage there. Isn't there money that Royal Palm Beach hasn't played paid the town now for years, Francine? Yes. But it's not a very large amount. It's perhaps $10,000 and annually or total owed
total. Well, that that's an argument with them. Trying to get it. We're also trying to get straightened out um the we actually sent a letter to the property appraiser about there's a um the not forprofits that own land that
they're not using for not forprofit per purposes over a certain amount of years. They no longer get that exemption for that property. So, we're trying to work on getting like if you don't keep cows on on the property exemption.
I think there's also um a issue with the nonprofits. The nonprofit has to own the property and we have cases in this town where the nonprofits don't own the property, but they're operating a nonprofit on the property. It's based on the use, not the ownership.
It's it's based on the use. That's not what the property appraiser has told certain property owners in this town, but Okay. It's supposed to based on the use. If you have a not for profofit that operates on the property that it gets not for profit is my understanding of it. If the town bought Publix, we would have
to pay property tax on it even though it's government owned because it's for profit. Isn't Palm Beach State College for profit? No. But uh that's a whole different ballgame. But there are notfor-profit properties that
are not using the property for not for-p profofit purposes which then ship them back put them back in the tax. Francine wrote letters to the property. So we are working on that trying to get that resolved. Okay. And then Francine might be better
at answering this. The $4 million Tangerine Citrus capital improvements fund or capital improvements project. actually um we have our um engineer that will be on the call later for a
presentation and that's better discussed with him has to do with the both drainage and road restructuring that needs to be done in that well this this number has bounced around I think it started at 50 and now it's at 133 and then I I just don't know where
this $4 million the four million is the project and the project has been evolving as we've continued to do the resilient Florida work. Um I think at the previous meeting the mayor might have mentioned that
perhaps the district put in some gravity lines that and culverts that um are not effective. Um I'm trying to be very diplomatic as I say this and so we basically have to rework the drainage
for citrus and tangerine. The question is what is the right solution and additionally we have some development conditions involved there where roads have to be built um and then we had some um responsibility on our part for
building roads. So um recently and I think that was part of the capital and will be part of the capital conversation again tonight. We have an updated estimate of the design work that we need to do that may change the scope of that
project dramatically. But it's roads and drainage and it is to correct the sins of the past as much as it is to move forward in a very dry manner. Okay. So that that kind that kind of speaks but not to mean drive
speaks to the cost of engineering, right? I think we all know how these roads were built a 100 years ago. I think we all know how Roman people did it in times and their roads are still there by the way. I think we know how they were built three years ago.
So I often question the sanity and the extens extensiveness of engineers, right? So I wonder often are we overengineering which drives up the cost and that's something that I think we
just have to look at as we go forward. Mr. Delina last question. Yes. On slide whoop 33. Um we're looking at a transfer out after 2026 from the general fund would
be $88,000. You said yeah that one. Yep. Yes. Yes. So the statement down on the bottom left um oh bottom left right general fund. Uh right reserve balance after the 25.
Yeah. So so I'm going to go to slide number. I'm going to go to that slide there. Seven. Yep. Okay. So uh right uh so right now the
general fund right so if I have if my audited financial statements have uh an unrestricted fund balance of a million14 a million 104 right and I want to and I'm assuming that
because the way way we budget is we look at sources of revenue and uses of revenue. revenue, right? Then I'm assuming that that will be budget neutral and that if I take 25% of my operating expenses,
then what happens is right my I I I'm down to 80 $88,000. You explained that earlier. Yes. Yeah. I'm down to $88,000. So once we take all of our expenses Yep. and we make sure we keep the reserves at 25%. Right. Using current dollars, right? Right.
using current current revenue dollars. The the transfer out to capital improvements or whatever else that can be transferred to is not going to be more than $88,000. No, it leaves it. It means that
after a 25% re uh reserve, you you only have $88,000 left to transfer out to anything else in the future. Yes. Yes. So, that that is the answer. Yes. I'm so sorry. Yes. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Um I I'd like to say to my fellow
council members, um I sat up here in 19 and 20 and we had about $500,000 to spend on capital improvements on any given year historically and that hasn't really changed. And yet we went from a budget of about 5 million
and now we're pushing a budget approaching 8.5 $9 million. So, I find it very interesting that through the course of the these seven years going on now eight years, it's going to be still $500,000 give or take to spend on
capital improvements. So, why what is the spending that is eating up this chunk of money that should be approximately $3 million since the last time I sat on council?
So that's just something for us to ruminate as we go forward into budgeting. So that's it. Council member, may I may I add on a comment about that if you wouldn't mind? Sure. I think that it would be worth a while
to have Mr. Delena take a look at what we what our actual budget was um versus then what we pulled out of other funds because we had funds accumulating that were not spent like the sir tax money.
So when we allocated them to be spent our budget increased because we allocated them. When we got the $2 million for the ARPA money our budget increased because we allocated those to be spent. Let me correct it then. I'm talking about revenue. I am talking about revenue as well.
Those are revenue. And I'm not talking about the revenue spikes from Certax or or ARPA. I'm talking about the revenue that he's just told us tonight. That's not going to include these numbers. We're still at 8 million plus versus 5 million and a half when I last was on this council.
Let Mr. Delena and I work on this so you see a baseline of what the revenues were. There has been growth. And I'll tell you why there's been growth. big piece of it was the double-digit growth for the taxable value and that was
reinvested obviously in capital. We also had years of increasing gas tax. Now that's going to be starting to go the other way. So we'll go through and try to go ahead and give you a very simple breakdown of the baseline in year X. And
I'll I'll say year 2020 because that was the one I heard you say, but we could pick anyone. We'll do baseline from 2020 and show what happened to get to today. Because in my conversations with David, one of the things we talk about is that
our baseline spending absent the fact that we've taken on additional responsibilities, i.e. that we brought the full building function in house, i.e. that we are now doing a little bit more of a proactive code and that type of thing. Absent
those things, our general baseline spending um is consistent. Now, we did grow public works and we grew public works because we had to reby all the equipment. We grew public works because we had to add
back all the staff. There's 12 people there. There's 12 people here. there's 24 people total in 2018. There were 20 people. So I mean we need to do those kind of single comparison baseline how
we went from there to here so that everybody understands. I think it would be important before our meeting with the fact committee on the 18th if if that's not too short of a of a time limit to have if we look at the fact that we added a building department that's $300,000.
We have to look at that we added revenue that we didn't have before. I thought the building department you were saying made money. Well, to some extent it does, but it doesn't because we're not allocating the cost of the building and so on to it. Additionally, before we actually brought
the building department inhouse, we did not have the revenues to cover the expense that we had for doing the zoning and the permit tech stuff. But am I wrong? Weren't we told that that the building department generated like 300,000? No, that is a correct number.
Okay. Does that not pay for the building department itself? It does. It pays for the building. So, why we brought it in house? It is it's net zero as far as cost to have our own building department. That's correct. But we show revenues of 300 and we show expenditures of 300. Okay. So, we pull it out
number on both sides. But then that doesn't that doesn't support your argument that it's driven up the cost. It does because it shows both places. So my expenditure number is 300 higher. My revenue number is 300 higher. What I'm saying is we need to
build the series of events. 2020 what we did versus 2025 what we did. Okay. We'll do our best to try to show you that would be great how it happened. Paul I mean Todd I think you were next and then Paul. Is that correct gentlemen? I don't want to take you out
of turn. Okay. All right. So your slide six I believe it is the taxable assessed values. Yes. The one I had a problem. There's another problem. But so so from 2016 to to um 2026 we've
tripled the amount of taxable income, right? And that that accounts to 42% of our general fund source. Mhm. So my question is are all these other sources did they go up 300% also in that time period
u talking about franchise fees intergovernmental no I mean those didn't those didn't go up that much right well I mean you know franchise fees you know uh your electric company or whatever right they depending on the
growth right uh depending on how many uh actual units are here that that may increases. Well, it's just a pass through, right? I mean, the electric company just puts it on your bill. I get that. But my point is, why is it why has the amount that we're
collecting on property taxes gone up 300% in 10 years, but these other things haven't? Is it because we're out of control spending and we need that those funds? What's happened that it's gone 300% in that 10 years? If everything else has only gone up, let's say 100%, right? 100% in that 10-year
period. Well, are we taken advantage by this assessed value, you know, with this mill rate of three or potentially 3.5? Are we taking advantage and we're just spending crazy when these other revenue sources aren't going up? If if we didn't
have control over that millage rate, we would have to we would have to bring down how much we're spending, right? If it was a set rate, we would have no choice. Well, but we do have a choice. And that's how we end up spending more and more every year. because we're keeping the millage rate at three, right? So, we
just talked about how over at Publix works there's 12 employees now, but I think when the district dependent, was there six? There were independent employees before they all started to terminate, right? At the time that the town and the district consolidated the two budgets
together had 20 employees. No, no. The independent district. No, no, no. What did they have there before they became dependent? Six or seven? Totals together. No, no, no, not together. Just over there. The total was more like 12 because they
had empty positions. But how many did they actually have over there? Five or six total? Back in the day, like six before they became dependent. Yeah. Well, back in the day, that's not accurate. We had four administr when I was four administratively.
Um, and we had Sorry, my bad. I forgot about them for a minute. We had I believe it was four or five in the field at the time. See, eight or nine roughly at the time of that and there were I will bring it to you
because I can't make it up. I promise you they actually added in some type of superintendent position. There were like three positions that were added in. I'm not saying that they were filled, but they got up to a total number of 12.
Oh, no. There were unfilled positions over there. We put a hiring free threes on it the year that I was the chair of it. We told we said not until we got things under control because we didn't the the water control district didn't have the money to operate. It had to be subsidized by the town always.
Um, so you Yeah, you don't you don't have a lot of I mean, the the things that you have control over are probably your license and permits. uh charges for services and fines and forfeitures as a as a as a as
a committee. You know what I mean? As far as how much you how much how much you want to pass as a resolution to charge your residents for those services and then how much of those services are
used. So you're you're right. I mean, uh, you know, uh, uh, electric franchise fees, whatever, uh, internet franchise fees, whatever it may be. Um, yeah, I mean, it's it's hard to have any real
influence over those. Uh, but yeah, th those those line items as far as revenue goes, yeah, you do have control over and yes, we we do have control over spending. Yeah, 100%. That is in your court. Go back to that slide six
for me. Yes, sir. I want to show you something that you probably are not aware of. Go ahead. Is it back in time? Sorry. I'm sorry. Yeah. Okay, Dr. Peabody. Go ahead. I'm sorry. No. No. The uh
I'm sorry. Yep. Barraph. No, keep going back. Bar graph. Keep going back. Right there. There you go. So, if you look in 2017, our miller rate was 1.472. And of course, our assess value was drastically, you know, a total assess out there was drastically less. Do you
know why it went from 1.472 over to three in that 2-year period? No, sir. The law enforcement contract. They doubled it. It went from 250,000 a year to 500 and something thousand a year. And where else were we going to come up with money that we could just do, right? It was there. That's what we did.
