My my buddy accidentally uh kicked his loose. He's getting out of trouble. Plugs. Yeah. Plugs in the but it's kind of you take the I took that this long. Oh, really? then replaces the
elimination cord and then you plug the original into the back of it and then it goes up into the except I say all this but I've never actually there is kind of a whiff on it so maybe it's similar but I know you look at any of our vehicles you would never know
I have to tell you so much we don't have cameras I think so I just thank the Lord there's no family. If it's not online anymore, so Mayor
get started. We're ready. Yep. Okay. One minute early. Can I get the cross? We will now resume the meeting from July 1st, 2020. Thank you. If we will now resume the
meeting from July 1st, 2025. If we could stand for the pledge of allegiance, please. To the flag of the United States of America, to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice
for all. Just a moment of silence for the people in Texas who are suffering from flooding. We certainly know what that's all about. Okay, Valerie, if I could have a roll call. Council member Coleman
here. Council member McClendon here. Council member El Remy here. Vice Mayor Herszog here. Mayor Kaine, present. Public works director Galant. Uh, town attorney Torcivia will be appearing
via Zoom. Town manager Ramalia We ready? Okay, we are resumeuming with item number 19, which is the discussion of amendments to the capital improvement plan. in your agenda booklet. It's item
number 16 FYI everybody because of the changes. And I believe Jeff you did you present this or you were beginning to present it and we decided that it was too late. I can't I cannot recall. I'm sorry.
We had we had gone over it. Um some may say at nauseium. Well, a lot of these things we've voted on before. So yeah. Yeah. Um but I had outlined the the changes for you. Um and would remind you
that uh what we're looking for is direction. Um and in order to do this, it will require an amending ordinance. So there will be a first and second reading on this um
hopefully. So, uh, as much direction as you can, but it is not going to be your last opportunity, um, to see if we got it right. U, but I think it is appropriate for you to direct us to move forward. Um, and if there is something specific you want in
or out at this point in time, uh, that would be fine. Uh, the projects and the sources of funds are detailed on page 160, I think it is, of your agenda. Yeah, Lisa, you were quick with that light. You must have something to say.
I I was um a few things going back to some of the suggested changes. um on the $100,000 TPA grant funding. Uh could that be clarified
what that 100,000 is for? Um it is for design work and lobbying mostly associated with uh the Okachobee um Boulevard project, the corridor there
uh and the grant efforts that we are um trying to get and help with. Uh how much of it for the grant and how much it is for lobbying? You mean h how much of it is for the engineering design and how much is for lobbying? Yeah, I I see it here written
down, but I don't see a breakdown of that. Um, of the $100,000, I think there is um about $25,000 um associated with engineering and the remainder of it would be lobbying
services. That is not quite accurate if you don't mind. There are two grants that have to be applied for for Okachobee. One of the grants has already been applied for. This was discussed at the November council meeting. So, I'm going to just
do a brief overview and then we'll send out the information again. The grant we applied for a number of years ago, we did as a single grant and it was a $5 million grant and it included roundabouts and it also included the crossings and so on. The way we were
advised by the TPA and the county was to split that up. So we did the crossings in our first application that we came and brought forward to recak did a public meeting met with council so on and so forth and for that we had to redo
the engineering design. It cost us less because we had the other the previous engineering and then we had to do the application. So that piece of it was roughly half of the cost of it and about
25 and 25 is what got spent for the 25 well 22 whatever the number was for Mary to work with all the different agencies and then another similar amount of money for Simmons and White under work
authorization. Now there's a second grant and that second grant would be the roundabout and there's also a lot of other things going on with Okachobee. So I think it's not reasonable to try to quantify it into grant one and grant
two. Um, and the reason that we got a local lobbyist was to be able to help us navigate through a lot of the local bureaucracy and machinations that we don't have the ease of entry into. So,
in terms of the breakdown, about half of it was for the first portion of the work and about half of it is for the next round of work. Okay. The reason I ask is is because I'm in possession of an email going back
to the slugget agreement um saying that this local lobbying grant application money will be uh reinstated 100,000 back into the CIP um via budget amendment dated March 19th. And as we're looking at budgeting shortfalls and revenue
shortfalls, I think it's important that we really look at the spending here. Um, and I want to go back also to the 161st project. I know Mr. Galant, you've you've answered many of my questions on this, and you keep referring to, you
don't have the time to get this finished. What's the deadline for this? Is this a self-imposed deadline? Because this is almost a $200,000 savings if we do it in house, which is how it was originally cast, I believe, to the then council.
We can do it in house, but then the A- road and collecting canal project would have to wait. And that's a decision made by council. If the council wants to tell the residents of a road they have to wait another 6 months, 8 months for our crews to get over there and start working on that project, we can do that.
But I have no problems with that. We do it. Why does a road have to be subjugated to 161st or vice versa? Why can't one be done a road be done before? And I understand we still don't have all the paperwork for all the properties on the A collecting canal. So what would be the
hold up on doing 161st in-house? Just timing and equipment. We're starting to do some of the work on a road now on the on the um rebuilding the canal banks and stuff. And we're actually getting some of the dirt for a road from 161st. So, we're actually saving about $60
$70,000 in materials by having a contractor do 161st concurrently with a road. Otherwise, we would have to buy material to do a road um because we wouldn't have the material to do it because it's coming from 161st.
Okay. Um so again, there still looks like some savings in there to be done inhouse. Um and then lastly, my question on Lockxahhatchee homes. I think the last time this was brought up, there was about 14 houses of 30 30 plus homes that
had had requested this public water and wastewater facilities. Um, and and I just wonder costwise to the town, is that anything that's going to cost the town money? What you see in there for the $133,000
is not limited to Lockxahhatchee homes, is it, Mr. Gamal? That's not what I'm saying. No. Yeah. No. Okay. So, just that portion of it. Yeah. It's not just water and sewer. It's drainage. And Yeah. It's the whole
thing. And in order to be able to continue on the line Oh, yeah. We can let Randy speak to it. No question. Randy, can you hear us? I can hear. Can you guys hear me? Yes.
Yes. Okay. If you would be so kind to explain the proposal and how it fits in with the Brazilian Florida and the work that we've been doing for the last several years. Okay. No, no problem. Council member El El Reamy, the uh this area of Lock
Hatchee Homes has been identified as a low-lying area with a more consistent flooding uh in in this particular region of the town. So, it is this actually location has been subject to grant
funding or at least applications resilient Florida grant funding opportunities uh specifically in in this area. Recently, residents have approached town council and have asked for water and
sewer. The if we're going to go ahead and design, survey, and design this area and get it ready for drainage improvements, if the town or the residents choose to add water and sewer, now's the time to
determine how feasible that is. So, this this proposal is not a full-blown design for water and sewer. It's to take it to the steps necessary to give the town and the residents options of how to proceed
with water and sewer. Palm Beach County Water Utilities Department will allow anybody to extend water and sewer to their to their properties and uh they will allow you to um
construct the main and convert water and sewer or just one if you choose to and assess those particular property owners through the tax role. So there are grants that are available right now.
water utilities department is acquiring grants for septic to sewer conversion, but there's there's opportunities uh for that. And it all starts with a detailed cost estimate of what the improvements would cost, connection fees, so on and
so forth to then search for grants and give give uh an opportunity for the residents to sign a petition. and whether the town takes this on or the residents take it on with water utilities department to then advance
your water and sewer plans and convert potable water and or excuse me potable water uh would have to go um if they wanted to include a central sewer system and convert the septic as at the same
time. Okay, thank you. That was it. So Randy, you're saying it's an option whether you know the town bears the brunt or it's an assessment through water utilities. Yes, that is correct. Council member
Coleman, the water utilities department is going to need a a set of conceptual plans and a cost estimate before they will take it to the next level. assuming the the residents will are willing to move forward. So, it's after the
conceptual engineering and cost estimate phase is where the town gets the most options. If the residents still want to push it and the town can't find funds for them through through grant opportunities, the residents can still pursue those improvements through
through uh assessment directly with Palm Beach County Water Utilities Department. In any one of these infrastructure related improvements, there's always cost savings associated with with restoration and building the infrastructure at the same time.
Right. So as I understand it, this 133 350 is is to design the the entire area for drainage, for road improvement, for potable water, for sewer. And this
isn't taking into effect the uh the need for lift station, etc. And you know where we'd have to acquire easement or to be able to put that lift station because we can't put in the middle of a road. and anything adjacent to those roads are just properties, right? So, I
mean, and I would assume that there's going to be a lift station involved because there was a lift station involved with Solar Sport, right? Where all of a sudden they were in the middle of their stuff and and we the well the previous council had to give a variance for a location of the of said lift
station, right? So, all I assume all this is in conjunction with this planning process. It it is in conjunction with that process. This proposal is not to design that lift station. It's to take the plans to a certain level to give the town and the
residents the opportunity to continue to move forward or not. It would identify the location of that station, get it agreed upon with water utilities, and uh have a dollar amount of what's that what that would cost and give the residents the chance to proceed. Typically,
sanitary sewer is the more expensive. A regional Palm Beach County Water Utilities Department lift station is something that's in typically in excess of $300,000. So, they are expensive. There are other
opportunities that could be considered with other developers in the area should they should the timing work itself out. So it is something that uh a lift station would would be required. There
are other opportunities too if a low pressure system were considered. We don't recommend them for the size lots in Lockxahhatchee homes because you would have each each resident would be
responsible for their own grinder station which is essentially a much smaller it's it's a lift station. It's just a much smaller version and and the individual would be in charge of their own maintenance and operation of those
systems whereas a regional station would be under the care and control of water utilities department and and and that's what they do. So it it just makes a lot more sense than an individual maintaining it having that entity maintain it.
Thank you. Anybody else have anything to say? So, what you're looking for from for from us is direction on whether to proceed with these revisions with this source of funding
uh or whether we want to pull any certain projects. Is that what you're looking for? Because I I'm not in favor of pulling any of them. Um personally, I'm I'm certainly not in favor of pushing the A-OD project back. Not even one more day. those people have been waiting long enough and um we've just
gotten started on it and and they they were in my opinion unjustly overlooked by previous council um when they said they were going to do all the major lettered roads and that road was left off. So I'm I'm certainly not in favor of of making any changes that require
pushing their project back. Um, I know that the drainage on that tangerine area has been an issue for well since I was chair of the water control district and actually uh the one one property on the corner there. I won't mention the
resident's name, but she uh paid the water control district to uh install a culvert there. I mean install a drain there and they they did it improperly. and I've been trying lot for her for I don't know what is it like eight years now to get that situation fixed. Um but
there's drainage uh issues hugely in that area. So that certainly wouldn't be uh something that I would want to uh do away with. Um you know the hide park improvements are
done. So it's kind it's kind of a moot point. You can't really take them out there. it's that's already kind of a done deal. Um, and I'm certainly not in favor of uh getting out of any grant funding opportunities that we have or any any preliminary work we need to do
for grant funding or for situations that may benefit of our citizens with them being able to get portable water and sewer. And there is a a group of people at least over there. Certainly not everybody I'm sure um but there is a group of people over there that uh has
come in and visited and and would like to um to hook up to city water. So um I'm in favor for keeping all the projects and it looks like you did a great job of uh finding the money in other places to offset it so um without
harming any other projects. So, um, I guess what we need is some kind of a consensus. Is there something, Paul, that you wanted to add? Is there something? I had a question for Richard. Unfortunately, you know that, but there's a mic close by. Um, on with regard to 161st.
So, we do it in house. We We don't historically around here like job cost stuff, correct? Projects. Correct. No, we I mean we can we have to so for example Hide Park um which the mayor
brought up u on Hide Park we you know to get reimbured from FEMA we have to have assessed job costs and stuff like that. So we're actually in the process of submitting all that to FEMA so we can get our get reimbured for that project. Um so we can um No, I guess I guess my my point is is we we don't know. I mean we could come in
at 250 with with staff doing it. Absolutely. With rentals, etc. or whatever and moving the dirt and not having I I know I read the proposal. I had my question was what was this you know how how many hours was it? I don't we don't have the proposal right here, but I was like, how is it going to take 18 weeks to build
this ditch? Multiple pieces and then we just we discerned after Richard contacted them. It was for the the not to exceed, right? I mean, the quote was not to exceed and it was for multiple pieces of equipment so they could flush it out and get it done
moving dirt, etc. So, um yeah, I I mean there's no telling. I mean, some of these projects that we do in-house maybe that we need to move toward more job costing as we talk about budgeting and and and looking at how we can really
tighten screws and stuff and we say, "Okay, well, not just job costing, but time estimates because that's that's a huge issue." Well, because like like you say, this if if we if we pull off and and to go do this instead of the contractor because we know we're going to need the material
down at a road. We'd have to pull off, go do this, right? Go back. Yeah. And then, you know, they they're all insured and they keep their equipment on site and we bring our equipment back every day. I mean, it's just so, you know, this is I mean, we could end up like spending more money, I guess, is my point. So, it's I don't
know. And it would take time away from a road like it's pushing it down the road. The question because it looks like he wants to respond to go ahead respond. I I was just kind clarification. The only point I was going to make is um like the other issue as well with us trying to do a road and high or um 161st at the same time is it
also takes crews away from other maintenance u things that can be done that should be done. Um where with a road you know we have three guys that are working on that which means the other threeman crew is currently working like we talked about earlier dredging out collecting canal between F-ro and
Falsam. Um, so we got, you know, we're using some of the material from there as well. Um, and so if we had to try to do uh 161st and a road, all we would literally be using all of our staff to try and do those two projects and doing
things like replacing stop signs, fixing BMS, other maintenance type of tasks. We'd have to make the decision, do we stop working on these projects and go deal with all this stuff over here? And it just becomes a logistical issue because we just don't have the manpower. Um
uh the the con EAN DS EANS has larger equipment that's at their disposal that they're going to be using. So we won't have to use our own equipment. It won't be any wear and tear on our own equipment. So they'll save, you know, it'll extend the life of our equipment. So there's overall savings to having a
contractor do this uh work, especially on 161st. um they have more they're going to probably bring more people here to do that job than we even have employed with the town to try to get it done because obviously they want to get in and out. So where we would we'll
literally be able to maybe have three guys over there, they're probably going to have six to to 10 people plus multiple dump trucks that you know bringing all that material out of there um larger equipment. So it overall it's better for the town to have a contractor
do it and the the town will actually save money in the long run. Thank you. Okay. I know Mr. S was very eager to comment. So has he put in a public comment card at the last meeting? So let's let him go. I got a good memory.
Thank you and good evening. Um 3765 kilo. Um I am speaking today to reference the fact recommendation I submitted on May 5th and June 12th. Our town management stated at multiple
public meeting including our last public fact meeting on June 11th and in writing on May 13th memo that the town has a surplus of 941,000 positive budget variance. In simple
words, you were told, we were told that the town is flush with money this year. Flush. But based on the fact analysis which I've shared on these two occasions, this is not accurate at all. There is zero surplus. On top of that,
as we all agree now, we are facing a 600,000 revenue shortfall due to lost and other tax discontinuation. When we had presented this budget deficit findings, my colleagues and I were ridiculed and even accused of
having personal agendas. That was unfair. But I don't care because this is one of the job hazards that comes with serving in this role. But more importantly, now to our newest council members, I understand you are still getting up to speed. Three of you are
new. But Madame Mayor Kaine and Vice Mayor Herszog, you have long experience with our town finances. In fact, Mayor Kane, you served once in my role as fact chair, so you know the numbers. So, I'll ask you, both of you today, what action
have you taken in response to the disappearance of the 941,000 surplus? If no action has been taken, then now is the time. I urge this council to take one concrete step tonight. reject the proposed budget amend amendment that
would divert roads and drainage funds to spend on lobbyists and grant writers. Just last month, this council just last week this council with the exception of Miss El Ramy raised roads and drainage tax on our residents. It is just
tentative but still raised it and you justified it by saying the money was needed for our infrastructure. If it was true then then it is true now. Please do not devoid those funds. We cannot afford these new expenses. Not while we are in deficit. Not until we see a revised
budget and cost reduction proposals from our town management. And definitely not in this budget year when our governor has vetoed over 560 million in local community project and grants. So this year is done. There is no easy money. Please show our residents that your
words and your votes align. Reject the amendment to divert the funds. There are many amendments under this term under this item. reject the amendment to divert the funds that are set aside to build our core infrastructure to be spent on hiring more lobbyists, grant
writers in this tough budgetary environment. Thank you. Is there any public comments? No, mayor. Mayor, with your indulgence, that information was inaccurate. I think I've provided the information to all of you
multiple times, but I will say one thing and that is with regard to the contract with DSEAN for 161st, um if we're looking at um taking it in house, the votes on resolution 202547,
the prevailing votes were the mayor, the vice mayor, and Phyllis, and the Um non-prevailing v votes were um council member El Remy and council member Coleman. So that's the votes for 161st
at the June 3rd meeting to move forward with that project. Yes. The vote was three to move forward, two not to move forward. And so in order to bring 161st contract back, it would take a prevailing member, a prevailing
voter. It's already been voted on. Yes, it was voted on on June 3rd, right? The bottom line is Hide Park's already done. The 161st's already been voted on. 187,000, not 207,000.
Excuse me. The contract was for 187,000. As Mr. Galant explained they moved the materials and supplies for the culverts and other drainage material to the capital project where the appropriate the proper job cost accounting would
place it. So it's moved from his materials and supplies to the capital account. So, the only two technically new items on here are the $100,000 for the TPA
grant funding and the drainage design for Tangerine. The other two have already been voted for and passed. Is that accurate? Yes. with one one small notation and that is the $100,000 was voted on to be in the budget then fact
recommended to take it out of the budget and then the council came back in November and passed a resolution with the understanding we needed to add the um professionals to help us get the grant and a resolution was passed that
night supporting moving forward with the grants. Okay. So do we do we have any kind of consensus up here that I mean anybody want to give any kind of inspection Mr. Mlendon Marge, I haven't
heard from you. I'm in agreement moving forward. What's what's being proposed here and I am in Paul. I agree. I agree as well. Believe no. Okay. So, you have four council members who are saying move forward with this as
it is and one says no. We'll we'll bring it back um for first reading on um at your August meeting. Thank you. Uh with an adoption on September. Thank you. All right, that takes care of item 19116.
Okay, item number 20, which is item number 17 in your agenda packet, the discussion of approving and implementing a public a town, excuse me, public record request
policy. Valerie, I believe this is your Bailey Wick. Thank you. U mayor. So this item comes before you. Um as you know this town does receive quite a bit of public records request um and we are um bound
to follow state statutes 119 which we do. Um this basically kind of sums it up um more so in a process format so that way requesters understand the role of the records custodian um what our
process is and it kind of just really clears up what the fees are. Um some of the things that kind of are not answered are for example um when someone will request a
uh set of records we'll ask for a deposit and sometimes those invoices are left unpaid or unopen. This will address that so that way they're closed out within 7 days if we have no response. um if records are abandoned again the
policy addresses that we can close it out and destroy those records within 30 days. Um and then also more so is the section pertaining to council members and how we handle those requests. Um different municipalities have different processes here. We don't have anything
specifically in writing and so really this is just to kind of open up that conversation for discussion so that way we can have a uniform process. treat each council member's request the same. Um, and that way I have direction from you all to be consistent with whatever
that process is. Um, because what may work for one may not work for another. Okay. Thank you, Todd. You were quick with your light this time. Yeah. So, on page 184 of the agenda, there's the section three request by officials.
I think the easiest way to try to clean this up. Um this is the only thing that I had an issue with is um where there's an aotment of say $50 for each council member for doing public records requests um for the month. And that equates to about 10 hours per month
total between all of us be burdening the town clerk with record. Each council member gets 10 hours or $50. Each council member gets $50 worth of public records for free. Okay. Which would equate to 10 hours total of all five of us, which would free you up to do your
So, I mean, it's it's basically two hours for each council member per month, which is a total of 10 man hours for the month is what we would be potentially burdening her with. And and do you think that council members should be charged for
all public like like Okay. Like the standard policy as I understand it, Valerie, and and correct me if I'm wrong, is that if you get a public records request that is going to take you 10 minutes, 15 minutes, I mean, if you know it's just a print, even from somebody in the public, right, you
just fulfill it and you don't charge for that. Am I accurate on that? Yes. However, if I do have to print something and they want a hard copy, I will charge them for the the paper. Obviously, I'm not charging for time. You're not charging for time. So if it takes and that's the standard that you have established 15 minutes is that
yeah 15 15 to 30 minutes. 15 to 30 minutes. Okay. All right. So if a council member if an individual council member was going to go over their $50 limit then they could as a private citizen request it and just pay the fee for it.
Of course. Correct. I mean like that would be the idea that would be a fine way around. The idea is so the council is not burdening her with 30 hours a month, right? with and there's no recuperation of the of the funds there. Okay. Just want to make sure I understood what you were saying, Paul.
Well, because as I understand it, like if if one of us asks for something, the priority goes to us, you know, versus somebody else, right? So, they're going to focus on what we want pulled. So, if somebody's doing excessive So, we're Yeah. We're pulling excessive
records, then it's taking time away from the public anyway, right? So, I don't think we need to go as far as like we have to we request it like as a as a citizen. It's just if you exceed your would you say $50 $50 your $50 aotment then you start getting
build you know this kind of makes it easy the same way that everybody Yeah. This is I think you just start getting build. I don't think we need to go through and fill out a separate request or whatever. It's based off our email. It's just we start getting build if we go over our $50 aotment. Right.
I think that's more than fair. Right. It comes out to 10 hours for the whole council is what we burden her with. And I think if it's something that that that staff thinks that we if we wanted to come in and they could show us how to look it up, if we wanted some excessive stuff, then by all means, they could show us how to look it up and we could
look it up. There's computers available in in in town hall. Correct. So I I think you know if it's something we really thought we need to drill into and we don't have anything specific and we want to look at something vague so we can dial in more then we can come look
it up oursel as well without any cost. Right. Right. And and if it is sent electronically I know one of the things it talks about in here is if a specific council member asks for it only that council member gets it. Well, if it's electronic, I think that all the council should get it at that end. And and that's an important point that
we need to discuss and a decision that needs to be made as well. So, you know, if one requests it and you all want it, fine. If not, that's fine, too. Um, but just keep in mind that it is if it is something that like you're saying that we do have to make copies of and it comes out to be
two 300 pages for some odd reason, right? So, here I'll give you an example. Um we have a lot of records that are currently um with our planner uh Mr. Fleshman that I currently do not have in-house. I am working on retrieving all those records. Now if
let's say there's 100 pages now I have to it's now 500 pages. Now, I don't see that happening all the time, but it could. Well, would that be something that it would be prudent for for us to put something in the policy that says something like if it's going to be an
excessive, then it has to come back to council for a vote to decide whether it's actually worth your time to do that. Well, no, they're they're going to get the record and if it's over $50, they're going to have to pay. If it's less than 50, they hear, right? I think what we were talking about is in terms of sharing that information. If it's if it's electronic,
I assume it's easy enough, right? If it's electronic, automatically share it. But if It's if it's 500 pages of paper, then it's something you would have to come back to council and get a consensus of whether we all get a copy of it. Well, I mean, I guess I guess if you had if you were having to copy 100 pages,
you know, five pieces per, wouldn't it take the same amount of time or less to scan it and just provide it as a as a PDF? We could I mean, versus a hard copy that would cut down on some of the cost anyway. So, I mean, produce 500 pages. That's that's
then we'd have it electron digitally which would be a good thing for the future if we need I mean if there's somebody that needs it tangible needs a you know t tact has a tactile thing then okay I was I wasn't pointing fingers there yeah you know you can print it out if you like or whatever
you know that's it's totally I think that's that's fair across the board and I mean also I I mentioned we're going to add adding because we can't accept flash drives from the public due to possible we don't
want to accept in any malware stuff. So, you know, we can get a a batch of a whole bag full of ones with flash drives. We can even spend probably extra 25 cents per or five cents per and get our little logo
put on it. It's a it's a chachki thing. As well as, you know, if you want, you know, it could be just a because nobody uses CDs anymore, right? I I don't know if they have computers that that even read CD ROMs anymore. You're the tech guy. CDROMs. Yeah, floppy.
Yeah, floppy. The real floppy, right? The five and a half. So, I I you know, I I think that's just, you know, it's kind of the wave of the future. I mean, I know I look at my agenda. I have my hard copy, but I look at my I read my agenda on my iPad, and you know, it's it's a real great tool because I can just make notes as I go
and stuff. So, okay. Miss Remy has her light on. So, I know Paul, you and I got up here at the same time. Have you requested anything documents or I don't think so. I think I've just had some questions and stuff. I don't think
I've actually requested, you know, give me. Okay. So, clearly this is directly my request. One of them being five properties on Okchobee Boulevard. All right. These are properties that have historically been
seriously questioned by the public. They've been questioned by council. These documents triggered a series of rejections based on vested rights, historical legacy, and then the
cost of actually producing these documents for me. Um, to the point that Mr. Flechman was directed by staff to get these documents for me. And then on May 4th, I have an email where he was told to stop working on this and instead
provide a cost estimate. That question of who directed him for three times now, he has refused to answer my question. Who directed him to stop working on what he was told would have no cost associated with it and instead provide a cost? So tonight, if somebody would like
to answer the question, who directed Mr. Fleshman to stop providing this for me? I did when I saw your email that said we misunderstood what you wanted and I think that that's one of the reasons why we hope that you would engage with us. Paul asked me for stuff all the time and
I gave it to him whenever he asked for it. I think that after you sent your email, you said what you wanted and it was easier to get it for you and it wasn't at the same level of cost. With respect to those documents, I did ask our attorney if there was a concern
about distributing them and there are several reasons why. One, they are two of them are applications for vested rights. Those items will come in front of you if you all have those documents that may put you in harm's way. Harm's
way meaning that they may not be finished. They may change along the way. They are still subject to all kinds of review. It puts you in an exparte situation. Furthermore, they're all in code enforcement. Those five properties and
council per the charter are not supposed to be involved in the daily activities. So, one of the reasons for not being involved in the code enforcement is those items may ultimately like these vested rights applications be back in
front of you and you will need to vote. So, I think that's what the writers of the charter were trying to protect everyone from. But, you know, it we are an open book. Well, I disagree. Most of these properties either have had code enforcement complaints put in against
them and ignored. And in one case specifically, the case was dismissed on vested rights after the magistrate had ruled on it. And two days after I asked for these documents, that's when that property put in a vested rights application. Um, I don't find that
that's accurate. And I would also say to you if you would like to come in and talk with us that we can show you that those things have been in code enforcement and remain in code enforcement. But but those properties on Okobee while important to talk about and to come up
in front of us by appropriate channels is not the issue that we're talking about here. The issue we're talking about here is a policy for correct records requests that is appropriate and that is fiscally responsible on the behalf on part of the council members
and nobody's saying that you can't get records. They're just saying that above a certain amount you you'll have to pay for them. I mean that's I think that's reasonable and appropriate in my opinion. But do you everybody agree with I think this also weighs into the next item of denial or redaction of records
as a elected official. I think that that is a concern. I do re you know respect the uh manager statement on the legality of some of that stuff. But uh my other concern with this this document here is I've had multiple people contact me with
differing prices being provided to them for research on items. And I I just want to make sure I know myself when I'm dealing with a company or or government. I get very frustrated when things differ, right? So I think we have to be very careful that we provide a
consistent policy moving forward for the public records. I'm pretty sure that's why Valerie did this is because there was a lot of accusations and there's a nice little chart here with how much it costs per chart currently on our website as well and the prices will differ. So,
well, I I don't Would you like to speak to the prices? Anything that we charge, we have an invoice for. So, if anybody would like to come in and inspect the invoices that we've drafted, I'd welcome it. But again, if you're asking for records for emails, that price is going to be
different than you asking for a record that is on my desk. Um, and that is because I have to go to a consultant or our IT contractor to pull that information. He charges a little over $100 per hour. Um, so I always get in writing approximately how long it'll
take for them to pull those records. It's not for the town to cover that cost. If someone's making that request, they need to cover that cost. and that is I have everything in email so I can justify any costs. I think you'll find that I'm actually very um
more so on the side of trying to find ways of not having to charge folks for their records requests because historically it has been such an issue. Um Miss Succi's here in the audience. When I first started I recall that she came in saying that none of her records requests were responded to by the
previous clerk. I sat with her. We went through I don't know how many records and did I charge you for any of them? Absolutely not. Did I charge you for my time? Absolutely not. There was a situation where she came in to view and inspect records where I could have charged her for staff time. Didn't
charge her for that either. I really do try to work with the residents. But if it is going to be a cost to the town um where I see that it's it's not fair for the town to incur that cost, then yes, I will I will charge. And I do have
invoices and I do have records for all of that and I stand by by those decisions. Okay. Well, I also stand by that anything that takes over 15 minutes of your time, I don't care who it is, you should be charging for. If that's the standard, that's the standard. So, I can understand trying to clean up a mess
that you walked into. But I don't think that you should be giving your services away because when you're doing that, you're not able to work on the agenda for the weekly committee meetings that we have. and then you get bombasted for not having the agenda out on time because you're fulfilling 400page public
records requests. So I I I think that you need to stick to your guns and make it so that it is actually cost-effective for the town. Your time is a valuable commodity for this town. So personally, I feel like it if 15 minutes is your
standard then you stick to your guns. Paul, yeah, I it it just it came up a second ago. I I you know, Mr. Fleshman is parting ways, right? He's still kind of semi helping, etc. Um, I mean, I I know
to digitize all his stuff is going to would be a insurmountable feat for him. Well, we're planning on retrieving all those files and doing that in-house. So, I'm working on a plan for that. Reading my mind. Okay. All right. That just because I know floppy disc.
Yeah. On floppy disc. Yeah. Right. I I just know the few things that I have asked for even prior to sitting up here if if if I said to Francine, "Hey, listen. What's this?" And she'll she'll I just want the ULDC code or whatever, just picking her brain and she just
fires it right to me and it's takes two seconds. She knows right where to find it and she's like, "You know, this is in the ULDC, Paul." And yeah, I get the message. I can look I can look it up. Message is heard. But I mean, same thing with Valerie. I mean it it's I think yeah I mean if you're doing a broad
scope of stuff that's going to take a bunch of time I I I kind of get it you know I mean if you're specific surgical type of looking you know whether you know how much do we how much do did uh we recover from
ex landowner whose road got paved in front of him that was supposed to reimburse the town. you know, that's kind of a specific item, right? Um, but if it's, you know, I want I want every email the the for
uh Larry Powers when he worked here. That takes a consultant or Larry Peters. Did I say Powers? My bad. Sorry, Peters. Sorry, Larry, if you're watching. Um, but yeah, so it, you know, that's that's a very that's a project, right? That involves it. Yeah, it's a project
much similar to, you know, when you know, I won't use the the D word because, you know, it's a bad word, but when those folks come in and they want to do get a use change or whatever and they have there's a cost recovery, you know, thing there because it's a project, it takes a lot of time. There's
a lot of different wheels involved, different persons involved. So, yeah, I think at a cost recovery basis and I think $50, you know, credit is a little fair. I think we can always revisit it if you know a year from now we're sitting here going you know $50 wasn't enough we need to up it to 100
if three months from now three yeah we can always reit start somewhere no policy so the consensus did you may you we do have a public comment I'm sorry oh I'm sorry there there's a public we do miss succ Sorry,
Cassie Sushi. Um, I just want to reiterate I didn't get all free stuff. Okay, I just want to reiterate that Valerie worked with me in the beginning because what Lkesha did was a complete and utter mess and I did was reluctant to sue the town because that was never my objective. My
objective was just to get the information. So Valerie worked hard at the direction of the council and the the attorney to work to clean a lot of that up. As for getting free stuff, I I have not. Um I do want to reiterate the talk up here is not directly reflected to the
actual application because $50 does not even cover one email at $100. And the question is then we're finding out so you say $50. So you ask for one email, you only get $50. So
you have to what? Pay another $50 for one email. So I don't think your $50 price is reflective of actually what some of the costs are. The other thing is um you are our elected officials. The
people in the town expect you to ask questions, find information, research these agendas, not just take what's given to you. However you do it, everybody does things differently. Um, I know as a resident,
and I know several residents that would want you to have that access. So maybe if you're afraid, if you're concerned about copying stuff and using resources, perhaps they can, like Paul said or Todd said, come in and instead of just
saying, "Here you go." And you just give them an open system. Here's the records. Like when I come in to view something and just I'll go through I'll view it. I'll look what I need to do. I'll go real fast. Or when I looked at the code cases, I went on the computer and um we
went through them really fast. I got exactly what I needed and I was out in 15 minutes. So maybe having you access to come in so it doesn't require them making copies. Although electronic really doesn't take a lot. If it's an
email and you can search on a subject column for an email, that's very easy. I don't know if any of you have searched emails, it's very easy. But just understand that what you're talking about is great, but it's not reflective to what is actually occurring. I have made requests, the exact same requests
that other people have made, and I got charged $400 and they got them for free. or I got charged another amount or an hourly rate and their rate was completely different and I've kept documentation of all that just to
document it so that we ever had a discussion it can be addressed. Now whether it's being done specifically to me I don't know and I would hope not. I would hope it was just an oversight, but the $50 I don't think is accurate. And if you're going to give a an amount,
which I I you want to maybe make it more reflective of what the the prices are, include it people as well because I want you guys to have the information and question. So that's I personally get all the information I need. Um is there any more public
comments? Is there someone in front of him? No, that was for the next item. It's for the next item. Okay. I'm I'm It says 20. Oh, we're on 20. I'm confused. I'm sorry. You're right. Okay. So, there was someone in front of you, Mr. Suit. I'm sorry. Uh, okay. I hate getting up here
talking, but uh public's records request. I don't think the $50 is fair when you're going to say, "But I'm going to tell you how much it is after you get it. So, I'm going to give you a deposit of $50 and then it's going to be what? It's going to be a h 100red. It's going to be$30."