Yeah. And ever since then, our contract has been through the roof. And when you say it's only a 1% increase this year, what a great contract. But it's a double it's a double dip. We're already paying our county taxes. We're already paying for the sheriff's department. Some I calculated out like $2 and half
million dollars a year to our county taxes. We're already paying that. And now we've got this other contract that caused that rate increase. And we've spent millions upon millions of dollars since then on that contract as a luxury item. It's not a contract we have to have. And to say that, oh, what
a deal you got it for 1%. We shouldn't be paying that contract anyway as far as I'm concerned because we're already paying our county taxes. We didn't get a when we incorporated, we didn't get a reduction in our county taxes. The same amount we were paying for the sheriff, we continue to pay the next year except
we started paying, you know, 1.472 or whatever it was the first year. Actually, probably less than that. But my point is, we spent millions and millions of dollars on that contract to so to say it's a 1% increase. What a great contract. I I I'll argue with you all night about
that one. I knew as soon as I knew as soon as he said it. I knew as soon as he Well, what I meant is getting a one% increase in anything. It's like someone had robbed your house, right? And they only took my TV and they didn't take the one in the in the master bedroom. Right. I mean, come on.
Well, right. But but right, but but I tried to call the police, but they were farther away and they couldn't get there until So So, no farther than they were yesterday. My next question is on slide 20. Yes. This is real quick. All right. Nine o'clock, guys. Just
letting you know. Go ahead. Yes, sir. Um, and I know that the budget calcul uh collection rate you put at 95% because you assume that son's not going to pay. Why did you put in 100 on the last one or bottom right? It's a different number from 95%.
Well, because this right here is 100%. The the other numbers and I'll and I'll I'll double check and thank you. The other numbers are netted. I'm I'm just showing the breakdown that says, "Hey, a 100% is $2.3 million, right? Minus the
5% $2.2 million is what we is what we budget." That that that's all I'm showing them. And then and I understand when you budget for 95% because you assume 5% aren't going to pay. Yes. At some point they're gonna, right? It may be two years or whatever. And and so
statutoily I can't. Statutoily the state of Florida says you are not going to budget 100% of of of all the stuff but anyway but but it says budget collection rate that that wasn't actual that was what was budgeted. It may have actually been 100%. Yeah. Yeah. I there's a timing
difference. You're absolutely right. It may take you two or three years, you know, to to to realize that. But but you're absolutely right. But but that's why that's why in in local government, you know, taxes are going to be paid either by your property owner or by someone else who buys your tax deed,
right? And and and and so on and so forth. That that's why when you look at it, you say, how much of my budget is reliant upon my property taxes? In your case, it's only 42%. In other clients,
it's 85%. you know, it's it's just it it fluctuates, but it's it is a good it is a good mix, right? You you could have higher charges for services, right? Uh and potentially lower something else, but at the end of the
day, what's the money going to come in to cover? You're almost near guaranteed your, you know, your your property tax dollars. Are we done, Paul? Uh yeah, I just have a couple quick things. Um when we when we come back to our
joint meeting. Yeah. Um you know just out of curiosity can you tell us what happens if we have the if we what the shortfall is if we remain at 200 oh uh 309,000. Well that was quick.
You go Delena. No no the shortfall is more than that. Uh well I David the shortfall what I think what the question was is if you kept your assessment rate at 200 versus 300. Oh what the I'm sorry.
So the shortfall would be 700 and some thousand. Yes. How much? 700 and change. Yeah. I'm sorry. K 700,000 plus. That's how much the extra 100 uh brings in.
And did I did I catch it right? We don't we don't charge the building department for their seat in the building for their square footage. We're allowed to, right? They're allowed to pay for paper, right? And etc. Right. The use of computers.
Talk about that. All right. No, I was we have to location. So, right now we're we're at a wash. Yes, we're at All right. Thanks. That's all I have. Thank you. I'm sure I'll have more on the 18th. Oh, he said 18th.
I don't I thought it was the 18th. I got to double check my calendar every day. The the 18th was the proposed um fact joint meeting with the fact. No, that that was going to be a fact at 4:00. Um and I'm not sure that that's going to be doable um because I'm not
sure we're going to have a quorum at that time. And I I think the the chairperson has a an issue with that getting out here um at that time. And we have a pine tree meeting uh that begins at 6:00. So
that's why that was another compressed time to try to So So can you try to figure that out? So can you please tell me what night our meeting is? The council meeting is um set for the 20th and um while I may look
like Valerie, I don't have all of Valerie's information, so I'm not sure um whether or not you all have confirmed for that date or not. Is that joint fact council meeting or is that just the council? That's joint. It's a budget. the budget
workshop that all of us I believe that it was a um council meeting and I think invitations were going to okay uh go to fact I'm not sure it was going to actually be a formal joint meeting okay yeah I think she was waiting to send it
out till she got some confirmations because she was going to send it of who was a visually I thank you but I'm going to put it on my calendar because I've already put something else on my calendar that night so I need so I need I need to gohead and put stuff on there while I can. Thank
you for clarifying that. Okay, thank you so much. Yeah, probably there is a Thanks, Dave. There is a public comment. Oh, great. Thank you. Sorry. Um, Virginia Standish. I did not forget you. Good evening, Virginia Standish 15410
North Road. First, I'd like to take uh thank the finance committee for the outstanding job they've done, remembering that they are an oversight committee, not a rubber stamp committee. I'm horrified to hear some of the language that has been used towards
them. The two key words tonight, accountability and reality. Town council cracks the whip. We start with you out here. We expect you to get us results to
to run this town. It is incumbent upon all of you. Okay. Town manager answers to you. Town attorney directs you. One of the biggest issues as far as accountability is the budget. Oh, hey,
we've hired someone that wasn't in the budget. Sure, you can fix it after the fact, but let's try and stick to a budget and make a plan. We consistently come here and see, oh, this week we're doing this, but today uh you know, last week we're doing
something else. Example, bait and switch. We are talking about contracts. Your contracts are relevant to your budget. You made key decisions tonight. You better read that contract carefully on the issues in it that you're about to
sign. Um, you should not hire any staff again unless it's in the budget. The staff you hire needs to know their job. They need proper training. I've listened to ULDC
meetings and heard terms like, "Oh, well, vested properties. We don't have vested properties, building inspections, compare our inspection process and sign off to other communities. And please spare me. Let's not look at Wellington.
Let's try and look at some other communities. We see why legal bills get run up. Tonight was a prime example. You guys ran up the legal bill. We came in here, there was supposed to be a decision made. You went a different direction. You yourselves are liable for co costing
us the town residents money as far as PBSO. You can do an overlay. We've talked about this for years. There's a ticket book. I realize there's small amounts of money, but these small amounts of money add up. We're not here to say, "Oh, just
spend our money and do whatever you want with it." Let's try and be fiscally responsible. Let's hire staff that is willing to operate on a small town level. Another example, I listened to the ULDC meeting
and oh, we need an impact study for science. Is that going to run? Is that just busy work? Is there something else that person could be doing? One of the members of the ULC committee said, "Can't we enforce these codes now?" Oh, the answer was yes.
So the you need to have a serious discussion with the town attorney and the town manager as to how staff time is being utilized because there are serious cost overruns right there and it could be more effective. We're up to 24 pieces of equipment. Public works, I
understand, is very busy. They're working hard. But one of the things that costs money in this town is allowing vendors to come into this town without proper oversight. FPNL came into this town with no surveys of culverts.
Landowners culverts were damaged. People who reported safety issues of the roads collapsing and and FPNL had pike come in and put cardboard over the patches, a little bit of dirt. Thankfully, those roads haven't collapsed, but other
projects got done. So, your health and safety seems to be sporadic in this town. You need to know what the priorities are. You need to talk to your staff and your attorney. What are the self health and safety
issues in this town? Who's reported what? And how have they been dealt with? Thank you. Anybody else? Thank you. Yes. Hi, good evening. Manish Su 3765 road. Oh, thank you Virginia. We appreciate
it. My council members, dear friends, and residents, I'm not going to bore you with big numbers because I've done that a lot. I've given big reports and all that good stuff. Today, I'm going to talk about big picture because that's the theme, big picture. I'm going to
take a moment to recognize the brilliance of our town's founders. They saw the wave of development sweeping in from all directions. And I studied the charter and the history. And instead of giving in, they put in place a strong charter, a thoughtful, comprehensive
plan, and a small efficient government. They understood the value of small government and keeping our taxes low. And that's how they wanted to protect the rural character that defines Loxa Groves. Mr. Coleman and Miss uh Eldraie,
you use the word frugal and conservative today. I think that's what the founders wanted. Miss Orzog, you were part of the founding group, too. I hope that's what you want too and I hope that that's what Mayor Kaine and Mr. Mlendon would want.
Now you may be asking what do RV parks property values and preserving of a rural spirit have to do with 2026 budget and beyond everything. We have a structural deficit no doubt we have certain search charges that are drying up but our spending is fast outpacing
our revenues. Our general fund expenditures are growing by 24% over the last budget. Most of it going towards admin functions, admin employees to be specific. Our roads and drainage capital uh investments are taking a hit. Only
seven cents on the tax dollars are going towards that versus 25 cents in the previous years. What happens next? Our roads flood more. Our roads crumble. If a couple of hurricanes and a lawsuit or a drainage failure hits us this year, we
will be heading to the bank with our hat in our hands, begging for a loan because our reserves are already down to bare minimum. Here is the hard truth. If we keep growing government without guardrails on spending, we will be forced to invite the very kind of high
de density development that we have long resisted. Our town will be unaffordable for our current residents and our property values will plummet. RV parks and large-scale developers won't be a zoning issue. They will be our necessity, our financial lifeboat. Mr.