You would not do business with people if that's the way they did business with you. If the roofer came and told me it was 5,000 down and I'll let you know how much when I finish, I would never give them the job. I don't understand how we can do that if you don't have an idea of where something is. I don't know if it's
mismanagement of the town, but how do you not know where records are? If I if I ask for something, it's either on the computer or in a file somewhere. It shouldn't be that hard to find it. I I really, for the life of me, I've been in insurance, I've been in retail, and we have never had an issue finding records
like somehow this small town can't find. And I've heard because somebody left and they don't know where they put their records. That seems crazy to me. But anyway, I don't think that's fair. Having a $50 and then whatever it could be when I give hand you the paper, it's this. I I just don't see that as being
fair business. Um, also I I think it's crazy to put limits on the council as to how much they can spend to get records. You guys are up there doing a job for us. I think if you see something and you need something, it
should be available to you. I mean, she's great, but she's paid for by the town. We pay her, and I know she has other things to do, but there's other people here, too, that can do other things. I I don't understand why you would give yourselves limits on how much information you can get. If you need it
for a meeting, I think it's important. I I I wouldn't put limits on people. Anyway, that's my say. Thank you. Mr. Suit is next. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Sure. All right. Manu 3765 E road I would like to do a public request on public
request. In other words, I would like to understand how is this process working if our and I'm an I'm in information technology in my day job. If you're an open book, if your processes are efficient, if everything is digital,
I I it seems ridiculous to me that you're paying an IT consultant $100 an hour to search for an email and just click a button, search keyword, search a button, and export. $100 an hour for this job. Why is that? And public request should be publicly posted. In
other words, if somebody if I requested something, it should be publicly posted on the website. You have already done the work. It's digital posted. No CD, no USB required. You have online space. Just put the file up there, upload it.
And I think it's ridiculous. I agree. It's ridiculous to charge our elected officials. It's like saying if town manager Francine wants to ask Jeff about certain document now, are we going to charge her or are we going to charge a consultant asking a question? This is
part of your workflow. Council is supposed to manage the town management. But if you keep on adding roadblocks in this process, you are taking this downhill. Thank you so much. And I will be looking into I will be doing a public request on mapping this process. Thank you.
Mayor, briefly, Miss Oaks has already started doing that audit because of the comments that were here this evening because she too wants to make sure that everything has been applied consistently. Additionally, I do
want to make a clarification. Anybody who asks for anything on the way to an agenda gets it. That's not a public records request. A public records request is when something has already been voted and it's behind us and you're
asking for detailed records that we have to go um and dig up. And I do want to also put into the public record why getting records is so difficult. Well, apparently the district didn't feel that they were subject to the same public
records rules as um other municipalities in the state of Florida. In fact, I saw a memo that they got from their attorney that said they weren't um all of their stuff is in boxes. And we've been that we had to rescue out of the building when the ceiling when the roof
of it collapsed because they all got wet. True. Um, we have been going through all those boxes and folders and filing cabinets methodically and trying to identify records that we need to keep
versus records that may be destroyed. We have not destroyed anything. Additionally, you all have been in this building on and off over the years. Um, I think you saw that when I first started working here was like a hoarder's house and there were boxes
everywhere and now you don't see that many boxes because we've gotten that many records cleaned up. We still have a lot more to go. One of the issues that has to come forward as we're looking at the budget actually is to speak to the technology because the technology that
we currently use is Dropbox and Dropbox is not as secure as we need it to be. It's also not as accessible as we need it to be and most other localities use laser fish. I'm sure that Mr. Coleman's familiar. Um but if not,
not my end. Yeah. Um I create records. Yeah. Right. So, I create lots of records lower this year's budget. That actually happens to be one of the things. It's not something you see. It's like you flush your toilet. It makes, you know,
it it goes down. You're good. You don't think about it. But the work that has been done here by Valerie and her team, by Karen and her team to put Humpty back together again, um, I'm not going to take any credit, but yeah, there was a
long time there wasn't anybody, you know, with the light on, but I think y'all know the lights were on. So, um, you know, this has been quite a labor, and we agree with you. You should be able to ask for something and get it
right away. We didn't make it this way. We found it this way. We're fixing it. Okay. I believe Paul was first. Todd, um, with regard to the redaction, um, not that anybody doesn't know where I
live that's from here, right? But, you know, and I don't know if we I I guess we're employees cuz we're paid, but I don't know how that works here. you know, with what I the other job I do, I fall under that privacy law. Um, so yeah, anything that have my address
on it, I would want it redacted. I mean, because, you know, it's just the that that I'm not saying redact the pertinent information, but yeah, like code officials, you know, um, you know, our our code enforcement folks, you know, stuff like that. That's all. And
then you're going to get stuff. You get ask for a public records request from PBSO, you're going to get all kinds of redaction like you're getting a CIA document, I think. So, I mean, it's just, you know, um I it's so I think the redaction needs to be in there. I mean,
if if if you think something is I think as a council person, if you're asking for a record and you think something's been redacted that isn't that you don't think should be redacted, I think you should be able to view the original document. Um because if we don't if you get that printed out document and it's
not redacted or the digital document then the address isn't redacted again not that anybody in here doesn't know where I live but you know it's out there in the world you know etc. So and I even as I think as council people we're we're afforded that same
uh under the same rule. Correct. No we are not. No we're not okay. We are not. Then I'll be the lone black sheep up there. We made a big investigation about all the bullying and harassment of public officials that was going on and then did nothing about it. So
took a big survey, you know, we all answer questions about how many times we were bullied, abused, called names, right? Physically abused, and then they did nothing. So yeah, I I you know, I I I I like the direction it's going. Maybe maybe it's not 50, Todd. Maybe it's 100.
You know, I'm I'm just saying. I mean just you know 50 and if you need more come to council and say hey I need more. Well, I think that I think the issue is with the email is yes. Um, if if Valerie's an admin to the all the email accounts, then Valerie could she is not
I'm saying if I said if you know the big if, right? Then she could search by a keyword. But as I know when I search for my own stuff and in personal life and work, sometimes that keyword doesn't always work well. and you have to dig in over
here because as a public records request if you if you're asking for this big broad brush of stuff, you know, we have to fulfill that, right? So, and heaven forbid that we don't we miss one, right? So, you got to kind of it's got to be
dug around in and you know, it's it's it's not I wish it was as clean as as as it could be. Um, and thank good thing we did save those documents cuz I can't tell you how many times I tell people at my other job that sorry I can't get that document for you because you know they had a pipe break in the DND building
where we were storing everything. Rain carrying boxes into the building. Yeah, they were still wet. Todd Valerie, do people get surprised invoices or you always give a cost estimate? Um I think yes they are surprised by the
deposit request but um we give it in writing if that's what you're asking. You give a cost estimate before fulfilling it. So somebody says so what I do is like for example um we're going to pick on the emails because that tends to be a big one that I do get from the community. Um and so
they're always kind of shocked at the amount. So typically, so the IT contractor will say it's going to take me approximately two hours. So whatever that exact amount is, and I think they're what, $125 an hour. So then I'll
say, okay, the deposit is $250. Um, so that way we can retrieve those emails. That also does not include my time to review those emails. And that's what I don't think the general public understands is that that's just a deposit to cover the what the town has
to pay to retrieve that information. Then I have to go through each email and make sure that there isn't exempt and confidential information because sometimes there are sometimes there's banking information. We have to go through all of those emails and we have
to redact it. Now, I have a process where I have someone on staff that kind of has a general idea of what to look through, but they're not a certified municipal clerk. They can't stamp it and say, "Yes, it's ready to go." I still need to go back through and give it the
final approval. So, then what happens is if let's say there's 100 emails, it's going to take that time to go through it, right? So, I don't know how long that'll take me. I don't know if it's going to take me 10 minutes. I don't know if each, you know, if one
email has 20, you know, you know, email trails, you know, so that part of it, I can't sit here and say, hey, you know, it's going to be a total cost of $500. It's just an estimate. How often do the do the estimates come
out where they're very under? You estimated 250 and it was $400. Is that pretty? That doesn't typically happen a lot. And so what we do is that when we can see that the price is creeping up, we'll call and say, "Hey, you know, we've gotten to, you know, 50 emails and we're at this price. Do you want us to
continue?" Uh, we had that situation with an attorney. I believe that there was about a thousand emails that we had to review. Um, and they were completely fine with our process. You know, we kept checking in with them and do you want us to continue? Yes. Okay.
So, I I don't think we're limiting what we can do. Well, we are to a certain extent, but let's say a council member says, "Hey, I need all the emails from the town attorney for six months. What's the town attorney going to charge us for that, right? I mean, the cost is going to be astronomical. If we're paying $200 and
something dollars an hour and he's spending four days to to compile all this information, that's huge amount. And if every council member sitting here did that, we would be in a financial mess, right? So, I mean, that's kind of what it's about is to try to reduce those costs. I mean, we can see moving forward, we need to start reducing
costs, and that's kind of what this does. And if you say, "Hey, I need a public records request and it's going to be $500." You can bring it to a council meeting and say, "Hey, this is an important item. We need to address this and we need all the emails from the town attorney regarding this." And the council can say, "Yeah, we're willing to
spend $5,000 to pull all those emails because it is important. It's something that the council needs to address, right?" So, you're not just stuck with that $50. So, you're stuck with the $50 with your own free will, but you're not stuck $50 as a council.
Anybody else have anything to say? All right. So, I think it Are you clear on what the instruction is? $50. I I think Tell me if I'm right, guys. So, the consensus is on $50. um
investigating the the the claims that were made that you have charged unfair or different prices for different people. I think you're doing an audit to do that so to get that situation cleaned up um so that accusation can go away or be
dealt with. um uh $50 and then you pay for it yourself and we'll if anybody feels the need to do something huge more than that they just bring it up at a council meeting during their comments and we all take a
say yep you're right we should definitely be looking into that to to and and and direct you to do that and I think the other thing was is that everyone gets a copy oh I okay and I think we said if it was electronic Everyone got a copy. If it
was not electronic, I would say if it's Well, I think he was saying that just go ahead and scan it and send it anyways. So, basically, everyone would get a copy. Yeah. So, everyone gets a copy of what someone does unless it's going to I know. But what if it's something like Yeah. And what if it's something like
huge sheets that you can't Well, I don't know. You'll figure that out. You hand you I'm still in the floppy disc era with him. So, I don't I like We don't have a large format scanner, though. Correct. We do. Oh, we do. Okay. So that answers that question. So even if even if it's 246 set of
blueprints stuff is what prints are 2436. Okay. So we could all get it even we may not be able to read it because it may be size. But what about in the case that it's, you know, and I I understand asking for stuff and not getting it,
then, you know, I I'm we got to be told, listen, this is something that's coming up, right? because I I I think I maybe the attorney's off base, but that could create some kind of an issue. If if we're getting copies of stuff
ahead of time, whatever that's an application, we shouldn't be asking for information on C that are an active code. We just we shouldn't be we shouldn't we're leaving that up to the discretion that hey, this is, you know, and just notifying is that something you want us to address,
Valerie, to come to a decision on I mean, so if you're going to be copying everybody, it's going to be the arbit. Yeah. Right. If somebody makes a request that is legally sensitive, then I guess you'll need to get an opinion from the lawyer because because the direction is to copy
everybody, right? And if you copy everybody on something that's an active code case, it could put us in a very sticky legal position. But do I mean, do we really need a a judgment from the I hate these word judgment, an opinion from the lawyer on something like that? But I mean, she's a
she's a I I know. I'm just trying to So, I mean, she's a certified being the one who makes the decision. I mean, if it's something that's a code matter, super easy. If it's something that's coming before you as a land use matter, super easy. Absolutely. If it's something that's a legal matter, also
super easy. Just like what we had to do recently. Um, I just I'm saying I think we need to put in there that we defer to the judgment of the clerk. Right. And like I said, if the clerk says we can't have it for A, B, and C, you can sit here at the next council meeting and say, "No, I want it." Right. And I need
I need direction from the rest of the council. We need this. But and if she and if if Marge wants it, right? And she's saying, "You really can't have this because of this. I can't copy everybody." Then we can have a consensus. Okay. You don't have to copy us on it
or whatever the decision is. So she can still get her public records or Lisa can still get that public record with a Did that answer all of your questions, Val, and bringing this up? Okay, excellent. All right, we're on to item number 21, which is item number 18 in
your agenda. That's you, Karen. That is Good evening, Mayor Council. Uh this is a discussion regarding lean reduction. We kind of hit upon it at another meeting and this was actually I think presented uh last year where some of you
were not on the council at the time. So I wanted to bring it back for kind of a discussion item. Um I do have a PowerPoint. Let me see. Do I have Can I just note this is a discussion not a vote. Correct mayor?
Yes. Okay. Just clarify. Thank you. Okay. So, just to clarify, I provided several documents. So, I figured before we get into the confusion, I wanted to outline what you received. So, the you
received four documents. The first one was an ordinance to adopt an interim co-compliance lean reduction and release policy. The second document was the actual policy. That was the nature of the ordinance.
The third document was a resolution in order to implement a fee for the request. And then the fourth one was the ordinance to actually adopt the code compliance lean request. And I think the reason it was done although was
we wonder why it takes so long to get anything done in this. I think part of it is against ordinance require two readings and resolutions only require one. So, I think the intention was try to get something on the record and then at least you had something and then proceed with the
ordinance. I think that was the intention, but I didn't want to change anything because that was kind of the way you were going. So, that's kind of why we're here today to kind of talk about the, you know, discuss it a little little further before we go forward. So, the first thing, this is what is in your
code right now. Two paragraphs, that's it. So you do have the right as a resident presently in order to request a lean reduction. What it doesn't provide is things such as what's the standards,
how do we do it. So that's why this documentation is in front of you tonight. So it talks about that you can do it and it talks about that there's a payment. Excuse me. Can I just interrupt you for one second? Me go back.