Delina said today, you can always change the budget at any time. But one thing you can't change and that is how much tax burden you are going to add on our residents this year and how much more bureaucracy are you going to let grow in 2026 and beyond. Your decisions will
matter for 2026 and what kind of town we are going to be for our kids and grandkids. Thank you. All righty. Before you leave the budget, mayor, I won't Let's make it really quick. We've got a whole meeting coming up about this.
It's going to be really quick. Okay. Go ahead. The the budget is the council's policy tool to implement the policy that they wish to address. So, this is one of those pivotal years because we're out of other people's money. We didn't
necessarily get money from the state yet. We still have the same kind of overwhelming and overbearing um deferred maintenance from the past. None of that stuff has changed. So, this isn't really about um one year, it's
about all years. So, conversations about the sheriff's contract, conversations about the corridor, conversations about Okachobee, conversations about all of it have to start coming up, you know, for
some direction because we can cut the budget however you want, however you want. But it needs to match the policy that you hope for us to deliver. and and some of those things have giant expectation gaps. So, I am a
fan of frugal and I am a fan of protection. It's just that when we say we're going to be frugal and protect, it means that we can't do everything we would like to do. Thank you. All right, we are going to do
uh I think Jeff, you should read the Mr. Clerk, you should read the title of number 12. Yes. And uh some good news. Item 12 and 13 are actually one item. Uh 13 uh was the backup for your previous uh July 1st
where you discussed this item. But this is an ordinance of the town and council of the town of Lockachi Groves, Florida, repealing ordinance number 2024-11 adopting the annual uh update to the capital improvements element of the comprehensive plan consistent with
chapter 163 Florida statutes providing for conflict severability and an effective date for your consideration on first reading. Um, as I indicated, uh, this is an item that you discussed, um, as a discussion item at last month's
meeting. What this is is, um, a redo of our capital improvement um, ordinance. And it what it does is there are four new projects um to be funded by
monies reallocated from five other sources. If you would like a presentation or more detail on it, we can go through that. We approved this last month. You discussed it last month and I think there was consensus to move forward which is why it is before you today on
first reading. It will come back on second reading for adoption and a public hearing on the item at your September meeting if you pass it tonight. We need a motion to approve. Make a motion to approve 25-08. Second.
Okay. All right. Discussion. Lisa. Yeah. We just talked about how we have almost a $200,000 shortfall. Um, I I just hate beating a dead horse.
Uh, but this $100,000 for TPA grant funding has been stated multiple times. This was never approved. This is supposed to be paying for the Slugot contract, which is 90,000 a year and for 20,000 for something and 25,000 for something else.
I don't have notes exactly on it, but we can't spend this money multiple ways. It was never approved by council previously. So, I think we should be looking at something has to give in here. The 160 for Hyde Park. I know some of that's
coming back from FEMA hopefully one day supposedly 175% is part of it and then 100% for another part of it, but um the work's done. I'm assuming those people have been paid for the work that they did. So,
that's those are my comments. Paul. Yeah. I I just you know everything listening to both of the lobbyists come you every grant every appropriation that
we're going for whether it be local whether it be state whe every single one ex there's a few that weren't but every single one to my recollection these projects have to be shovel ready. So that means we have to invest, you know,
upfront. Now, um, and I'm not going to go down the rabbit hole, but as you, you know, you and I have for years have had many conversations about how, you know, we spent a bunch of money to get ready for something and then all of a sudden nobody wants to do the
project, right? Because it was a 10-centent on the dollar investment on our part. So, you know, that that's I mean I I I see what you're saying, but I mean if we had gone forward then we we wouldn't be respending the engineering
money now. And I think some of it's actually you know more tweaking what's going on. So it's it's you know unfortunately o over the next few months or the next year we are going to be swallowing a lot of pills that were given to us you know in the past
and I you know I think this is one of them. So anybody else have anything to say? Okay. Uh do we have any public comment on this? Not on this item. Okay. I have a motion to approve or not to you have a motion to approve. Oh that's right. I'm sorry. All right.
So, uh, all in favor? I oppose. Opposed. Passes four to one. Okay. So, that takes care of 12 and 13. We're now on to If you would read the title, Mr. Clerk.
This is item 14. Correct. Yes. And this is first reading of ordinance number 2025 uh 09. An ordinance of the town council of the town of Locket Grove, Florida, reorganizing and amending chapter 14
code enforcement by adding article one in general and article two lean reductions and releases amending section 14-4 application for relief from code enforcement lean to provide general provisions applicable to lean fine
reductions and releases to adopt section 14-5 special magistrate lean reductions and releases to address reductions by special magistrate to adopt section 14-6 other lean releases to address partial releases of leans and releases of
uninforceable leans and for other purposes providing for conflict severability codification and an effective date um for your consideration on first reading and there is one public comment card. I do not know whether or not you need a
presentation on this item because I think it was discussed at a previous meeting. It was Thank you, Jeff. Karen Gardner Young, community standards director. This was at the last meeting and there were some changes that you requested that staff bring back. So, I could go
through the whole presentation, but I'll go through I leave it up to the council. I'll go through the changes first. So, the first change you you asked was first of all, we wanted a limitation on them being able to come back. We said you can come back one more time after that year.
After that, you got to wait. So that language has been now added into this document. The second change you had requested was we didn't want to allow it to go beyond uh could be no more than um I I want to make sure I say it. We can
wave 75% but we can't go less. We can't go more than that. Right? That's what the council came back. 25% is how you worded it. Well and and so that has been reflected. The only item that is not in this document that this council did discuss last time was requiring I think
Todd you was the one who brought it up requesting to have language that if it was a life health safety that it had to come back unanimously to the council. Um town attorney was the one to draft the language. I did talk with Glenn uh he felt and I put this in my memo that it
would be better left for that particular item to be addressed by the new town attorney because he felt this issue required legal research and additional information. So that is not included in this uh in this particular ordinance. Again, it is first reading, so we have
to come back because it is second reading. And my intent would hopefully by that point we can work with Jeff in order to try to get that language in before second reading. So, those were the major changes asked. Those were all a request except for the last item I
talked about. I didn't bring in fees because fees don't count till second reading. As a matter of fact, we're going to be bringing back at the next meeting a fee schedule for all the items in community standards and I'm going to include that amount in that fee schedule so we don't even have to come with a resolution. I'm available to answer any
questions you have and I know Glenn's online in case you have any questions of him. Lisa, you are quick with the light again. I am. Um, so when this came before council before, do you remember when that was? At our last meeting. No, no, no. when this first came to
council. Oh. First came to council and it was it was turned down. Do you remember what year that was? Oh gosh. 22 23ish something like that. Yeah. Two. Do you remember why they turned it down? They turned it down. I believe because
they wanted a neutral third party involved in reducing fines. We already have a policy to reduce fines. Um I don't know if this policy's ever been applied. Has this policy been applied in any code enforcement cases? The one proposed tonight you're talking about or
Yeah. No, the one proposed because it hasn't been adopted. So, it has not been So, it's never been used. Okay. No. Um, so I I know we discussed this last time, but I given the way things happen in a small town, I would like to see it
still at the discretion of the of the magistrate. I think it remains at the discretion of the magistrate. We're just putting a a cap on the reduction. We're just saying you can never reduce it more than 25%. Previous policy said that it wouldn't exceed $5,000.
Right. That was the previous proposed. Has that been removed? Nothing has been removed as far as I'm I'm concerned. Do you have an answer to that or no? As to whether anything was removed.
Correct. Lisa's asking that she in her recollection there was a $5,000 cap for we're we're proposing we were right here it's on page 251 on page 251 we were proposing to change it to 25%
it has that language been removed and the answer is no because Lisa is saying it's still there is it stricken no till here payment must be made to the town of 10% of the total lean amount or $5,000 whichever is greater Now that is underlined. So that's added
language. Okay. That's not existing. I believe that was in the original one as well. It had a cap. So So we're putting a a minimum of how does 5,000 affect the 25%. Because this says 10%.
Or 5,000. One has to do with what it costs and one has to do with how much you're allowed to reduce it. Does that make sense? like a minimum cost. I I I the way I read it, the first one sets a minimum cost or a minimum standard.
Well, we had administrative fees, right? We talked about administrative fees versus to see them, right? 14 14-6A. Um that's what what page uh that's on page 250 and that's the
precursor to the language that you're uh talking about which is a part of a subsection. 14.6 six um deals with partial release of lean and I believe it's dealing with a situation in which um you have a violating property and
that lean attached to another property that was not the violating property and you're seeking for a partial release of the lean so that the um party that the property that was not subject to the the lean uh not not subject to the code
enforcement action can be released from the lean because if you h if a property owner has two properties um and they are both in the same name it's not like LLC 1 and LLC 2 but it's
uh two separate parcels two separate parcels but they're owned by the same entity. You have the one bad parcel, if you will, the one that was subject to code enforcement, and you've got a clean parcel. The lean attaches to both of them. Isn't that how we manage to get some
people to come forward and get their pay stuff paid in the past? Yes, that's that is always a way to to do it. But I think that's what this particular section and that separate limitation applies to. It would be dealing with the release of lean on the
clean property, if you will. So you'd lose some of your leverage to get people to come in and fix the problem. Well, if you let them do it on the on the parcel release again, it still remains effective against what we'll call the bad parcel. I get it.
Oh, okay. I'm sorry. But the way they did it before was if somebody wanted to sell their good property, they had to fix this problem first. Mhm. Or else they couldn't sell their good property. Well, I guess it's just going to take it's because it says they may
they may petition, right? The town bill has to be approved. They got to they got to approves it. The magistrate, right? No, I don't think so. We would the council would I think Yeah, it's the town, not the magistrate. So, it's the town. They have to petition the town.
Is that what it said, Jeff? Is that accurate that the council has to approve lean releases just like the reductions we talked about? Yeah. Um I'm thumbing through this and I believe our current attorney is more familiar with it, but I uh
I'm not sure whether or not that Glen. Glenn, can you speak to that? Bottom of page 250. Who are the partial releases enabled by the special magistrate? I think it is the say that you always need to get the special magistrate to bless what you're
doing. But it's not question. petition the town. Our question is does the property owner may petition the town mean that the property owner has to come and stand in front of the town council here and ask us to grant this partial
release or that the property owner must come to a special magistrate hearing and ask the special magistrate to great grant this partial release. Who is the party or entity that grants this partial release? That's our question. Well, ultimately
you you have that choice. Do you want to be the ones that grant that partial release? You can. If you want to delegate that to the magistrate, you can. So, understand the standing from the last current language doesn't doesn't address that at all. So, we have to put that into the language. Well, no, it says town.
Dwayne, the current language says the town that means you. It doesn't say M. Okay. That's that was the answer. That's what we want. Okay. All right. Go ahead. Okay. So on page 250
five at the top where this is where the language breaks it down to no less than 25%. Mhm. How does that align though with page 251 4 with the payment to be made of 10% or
5,000 whichever two different circumstances is it? Yeah. So it's part of the special circumst the the onem 251 is part of the special special circumstances subsection that would have to have been approved for other lean find other lean section the other one is part
of like just in general okay does that make sense yes clearly all right so but this doesn't cap right
doesn't cap app the magistrate as far as they can't ever give them more than you know a $10,000 fine. So if remembering and Glenn you can correct me this is the recommendation of staff to the special magistrate.
Correct. So we're saying to the special magistrate we don't want you to reduce it less than X. The special magistrate I believe has the authority to go beyond that. Unless I'm wrong, Glenn. No, you're correct. And I think that's
been one of the concerns is, you know, placing some guidelines for staff to follow or parameters for staff to follow. U because, you know, we've all heard the complaints that, you know, some people get more leniency, some are stricter. It may just all be perception,
but this at least provides some guidelines for staff. Okay. Thank you, Paul. Uh, I mean Todd, sorry. So, um, Glenn didn't take into consideration, well, let me back up. He didn't add in there the part with the,
um, public and health and life safety because he said our new town attorney would do it. So, I got I got a I got a question for Mr. Curts, not a legal question because he's not our attorney yet. Is there going to be any issue with adding that in there and with the same ordinance on the second reading?
It's not going to change the the the first part of the ordinance. So, I was as to as to whether or not it's going to affect the the title, right? Um, I don't think so. I think the title is broad enough to encompass it, but we've
got to see what we come up with on the on the language. I haven't addressed that issue at all. So, I would still say pass it if you're satisfied otherwise, pass it on first reading. Um, and in a worst case scenario, we're coming back with another
first reading if it affects the the title or the substance of the ordinance. And the second reading is coming at our next meeting. That would be the uh that would be the intention. Yeah. Is I think you bring up a good point. Is it if it makes it more restrictive,
right? Does that then mean you have to come back? Like we may have to change a first read next time and then another he he just he hasn't researched it. When it comes to when it comes to titles, it's more about whether or not you've covered the subject matter or not. It's not a restriction.
You can make it more lenient or restrictive. It's whether the subject is there. Degree of changing it like a whether it's significant or not. Legally significant. Yes. Something like that. Okay. that it's significant as long as as long as it still matches that title. It comes it it it has to do with whether
or not the title has covered the subject that you are about to to broach. Got it. That being said, if if there it does require the title change in the first reading, could we back up, right? Would it come back next time as a first reading or we have to deny the second
reading and then bring the first reading down? No, it'll just come back. Okay. All right. I I was I was just see if we could just double up if that was the case. Government takes them. Um do we have any public comments on the We're done with questions right now. I think you said yes on this item.
Yes, there are two public comments. Okay, great. Um Cassie Sushi is first. This was brought before council in 2023 and Marge was here. We have an ordinance in place which addresses all of that.
You're putting in all these specific little pinpoints. The lease can't be more than se or the lean reduction can't be more than 75% of the loan. It's written in the policy. You have all these other restrictions in there. the the original policy we have and Marge
was on the council at the time to consider applications for lean relief lean relief. All applications for lean reduction satisfaction releases or other matters relating to relief from leans shall be directed to the special magistrate. Special magistrate will consider all written requests,
statements of the applicant, authorized agent, the recommendations of the town and any other information deemed relevant and render a decision. We pay this person for her expertise. We pay this person to be independent. And we've wasted our time on eight pages
of stuff that's now just narrowing in and we don't even know what it means. We already have a policy in place. That's fine. And I just see this as a waste of time. And I it was and the fact that it was presented the way it was presented.
Well, it didn't pass the last council, but with a new council, we're going to try it again. staff wants to bring it before the new council. Is that why we just keep going back when we get a new council? If they don't like what you guys do tonight, they'll just wait till you get a new council, we'll propose it again. Cuz I remember we had a bond
questioned to the voters twice, vote it down twice, and then staff wanted to recommend it for a third time last year. So, don't pass this. This is a waste of time. We already have something. We pay somebody to make a decision and be
independent. And that was the what what happened at that last meeting in 2023. They agreed that we paid a magistrate. If you guys want to do this, then don't hire a magistrate. Put somebody put an employee up there. We gosh knows we have a lot of them. So, don't vote for this. Um, but I do thank you. I do have two
attorneys names. So, uh, they can help me write the ordinances for a petition if we don't like it because the public is getting tired of some of this stuff you guys are doing. Do the right thing. We already have a policy in place if you want to add maybe the little ad here and
there, but you don't need eight pages of stuff where it says the magistrate shall consider this. The lean reduction, some of the things already in the lean reduction are already in law 20 years. If it's over 20 years, then it can't be enforced. So, we already have something. We don't
need eight pages of convoluted mess. Let the person do her job. Let her be the expert that we hire. Let her be independent and all the information she can follow and then we accept what she what we pay her for. We don't have to adopt this. We were
asked to bring it back. We are absolutely fine to do as council directs and wishes. Understood. Virginia Standish 15410 North Road. Ditto to the last speaker. Um, in addition to that, I'd like to say, as
many of you know, I've watched numerous code enforcement meetings. This week was most interesting. Anyway, the magistrate works really hard. She does a good job and she follows the town
language. She follows the l existing language. Be very careful with what you do. No ambiguity should be entered into this. Something I'm hearing tonight is this. Oh, 25% reduction, but I'm not
hearing the other sentence I heard a few meetings ago. Maybe you've forgotten it. Less the cost of what they already spent. If you don't put that in there, the magistrate isn't going to know that. She goes, literally, she will pull up
the town code, the town information. This is what we have. Unless staff or the attorney makes a recommendation to reduce her appeal, she's going by exactly what language she is given to work by as she should.
Now, the one big issue I've noticed is if a f if an issue is corrected, they're not given any credit for that. The fine just keeps rolling on every like everything's in violation. So, what you want to examine in this,
examine your existing language. Somebody has five issues on their property. They fix one. Are they being still penalized for all five or has their fine been reduced? That is something you can look at to review what
your existing language is because I'm not seeing that at the code enforcement meetings. Thank you. Paul, I'll reach him first. Lisa, correct me if I'm wrong that you and I before we sat up here, we talked about paying hundreds of thousands of
dollars walk out of here. Why? Right from the town manager just said, "Yeah, I I just I I agree with that landowner." 250,000 gone. Walked out the door. We have a serious problem with that happening. And this is this is being brought back to address this. We asked for this to be brought back to try
to address this issue. Right. Yes. Come in front of us. This is where there's been interference by staff when the magistrate is going to give larger fines. Right. So, is this tying the hands of staff or is this tying the hands of the magistrate?
The intention is to tie in the hands of both. Okay. Do do you are you thinking that it doesn't tie the hands of staff? It's setting limits and parameters. So based on all this discussion before, we were told that we can have these
policies in place, but the magistrate can do whatever the magistrate wants to do, right? And we laughed about it, right? But we got to make a try, right? We got to try and that's what we're trying. Then why limit it to 25%. What do you think? As a minimum, what what you think it should be?
I mean, if we're right here, I mean, if you're worried about hundreds of thousands walking out the door, maybe you make it more. I don't know. I don't know this was this formulated because of other towns policies. How do we arrive at this policy? So the 25% came from the council at the
last meeting. Okay. But this policy in general to the lean reduction policies is this standard language in other towns. Is this unique to something that we dreamed up? Glenn, did you recommend that number or did we just pull No, I'm talking about from 2023. Where
did this all What was the genesis of this originally? Glenn, what was the genesis of this originally in 2023? I don't know what the genes I don't know remember what the genesis was in 23. I know that um someone made the comment
that the reduction uh in other cities does give people credit for repairs they made. So, if they have a $100,000 lean and they could reduce it to say just picking a number no less than 25,000 and if they spent $7,000 fixing it up, some
places give them credit for that$7,000. So, the 25 would be 17 or 18,000. So, that's not in here because I didn't think you wanted that in there, but we did talk about that as an option. Someone just mentioned it again. So, back to your point, Todd. um when
this policy came into being in 22 23, what was the reason it was created? How was it created? Like where working though, right? Because we saw a couple hundred thousand walk out the door. I I think I think that's why it was created.
Okay. So I I think that there is call out from the audience. Thank you. I I think that there is an interesting the the whole goal is to cost people that don't want to comply money. Right.
Correct. And I think Mr. Tarcivia's comment was interesting because if they're trying to come into compliance, obviously the point is not to financially burden them. Correct. Overburden them. So I think what this really boils down
to is the bad actors, right? And so I I think we discussed that last time that it was really the bad actors that this really right. So is this policy and only I think we want a 25% minimum is that hurting the people who are trying to come into compliance that are trying to
come into compliance. They never make it to the you give them six months. I mean you work with I don't know about that. So, well, I think I think most people that that that and I I you know, that I've witnessed, you know, when they're they're trying to come into compliance, you know, I've seen I I I've seen two
sides of the coin. So, they're trying to come into compliance. So, they they Johnny on the spot, you know, let me fix my driveway, whatever the case may be. Then I've also seen where you know um somebody's hired a contractor
and they're up there because of of it's a not so much a code in issue but it's more of a and they go to the before the magistrate over stuff like that and that they actually use this leverage on the contractor to fix what they're doing. So, it's it it's it's a tool and I think
the the the the overall um objective is to make everybody come in compliance like you're saying. So, I mean, if we could add in the part about, you know, if you spent $7, it could be a thing kind of like the the one portion
of the the lean release where they have to come before a council instead of going before the magistrate and say, "Listen, I you know, I spent 20 grand to fix this and my my fines are, you know, at 25. It took a long time or my fines are, you know, down to 50. You know, can
I can you have some exception?" I think but or we could just leave it out just to help the people that are trying to comply that it just takes a long time. So, in the magistrate's experience, obviously they're the ones that you're deferring to to their knowledge and and their their level of expertise.
uh do does a magistrate tend to lean in into alignment with the town's policies or do they use their judgment to say, "Hey, in my opinion, with what you've presented with me here, I'm leaning toward an 80%
uh you know, fine with only a 20% reduction or I'm happy to take it down to a 5% fine." I I in my experience, Lisa, most of the time they follow the recommendation of staff. Okay? It doesn't mean that it doesn't happen. And again to keep in
mind the factors to consider is any actual cost imposed by the owner is a factor. The length of time between when the compliance date and when the violation happened. So again, if somebody's making an effort and it takes them a short period of time, those would
be factors again that staff and the special magistrate would be considering when it comes time for consideration of the lean reduction. Okay. So, but you don't necessarily take somebody to magistrate. Like if you if you came to my house and find me for, you know, I
I didn't do my safe sight corner and I let it go. Like if I'm letting it go, then you're going to take me the magistrate. If I'm like, if I'm saying, "Hey, Karen, listen. I, you know, I broke my leg. It's going to be I can't get out there for, you know, I can't afford to hire somebody. It's going to
be six months, right? Because I got my you I broke, you know, that the femur. What at the top? The femur. Yeah. Compound fracture. I'm not I'm not a doctor. Sorry. I play one on TV. Um. Yeah. So, but you you work I guess my point is you work
with that person, right? Yes. So, if if I am saying I'm coming trying to come compliant, I'm making a true good faith effort. It's not like you're going here's your violation. Okay. And then 30 days later, you're going you got a magistrate hearing in two days. Yeah.