If we if we were to set a standard, if we if we were to say it's no, you know, we'll take no less than, I don't know, 40%. I'm throwing a number out there of whatever the fine was, the magistrate doesn't have to at I mean, even if we pass an ordinance that says that, the
magistrate does not have to adhere to what our standard is, do they? That is correct. That is what we've been told. So, why would we spend legal money setting up a standard that the magistrate doesn't have to follow anyhow? So there are two two reasons. Okay. One is that the
special magistrate always asks the town what is your position. So by getting guidance from you again she you're right she doesn't have to follow it but getting guidance from you would at least give some guidance to staff. Particularly a lot of times people won't
you know if we said this is what our limit is some people might accept it. We don't even have to go to court. We can enter into a stipulation but I don't have that guidance right now. So I really can't answer it. The other reason I think is that the special magistrate I think if you give the individual at
least some ideas of what you're looking for and this isn't you know it it also talks about what are the criteria for even providing a lean reduction. As you can see it doesn't have standards. So what should she be looking at? Should she be looking at how was it a life
health safety violation? How long it took them to correct it? What are the standards that you want to take a look at that again the special magistrate doesn't necessarily have to take into consideration but if it's in the code chances are more likely than not they
will. So there's a lot of details that are not in the present sections. Okay. So the language that we have here is first what does the um ordinance apply to? So we're talking about lean reductions. We're talking about partial
releases because what happens is sometimes you have two parcels of land and what happens is the lean could attach to the second parcel. That's all legal. So maybe they need to get a partial release. And then the uninforcable lean is was there a bankruptcy that occurred or maybe the
land was foreclosed on or maybe we took over it because we we went through a foreclosure and got it. So we want to release the leans. So, we're talking about not just lean reduction, but the two other uh processes that go through. We're also indicating that there's fees for filing of the request and the
administrative cost for us to process it. We also, which I talked about a little bit before, was the preliminary conditions to consider, such as when the property became in compliance. Were there no overdue accounts? In other words, we don't even want to consider a lean reduction if certain items haven't
already been taken care of. the property should be in compliance before you consider it. Right? The idea that there shouldn't be any monies owed to the town, whether that's owed on the property, whether that's property taxes, whether that's uh they did a special events permit and they didn't pay for
it, whatever it is, there's certain preconditions that we've listed in this that we want to take into consideration. And then the last one that I talked about was any factors to consider such as the gravity of the violation. Were there previous violations against the property or is this the only one? Were
there the length of time to conf to cure it? Sometimes you look at the individual sold the property so they didn't do the original violation. Do we want to take that into consideration? So that's outlined in the documents that are before you tonight. The town attorney did review the
documentation. Um there were some comments that he did provide to me, some clarifications. Um, but there were two items that I really were not included in the documentation that I really wanted to discuss and spend some time with you today. So, the first one was there is a
provision in there that says if you are denied whatever lean reduction, whatever it is, you cannot refile for another year. The attorney's office feels that's unreasonable. Um, it is a common provision. I'm not going to say everybody has it. Maybe a year is too
much. Maybe it's six months. Maybe it's not at all. So, I wanted to bring that forward whether there was any um consensus regarding should we prohibit someone from being able to refile for a lean reduction after they have been denied it. So, I'm going to open that up
first to council to get some feedback from you on what your thoughts are on that. Lisa, you want to provide an example of what that might look like? Uh so say somebody comes in and um trying to think of an example for a lean reduction and just
say they want it could be any number but say they want 20,000 reduction the town only is willing to do 10 for doing what I'm sorry for doing what for doing like what do they have a violation for? Um uh very common let's just say they
cleared the land without a permit. Okay. Okay. So, we we do uh we find them for that and uh let's just say they come in and say they're they purchased the property. Although they purchased the property, they should have done a title search, but we won't go there. But just say they purchased the property and they
come into you and they said, "Well, I didn't have anything to do with it. As soon as I found out, I went ahead and did the change and um I want a reduction." And the special magistrate comes back and goes, "Well, you know, again, why didn't you get a title policy? That would have told you there was a lean against the property. So, I'm
denying the lean request, the lean reduction request. So, under that scenario with the language in front of you tonight, that property owner would be precluded from refiling again for another year. Thank you. That's the issue before you tonight. Is
there a desire to prohibit a refiling? No right or wrong. This is not, you know, a legal issue one way or the other. Or do you want it less? Do you want it as is? Or do you want it not at all? So again, um I think it's important that I bring forward to you, you know,
the options that you have and this is uh an option for you all to consider. So I'm looking for some guidance on that particular provision. Do you want us to delete it? Do you want us to keep it or do you want us to change it? Okay, excuse me one second before Mr. McClendon was next, but Mr. Torcivia
apparently I don't I don't see your little hand waving, but apparently he has a comment. Okay, so let me let him make his comment and then we'll go to Mr. McClendon. Yes. Um the only thing I wanted to mention is that in an ordinance you can uh provide uh definite provisions for
the magistrates. Say for example that you may not reduce a fine to less than 10% or 20% or whatever number you want. Uh several cities have that because the magistrate has got to follow the law and you're creating the law. So you can uh
limit how much magistrate will reduce the fine. Many cities will give credit for work the person did to come into compliance. So for example, if you had a $100,000 lean and you could reduce it to 10%, that's $10,000. If you spend $7,000
fixing it, the magistrate could in their discretion give them a credit for $7,000. So the lean would be reduced to 3,000. So that's the only place I wanted to jump in on Karen's presentation was if you want to set that in an ordinance, you can.
But again, the magistrate does it can cannot follow it. That was the point I made earlier. If we set it at like 40%, they can not follow that. They can still make a decision. No, she has to follow what you put in your ordinance. Just like in your ordinance, you can you for example can
say a fine of up to $250 or $500. She can't go to a thousand. That sets a limit on she has just like a judge in a sentencing. Judge can sentence someone within guidelines the legislature sets. you're at the legislature. You could set a guideline as to how much she could
reduce the fine and limit her ability to go below that if you want to. That that's new information because that sure hasn't been our experience. Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Mclundon. So, one of the things I would like added in there is if it's a health and life safety issue, um it should be a
unanimous vote by the council for the town's position on lowering the fine. Um, so you take a truck stop that says, "We don't care." And they run up a $200,000 fine, right? And finally they go, "We got to take this serious and they fix
it." And then they come back to us and say, "We want our fines reduced." I think it should take a unan unanimous vote from the council for that recommendation to go to the magistrate. I understand the magistrate can do whatever they want, but I think the recommendation at that point should be unanimous vote by the council. That way
when these code enforcement cases are are going through, you can say yours is going to be treated as a health and life safety issue. And keep in mind, if you want to try to get your fines reduced in the future, you're not going to just need to convince the town manager. You're going to need to convince five
unanimous people sitting on the council to reduce your fine. So, you really need to take this code enforcement issue seriously because every day it runs up, you're going to have a hard time getting this reduced. Well, and I think that's an excellent point and and the and to
just expand on that, my comment was that we it's my understanding that with our code enforcement process is a very lengthy and long one until we get to the point where we're starting to assess somebody fines, okay? And that at the
point where fines are starting to acrue, even if it's not a life safety issue, it's somebody who has thumbmed their nose at the rules, been advised of them in every possible way and iteration that they could be advised of them has thumbmed their nose at them for some
period of time. And your point taken when they go to sell the land or when they go to, you know, when it gets to whatever some number that is scary to them, $100,000, well, then they suddenly say, "Oh, well, maybe I better start taking this seriously and do something
now." But I don't know why we should give, to be honest with you, any lean reduction to somebody who's thumbed their nose against the rules of the town for for any period of time. I think that there should be, you know, I I you give them like six months to come into
compliance and if they are showing that they're trying to come into compliance, then we don't start assessing fines. So, at the point where it gets to fines, it's somebody that is either that is seriously belligerent. Yeah.
Good vocab word. I mean, we have people that tell our code officers, "F you." I mean, we we have that. You know, I I had a pass code officer tell me this this particular person said f you to them on more than one occasion. Like they don't care. So,
but you know, then it's my understanding that now that person's fines have gotten to some significant point and now that person wants to all of a sudden start working with the town. Well, I'm not in favor of reducing his fines at all. For three years, he's been telling us to f off. Well, sorry for your luck. I I don't I I think we should charge him
100%. I don't think there should be a lean reduction, but that is my personal. Do we have the legal capacity if the magistrate has ruled to do what Todd says? We would do it before then because the town takes a position like it was explained. When they go to the magistrate, the magistrate says, "Okay,
the landowner wants a 50% reduction." No, no, I understand that, but the magistrate has been involved in the case up to that point. Would we then be able to claw that back and put it under our purview to make that decision? Oh, so Glenn, I think that's a question for you. I think I think it's okay
because what happens I think Lisa is that you you first do the notice of violation you're found guilty and then your fine assessed and that's typically where we end at that point then it goes into the lean. Sure. So that would probably be when they want to do the reduction, they'd
have to submit something. And I think at that point you probably could go, but Glenn, maybe you can answer, does the special magistrate still have the jurisdiction or can it be switched to the council and go back to her? Well, ultimately the lean is always the town's
lean, right? It's your lean. You you're owed the money. The town is owed the money. You've given the magistrate the authority to do certain things including reducing a fine. We just talked about putting a limit on the reduction. What uh council member is mentioning is
perhaps a way to further restrict the magistrate by saying health safety cases don't go to the magistrate, they go to the town council. I've not seen that yet. I don't I'm not saying it's undoable, but we could look into that certainly um and you know get the
direction as to what you want, do the research and then bring you back an ordinance that you know tries to accomplish what you want. But Glenn, let me ask you, I I guess I'm I'm thinking is it okay? So someone files a lean reduction. So, can we make
in the process the first step if it's a life health safety? Of course, that would have to be defined, but in a life health safety um request that it goes to the council first for a recommendation and then we would then send it to the special magistrate. Is that an okay
process? We're going to have to research that. Again, this is definitely creative thinking and um maybe we could do this, but again, it' be amending the ordinance to lay that out. you might have to have the order that the magistrate first enters making it clear that this is a
life, health, safety issue. Um because that that's the key language that you want in there. So it I think it's doable, but we could research it and work towards that. Yeah. And I don't want them to research it. Yeah. I mean, as it stands today, the town when it goes when they go to the
magistrate, the town has a position and they say we're okay. So, I'm just saying instead of the manager making that position, it's the council making that that position on health and life safety issues. So, that way we direct the town manager, no, you didn't get a unanimous vote to reduce it here and town manager,
you can't reduce it at all. When you go to the magistrate, you let the magistrate know, no, we the town is at the position, no reduction whatsoever. That's our recommendation. That's what we want. So, are you say, let me just make sure I get it, Todd. So you are you suggesting we put in a provision in the ordinance
that says on life health safety um lean request there is no reduction which you can do that. No there there could be a reduction so long as you get a unanimous vote from the council. So any reduction on life safety requires a unanimous vote from council prior to
going to the magistrate. And I don't think we need to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars of legal research on this. I think that we can just put something in as simple as that. I I still think the magistrate should have the independence to make the decision, but for the town's position, the unanimous vote from the council
would say, "No, we are not okay with any reduction at all." The magistrate could still say, "I'm throwing it all out." I think they should have that leeway to do that, the magistrate, but for the town's position, it should be unanimous vote from the council. Yeah. I mean, if we're if we're coming up with, and I can just go ahead turn the light off because that's what I was going to if we're if we're coming up
with a standard, and that's the whole purpose of the ordinance is so we have a standard and a fee structure, right? That's kind of where we're going. So I think yeah there there there's a degree of of yes code enforcement can handle because I don't think every fee reduction has to go to the manager
either the the the who interprets the code and how the code's done. So the director of the code of code enforcement you know could be the interpreter standards director community sorry yes community standards director. I'm sorry Karen. Thank you mayor. I mean it should never be less than what
it cost us to do it. Never. I mean, that's my one hard stop. It should We would never not recoup all of our costs. I'm including gas to go to the magic meetings. I I'm saying all of our cost is a nice little cushion because anytime it gets to that point, it's Yeah.
But yeah, no, that's that's where I'm going. So, if if that's the purpose behind this, if we're coming up with a standard, yeah, the standard needs to be if it's life and health safety, yeah, it takes a unanimous vote or even a super majority, but I mean, a unanimous vote. But I like unanimous. It's like the idea unanimous.
I get you. When you're out there and you're citing people, you can say this is going to be treated as life safety. This is the hurdle you're going to have when your fine start. You're going to have to get up five people to agree to reduce your fee. You're hard time. So whatever your fee is, you can kind of play on that's probably what you're going to be paying, right? You know, this isn't we're not
going to play this game where it's 100,000 and we're going to take 5,000 for it later on. say FU for 5 years and then do something about and we might actually look at there might be a couple other instances like tree mitigation or something like that where we might take a hard stance as well. Not every single thing because
somebody, you know, uh they they didn't cut back their safe sight corner. We're not, you know, I don't think we're going to hammer that home. But like you said, take Well, I know. But like I say, that's what I'm saying, you know, and and the way way it works and you know, it you know, I I reiterate things a lot. I'm
sorry, but you know, the way it works is if you're coming into compliance, generally speaking, that's you know, most places called code compliance, not code enforcement, because it's a it's a compliance measure. It's it's a effort to make folks compliance. Um, a lot of stuff that community standards, a lot of
that stuff is is is a is is safety measures for things and things like that. So, if you're if you're working toward the same goal, a lot of times fines don't get assessed. Correct. Right. If you're cited for building a building without a permit, you go get the permit and you start working on it,
a lot of times fines don't get assessed. So, you know, so I I think if that was my point earlier, the people that are getting assessed are people that have egregiously I I wish make a point of clarification. I think that some unpermitted uses might
be considered life, health, safety. So, for instance, the trucking that was mentioned before, um, that seems like it falls into life, health, safety. If you're doing industrialized operations, it seems like that would fall into
health life, health, safety. Installing gas pumps when you didn't have permission. If you're putting construction debris in the ground, that's safety. But on on the on the flip side, you know, and I I I I think you and I have had this conversation, Karen, you might have been, you know, I I I I I
as our as our code enforcement staff blossoms, right? Our code and compliance staff, community standards blossoms, you know, the education tool because I can tell you I' I've had, you know, conversations with folks even before I was on council and they're like, "Nobody
around here understands the difference between a and not a, right? bonafideed a and what you can do and what you can't do and things like that. So, whoever's out there, you know, doing this, I know we're a little off topic, but who'sever doing the citation or the NOV,
we need to make sure that those folks are educated to the nth degree, especially in that aspect of things because to say, oh, this is an a business. And, you know, a few of us sitting at this table, maybe all of us sitting at this table, um, and a few of us in the room could look at it and go,
that is not an a that's not an a business. I don't care what you call it. It's not, you know, your your retail establishment, not an you in support of an agricultural bonafide agricultural business. You know, that's because we want them to have the confidence when they step up there and they and they
issue the NOV that they're doing the proper thing, right? And that, you know, that they they cuz somebody that doesn't have confidence in that, when they issue the NOV, nobody's going to care, right? Well, that's you've got somebody going, "No, look, you're wrong. This is the rule. This is this. here, you can meet the magistrate
and prove you prove us wrong. Right. I think to the point you're making, Paul, is that code compliance is exactly what you say, it's compliance. It's not penalty. It's compliance. We want to try to get you to meet what is required. And it's not black and white, right? And it
and you have to have some ability to have some leeway because I mean unfortunately if somebody comes in and writes the way admits they're wrong wants to make the change should they be treated the same as somebody who basically thumb their nose at you.
Right. So those are the things that hopefully you have. We've already kind of addressed all of this. We've already said that we really only ever get to the penalty thing. That is correct when people thumb their nose at us. So, we don't really need to keep talking about when people are trying to be compliant, you know, and and failed
to whatever. Mr. Torcivia's got his finger up. Don't you have one of those little hands, Glenn, that everybody has? For some reason, it doesn't work. So, uh so one question go ahead. If if the council is going to consider every case as to whether it's going to be unanimous or not, then are you having
an actual hearing and are you delaying the process by having a council decision? And the the suggestion comment might be uh as Karen pointed out the magistrate listens a lot to staff's recommendation. Staff historically is lenient and is and recommends you know
significant reductions. You can simply provide staff the direction that you shall not reduce life safety issues period and have staff make that recommendation to the magistrate. go three or four months and see how that works before you create more work for
yourselves and having to consider each case by case whether you're unanimous or not on it. I don't think we're talking about case by case. Talking about talking about egregious cases. We're talking about egregious life safety that we're asking the manager to seek a council vote prior to making her
recommendation. How many would we have? Right. Conceivably. Yeah. How many have we had? How many fine reductions hearings have we had? And how many have been health and life safety that or that what you would consider health and life safety in the past year? I I don't have it off the top of my head. I'll be honest with you. We don't
have that many lean reductions, but I will tell you I have two right now that have been holding off pending the discussion today. Health you consider health um you know what I didn't look at them because I wanted to really get a feel for what was going on here. But most of the time it's not life health safety most of the time.