Right. It's it's if I come and say, hey, listen, this is what I've done. I've gotten some estimates I can't afford. It's going to cost me. Okay. But that goes kind of to my point. The ones that land at the magistrate are the really the most naughty, right? So they're they're the least compliant,
right? They're the ones that have demonstrated no willingness to be compliant until they get to that point. So I if I I don't know. I'm not sure the policies necessary. Um but I see your point, Todd. You know, I get it. And all
these documents are living breathing documents, right? We we learn from our past. We learn what doesn't work. And we know what we have doesn't work because we've seen 200,000. So we're trying to do something to try to fix that, right? That's what we're trying to do. Put it on the record that we don't want it reduced below this. They still can.
And in those in those past historical cases where the money flew out the door, were they charged administrative fees? I don't think they got I think it was I think that's the the the intention behind this is to and you're not going to see fees whatever until they they
bring she said she's counting historically charged administrative fees. Have we kept those exclusive from the the fines? I can tell you since I've been here the administrative fees are monitored and those have to be paid. They're not considered as part they're separate on
the order. So since April. Yeah. Okay. And it might have been before then. And I'm not saying I don't, but at least I don't want to tell you something that I don't know personally, but I can tell you there are fees and we are tracking them. And as a matter of fact, it's on our list to make sure that we go over the records to try to collect those.
Okay. I And I I think, you know, we um you know, Cassie spoke about ambiguity, right? I I think I think the the purpose of this being eight pages instead of one or two is because we've gone into kind of detail as to how we want this process to work. So, it clearly defines what our
intention is. Um I I think it's a judgment call by the magistrate. Um just like it's a you know the it's a judgment call to by the code compliance. Did I say that right? Code compliance department. Um you know how they're interpreting that code. It's an interpret interpretation of
interpretation of the intent. So I mean I I I think the more detailed we can be about this is actually better. It's not I think if you start broad brushing it, then you leave yourself open to the whims of whoever cuz we talked about what what happens if Jeff's sick, what happens if the special magistrate is
sick? She's got somebody standing in and they're going to, you know, so I think this kind of sets the tone. I I see it as a parameter setting documents. Well, and if you remember correctly, this came about because uh Doug Schaefer
stood up there and was talking about the uh egregious uh behavior of a resident on Hyde Park, you know, and uh you know, he he was whoever owned the property, they were just ignoring.
No, they weren't just ignoring. Yeah, it was worse than that. It was worse than that. Okay. Flaunting. Flaunting is a good word. Flaunting is a polite word. I I think that we need to spell out and I
mean there there have been past managers uh that I I know have forgiven large sums of money uh also before Francine of our most egregious offenders. Yeah. Um Todd,
you know, I don't know if staff is aware of it. When I was on the council last time, um, we actually adopted a policy that if you had a an issue where you had a code enforcement issue and it had been something that's been going on for 20 years and how this started was somebody had a towing company and they had a
bunch of cars on their property. She was elderly. Took her a long time to get to get it cleaned up. It had been going on for 20 years. We adopted a policy that they would get up to a year before they went to the magistrate. And I assume staff is aware of that policy. So there's a lot of time given to people that are to to come into compliance and
it once they get to this point something's really wrong and I just want to point out again that a preliminary condition Lisa is that all outstanding code enforcement administrative costs must be paid that's in the that's right in the statute. So you have something else to add?
Uh yeah I'd like to make a motion to approve it on first reading. Second. Motion made by Paul, approved by I mean second is by Todd. All in favor? I opposed. I'm going to say I'm opposed.
Okay. Passes. Trepidation. Okay. All right. We're on back to consent item number one that Lisa wanted to pull. Go ahead, Lisa. Um, I just wanted staff to speak to the
qualifications because it was brought up on an previous PCB appointee um by I believe Todd that um that appointee didn't meet the criteria. I'm curious what staff felt the this
appointee measured up on that criteria. Um, I haven't reviewed it and Okay. I wasn't the acting clerk for that point. Yes, that's true. Um, he's only the clerk tonight. Yeah. So, I I just don't see the either the
governmental experience in this applicant. I don't see building department, you know, building construction attorney. Well, I mean, Todd, you had a better understanding of the list. um she developed property for but the council decided against that
right and they said anybody so the council did not decide against that and that particular case that person had extensive government experience as far as sitting on committees and and making suggestions to to the town council in the past
I'm not sure that sitting on a committee is considered that I don't know in our little town that that probably is a criteria but I mean we're talking years of sitting on committees not just I I came for one day which we've seen too. Um so that that was my question on
that one. Okay. So we need to do a separate motion to approve or not to approve. Well, it says our application is here. So, right. So motion to approve. Any government experience? It doesn't have government building. It does. It does in fact have building experience. It's to develop property for
both residential and business purposes. I'll make a She has a horse farm. I'll make a motion to approve resolution 2025-62. Okay. Do I have a second? Second. All in favor? I opposed. Opposed. Okay. Passes four to one. Okay. Moving
on to number two. So number two, I just wanted clarification. I did go back and listen to this and it went back and forth with hours versus dollar figures and I just we we figured 10 hours. Todd, this was something you brought up. It was a dollar amount and
it was a dollar, but it was equivalent to 10 hours. 10 hours, right? And so two an hour is worth $25. Yes. Okay. But they charge residents I think an hour $100 an hour for reserve. Depends on what it's for. Okay. So we're going to limit rate paid.
Okay. So council isn't entitled to two hours or $50? $50 each council member. Okay. But you just made my point. If there's different values for different things and different time, is it a time? No, it's $50.
Okay. I Anybody else have a question on that? No, I'm satisfied with that. No, I liken it to like if if say I, you know, was hunting and I and I said I want every email sent to Robert Shaw, former
councilman Robert Shaw between May of 2019 and and and you got two hours worth of research time on that. and and the and the the IT company back comes back and says it's going to be this and they give me the it's up to me to pay the anything over the 50 bucks. Well, and and I had this conversation
with Francine. Francine, were you able to make the clerk the administrator of the mail system? We're trying to do that. Okay. The other thing I do want to add and I think that some council people understand this, if I'm copied on it and I can get it to you like liquidity
split, I do. And that way it doesn't have to even count towards your 50 hours. Yeah, because I thought it was your 50. Well, I don't think Yeah, but I don't Are we really talking about Are we really talking about $50 in
total perom per month per council member? Per council member. Yeah. So, yeah, I think the little stuff like, "Hey, what's this?" and they shoot you a link. I understand, but it was just there was conversation of hours versus dollars. I just wanted to make sure. So, I will
make a motion to approve 202563. Just wanted to say again, if you shoot me something and I can get it to you in a second, not going to count a second of it. I got it. Okay. So, we need a motion to She made a second. Yeah.
Okay. Lisa made a motion. Todd seconded it. Correct. Okay. All in favor? Opposed? Passes five to zero. And number five, Lisa, I think was the last. Number five was
the hybrid. And I said hybrid. Brid hybrid. Hybrid cuz sometimes it said bird and sometimes it Yeah, it's hybrid. It's hird in the subject line. It does say bird. Typo says build gig man.
So um and we already have don't we have safe built? So no, we don't have a safe build. We don't have safe build anymore. No, Safe Build was original before there was couple years ago. There was company that that was running the building department that was that's gone. We
we've been using hybrid. This contract extends it till next year till uh October of 2020. So we've already got contracted services with hybrid. Yes. Okay. So yeah, I just was confused about safe built and where they were in the big picture of things. So
they they are the only one that actually doing inspections right now for us. Uh Karen is preparing RFP RFQ so we can obtain more services from different companies so we have a better price or better service. That is the goal. Okay.
And probably in October we we might have a more choices. Uh the story with those companies are now is they they they very they getting very expensive and uh they just inspector's jobs are very popular these days. So it's really hard to get
them. Hybrid has been very good as far as price goes and hopefully we at some point we're going to be able to afford so we can provide inspection services 5 days a week instead of three days a week. Okay. Yeah. Safeuilt was the previous
provider. They were um their contract was terminated a couple years ago. Um Okay. So that I that I that I wasn't sure if that was the same company. Yes. Okay. Can I have a motion? Motion. Oh, sorry. Second. I don't think that's good. I think you
have to say motion. Motion to approve number five. Number 202 2025- 66. Second. Okay. Paul. Motion made by Paul, seconded by Lisa. All in favor? I I oppose. Passes five to zero. Lisa,
quarterly reports. Quarterly reports. Karen stepped out. I had a question for her. Is Karen gone or just stepped out? She can come back. Francine um can you speak to the fishing scam
um for your node? You you got the node report here. Yeah, we we have a couple of different fishing scams that happen fairly regularly and we have a couple of cyber security tests that we do regularly like you've been getting them
I'm sure know before and that type of thing. I just send over the cyber security fishing stuff as it comes up and they let us know when you know something is happening out there. Yeah. Last year I got I got like my
mayor email got like I kept getting I kept well other people like Marge got an email from me on my mayor email saying I was in I don't know Mexico and I and and and I didn't have any money and could could she send me Apple gift cards or
something like that. Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. Yeah. And Phyllis got it too cuz she called me. She's like I know this is in front of you. So and I was like uh oh. That's how I came in. But it happened like two or three times in a row to my email, my email. It's happened a number of times this
month and so we did send out some emails to you to be aware of some of the fishing that was going on. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Um and then um Craig, you may have to speak to this. Um, in the very lovely calendar of all
the services that public works is doing, I have I have a small issue with on the grading schedule referring to roads as zones. So there that we have a level of service classification for the roads.
It's it was just confusing when I was flipping through it. Um, and if if when he puts those calendars out, he could refer to like level one roads or level two or now's your chance. All right. So, we had reszone these. So,
when the grater actually goes out, he's doing a zone to a So, like the garbage pickup is in a zone. So he's going to a zone of roads in that area. So he's not going from here the jump to this to jump to over there cuz that's what he was doing. So looking looking at your little legend
at the bottom. Yes, ma'am. Where it says zone. Oh, you know what? I read it wrong. My bad. I see what you're saying now. Okay. Never mind. Thank you. Thank you. So
I still want to talk. Okay. You still have question. I still have questions for you. So, um, on page 137, um, we talked about the the vegetation,
uh, amnesty. And I'm not sure I understood and I'm not sure the residents understood that this was the intent of the program is to remove the overgrowth on the public right ofway adjacent to the homes or the properties. So, did we see people doing
interior clearing and basically I did it all. Yes. So, the amnesty was originally for homeowners. If there is a dead tree on your property, it is to get it cleared, branches on the ground cleared to get it to the road so we can clear vegetation
now instead of hey, a storm comes in prior to I get it. There goes the giant tree. So, is this not the intent of the program is to do public rightways adjacent to homes? It was all for everything. Okay. So, it just it seemed like I hadn't seen that statement before. So,
it it isn't limited to that. Got it. Okay. And then uh on uh page 141 on the capital plan. I had just to I don't I think that sentence is completely unnecessary and I don't see
that as the intent of the program. Anyhow, I thought they I did was that really strange because That wasn't my understanding of the intent of the program either. My understanding was that it's just before hurricane seed
at the very beginning of hurricane season. Let's encourage people and give them a financial break and get this stuff out of here. That was what I understood it. So, I'd actually like to see that sentence stricken from the record because that was not the intent of the program. I agree. It's misleading. Um,
100%. I think it's misleading and I don't really want it on the record that way. And it this is not our first amnesty though, right? It is not. It is not. And did we did we stay like in we went a little bit we went for the whole month this year but like total vegetation. Did we stay
within like a kind of a historic average or was it higher? Was it this was a longer period. Usually the industries are a couple month here instead of just two pickups per you know the north end the south end. We went the whole month this year to try to get as much out as we could. Yeah. In the past, I think it's been a
day. Like if you have everything out by Saturday, June 5th, they'll come and get it and it doesn't matter. So, did did we take a lot more vegetation or 168.75 historically? Is this Yes, we we did accumulate more this time. Okay. But well, within our allowances
and everything, the problem that we were having before was with the short such a short period, people weren't getting enough time to get it out. Sure. We did have a couple limited. I've been out of town for this three weeks and I couldn't get it out. Right. There's still stuff on Okachobee
um by where that big tree was ripped apart. Mhm. Yeah. We're trying to get them to cut that up to smaller pieces because it's too big. Okay. Um, and then
so some of this stuff on page 141, um, obviously is some's done, some's not done, but the North Road Trail, it says signs ordered and it was expected to complete in June
of 25. Do you know what the status is of those signs, if they were ordered, where they are? We are actually we with the um recat committee we're coming through with signs for rule signs and everything. The recat committee is coming through with complete rules
language language. Yes. So the signs were not the signs have already been created and approved by many many many times. Last time Regak was enacted because we sat for Don't pick on Craig. I'm not picking on Craig. I'm just letting him know. He he doesn't he
probably doesn't know. We approved a whole sign package. It the before it got sunseted by pre by previous council. We approved a whole sign package. So they think more than once. Yeah. So I mean there's Yeah. Yeah. They actually were supposed to have I think
Jim or somebody was supposed to be getting samples made up by by Palm Beach County because they were the cheapest place to get them made because we could do a ILA with them or something like that to get them done. So, I guess my point is if we're spinning our wheels getting approved, it's already been done.
But, but Paul, it says signs are ordered. That's what I That's So, I I I I think Did you order them or Rich? I think somebody ordered them. I remember talking about like 3 months ago. I have horse trail signs, just regular horse trails. You got them. We are trying to produce a trail sign
with, you know, additional information, additional verbage of rules and everything on it because right now it's a free-for-all. I think with Wellington's they've got one that has like a horse, a bike, and a person, right? Because we can't do horse trails. Yeah, that's what I'm telling you that
if if we can find that actually in California, I think it was like June like the horse always got them. Yeah. And we opted say that to the red tag. Did you just said in the California horse? Well, they're multi-use trails. They have a seniority.
So like like a triangle. The horse is always yielded to Wellington over there. The same thing. There you go. The horse is always yielded to and then is that is that how they're ranked on your It's like a little vertical sign in Wellington. So the horse makes the top to one triangle as well and it's saying
this one has to yield to that one. That one has to yield to that one and the horse has mentioned that to the right guy because that's a good idea. We did on the last meeting. Okay. And then lastly, I I went real quick. I I want to speak to your
signs. We had Jim bring all the signs to Redcat, didn't we? Didn't we have Jim bring you the signs? Yes, I had I had those three label signs. Okay. And Redcat was trying to go through and pick what they actually wanted to say, hey, this is what we're going for full rules and
Oh, so you have sample signs? Yes, ma'am. Correct. You don't have actual signs. Trail signs, but I don't we don't have all those saying. Yeah, I guess my my point is that was all done. It was approved. This is what was going to happen. We went through we went over verbiage. We went over all because
everybody it was a big debate. I think it took all night about whether we should have Spanish or English. And then we said we're just going to go or Spanish and English and whether we mention this state statute because of this and we decided that we're going with you know multi-use trailer whatever and they were just going to be like that
that that vertical small just narrow sign with the different symbols on it because it was universal right and stuff like that. So I mean I mean look if they went and did it again they went and did it again. But I mean it was like I said that was one of my big gripes when it was sunset to begin with because we were
like we had just finished that and we're getting ready to push through to something else and they go okay you guys are done and and it fell flat. So yes sir. All right. Okay. And then I found this old it was I think a um summary of the 2024 work that
that Richard had put together and it it speaks to the district gate structures and it says an investment in the water control structures will need to be made to prevent a catastrophic failure of the gate system. This is the end of 24 and we're approaching the end of 25.
That's correct. What's the status of our potential catastrophic failure of the gate system? So, we are trying to get it where we can update the entire skating system because it is ancient old and right now we just
had to order boards for it and have them custom made because what we have is obsolete. They don't make them no more. That company doesn't make them. We had to have new ones custom made for the skater system. So, we need to rebuild the entire thing. And we're trying to
get prices on how to to get it rebuilt. Like we're getting electrical right now. So when when we talk about catastrophic failure, what does that look like? Like no control over the gates at all. We'd have to go out there and try to hand crank them every time we're moving them right now.
Which which already exists on D road for one of the No, we fixed it. You fixed it. So some of it's it is working electronically now. Yes. Sometimes sometime. Yeah. Is your if the moon and stars align log in remotely and Yes, sir. I can. Yeah. It's awesome. But that's thing like one
of the systems went down and we had to order a custom one. Yeah. From a company that, hey, here's the old one. Build us this. Sure. And they're looking at us like, "Hey, this is obsolete. They don't make this kind of stuff no more." And you're starting to go, "Is this going to is this was that from MSD Goth anal?"
That from Roman times. Yeah. So, all right. Um, cool. And Karen had left the room, but Francine, you can probably answer this. Um, two questions. Who's the planner on call? The planner on call is wrapping up. It
was Jim, but we're wrapping it up and I think we're going to try to do it in house with Karen. Okay. And then have we gone live with MGO for code enforcement? We did go live with MGO for code enforcement. So that means all the gov easy stuff is
sort of in limbo like it's just there. All new stuff is in NGO. All the new stuff is in MGO. We still have gaby up on the system. I mean, yeah, you can go back and search, right? But nobody should be actually going into that system to report or anything. Is
that No, they should not be reporting in gov easy and they get into that gov easy to do the reporting. Yeah, because gov easy you can just type in um lockachi gs and it'll take you. So it will still show that service is available. So we want to make sure we
tell people they're going to use it to MGO. Is MGO gonna be everything because it's hopefully it will be everything because the building department the public um well it is for the building everything's going to be tight we have building in they just started code um
I don't know we have no more code left in here and our next frontier is the BTRs okay and the um RVs and um isn't that permit applications though is that not under building that's separate
it is it is all there, but we have different inspections and stuff like that. So, it's a So, if somebody was going to do BTR or RV, would they use MGO to get that started? Okay. Yes, they would. All right. In the future,
right now, is that all your questions? That was Yeah, that was my question. I can have a motion to receive and file the reports, please. Thank you for reading those. Second. Thanks for answering. Motion made by Lisa, seconded by Paul. All in favor? I
oppose. None. Passes five to zero. Okay. Charter review committee. Do we want to um with respect to item 16? Um I don't know if we want to continue that to another night. It's going to be rather lengthy presentation.
Yeah, I think we're good. That that sounds f and we can release Randy from hanging on. Oh, poor Randy. Oh, poor Randy. He's been here this whole time. No, no, he has not been here this whole time. we he would like to go to bed. We have we have a we have a system where we say instead of hanging on for the
entire meeting, we'll try to give you notice like 15 minutes ahead of time so that he can get geared up. But at this juncture, cost this much money, right? Right. It's good that he hasn't been sitting there and he does it remotely. I think we can is it do we have a consensus to move this to the next meeting?
Yes. Yes. Okay. All right. Great. Tell Randy Randy Tell Randy to put his kids to bed and go to bed. Yeah. Get ready started. All right, we're on to the discussion of the nominees and the scope of the charter review committee.
Okay, how would you like to handle this? Did we decide whether it was three or five or two or whatever? We asked everybody to give us five because we thought we would have some overlap and we did. Yeah. And the last charter committee, it
started that everybody had five and we had a full group, but it ended up being a working group of 11. Yeah, you don't want 25 people on a committee. It ended up being I love everything by committee.