Less than six a year. Yeah. So it's it's really no different than a land use type of application. and they bring it before the council and we say yes or no. Yeah, exactly. Would it be quasi judicial at that point or that's a that's a Glenn question, but he turned his camera on. I think it's something that we're using
to to advise the manager on position we want her to take. So I don't see why it's quasi judicial because yeah we're not making a ruling making the ruling. Ultimately the magistrate is making the ruling. All we're doing is saying that on health, life, health, safety, request for
reduction, we request that the manager seek a unanimous vote from council to rec to make the recommendation and it could be on consent. It could be on the consent agenda. It could be just consent, right? Five of us vote for the consent agenda and it goes through and you know Yeah. And if somebody thinks somebody has a might have a case, we could pull
it, right? And they could be here, they could argue their case, but it's just an application. And I I like I mean I I think I kind of get what Glenn's I mean I don't I'm not% read his mind, but a year seems like a lot, but if we make it three months,
guess what? They're going to be back in three months and they're and we're just going to keep kicking a can. So, you know, I I like the year. Listen, you come in here and you want you you want to do a red a lean reduction because you think it was unfair, whatever the case may be. Oh, you got rid of the the
55gallon drums, so you think you're you're good now. Um, you know, whatever the case may be. Polluted the aquifer. Exactly. So, you know, a year is a chance for you to if we say no, we're not going to do a lean reduction. It's a chance for that person to become even more compliant, right? And and and to
really put, you know, especially somebody that's been thumbming their nose or whatever, they have to be compliant before we get to that point. I I I I agree, but I'm just saying, you know, you and I might look at some and call it, you know, varying differences, I guess. Let the girls talk. They've had their ladies. Do you know who was for March?
Okay. Um it has been so frustrating waiting for something uh to give us a little bit of meat between, you know, u our decisions. I mean, we sit here so frustrated
with the the lack of um enforcement of of health and safety stuff. I mean, it it's just egregious. Lisa, that was easy. So, might just stay.
So, in your scenario, you said the person should have done their due diligence on and they purchased the property. Wouldn't the town be getting money in that cir circumstance when the property changes ownership? Isn't that connected to the title of the property? So, if you have a mortgage company,
typically that is the case because the mortgage company won't issue a mortgage unless you cleared your cash. But if you pay cash, there's nobody who's there to say, "Hey, pay off your lean." They'll just go ahead and back back to the actual surprise. You pay cash and now you've got a big
Yes. And you need more cash. So, back to back to the original question that you posed. Um, basically preventing them from asking again for a year. I think that no matter how long that time frame is, how many appeals do they
get? They get one appeal, right? And how soon can that be? Um, so I think a year, given the slothly pa pace of how this normally goes, maybe a year actually is realistic, but I think they probably
only get one appeal to that. I agree. And not more than that. Okay. But I think what's been so frustrating in the past is all of a sudden fines just disappear. Yeah, we know that. I think that's the whole conversation.
Yeah. continue to to sit here as a council and feel you can't justify it. Yeah. No. Yeah. I mean, well, because there's real staff costs, like I said, associated with all of this. And if we're not even getting our staff costs, I mean, I can think of
Well, this recent history that I won't that I won't bring. Yes. The story with the previous manager, but that fine was reduced to significantly less than it cost the town to pursue that. Some of them were zero. Well, I know and
and it's just it's it's unacceptable. Yeah. Since I've been here, I haven't done one. So, I can just tell you since April. So, and again, like I said, I had two because I felt it was important to hear from from you um as to the direction as to where you want to go. And did we give you enough information?
I I think you did. I think Glenn and I can work together and and bring something back. I didn't know if you wanted to do the interim or whether you just want me to go forward with the ordinance. Um because again, I can bring back first reading. I think I can make it in August because it's not a development so I don't have to worry
about that and then we could get it done fairly quick at first reading. We can make any changes if we don't if we don't like your consens your compilation of what we all said here today. So for some reason or if somebody has any questions we can always make we can tweak it at first reading I guess is
what I'm saying. So I would say go right into first reading so we can get it moving. Mayor you're becoming a planner using the word tweaking. That's a planning term you're learning. I'll just add that to my resume. I just want to circle back before we go. So, I just want to make sure it's one appeal. The one year is good. We're
making it a you um uh anonymous decision regarding life, health, safety, correct? Is there a number that we have? If it's not life, health safety on whether there's a fine but a unanimous decision on what the recommendation is to be. I think the decision here is we must at
least recoup our administrative cost. Correct. Are fees and fines different from each other. Don't they typically in the magistrate's order will say the fees are this much and then are this much. Um they do do administrative fees which we usually figure out, you know, the hourly rate, how much time it takes and
then we go ahead and try to apply for that. But, you know, again, I always like and Lisa's point is well taken. You should never be out of pocket cost in this because your neighbor shouldn't have to pay for the fact that your neighbor wasn't in wasn't in compliance. Right. So, we certainly will make sure we cover both of those. So, uh again, we
will bring back that. I didn't know if it was a non-life health safety. Do you have a number that you're interested in that like is it can't reduce it any less than you know 25% 25 reduction or or total? The m the max you can reduce it is 25%.
The minimum threshold is 25% of the of the fund of the amount. Yeah. So they could get a 75% reduction. Correct. Maximum less. I'm just being clear. That's all I'm just maximum. But our our threshold is 25%. What do you think everybody? You like 25%?
I like as long Yeah. As long as it's 25% or or the total or the total amount of fees, whichever is greater, right? Yeah. Or so the fees are separate. Please, we'll get some public comment on but I know the public. Yeah, let me get out of the way
real quick if I can before the public comment. Oh, really? No. I I just was there. Um, so just quick question. So when when when you bring this back for first reading, this is a a full standard,
right? The ordinance is the standard, right? And so correct. the the the fee structure, the the the the pay the fee scale or the pay scale is going to be built into the standard, right? Um Glenn, no. I think the fees have to be a resolution if I'm right and the
standards will be the ordinance. So, you have to bring them both at one time. So, we're going to read the resolution I'll bring on second reading. Okay. We've already had the resolution. Oh, the resolution only takes one, right? Only takes one reading. My point is I think it's a good opportunity to look at our fee structure
for this endeavor. Right. Our compliance department make sure that we are uh we're definitely covering our our cost. You must have ESP in August. I'm bringing back our community standards. I'm sure you are and that's you know
that's why you're doing what you're doing. I'm just Yeah. So absolutely we have Miss Missi. Oops. Cassie Sushi. Um thank you for doing the work. Um, it was good. Thank you all. This was discussed once before and then
Marge was on it and I was reading the transcript and you guys must have read my transcript because you all had the same comments almost as the previous council and Marge was on it. This has already been addressed in our code
already and it's not four pages and it says the special magistrate to consider applications for lean relief. All applications for lean reduction satisfaction and releases or other matters relating to relief from leans shall be directed to the special magistrate. The magistrate shall consider the written request, the
statements of the applicant, the authorized agent for the applicant, the recommendation of town administration, and you could put town council if you want, and any other information deemed relevant, and render a decision on the application. And the the culmination of
the discussion when this came up before was it was addressed instead of this four-page policy that has all these little intricacies in it. And we pay this magistrate for her expertise to make these judicial decisions. I've been to these meetings. She does take
recommendations from the town. Perhaps the only thing you may want to add is the health and safety issue or whatever you want to add, but the four pages has already been addressed and um I just wanted to bring that up and bravo you guys are like people that live in this
town all have the same thoughts and ideas on our home. So, uh, I think the only thing maybe you might want to add is the town council recommendations which can be, you know, brought to the magistrate because I think the issue
that came up at the last time was this is an independent person that we pay to make this decision and they base and I've watched it. They take everybody's recommendation and then they make the decision on those recommendations. So, I just wanted to bring that to your point.
Thank you so much. Okay. Um, any other ones? No. Okay. So, you've got your clear instructions. We're establishing a threshold, establishing a couple of standards just to make it more clear and
let people know what they're getting into before and give your officers a little bit of teeth going out there. And again, big big on education. So, we're going to put it on the website once we get everything done so everybody will know upfront. We'll make sure everybody in the office is aware so
nobody gets the wrong information. Well, don't sit down. You're next. Hi, Judy. Thanks. Let me stay at your house. Okay. The next item number 22 is discussion of interlocal agreement with
Palm Beach County regarding impact fees. And I'm not even sure why we're having this conversation since we have no transportation impact fee in our town. Can we just Why would we even have this discussion? Happy not to have it, but
it just seems cuted up. We can we not can we? So, too, but we were sent the request to join the county's interlocal agreement. I I say let's not waste one second on something that absolutely doesn't even relate to our test. So, so that that be that that begs the
question though. So, it is an agenda item, right? So, just um it's a discussion. Oh, yeah. So, but that begs the question. You I was I happened to be watching a few minutes of of the BOCC meeting today about the CS CSX right
thing that's going on. And after I I I didn't shut it off and that's all I heard was is there a need for a presentation? No. Okay. Motion to approve, motion to disapprove. You know, it's like boom boom boom. It was like bam bam. So, I don't know. Is this something we could do in the past in the future if we all don't think that there's a need for a presentation?
Yes. Okay. Just checking. Okay. Um, so we're going to just strike number 22 because no, we don't want to play their game. It's not relevant to our town. Yeah. Um, we're on to item number 23. Is that you, Jeff?
Well, it's actually Mr. Flame. Who? Mr. Who? He's on Mr. Tony Flame with Sheltering Palms who is on the Zoom. Yes. Um I think
all of you except for perhaps uh Councilman member uh Fendon um met with a representative of uh sheltering palms uh to discuss their offer. Um
it's a situation in which they are um new to the property as owners. They acquired it through a foreclosure. Um, they did not do their due diligence
prior to making the loan and did not realize that there was a conservation easement on the the property. uh when they actually would have viewed the property, uh they wouldn't have recognized that there was
a conservation easement because the trees had already been denuted. Um they are they did acquire the property through the foreclosure. They are trying to sell the property. what they would like
to do is eliminate the conservation easement um and pay the town uh for that privilege. They have offered $150,000.
Um I can go through some uh uh some of the discussions and thoughts but I think since you have all I think been apprised of this issue. Um you may want to to comment and give direction. Okay. But before before we continue, I
know that when I had my meeting, it ended with me having several questions that I wanted the answers to like how many of these such conservation easements exist in town and what are the condition of said conservation easements? In other words, do we have 20
and five of them are denuted and we only know about this one? So the my qu my question is do you have the answer to those questions? Because without the answer to those questions, I don't I don't know how we could discuss this because I don't know how we can make an arbitrary decision about one
conservation easement and we don't know the status of agreed the conservation ements within the town. Uh we do we do know where they are. We have not done an uh how many are there? There are 12 others. There are 12 others that were designated by South Florida. So that's the answer
to the first question. Not they are conservation easements. It's M the designated 12 easements in Bloxy Graves, the town of Block Grubs. Do we know the status of any of them? Um,
we know this one's denuted. Do we know about anything about the other 11? We do not we have not completed the the review and so we're not in a position to um comment on the status of uh them. Okay. Well,
I'm with U Mayor Kaine that uh when I met with them, my big concern was we don't have a policy that that will set a policy. Yeah. To take it peace meal. So, I'm I'm with with Miss Pain on that. And I feel terrible for these people
because I understand the position they're in, but I'm not just willing to take some arbitrary number. This kind of goes back to our earlier conversation on the last item. Paul. So just so we have 12 properties total.
We have 12 conservation. 12 conservation ements and we know which properties and where they're located. Correct, Jeff? Yes. Okay. So I mean we have satellite imagery, etc. So we I mean we can tell really quick if something's been
denuted, right? Well, completely denuted, but not sending people out there to actually do um a look at the properties is where we're at. So, you know which ones appear to be and
which ones appear to be compliant. Correct. Is that what you're saying? I mean, we don't have to send somebody. I mean, I guess my point is is we can look at satellite imagery, right? GIS imagery and be able to you can kind of tell if it's been cleared or it hasn't been
cleared. Our our approach our approach was going to be that we would have to send somebody out there um to actually visually look at things because we don't want to be in a situation that the satellite photo was from last year and
two weeks ago um everything was eliminated. So it So somebody's got to go visit 12 properties. Yes. And if one's 11 Yeah. Sorry. Sorry, Mr. Flame. So So somebody we got to we got to visit 11 properties.
And then I mean are we going to I mean I mean I want to know whether the people who own the properties are even aware that they have a conservation easement on their property. That's another one of my question. No, because no, you know, maybe they don't. Well, I was going to say generally speaking, um,
most of them that kind of go and it's I can tell I know of one that that a cell phone tower went on it and they were forced by the county because, you know, when they got granted their variance from the one neighbor, don't get me started on the whole thing. Um, they
were they were a oneacre easement was enforced and it's still there today. Where that went? Yeah. So, I mean, because the individual asked me before I was even here, he's like, "Oh, I'm doing this. This can you think they'll let me move it?" I said, "You could try, but I don't think so." Um, you know, so I mean, if we have that
list, yeah, I'm with you. I think we need to have that answer that answer before and kind of set a precedent. I mean, how do you set a precedent without knowing? We just randomly throw out 150,000. I mean, we're just Yeah.
We're selling conservation, right? And I'm not willing to do that. I think March was up next. Yeah. Isn't there um a list that could be produced and given to the council members now?
Yes, we can get you the list. You mean the list of the conservation easements? Yes, we can get that to you now. At this very second or do you mean this meeting before we walk out of here?
What are we going to do with it? Can you email it to us? How about emailing it to us with a little bit of information. I I like, you know, maybe tomorrow. I don't I don't want to promise that I can put my hands on 10 minutes.
The other Sorry, I'm gonna defer to Todd for a sec because he had a lot. He put his light on like a good guy. Todd, it's going to be like the running joke of this. So, I I don't want enough information to to make a decision on this tonight. But with that said, I'm not sure what the other properties have to do with this
one. I mean, if the other ones have all been that, you know, destroyed or if all of them are pristine, what does it have to do with this one? I think it's a policy question. Like, for me, it was I wasn't comfortable taking a position on one particular conservation easement. I wanted to
understand if if we were going to adopt a broader policy on this because I think uh and Francine can can confirm this. There's been some discussion of creating conservation easements um to encourage
um land you know saving the canopy and some of the other wild using this money whatever this money is to buy other areas where we need drainage and conservation and create drainage. So before we set a policy of like whether five acres is worth $150,000,
I'm just throwing out numbers. I'm not doing whatever. We need to know where we stand. Yes. And I think too one of my questions is if it's conservation easement, usually there's an entity that that conservation easement is held by. So if it's say Ottabon Society, there's
limitations on tree trimming and and stuff like that. So different different different conservation entities will allow certain maintenances and others don't. So um I I think that's a broader conversation that would impact the decision on this particular property
tonight. If this if if this if this conservation easement belonged to M because they're the ones that dictated the conservation ement correct Jeff correct? Yes. So that belong to So does it now belong to us? Yeah they transferred them all. They transferred them all when Yeah. So
they they now belong to us. I think that you know just devil's advocate. I mean that there's options here. They could they could replant. They could whatever. And I think they're just trying job of what you know. So I I we already have that
the uh you know tree mitigation process in place with that has dollar amounts and things that are you know attached to it. I mean do we do we know if they're all wetlands? Yeah. Well, that's is it fair to say that they were all wetlands all or you know this one was not. You don't know. They're not.
It might have been it originally though and maybe No, this was not a wetland. It was not cuz there's there adjacent property has a wetland on it. This is designated from the Army Corps. So, and that's a whole different you know map and town council I am sending you a map of
where all the conservation easements are and they are hyperl to the conservation easement so you can look at that. Thank you. And do you know if there's been any reduction on their property taxes over the years because of that easement? Do we know that? Because a lot of times you can get reductions on your property taxes. So had they been getting
a reduction on their property taxes for 20 years because of this? The Presbyterian Church has a um cons. That's one of the big ones. Yeah. Yeah. They're tax exempt anyway. So they're not getting a reduction
reduction. Don't give them ideas. So, so I don't I don't I don't know if that has been factored in. I know that at one point in time it had an ad classification. I'd have to look at it to see whether or not it still still does um and whether that's warranted. I
don't know. Mr. Flame has hung on through last week's meeting and and he is uh on now. I don't know if you want to hear from him or he he needs information from us.
Go ahead. Hi everybody. Thank you for for giving me the chance to speak. Um, unfortunately, we had these conversations last month and I was hoping there would be some progress so I could take it back to the board of
directors of the foundation and be able to give them some guidance on how we can move forward. But if if it's going to take some more time to develop a policy, then
I guess that's uh the way council wants to go. I think the consensus is that we don't feel like we have enough information to develop a policy um for a variety of reasons. No, I I understand that and I can
I can see the logic in it. Um, I was hoping this being a a nonprofit organization that came into this property, I don't want to say unwillingly, but it was somewhat unwillingly, that there
would be a an alternative approach to being being able to come up with a solution that keeps that keeps everybody happy. Anybody have anything to say? Paul, you got something you want to say?