I I probably will be involved with this committee, so I would appreciate it if it was a fewer number. So maybe three three for each of us. Are we okay with a 15 member committee or is that too much? I think that's a lot. I think we had hoped to land at a 15 person,
I think. Yeah. Yeah, that's but we said get five to cover duplication overlap. Exactly. I think with with I think with 15 they can announce like maybe a couple alternates whatever. So 15 would be three and then they can have a consensus of say 10 and then they can still meet. Okay. So 15
15. Okay. So hang on. 15 would be three for each of us. Paul nominated three. So Paul, everybody okay with Paul nominees? Okay, Marge nominated two. One of them is
mine, but I'll give that one up to hers. Do you want to pick another person, Marge? Marge, I've got five. I've got five, too. So, you can pick one from me or one from Lisa. But before you answer that question, Yeah. Um
I I did a little research and I couldn't discover and Francine, you may know the answer to this. That's our charter review is a charter committee like it's a charter defined committee and it says they have to be residents and then somewhere is it an ad hoc committee and
it can't it can be both. Can can you answer to that? You know, I really think we should let the attorney do it, but I think it was intended to be an ad hoc. So, it can be both, but it's controlled under the charter and the charter, I think, defines it. We're not doing that per the charter.
This is separate because the charter should it says but it can be or sooner. So, excuse me one second. Are you willing to give up Katie Lake into Marge? Sure. Okay. All right. So, don't tell Katie. I think she left. She won't know. Just do Katie. That's fine.
Yeah, we don't want to hurt King's hand. I didn't give her up. I don't Well, she's still going to be on the committee, so just take a look at that. Okay, so we've got Mar Glenn might know. Are you guys taking notes? Still the attorney. We've got Paul's got Alli Dailyaly,
Ashley Bruce, and Bill for Marge has Joseiano, Virginia Standish, and Katie Lakeman. Todd, what three do you want of your of your four? Um,
Jod Jansen. Yeah, it's Jodie Jansen, not Hansen, by the way. Jod Jansen. Yeah, I got confused. Katie Cus and Christine St. John. Okay. Jodie Jansen, Katie Cuss, and Christine St. John. Okay, Lisa, you've
you you traded you card traded. I did. I did. Traded Katie Lakeman. So, now you need to come up with three of your remaining five, right? Um, I think I think poor Tracy Rafflowitz is overburdened on the fact. So, you're gonna cut her.
So, I'll let I'll Tracy, you're free. Tracy got cut. Okay. So, Lisa's are Cassie Ci, Karen Plant, and Jennifer Stevens. Okay. I never actually asked my last one, but
I did speak to the other three. So, I'll stick with Bill Yan, Jane Cleveland, and Phyllis Manilia. Okay. But that goes to my question about the charter committee. What is your question about the charter? My question about the charter committee is it's defined by the charter whether
it meets every 10 years or sooner and there's conflicting information of whether they have to be residents or it's an ad hoc committee and they can be both. So I understood it was an ad hoc committee but Glenn Glenn. Yeah, I'm uh looking it up right now.
I'm looking at the general provisions about the charter committee. Um, wound up with anybody yet, but I understood it was an ad hoc committee when we were making the appointments. I thought I'd ask that question, but go ahead and look it up again. Well, I know Burgess.
So, 6B in section 9 says, "Individuals appointed to the charter review committee shall be citizens of the town." It doesn't use the word residents, citizens. Um, but you know, it is a
charter review committee. So, but I hear your point about ad hoc. Um, I assume Jane Cleveland is the one that you're saying that she's not a resident. Correct. Me or Bill or Bill? Yeah. But the other three are. So, if there's any question, you've got three that are.
Well, no, Joe is on. Mark's got two trading cards. But I I'm happy to come up with other people. These are just people that expressed an interest in helping and in doing this. So that's why I wanted to include them and have great experience working for other towns on committees. So, but that's still 15 people, right?
I'm sorry. You could you could always have them just attend as members of the public and provide their input. No, Glenn. If there's a charter prohibition against it, then we can't do it. We need to know it was my
understanding when we had the last meeting that you said this was an ad hoc committee and we could appoint whomever to it. So we need a clear concise legal answer as to whether it is and if it is not then I will come up with two
different appointees. If it isn't if it is then I will keep these three. Does that make sense? Yeah. I think they it it says individuals appointed to the charter view committee shall be citizens of the town. It doesn't distinguish between ad
hoc or otherwise. So the conservative approach is they shall be citizens of the town. So they have to be residents. Yes. Is that correct? Okay. All right. I will Burgess is going to kill me. I will
leave Burgess. Oh, you took my bill for it. Um, and I'm gonna add state. Sorry. No, I'm not. I'm leaving B. I'm
leaving. So, mine are Phyllis Burgess and Sam Hery. For those that are watching right now, if you want to be involved and be on, you know, being on one of these committees is a good way to get start getting involved. If you want to start get involved, please reach out to us
and, you know, individually and let us know because if you'll, if you'll notice, there's a few people that are on this list that are now on multiple committees. So there, you know, we we we welcome the input. Really appreciate it. We appreciate those people that are on multiple committees.
Thank you, PSA. Thank you. If um so do we want, first of all, we need a a motion to extend. We're going to get into a lengthy discussion. If not, we can just maybe quickly do we want to how do we want to handle the scope of the charter review? Do we want
to Didn't we already talk about that when we said we would go forward with this? I bet we talked about some other areas that may have been needed. Am I not accurate about that? But it's saying we have to talk about the scope of it, but I don't really see any
I don't see any backup here to tell me Yeah. what we discussed previous we had like four things, right? I think a motion to extend. Thank you. Yes. Thank you. I've got a motion to extend. Second. Second. Okay. All in favor? Okay. We're extending.
Yeah. We talked about what were the that's I guess that's what I'm asking. Can you tell me what they were election cycle? Attorney on the charter for contract review and there was one other one. Yeah. But we came up with a couple of other things as we went along. I'd like there was um
we came up with a there was a couple other things that came up that we were like they need to look at that also they need to look at that also. There were the there were the elections every year. I thought well that that was election some of election model some of the were some of the items on that list that that we
we took off some of them we said no we didn't want and then we added some well yeah one was like the the simple majority majority thing and I think we you kind of said to take that email us all a list of what it is that
we discussed so that we can decide whether that's accurate and maybe we can just take a couple of minutes at the middle of our beginning of our budget meeting on the 18th and review the list and if there's anything we want added and deleted like try not to make it a two-hour discussion but just like five
minutes yes I'm okay with it or we're not locked into just getting them started and then saying that's all we they can talk about we can add we can add to it but I also would like to tell legal that I'd like this to be kind of a a running list that we're going to have a charter review view
forever and ever but I can think I can't think of a specific right now probably because it's 10:00 at night and I've been up since 4:30. But I I know there have been times where we have been having discussions on other things and things have come up in the charter and we've said that's something we need to
have the charter review committee look into and I just want to make sure those things are getting handled. I'm not asking anybody to go back and, you know, review all the meetings to determine that. I'm just saying I'd like to know that we have a a thing so that
then a running list of that type so that next time this comes up it's like oh yeah on well this resolution coming before us till September 3rd anyway. So hopefully we can pull together a good list by then. Thank you. And we're going to try to hit the March election.
Is that is that the intent? That's the goal. So that is going to mean that committee is going to work very intensely for a relatively short period of time because you're going to have to have everything ready in the November December time period. Correct. How many do you have to have for a quorum for that?
Well um on a committee of of uh 15 um I would suggest you have a quorum of nine. That way you get to a 54 for an action move forward. Everybody okay with that? Yeah. Anybody have any issues with that? Okay. So, if you could kind of write up the
parameters real quick for it before the 18th meeting and then we can I got a suggestion. The one issue with the fact that the town attorney has to review every contract. Did that does that even need to go to this committee or can we just say write something up to change it? If it's in the charter, it has to go to the committee.
No, it does not. That's true. It does not. can move for things forward for a charter amendment without going to the charter review committee, but it's probably it I was going to say I think if you have this committee in place, you might as
well use this and that way you get the pros and cons on it. Um it may be a very very quick item. Hopefully all of these items will be relatively quick, right? The election cycle is not going to be quick. Let me tell you the the election. Well, I mean they may just say forget it, leave it how it is.
I mean, who knows what they're going to come up with, but that was the other thing the the attorney, that was one of them that came up. Okay. All right. Thank you. Um, town manager comments. Yes, I have three and I'll be brief. One, we put in four grants last
Friday and we copied you on them. They're planning grants through the Department of Commerce. They are not outcome grants. They are start the process grants. So everything that we decide to do, if we decide to do, will
be at the council's discretion if we get the funding. Um, second thing is we have a um we had a Bert J Harris claim that um escalated into a Bert J Harris
lawsuit and our insurance company is handling that through Johnson and Selmo and Chris Sterns is the attorney that's assigned to it. He's given me three dates that he can do a shade session. So, I'm going to share those with you
now. Um, he is available the earliest I believe is 8:26 and I believe he's available in the morning on 8:26 and on September 2nd and September 4th he's available in the afternoon. So, I
know you're going to need to look at your calendars and the whatnot, but we will call and follow up with you or you could just, you know, email. Um, I'd like to be able to get that date left down with him by Friday. Um, he will have to do I'll let our attorney talk to
you about what he may need to do before we have the shade session. No, I was just I was just going to say with respect to the 8:26 meeting um while Chris is available. I'm planning on being out of town at that moment. Um,
I've got uh some things I got to take care of. Um, so I would hopefully uh the September 2nd or what was the other date? September 2nd works for me. Or the fourth. The second or the fourth. I like the afternoon anyhow. I think all of us have morning. I mean, it's easier
for me to get off a little bit early than to and his afternoon. He he could extend into the evening. He was just saying anytime after. Yeah, I'm available the second or the fourth in the afternoon evening. How about you, Todd? How about Paul? You're here. I got a standing at five o'clock
or later if possible. Yeah. No, no, no, that's not a problem. Lisa, second or the fourth? Any out of town? Uh, I should be here. Okay. March. Second. I should be here. Okay. The second then it is second at 5:00. Okay.