Um, Todd, you got something to say before I say anything? No, I mean I I I get what you're saying, Tony. I I mean, and I I get where you guys are coming from, but you know, the whole thing is there's a lot of things that go on around here without a policy
and they didn't have teeth and whatever, and that's kind of where how this conservation easement ended up where it is. Um, you know, so I think I think maybe, you know, and I realize that that, you know, I I I agree with Mr.
Mlennon that, you know, this this shouldn't really have any bearing on other stuff, but I think we need to see what what we're holding in the basket before we you know, and I I think, you know, not saying I'm not I'm not speaking for anybody else, but I would think maybe if
it came back next month, we might have a better standing, better understanding of what's out there, you know? I mean, it could be, you know, it could be 12 total acres of holly trees, you know, and we would know where to go from there. you know, it could be, you know, we have a better understanding. So, I think at
this point, uh, I maybe we can bring it back next month after we get a chance to review. We find out from Palm Beach County if they have a procedure on how to deal with this. If somebody wants to get rid of their conservation easement that's still an unincorporated, do they have a
procedure that they go by? We'll get that. They might already have something and we go, "Oh, this makes sense. This would work." Mhm. By the way, this particular one is number 11 on your map. And additionally, I don't know if anybody remembers, but this property was
subdivided. And the property that Mr. Flame um that Sheltering Palms owns is only half of the property. Well, no, it it's 20 acres. And I want you to know, Mr.
They were not subdivided. They're two separate parcels that were acquired together, but they're the original 20s. So, forgive my mis misstatement um of the words. Mr. Flame, I think we all feel, particularly after having met with you,
you're you're a nice guy. Um and I think that we we realize that you're in a very um your organization has found itself in a very uncomfortable position. Um so um but but
we have to uh we have to create a policy um and once we do create that it's something that has to be followed and sets a precedent for other decisions that are made regarding these conservation easements and conservation and preservation of our rural community is is just a key tenant of this town. So
um I think we're going to have to bring it back next month with some answers to our questions. We'll have the maps. Is it possible, Karen, Jeff, to do inspection, even just cursory inspections of these properties between now and next month's meeting to know what the status of each of them are? I
mean, I know one of them, like Paul said, the one over near his house, that one's fine. It's been fenced off. I got a nod from Karen, so yes. Okay. So, we can have that. Um, and then I think we can make a much more um educated decision um so that we make the right decision, sir. That's that's all
we're looking to do. Okay. That was not even on this list. Um Todd, did you have something you wanted to add? I was just looking at Paul because Paul brought up the map and it looks like where the um 47 acres um for the AR the
proposed RV park has one on it also. It does, but that's been recognized in their site plan. Okay. Thank you, sir, for being here and for hanging in there. We certainly appreciate it. We have two public comments. We have two public comments. Okay, go
ahead. Two public comments. Joseiano 1530 B Road. You guys know how I feel about trees. So, I have an idea. Since there is a very keen group of conservation advocates who formerly sit
on the uldc, which has been put to sleep by SB80, perhaps those people could look at your conservation easements that are erm or whatever. There may be more out there. Could could there be more determined by other Well, there's one that we know of that's
not on this map. Right. So, there's there's maybe five people that would be glad to sit and help Jeff and Karen um find some solutions and answers and dictate determine where they are and
what they look like because a lot of them might not have just been denuted. They may have been dried up because they got land built up around Well, they're not wetlands. They're conservation ements, but they're not. Some of them are wetlands because they are on the uldc
map. That's where I but they're not all I guess my point is they're not all wetlands. So that's what we need to know. And you've got five people that Okay. Two two out of five. Right. Two out of five. So there you go. Okay. You've got some volunteers, Jeff
and Karen. Miss Si, you want to talk to Joe? Well, hang on. Cassie Sushi. Glad I let Joe go because that's a great idea. Um, we have conservation like like the
mayor said, we need to preserve our canopy. We have these conservation edments. Even if they, you know, mowed over them, they're ours and we replant the trees on those easements. I remember a while ago, didn't we have an easement that uh transversed our town east and
west, some railway system, which would have been a fabulous trail to do an intersection in our town instead of having just do, you know, north and south, but we gave it back to people. This is something that belongs to us. We're a rural town. We want to protect
the canopy. even if they did violate their easement and mow over it or whatever, then why don't we whatever extra money we have, we plant the trees back on it. So, I don't think we should, you know, I think a policy is a great idea. So, we have an idea and we're all
thinking on the same page. Um, but I think we definitely need to consider not selling something that's precious like our tree canopy and our conservations easements in our town. You know, one one option that we could do, I mean, I I agree. You know, what I
one one option we could do is, you know, with something like for a second. Oh, Mark had her light on. It's actually before them and you never put your mark. Go ahead, lady. A few words usually. Yeah, she'll be quick. She actually wanted to speak, I believe, directly to Joe, did you not? They can
all be recorded on the floppy. She was actually wanting to speak directly to you. I thought um back before we even incorporated uh there was a group of residents working uh with M about these uh conservation
easements that were in our town. And when we then incorporated and I was on the um council, the first council, M hunted me up and produced this list
and and and got us to uh present it as we accept these conservation easements. We had to as a now town accept them. So they were then given to Jim Fleshman who was supposed to come up with all kinds
of information about these. So it's only been 20ome years that we've been waiting for this information, but we'll get it right Joe. You can't rush like that. Okay.
So So I'm anxious to see the map. Uh I've seen the list. I'd like to see the map. I know where some of the easements are and I know there were some other um things that were given to us by the
county like 22nd Street off of Sea Road that that was given to us by county uh and and we had to accept it. And there were little pieces of roads and driveways uh uh you know that they gave
us back then also and we've ex we've accepted them in various ways. Uh Richard, you probably know some of the Okay. Okay. I I we've been doing some non light lighting up over here, so I apologize. Um
yeah, just an option just cuz after we leave here tonight, we won't be able to talk about it. So, you know, just an option I think going forward as we try to come up with this policy, you know, um the monies whether we think that's too small or we need more money or whatever to to do, you know, to buy to
buy back the piece of dirt that's sitting there now. Um those monies would go similar to the mitigation the tree mitigation money, right? So it would be it would be designated for sole purpose of either replanting trees or you know
there might be there might be small properties out there in inside that are you know worthless for building because they are so low because they are a wetland right that we could purchase as and put a boardwalk in or something as a as a walking trail or something just to kind
of feed off our you know so that's you know it's just looking for money to do things and etc. So, you know, that's just I think that's something to keep in mind that we might not just be, you know, selling back a piece of piece of dirt that should have had trees on it,
but we might be, you know, actually um protecting something for the future. And by the same token, if if we can come up with a a reasonable amount for this that's already denuted, I mean, let's face it, and let these people be able to sell their property and then purchase
another similar piece of property and plant trees on it or use it as a I mean, you know, that would be something to consider, but you have to replace like with like I mean, it's already gone. There's like there nothing we can do about that. It's already gone. It's just like the people that come in in the weekend and,
you know, unfortunately cut their property. It's done. It's a done deal. So, it's not it's not about punishing Mr. Flame and his organization for what someone else did. It's about coming up with a reasonable solution. So, let's move along so we can get done before 9:00. Guys,
a minute. Wait, she's talking to you again. One of the things that I think should happen uh with your committee is that uh you come up with guidelines as to what they are uh required
to maintain this as a um conservation area. I mean just because you ignore it and let it grow wild, does that make it a conservation area? I don't know. I mean there must be standards that they have. I guess it depends on if it's a wetland or what a canopy or what it is.
Well, and you know, wetlands just they're they're mitigated by by dollars and cents. I mean, you can drive if you can get in homeland through the gate right now there there's plenty of there's plenty of wetlands that are being developed, right? So, they're just mitigated with dollars and cents to the right
organization and and you you no longer have a wetland on your property, right? So, that's why I say, you know, we have some that are wetlands. Not to say that it couldn't be developed, but you know, depending on how bad it is, you know, as far as how low, but you know, so it's
just food for thought because yeah, if somebody has a wetland on their property, all they have to do is get the right organization the right amount of money and it's mitigated and it's done and they'll clean it right off. Okay, perfect. One thing, one more comment. Okay, good. One more comment for the uldc since
Joe's volunteered him. Um, I think along with what Marge mentioned, um, perhaps establishing a minimum of acreage, like if you have five, maybe it's a minimum of a half acre or a quarter acre like could I don't know. I'm just throwing that out there. Is that something
must be left in conservation fill up the Yeah. To make it worthwhile, right? Like if they want to do like a an eighth of an acre on 10 acres, it's not really much of a conservation easement. You're talking future. you're not existing, right? Yes. If they're going to come up with a policy. Yeah.
Yeah. Because I know like the Presbyterian Church is eight acres, but uh I think less than two are conservation, right? Yeah. And Okay. Just one thing to to clarify because um Mr. Coleman did make
a a point about having a boardwalk and and accessibility on a purchase of a property that monies could be utilized for none of these easements are accessible to the public. Yeah. Where they at this time
these conservation easements they might be right. You know neighbors are not allowed to to come and enjoy them and so on private property right. So whereas if we swapped it out and bought a property, we could create something beautiful like a Marjory Stone and Douglas Park and
have that for people to come to. Okay, we're on to the items that were pulled from the consent agenda. Mr. Mlenda, you pulled item number six. Yeah, it item six was um putting uh Cassie Suchi on the planning and zoning. Um I pulled that because I'm not sure
it's appropriate, not because of who it is, but because of her profession, you know. So part of the not necessarily a hard set requirement, but it talks about having an engineer, a realtor, um an attorney, somebody in the construction trade should be on planning and zoning.
Um like I said, it's not a hard, you know, that has to meet those requirements, but it it's something that we should try to strive for. Um I think Cassie's a very intelligent person. She'll do the due diligence, all of that, but it doesn't meet those requirements. And
I think it also says government experience, right? So, she certainly has that in spades in within this town on uldc and everything else. So, I'm not sure that that's what they mean by government experience. I I would prefer to see a contractor and somebody
in that in that form. Um, so for that reason, I would vote I would make a motion to deny that um having her on there. I think this was already voted on. This was just housekeeping to get the resolution done. And I'm voting. My
motion is to deny this. Okay. Is there a second for that? Well, do we need to have a second first or public comment first? Do I have a second for Todd's motion? I have a second. Okay. So, it fails with for failing to
receive a second. Okay. So, then motion to approve it. There's one. There's a public comment. Miss Suchi, would you like to make a motion to approve it? Did you want to speak? Hold on a second. We have a public
comment first. I'm just gonna Miss Suchi Cassie Suchi. So, um, it it's the the criteria was recommendations and government experience, which I have. I've been on boards, but I also was working uh with a property appraiser to
actually become a property appraiser. Unfortunately, my person passed away. Um so, that was another experience I had besides um legislative and government, you know, information. So, I just wanted to bring that out. It had to do with real estate as well, but those were just
recommendations and um that's all I need to bring. Thank you. Do I have a motion to approve? Motion to approve. Second resolution 202551. All in favor? I
opposed. I I Okay, passes three to two. Item number eight, I believe. Lisa, you were the one who pulled this item. It was actually eight and nine and and the question is at a time. Yeah. Well,
eight first. They're kind of on the same vein. Um this is it was just for clarification. Uh this is obviously something that only gets utilized should we be in need of their services. Um do we have a number
figure for what we have paid for past hurricane cleanup? Do do we have kind of an idea of what this is going to run us? It every cleanup depends on the storm of course. So I don't think I can answer that question. you don't even have like a
range like I I actually have some relevant information that I can share. Okay. So, um first of all, I think it's was incredibly irresponsible of this council to go a week during hurricane season with having without passing this. I
think it was very irresponsible. Just putting that out there. But anyhow, this is a a SWA contract that was cooperatively bid. It's not actually a piggyback bid. It's a cooperative bid. Um there has not yet to date that I can
find and I've asked a lot of people been one example where FEMA hasn't reimbursed people when using this particular process. The reason that they do cooperatively bid it as opposed to piggyback I know piggyback is not the right word anymore. There's some other word you're supposed to use but you get what I mean. It's a cooperative purchase
agreement right? So the reason they do that is so it can be very comprehensive and include multiple municipalities and be the best bid. Okay. So that's why it's getting reimbursed. Um the reimbursement rate goes at this 75% by
the federal government, 12.5 by each state and local government. Okay. Um, notably in the last two Florida events, 90% was paid out by the federal
government if the work was done within 30 days after the event. Recently, that has been changed legislatively to 90 days from the event. So, we have that for the future. So with the 90% being
paid historically for the last two events, um that only leaves 5% for state and local. So that kind of really eases our burden a lot. And this only includes town property, corre? No, this includes any disaster
relief done in the town. So the residents would have this picked up too, or is it just any the debris? This is all about debris pickup. This is if your roof gets blown off and you can get it out to drag it, pull it, shuff it up, get it out to the
side of the road, hook a horse to it thing that you know where they came with all those trucks and very quickly I mean we had we had probably the best response I can say we had the best response in Palm Beach County between what what Ashpick did for us and what we had some local groups that got together and did
for residents to help them get the stuff to where Ash could take it out. we were really on top of it. Um, but again, I think like to go even a week during hurricane season without this contract in place, I think we we slipped up, guys. Well, historically, this is not peak
hurricane season. If a hurricane, it happened in that answers all my questions for both eight and Okay, so eight and nine can be I can have a motion. Motion to approve 8 and n. All in favor? Hi.
No. Whether Marie or Lisa seconded that first. I'm sorry. But actually, I think all four of us, but it was unanimous. Well, that was okay. Um, and the last one that was pulled was item number 12. I believe that was you, Todd as well. 12 wasn't 12. 15.
12 wasn't 12. We wasn't pulled and it wasn't pulled. 12 was 15. Was 15 because we had the wrong agenda when we were doing this. But that wasn't consent. 12. 15 wasn't consent. 15 wasn't consent.
Regular regular item. Yeah. So, yeah. Yeah. Okay. Was there 12 was uh 15 we took care of, right? Yes. All right. So, we're done. Yeah. 12 was approved, right? Katie Lakeman wasn't and 47 isn't 47. And town
manager, do you have any closing comments? I guess I do. I need direction. I sent to council following last council meeting um a markedup copy of the request for letters of interest for legal services
that we did last time and I'm glad I looked right away because it was for interim services. Um I had a series of questions that I wanted to ask you. Um I didn't get any feedback from anyone. So, um, first thing I think I should share
with you is that I clarified that we're, um, welcoming both individual and firm responses, and I put in wording for in-house counsel. Um, and later on I also said for in-house
counsel they need to be able to provide what a budget looks like and an uh employment agreement and um for the scope of services. Uh I didn't know if you wanted to
include anything. and I spoke with Karen and we thought maybe we should put a foreclosure attorney in here because we have talked to several foreclosure attorneys um and we need to bring one forward to council um maybe since we're
going out with a request we would add in a foreclosure attorney. Okay. Um Todd, do you have something to say? Yeah. So, since the last meeting, I've talked to Jeff extensively about his contract that was presented. Um, the process for finding an outside attorney
is going to take some time. And, uh, we had discussed or Jeff and I had discussed potentially going with a contract with him where there is no golden parachute, for lack of a better word, um, for 6 months where we come to
an agreement with him where he's a town attorney for 6 months. If in five months we decide we don't want to continue with him, we can cancel his contract and there is no, you know, penalty on us even if it's without cause. In the meantime, we can still go out and try to
find a firm because either case we're going to need a firm in any either way, whether we go in-house or not. Um, and I'm just curious if the rest of the council is open to doing something like that. This way can Glenn can move on. I'm sure Glenn wants to be out of here.
um he gave his notice and this would efficiently move that forward. Um and I'm just curious if there's any any other thoughts on that. Is that a motion? I I have concerns about um how many
votes it takes to hire and fire. So on your under your scenario, what does that look like? Um we could set his contract up where it's only a six-month contract and it wouldn't take any. it would just sunset at 6 months or it would take three
and what about all those other perks and I mean I think there's that's a lot more I think what he's saying is that we start if I if I'm going to interpret this I think what he's saying is that we consider trying a sixmonth
no harm no foul kind of probationary period with the in-house counsel and use that time period as an opportunity to decide whether this model is working for us, this is what we want, this is the
right person. Um, and that uh if at the end of 6 months we decide that that's not working, then he walks away from that position and we walk away from having him in that position. and that that would give us
the time to actually do a search for another firm in a more responsible way. Is that accurate? If we could if we could take a break. Okay, I appreciate it.
Okay, we recessing recess for five minutes. speak on Mr. Curts. Yes, I I did have I did have conversations with
uh with Todd at at his request and what I understood that he was proposing and I think actually what what we had talked about was the idea of entering into a multi-year contract.
Um uh but within the first 6 months if I was terminated within that time period then there would be no severance um package. Um but it was not a
situation in which it was a six-month contract and then we would look forward to an additional contract. It was that after after the six-month period um if I
was still employed by the council and um you know somewhere during the term of that contract beyond that the council elected to to terminate then severance would be um there. Uh so that would have
put us into the the January time frame as to when the the council um if I was still around um would uh and they decided to to terminate me later then
there would be a severance assuming that it didn't make it all the way to the uh to term and assuming that the termination was without cause. So, on a a six-month contract, and I had indicated to you previously that I didn't think um a
short-term contract was in anybody's best interest, um a six-month contract puts you in the position of you're continuously looking for um a new uh new attorney. You'd have
to have that availability. you'd have to, you know, have somebody in case it didn't work out, there would be a presumption that the the term would end at that point in time, subject to renegotiation and all those kind of
things. Um, and that puts the town in this situation of not moving forward. You know, one of the things that we had discussed is the council didn't make a decision
um the other night. They just kicked everything um down the the road. Um and you put your decision point uh sometime in the September time period. Um and then whoever is chosen or
whatever entity is chosen to to do the job, they're just gearing up and and moving forward. Um and at the same point in time, uh the organization has to move
forward, produce an an agenda. I I mean a a um a budget um and be in a position to decide how they're going to to to reorganize. And obviously
if I took a a position on an interim basis um then I would not be a part of the administration um and the administration you know they would all move forward and do whatever they were going to do propose um how to
operate this place um and it's not like there would be a place for me after that. you wouldn't want to hire somebody or or you know have them in that position. We'd be in this just position of standing still just as you are right
now with uh Mr. Tibia and his firm hanging in there for another two months uh have to move forward. So, a six-month contract, I don't think makes any sense for me, and
I don't think it makes any sense for uh the town. You'll be in this stagnant position. Um, so I didn't want to let the discussion go on. Um, I am not interested in a a six-month uh position.
I am perfectly okay with a multi-year contract where during the first six months if I was uh to be removed, the town would not have to pay me any severance or anything like that. Todd, did you want to alter your motion
or did you want to what would you first? Well, so I wanted to discuss, so one of the things I discussed with Jeff with going in in-house attorney is we're going to be at 300,000 minimum going in-house because by the time we have Jeff his benefit package, a parallegal
that benefit package, we're at 300,000 minimum for legal services moving forward. Um, and I know before you were on here, Lisa, before um before Glenn was here, our legal services were a lot less than 300,000 per year, right? So, I
don't know what happened after I left and Glenn came on, but the legal services have gone up drastically since then. Um, and I'm hoping that we can bring it down to less than 300, but going in-house, we'll keep it at minimum 300,000. We don't have that opportunity
to go less than 300,000. So, you know, that's a hesitation on my part. I wasn't crazy about his um with Jeff's contract with the 20we, you know, um without cause termination. That seemed pretty excessive. Um
so, yeah, I I don't I'm fine with doing the three-year contract with him with the six months that, you know, we can cancel it. Um Lisa brought up how many people it would take and it it would probably take four to cancel at that point. So, if we went out and we did lever interest with firms and we had a
firm that came in, I think we would be stuck with we would need four people to move away from Jeff and move to that firm. So, that's a valid point that Lisa brought up. So, I'm not ready to make a motion yet, but I would like to hear from other council members where their thoughts are
Paul. I I don't understand. I mean, I I understand, but I don't understand it. six-month contract or a six-month probationary period, it's the same thing, right? It's it's the same thing. Either we're going to move forward or we're not going to move forward. If
you're in an interim basis, you're still part of the administration. You're not sitting on the outside not doing anything. I mean, you're doing the town attorney job now. Somebody else is going to have to do the other stuff. So, I to say we wouldn't be moving forward doesn't make any sense to me, sir. I mean, we still need to move forward. So,
and I mean I I I had mentioned something similar to that when we had a discussion the other day. Um it was a little bit longer, but you know I I don't again I don't you know to say okay well we'll put a six-month in there no harm no foul
policy but it takes it still takes a 41. So according to the contract right so according to the charge according to the charge it takes a 4-1. So there there really is no
I don't know I we may as well just write the contract. What what's the point in the the no harm no foul six month? Well the difference is it's a three or four vote, right? So if he does six-month contract, it takes three people to extend it. So it just f it just dies. I get that. Now, what I'm saying is
what's the difference in having a a six-month probationary period in the three-year contract when you still need a you still need a 4-1 vote? Not not if it's a six-month contract that just ends. No, it's not what I said, Todd. What's
the What's the purpose in putting Okay, let me rephrase. What is the purpose of putting a six-month probationary period in if it still takes a 41? because then he doesn't get his 20 weeks severance and all the other severance package that goes with it during that first six months. We can say no I Okay. Okay. I I can see we're we're
we're doing this tiff for tat. I understand he'll he won't get his 20 weeks. I understand all that. My point is there's no difference. The only difference is he's not getting the seance package. That's the only difference. So if we're not happy in six months, he doesn't get the seance
package. That is the only difference in the whole thing. So to to me there's no that's not I don't know and and do we really make it can we really make a good decision in six months. I mean there's a lot of a lot of stuff that you know still needs to happen whatever I I don't
I don't well we have to if we don't go with him we've got to make a decision very fast because Glenn's out of here right so and we're not going to start loading up Glenn with more projects of course we're not going to ask Glenn to do anything.
Yeah, we've gone to do something pretty quick is my point. Lisa, did you have something to add to the conversation? So, yeah, Todd had asked me um you know about the concerns of the cost increasing. If you go back to the June 3rd agenda
where Mr. Torcivia provided his breakdown. It is clear that the legal cost from 2022 going forward have have just continue to go up escalate and he provided additional
towns that pay in the 200,000 range based on a breakdown of his report. He's also said repeatedly that the costs have been associated with uh staff driving certain certain cost
drivers here. I think I personally think we we did make a decision and that decision was to move forward with going out for a a request for qualification or proposal. Um and I think that
uh there are I never got into Mr. Curts's contract discussion because we move forward this. I have serious concerns about the contract and questions there. So, I think that this goes back to council putting parameters around the spending. Um, I know that the
manager has repeatedly stated that she has been telling council since January. That was 7 months ago. And we're only now getting the amendment to the budget for that. I think council should have a policy that the minute that that becomes a a thing that they're aware of that
agenda, I'm sorry, that amendment should be coming forward within 30 or 45 days. I think that as we move forward into budget discussions, this is a bigger part of that discussion and um I'm perfectly happy with the previous decision. I'm I'm not inclined to do
anything temporary. it does kick into a lot of things that that contract does require us to jump into with senior management uh retirement with state of Florida. There there's just a lot of moving parts there that I think that going into it in a in a interim basis
like that and my concern of a supermajority to change it. So So is it fair to say no matter how we how we change his contract, you would not be okay with it? Is that fair to say? I
well there's a lot of questions about the contract that I'm based on Mr. Curts's responses in the previous conversation would not be suitable for him. So um and mine also would require not a multi-year contract. Um something shorter. So
two years would be okay because I think he's open to two years is why I say that. I I think it should be an annual and I think that we we don't know enough and as I said previously with an outside attorney we can turn that faucet off and there it's
quite apparent in the information that was provided that other towns can do this cost-effectively. Apparently Locket Groves in the last three years has not been able to achieve that. So there could be there could be issues on both sides right I mean we five different attorneys from this law firm
right? So I mean there's a learning curve every time that happens. I mean, we're past all that though, right? We're past pointing the finger is my point. Yes. But I do think that um we we could do a better job from here, right? Controlling those costs. I agree. So,
yeah. Anybody else have anything to say? Well, I mean, all I can say is I think we're missing an opportunity by not going inhouse because I think that it will lend a lot of efficiency. I
think that Jeff is already in the loop and I think that a lot of the uh delays and not getting stuff done would happen more quickly and more efficiently. And I personally think that the current
situation is not okay um with the legal counsel that we're getting and uh I I think we need to take some kind of action now, not some kind of action two months from now. This is action item and a vote has
already been cast. I I firmly and strongly disagree with this approach tonight. Okay. Well, thank you. Um, so I feel like we need to take action more quickly than two or three months from
now, as Mr. Curts pointed out, when we're already at the end of the budgeting process. Um, and I I would like us to take some kind of action tonight. You hear Todd's uh two-year
Well, it's not mine. I think Jeff can speak on that, right? You you said you were hoping to a possible two-year instead of threeyear. I don't know if that's changed or not. No, that that hasn't changed. What uh what I had suggested to
uh to Todd and and others was that um I if two years is obviously a little bit less um security, it's a a little bit less time. Um, and so I would request a
higher starting um, salary. Look at the contract. Okay. Do we have some public comment before we real quick? Can we Can we do something for the record? You know, I like to protect the public record. Yes, ma'am. I raised the issue of what was voted on
last week, which was I needed direction on the request for letter of interest. However, it appears that we're reconsidering an item that was voted on. And so, a prevailing party can bring an item back for reconsideration.
And I think the vote on this last time, I don't recall what the vote on it was. We actually didn't vote yes or no on this contract if I'm not mistaken. Correct. We voted on doing a letter of interest and go out, but I don't think we voted yes or no on his contract. No, you didn't. You didn't address it.
Okay. Well, I would like to have that on the record. Um because however we move forward, I would like to be able to be correct in doing so. Okay. Well, if we're going to take the
if we're going to take the action to move this forward, then I will make the notes that I want to see changed on the contract and I will certainly submit them. Um, it it involves the health insurance questions. It involves some of the other stuff. So, and I think a
contract would have to be completely rewritten anyway with your six-month proposal. Uh, yeah, one sentence would be one sentence. And I don't think we should require a supermajority to change it. So So we're going from
so a simple majority. I don't think you can because of the yarn char with a simple majority. You can renegotiate but you cannot terminate because the charter is the the the guiding document
with regard to that. Right. So it would take four. Yeah. Anyone that we hire takes a four to one. I'm I think if we're unhappy after six months, I think we're all going to be unhappy. And I think if we're happy after six months, we're all going to But I think we all sat here a week ago and said, "We need to do our due
diligence and we need to and and we need to we need to No, that Oh, I thought you sat right there and said, "Oh, yeah, our due diligence." And you prepared what I said. I think I I think it's perfect to George a can down the road can
that into spending a whole bunch of money that we don't need to spend. That's just my personal Well, in all fairness though, even if we did go with his contract tonight, we're still doing a request for letter of intent to try to get an outside firm. That's still going to happen anyway. And if like I said, if we got a firm and in
five months we could say, you know what, Jeff, it's not working out. We're going to make this firm, you know, the attorney that this firm provides the town attorney. So the due diligence still would be happening just in the interimm we would be using Jeff with a long-term contract. Yes.
No. I say absolutely not. It's gone after six months. Right. That could be that could be canceled without any absolutely not with a 4-1 vote. Correct. And that's what I was saying. The difference from a six-month contract. It wouldn't take a 4-1 vote. Right. He doesn't want to do a six month.
I I get that. Get it. Any thoughts, March? No, I I I thought that he was willing to do the uh six months. We do have a public comment.
Okay. And apparently in hand L's got a hand up back there. Len doesn't know how to use the electronic. I know. I've already said I can't see his little fingers waving. Let me take a public comment, Glenn, and then we'll let we'll let you weigh in.
Due diligence. Where did that go? We don't have figures. We don't have costs. We have percentages that have to be paid on top of base salaries for pensions. Uh there's questions in the contract which requires him to be unavailable for 10
hours. Where's that going? Um what about the when he talks about limits of his liability to actions, what does that mean? Um he talks about in the contract about something about teaching or consulting. I believe it was in the contract. We need to go back through the
contract and go through it. It was glanced through. It was a discussion. Um, the other thing is if you're looking for, okay, we've been talking about leans and code enforcement and going to foreclosures. Are we going to have to outsource? What
do we have to outsource that he doesn't specialize in because stuff we would have? Well, that's what I'm saying. So, my point being is due diligence. We don't even know the final cost and you guys are just coming up with stuff. Um, that's a disservice to this community. you guys have to you agreed to out to
put it out to bid and what Todd says if we have a firm and he could hire his own firm make his own firm and we could hire him as his firm and then we're not obligated to pay all these other things because I agree with Todd we all sat here and watched these prices go up and
I don't think it was inflation what caused it and if other towns are keeping them down why can't we I mean I just did a preliminary cost of the pension through the FRS his base salary with the increase of5 5,000 every year and his base salary was over two, you know, what
we paid including the base salary and the pension was over 200,000 and that didn't include uh all these other perks. I didn't even go through the contract, but then you have extra personnel involved and then what are we outsourcing? So, you know, I I agreed with Todd when he
said if we outsource and he can definitely put in for a firm and then we're not obligated because we're looking at all these other costs. Do we even know what they are? Are we just making a decision? Are we just buying a car because we like a red car? Someone just buy a car, but it might be a Lamborghini. Oh, now I'm in I have to
pay $250,000 for a car because I didn't do my due diligence. So, we need to do that. You know, please take your time, slow down, put it out for a bit if you want. He can apply. He can apply as a firm, which I thought was a fabulous idea uh to keep cost down. just to just
to randomly just make this decision, you know, I'm going to buy property because it's for sale, but I go there and it's it's a swamp or it's a conservation easement, you know, because I didn't do my due diligence. You know, we're doing our due diligence on conservation
easements. We're doing our due diligence on lean reductions, but this is fly by the seat of our pants. So, you made a decision to go out to bid. I would go out. I think it came up that Glenn can hang on in interim like here. If it takes 30 days, he can do another 30 days
till we go out. But we don't even have a total cost. Glenn, what do you have to say? So, I'm going to go out on a limb and try to find a compromise that might be acceptable to everybody. Maybe not, but
I'm listening to the back and forth and different concerns. So, how about Jeff gets hired on a contract that expires in six months unless it's renewed by three of you.
Okay? So, you get that three vote, not four vote issue taken care of. But if it's renewed by three of you at the end of six months, it's renewed for an additional two years. So, he's essentially getting a two and a half year contract, which is not quite the three he was asking for, not quite the
two that the town seemed willing to do. And that might be the way to kind of get over this hump so that you preserve your ability at the end of six months if three of you don't want Jeff to stay. And I'm not sure whether Jeff's going to accept this either. I'm trying to find a
middle ground here. And if and if at the end of six and no severance for those first six months obviously it's almost like a probation whenever you use that words. But if he passes the six months, then the full four uh four vote kicks in
and two additional years kick in. And what about the hiring of a legal parallegal and an assistant and another project coordinator? And I I don't I mean all those are legitimate issues. I mean I think you all know my feeling.
I think your legal fees have been going out of control, frankly, ever since Francine became the manager. So, let me just put it out there. When you look at the letters, the the town's legal fees were 200,000 a year for years and years and years. And when she became intram
manager, they went to 288 and then they're 400. So, you know, you I think you come sometimes look in the wrong direction. So you're you're going to be spending 300,000 plus a year whether it's in-house or outside. That's just the way it's going to be. If it's Jeff
is 300 and you're going to have another 50 to 100 another outside lawyer because no one lawyer can represent a whole town. But um you know unless you can get your internal legal fees under control and that's not been successful. Jeff, if
Jeff is your choice, then I'm only trying to propose how to get to Jeff, which is six. Let me recap it. Six months. At the end of six months, you can renew it for an additional two years. The terms and conditions are already negotiated. And perhaps one of
you, maybe Todd and I and Jeff can sit together and try and negotiate the details because I hear, you know, Commissioner Al Ramy has concerns about some things, Mr. Coleman has some concerns, but it seemed like the time of it is your key. Does does that have any
takers that idea of six months, if three people renew it, it's two additional years and then four votes kick in and it renews with three or cancels with three at the end of the six months and that still fulfills our charter. It wouldn't cancel with three. You would
it would just die. It would just die at three. So, I'm trying to marry Todd and Jeff's kind of proposals there into into one package and then at the end of six months, you know, hopefully you say Jeff's doing a great job and and you move forward.