Does 5:00 work or you want to do 5:30? I'll do 5:30 as late as possible. That's okay. We'll be here in person. State session 5:30. Okay. Okay. Okay. And then I have my final item and that is the Department of Commerce is coming to visit the town. Um
on um at the end of this month um we're hopefully renewing our rural designation and hopefully partnering with us on some uh additional funding. Also, our Florida
resiliency grants are due by September 1st. Um, and additionally, we have our rural infrastructure funding grants that need to be applied for again. And finally, we
have the local mitigation strategy um, I guess I would call it a scoreboard as opposed to the grants because you have to update your mitigation projects um, several times a year. I think we're coming up on that window and we keep
growing in our score which is good. So there you go. And that's it. Kudos on a very efficient meeting. Any comments, Mr. Toivia? I think we're waking him up.
This has been a pleasure representing the town for these past years and congratulations to Jeff and best wishes to the town and Jeff. No, thank you. Thank you, ma'am. I do. Okay, Mr. Craig. No, ma'am. I'm good. I will go home.
Okay. Uh Jeff, would you like to speak as the town clerk tonight? Um, no. I'll I'll let you go, but I do appreciate uh the appointment as the town attorney. Okay, great. Thank you, Todd. Anything good is worth waiting for, Rachel?
What? I thought there was a resolution that was going to be brought back regarding health and life safety for code enforcement that we could be proactive on that. When is that going to come back to us? Um that is that is an item that uh would
be the responsibility of the the attorney. Um we talked about that that that is not necessarily really simple. I will try for um September 2nd, but I I will let you
know how how things go and putting that together. I'm not sure what that means. I mean, it's not as simple as you think it is. I don't want I don't want it reasons why we can't do it. I want reasons how we can do it. I understand. I understand. Um
you know, it's going to be tough up here the next year. Financially, it was a bad time for three of us to sit up here. because you're going to see a lot of projects that aren't going to happen that people have been promised and there's going to be people angry with the three of us sitting up here, right? You know, oh, the the new council shut
everything down. You know, it's going to be tough. It's going to be tough. We're going to hear from the public that are going to be upset um about things not getting done and moving forward because of the hard financial times we're going to be in. But it's the times that that's what it's going to be. You know, it's kind of like the town won the lottery
and had 10 years of payout for that lottery and we've been living that way and we're going back to reality now without those funds. Um, and it's probably going to be worse than it was 10 years ago because at least we had FEMA money and that sort of thing. I got a feeling all that's going to dry up shortly. Well, um,
and also inflation since between then and now has been right. So, it's going to be tough. We're going to be getting a lot of phone calls, you know, why isn't this getting paid? Why isn't this getting fixed? Um, I recognize that we have more employees with the water district than we did before they were um when they were
independent and we do have a lot of more projects that are getting done. Stuff like Hyde Park, right? That something like that would have never gotten done when the district was independent. But the thing is 98% of the people in the community have no idea even where Hide Park is, let alone what a big project is, right?
So, I don't know how we get that information out to people that there are these big projects that are getting done. Um there's probably plenty of people that don't even know that F-Rod and collecting canal is going to get redone, right? They never drive there. So there's a lot of big projects that are getting done um that previously were
not getting done for the hundred years the district was here. And it would be nice to somehow get that information out. Um I know the town has a Facebook page now. Um it would be nice to try to get some of those things out there to let people know that things are
happening in town. Um the district does a tremendous amount of work out there that was never done before. So I think the restoring of Yes. Thank you very much for noticing that. We're restoring is the hide park is really
part of the restoring the um neglected historic drainage. That's what we're doing. We're we're putting the original drainage back in working water. That's what we're doing. Right. That hadn't been done for 100 years. Correct. Right. So there's a lot of
that. There's a lot of with, you know, so it's going to be a tough road the next, you know, couple years here financially to get readjusted to these things. So hopefully we can move forward as a council and get some of these things done. Thank you. Weather the storm, Lisa. I would argue that they were never done
to the scope that they're being done to now, which also drives up the cost. Yeah. So cuz our roads were never this wide. Our canals were never this wide. you know, this is the scope of work just in general. Speaking about the resiliency
grant and everything else, I think we've all seen when you give a engineer $350,000 to come up with a master plan, you need, you know, $100 million to implement the master plan. So, I think they need to think about ways to scale
that back to a a real number and and level of project. Um Francine, you provided this document um for our budget thingy. Yeah. What what is this? This is that is um supposed to be part of your
quarterly reports. Okay. And uh you and I talked about it when we met. It's the over 10 and $25,000 report. When we switched accounting firms, they didn't include it with their packet. Um
is this a third quarter report then? Yes, it is. It's And is this a cumulative total for the year? Yes, it is. Let me just make a note because it had no description on it. Third quarter cumulative. Yeah.
And and thank you for segueing to the next step. Um so yes, the town manager and I met. Has anybody else done any sort of conversation with the manager on their upcoming contract negotiations? Not yet.
We've met briefly, worker. No, you haven't. Okay. Well, um I I would like to say that I would hope that people are going to be a little more proactive in and looking through that contract and breaking it down. And um I
I have grave concern given a communication that was shared last week. Um and I'm I'm very concerned about the the manager's priorities and aligning with the town's best interest. So, I would like to ask my fellow council members to keep
that in mind as they move that forward. That's it. Thank you. Okay, Paul. Well, first I want to who changed the order because it's got me all messed up. It's very rotated. Not that I don't want I want to go first every time, you know, really messed me up. We can put you first.
No, no, no, no. It's all good. It's all good, T. Um because, you know, I don't want to pair it too much. Um, but I I think it is, you know, as Todd said, we we have the the the next few months,
probably the next year is not going to be fun. Um, as far as I mean, you know, the things that have to the the the purse strings that need to be tightened and the things that have to be done to to do what we got to do. Um, but I you just to re there are cause and effects
in this in this world. you know, there's, you know, we didn't sock any we we socked just the bare minimum away or we socked a bunch of money away and then we spent it all on on uh undesigned areas and now we have to design things and we have to go back and fix things
and, you know, there's we have coverts that are, you know, dilapitated and they're getting fixed. Um, you know, we're we're but there's a proactive stance going on. Um, you know, there's a big I got, I don't know, three, four,
five, 10 texts last week going, "Why is public works working on the RV park?" Like, "What? What are you talking about?" And and and I'll answer for you. The public works was not working on the RV park. They were working on our land at the end of Sea Road stockpiling dirt
because the new owners posted it on Facebook. Yeah. The new owners of Palm Beach A raised the price. What was it? $8 a lo a yard. Yes. as for the contract that we went into with them, it was $8 more a yard for the snow rock. So Craig took a proactive stance and he bought a bunch of dirt because we got
projects coming up that are going to need dirt and we were going to be after the August uh deadline for that price change. So, you know, way to be proactive. Good job. So, um you know, and along the line of being resilient for storms and things like that, they just came through and
trimmed everything around here. So, they're practicing what they preach. But yeah, cause and effect is a big thing and I like everybody to keep that in mind. And and you know, again, I I think we did good tonight with with, you
know, m mushing forward. You know, we we took a long time to to think about Jeff's contract. Congratulations to Jeff. Um you know, and as I said, we're not looking for anybody to fail. We're looking for everybody to succeed. So I hope that uh we can keep this going
forward and you know keep moving in a positive direction but uh thank you March. Yeah. Um I wanted to know if anything is being done about this uh fence on F road
that uh is falling down. Uh it's one section looks like it could fall into the road. The property is for sale. Oh, it's in code. Yeah. Oh, I want to say code has put it in. Okay. All right. Don't hold me to it.
Is there is there nothing that we when you say it's in code, I get it, but is there nothing we can do intermittently? I mean, I understand drive over the rest of it. I understand their private property, but it's like that, you know, falling or
completely fallen, right? Little sections of it are more and more. And like Marge says, it's only a matter of time till something goes out in the road and it becomes oh a health safety issue and it's certainly a safety issue for somebody to hit it at night. It's not like we have street lights or anything like that. So I'm wondering
that's the kind of stuff that we need to go ahead and bring back and get better direction on. If it's in the street, we can take it out, but our but we got to wait until somebody runs into it in the street to take it out. Doesn't really make sense. Technically, we can clear a swale if it's um drainage
right away, if there's obstruction in the rightway. So, this is basically a policy decision. Um and you know, the other thing about Well, I think the drainage rightway is on the other side of the road though, right? Yeah.
So, it could be an obstruction in the trail side too. Could be obstruction in any of our rightway. My point is we have a nuisance ordinance that lets us go take it out at the man and it says at the manager's decision that it's a health safety
welfare. Nobody has been willing to do that in the past. I will happily make that decision if that's what you want me to. Well, and can we then can we then charge them back for the cost of removing it? We actually have and it we can charge
them back. We have to if we follow problem with our nuisance ordinance or policy whichever we want to look at it is the notice requirement on it is actually worse than a code enforcement. You have a 21-day notice envir notice
requirement unless it's health safety welfare in which case I can make the decision go take the fence down and then they have to pay. That's going to be something you get calls about. So that's why before we decide to launch into that
approach, just like our site triangle, you know, and and I like Marg's idea. How about calling the real estate agent and say, "That's what we're thinking about doing, and do you want to take some other action for some other brown is the name?"
I don't think that fence is tall enough to fall into the road. Yeah, we need to we need to look at where it is. It's probably on the private property. Yeah, just give them a notice and All right. All right.
I'd like to uh thank Craig and the crew for um getting going on a-ro and uh working on um widening that so that we can get it uh paved. Just overdo. They're doing a good job.
Um Jeff, congratulations. Thank you very much. I'm glad it's finally over. I mean, how many weeks? A lot. Can't rush into these things. Yeah. Um I would like to um ask everyone to uh
pray for the recovery of Robert Shore after his accident um on his property. So uh that is important. Okay. Good meeting. Thank you.
Thank you. Five words or less. Huh? Five words or less? Me? Five words or less? Sure. I'll do anybody to think I had an agenda at all. Um, so I just wanted to thank everybody for a great meeting.
Want to thank staff for all the work they've done in the past couple of weeks. Um, I want to say that the emergency the command center was super impressive. Um, like super impressive. I mean they
like literally when I was like can we see this road they could like fly the drone to that road so I could see it. It was pretty cool. Um there and that we have invited them to um bring that bus to our um next celebration and they have
agreed to do that. So, that'll be a nice thing for the kids to see. Um, and I think we had a really good meeting tonight. I know that everybody doesn't always agree, but I think there was some really great discussion. I'm really appreciative of the public comment
tonight that was um, you know, not necessarily all in agreement of what we're doing up here, but respectful and and really really thoughtful and lovely, and I certainly did appreciate it. Um, and with that, I'd like a motion to adjourn.
Motion to second. I