But that but that's essentially what I had said originally was six months and then, you know, we could continue at that point and Jeff's not open to that if I'm unless I misunder I tried to find a middle ground between the both of you guys were saying. Right. Right. It's it's kind of the same. By the way,
I just wanted to state for the record because the public records an important thing to keep clean. The Toribia firm had the contract with the town starting in 2019 and in 2019
and 2020, we ranged from 150 to 170. When Mr. Torivia changed attorneys and we no longer had Brian on the account. The fees went up to $300,000. I sent a note and I was not the manager
at the time, but I was very concerned about the fees and I um communicated that as we were trying to put together um a budget amendment for 2022 and a budget for 2023. So, I do agree that we
have gotten a lot done last week. I agreed with Mr. Torcivia about what we thought the driver of the increase was. I do think if everybody looks at the last item that's been on the agenda for the years that I've been manager, those
were things that the council said to do. At every council meeting, the council gave additional direction. Those items got delayed. Again, we have talked about who shot John, but I am not going to decide that I am the sole arbiter of how
we spent our money. I rang the bell when the money started flowing out of here. And I did not stop. When we sat to do last year's budget, we all sat down together, including the mayor, to go over whether we were going to go
in-house and use that number or whether we were going to stay on a contract. I supported staying on the contract. The reason I supported staying on the contract is because the years of investment that we had in the same list
of priorities and I against coun many council's wishes asked that we could continue to have certain attorneys on our account because they did good work and got our work done. So if anybody is to blame for any spending,
I will take 100% responsibility for the spending this year with the outside legal firm because I asked that we keep them because of the work that we had done together. That work didn't get done. Other things came up and we were given other direction. But I stand by
what I've said at every meeting. I have nothing but respect for Mr. toward Civia and his firm and I have been watching and reporting the expenses all along. Thank you. Todd, do you want to finish up this item? You brought it up or what do you
want to do? Are you open to that to that contract like that at 6 months it would terminate without any motion? Um, I think if we were to work on the concept, because
I'm hearing Glenn say say something and I'm not sure that you guys are are hearing it and I don't think it is effective to try to negotiate this in in public. Um but I will say that you
I have made the point um to I think each of you that I have talked to about the subject. Um, if you put
uh me in the position of the town attorney and we don't try to hire a a parillegal, I don't think that I will be successful
um given all that that is out there. um there's not an excess there's not any real administrative support within the organization and to take on that role I would need the
administrative support and I mentioned to you um at the last meeting and Todd you and I had the conversation um of well how do you go out and hire
somebody. Um, and I think you you made the point, how how would you recruit somebody if you only had six months for them to to take the the job, the parillegal, you know, how do you how do you get them in there and say, "Well, we got a really good situation for for six
months and then my contract over um and and you're subject to that." So, I think I think it would be a very difficult situation. I'm not sure that that Glenn is is talking about a termination. I
almost thought it was going to be there would be a pre-negotiated contract so that at the six month mark we would know right now what the two-year contract look like. Um, and if
that was something, we could work on it. But, uh, you know, I don't I I think if you're if we're going to work on it, you know, we got to work on it tomorrow or the next day and get back
in here because we're just treading water and I don't think that's good for anybody. No. Uh, If I could, pleasure of counsel, the hearing what what Jeff just said.
Um, and the idea that you need to hire someone certainly you do that no one person without either a parillegal or an attorney or someone else helping. Maybe it's instead of six months, maybe it's nine months. You know, maybe it's
nine months and at the end of nine months, the contract automatically expires unless it's renewed by three votes. You I don't mean to be rude. I don't I don't mean to be rude, but I'm not going to negotiate any further in public. It is a
waste of time and effort to try to figure this out at this point in time. If you and I and a designated council person want to sit down and try to come up with something,
I am imanable to that. But I'm not going to waste everybody's time sitting here um at at this moment and trying to figure out a contract. Glenn, do you
suggest a motion for someone to make to help what Mr. Curts and you are talking about happen? Yeah, I I would suggest a motion that the council appoint one of the members of the council to meet with Jeff and I and come up with the best agreement that
we can and bring it back at the August meeting and then it's voted up and or up and down. That way you have something that uh we negotiate the best we can and circulate it at least a week in advance so that all of you have a chance to see
it. And that may be the way because Jeff is right. Trying to negotiate in public is the absolute worst thing you can do and you're negotiating with six people. And I also ask that council please take
a look at the draft document that I circulated because it is true that we do need certain legal services. Um and I would rather have your comments on this request for letters of interest sooner than later.
I I I had a couple of things on that. Okay. Um thank you. The the date for the attendance of the workshop and council meeting for August 12th. Yes. Yes. Is that just a proposed date? Just a proposed date. I just put these in so that they show a time frame to get
here by September 2nd, right? Um and that we would then be offering the job and approving it at the council meeting where they would then be taking over immediately. That's what we did the last time. Okay. If it's not red, it's what we did the
last time. I only put And I don't know if you have a color copy there. I do. Okay. I only put the red in to clarify the in-house or where you know the dates were you know the old dates. Okay. Um are do we not have a meeting on
the 19th? Did that get cancelled? Um August 19th is peasy. It's it's a planning application but we could certainly put the interviews that day. It's I think the last time we devoted a special meeting to it.
Okay. and Francine saying a special meeting maybe that proposed motion I suggested rather than putting this all the way off the August and it's part of a regular meeting maybe there's a special meeting in two weeks July 22nd by then and you have one item on the agenda and this is
it and if if that's not going to pass this iron out pardon me but this is for the RLI this is no I'm I'm I'm kind of back on the agreement with Jeff because if you're waiting another almost full month until we bring it back you've kind of lost a And if the three three people
everybody willing to let Todd be the negotiator since they've already started having the conversation is that is everybody willing to let that Todd and Jeff and Glenn bring us back something on the 22nd at six o'clock. I I'll be out of town. Can you zoom? I can zoom.
Okay. The 22nd 6 o'clock. And what are we going to do with the letter of interest in the in the meantime? We're gonna all provide our comments to Francine and and we're going to add a foreclosure
and it's going to go on there, too. So, on the 22nd, we're going to settle the legal issue once and for all. Well, I'm not sure we are because No, we're not. I'm confused now. We're going to we're going to vote on the 22nd for the letter of interest to go out.
No, you actually voted on that already. Okay. You voted on So on the 22nd we will have firms that will be here that are No. On the 22nd you're just we're just talking about Jeff's contract. That's the only thing that's going to be there. Whether we're going to move forward with that or not
and you're going to negotiate in the meantime. How how fast can we get firms here at the same time and potentially do it on the same meeting? I don't think we can get firms here on the 22nd. What I did last time, and the reason I brought this item up is because
what I did last time is I reached out to all the legal firms and emailed them directly the application without doing any advertising at all. And we talked last time about doing advertising. If you wish me to try to get legal firms to
do it by the 22nd, I think that's probably improbable. Um, okay. What about the 29th? A week, another week. Is that possible? And do it all the because you said we could settle it all at once on the 22nd, but we may not. We
may not be able to come to an agreement and it's not settled. And that's why my thought is if we have firms here at the same meeting, then it come to an agreement. Well, it could. Sorry, we wasted the firm's time, right? If you're an outside, we're gonna have we're going to have firms that have wasted their time
anyway. If we have five show up, we're only going to select one of them. If we leave it as interim services, people will understand that it may or may not happen. Just thinking it said interim last time.
Oh, if we leave the the the RFP for the bid for that was my number one question. Should I have it last time? What we did because I had to go back and remember all of it. What we did last time was we did there's nothing that there's nothing to stop us from advertising it as interm
and then saying kidding. Well, no. What happened last time is it was interimm for a period of time and then it converted to permanent. They they were interm right here. They are how many years later? Yeah. Right. So if I do this as income and I contact
all the attorney firms, I know I can do that in the matter of a day or two. We want to make it the 29th. But I think that's you mentioned that you had very little interest when you put it out before from individuals. We had very little interest from individuals because what I
did was I actually contacted besides it being on our website, I actually contacted um the Palm Beach County um League of Cities and I also sent it to all the attorneys in Palm Beach County or pretty
close to it. I think I sent to like, you know, 19 firms. I didn't send it to anybody that wasn't doing that. So, so wasn't League of Cities what we discussed putting this in their public. I can put it in their weekly newsletter. She's saying she thinks she might be able to get a faster result by just
reaching, but that was what we discussed. This was going with cities. If you see their weekly newsletter, they always so that to keep the cost down and if you make phone calls and put it in the free thing that's Yeah.
Richard is retiring. Well, it'll be interesting to see who comes next. So, just for the direction, I'm going to leave the interim on there. I'm going to add some language for foreclosure experience and I'm going to leave the
red wording in unless somebody sends me some changes because it was really pretty much to clarify. It could be in-house or it could be a firm and Jeff and Glenn and Todd are going to meet to try to negotiate something
between now and then. Is that we're all in consensus on that? So, where's Lisa sending her questions? The Todd, you can't do that. You can't send them to Todd. Don't do that. I'm just saying, Valerie. Send them or Glenn.
Send them to Glenn. There you go. Send to me. And then so July 22nd will be a what I'm going to call a Jeff day. And if it's successful with Jeff, then whatever you do with the other firms is irrelevant. And if if it's not successful, then you're going to
interview those on the 29th. It sounded like I thought we were going to do the 29th. 22nd is out. We're doing everything on the 29th. Jeff or firm. Let let me suggest you have Jeff first because if I'm an outside firm and I know you got and I'm watching these meetings and I know you got this guy
that is going to be be it. I'm going to think twice about even putting in my name. So, I think you want to make a decision on Jeff and the week later have the firms come in because you're going to get a better, more robust turnout than if somebody watches this meeting and says, "Wait a minute. Why am I going
to waste my time putting stuff together when they've got an in-house guy? July 29th, I'm flying because he's applying just like he's applying just like a firm would be, right? Can you zoom?" On the 29th, right? I mean, he would be no different than a firm than another
firm standing here. There's five firms. Only one's going to get the contract. And it may not be a firm. It may be Jeff, right? I mean, it's I would think it's a more even playing field at that point. Well, my difficulty I can't be here on the 29th. So, I've got another city meeting that night. That's why I was
suggesting the 22nd. Get Jeff wrapped up and hopefully I'd prefer to do it all at one night. Um, does it have to be a Tuesday? We make it a Is there another date that Lisa you can be there and that Glenn can be there? I'm open.
Doesn't have to be a Tuesday. What? Where? When are that week of the How about the 28th, Glenn? A Monday night. Well, let's find out. Not back in town. But you can zoom if I'm flying. It depends on I think I'm flying
on the 29th. So the 20 flying back I think because to me that the the Jeff decision should be a 10-minute meeting two different if we negotiate something with Jeff you're presenting it. I'm I'm going to again repeat myself that having firms
try to apply in the same night that they know that you're maybe going to hire an in-house person. You've shot yourself in the foot. Would you on the same note? If they know that we're doing that, but then we're going to bring him in a week later, right?
We later then because then picture is either hired or he's not hired. If he's not hired, then they got a clear field. Why Why am I going to waste my time coming to a meeting where there's an in-house guy who from all outward appearances, if I'm the outside firm, is the front runner?
you're recommending that we do something for Jeff on a special meeting for Jeff on the 22nd and um we see how that goes as to whether we're interviewing firms at a later date or you can pick a date now for those
firms whether it was your August meeting your July 29th meeting but you know you you have the firms out there lined up but you don't have them from the same night that's just rude I I have to defer to Glenn. I mean, he's sitting in a position that other firms are going to be sitting at, right? So, I
mean, I got to go with what he's paying, right, that he's not if as a firm, he's not going to waste his time with this position. So, I mean, I get it. It just puts us in an odd position, too, where I'd prefer to have them all in the same night. Well, if we do it, we'll have it less than a week later. If we do Jeff on the 22nd and then
we won't have time to get people. Oh, he's still going to make her phone calls and say the decisions being made. Then she's going to still start the process and tell them that the night is going to be the 28th and we're still going to need outside
counsel for either case, right? In either case, we're still going to need outside counsel for for a more limited function, but we know for like foreclosures and things like that, we're going to need it. So, does Monday the 28th work for you, Glenn? So So, hold on, Glenn. Glenn, Glenn,
with that with that in mind, either way, we're going to hire an outside counsel, right? Whether even even if we hire Jeff, we're gonna have an outside counsel. So, would you still as a firm not not present yourself knowing that we're still going to select an outside counsel? Let me think of it this way. If Jeff
gets selected and I'm the outside counsel, I'm going to be reporting to Jeff or I'm going to be working through Jeff. I need to know that as opposed to am I the outside counsel? Who am I reporting to? Who's the town attorney? Am I applying to be the town attorney? Am I applying to be a foreclosure lawyer?
It it makes the town look like we don't know what we're doing. Frankly, you know, I think you put an ad out there says we're looking for a town attorney with foreclosure experience. If Jeff gets hired, you can either cancel or keep those interviews. If he doesn't get hired, you have those interviews and you
got them all teed up and ready to go. I'm really trying to get you to a place where you can get a decision made by the end of this month. Okay. So 6:00 on the 22nd for Jeff's and the three of you are going to tomorrow talk and arrange a time to negotiate. 6
o'clock on the 28th for the outside councils. Is everybody okay with that? Lisa, you're good with the 28th. Well, now I don't remember, but I was like I'm flying out. I'm flying out on Allegant and I'm coming back on Delta and I
now I can't remember if I well I don't think I did Allegent on the because I couldn't get back till Tuesday because you know they have limited flights now I don't remember. I would technically say I'm here because I think I come back on Sunday. Okay, great. I would suggest that you're going to
interview people or you're planning on interviewing people that you be here. Yes, of course. And Glenn, you can do the 28th. July 28th. Yes. Okay. So, we got a plan though, Todd. No, it's a Monday.
Okay. Let's move on with the Great. Is that all you have, Madame Town Manager? Yes. Thank you. What you starting, Mr. Torcivia? What would you like to add to the conversation? Well, I I previously said that I could stay up to 60 more days from that June 3rd meeting,
but then I looked at my uh vacations. So, really the my last day that I'd be able to stay till is would be August 20th, just so you know. It's a few days short of the full 60 days. Obviously, uh there's no meetings or anything. We
could probably do the full 60 days, but I'll be out of town on August 20th. Um the only the only other item was you know the town manager's contract and I'm not sure if this is the right time to ask the question because what role
what role if any do I play in negotiating a manager's contract if again I held off on doing anything because I had resigned uh and now the time clock is ticking September 30th is not that far away I sent you all a very preliminary thoughts and the question is
what role do I play in this do you want me to be engaged and beginning to negotiate with Francine or do you want me to sit back and wait and see what happens on July 22nd or 28th? Mayor, my vote would be to sit back and wait
and see what happens on July 22nd or 28th because I don't think it's uh I thought the direction that was given by council and I apologize for interrupting this conversation even though it's about me. The direction that
was previously given was that I would negotiate with the mayor and then I would meet with each council person. I sent my contract to Mr. Tourivia on July on June 25th. I've asked a few times for
comments. You saw my emails today. I got business sense comments from Mr. Torcivia that he sent to you. So I have not had any conversation and that's why you didn't get the contract from me and
I feel at this particular point in time um that I would rather speak with each of you since you've seen Mr. Torcivia's business decision suggestions and if there is an issue
with legal sufficiency I will happily work with Mr. Tour Civia on where that is because when I asked that question, there was only a single sentence response that you guys saw. So, I understand that the wording in there is
really eyeopening, but I've already stated my case multiple times in public meetings and I think that I was clear in my emails to you. We all have business decisions to make and I'm very happy to talk to each of you
and I think we have Mr. Torcivia's comments and I will give him a call and hopefully he'll be available and we can talk about the legal uh insufficiencies and I will correct them before I sit down with you. I'm also amendable to changing things as you
saw in my email. Perfect. Mr. Toyivia, does that sound good? Absolutely. Just you know the primary legal issue is a lot of places in the contract the authority of the council is being usurped or taken away or limited
and that I think violates your charter. You have certain authority and to say that council members can't critique the manager that council members can't do various things to kind of control the council through a contract that's a legal sufficiency issue. That's probably the biggest one. Well, that and and
that'll be for you guys to discuss tomorrow and and iron out and then she'll have the conversations with each of us. We're not gonna we're not gonna get into that match here. Is that all you had to say, Glenn? Yep. I was hoping I was saying congratulations to Jeff, but I guess
that'll uh wait till uh we get the chance to get together and hopefully work this out. Okay, Valerie, no report. Uh Mr. McClendon, first one up. I know you were the one who wanted to make comments. Go. So, first I want to thank V Phyllis um
for the many years she spent here. Um unfortunately she wasn't able to show up for her proclamation. Hopefully next month she does. Um and I appreciate the council, you know, having their faith to put me up here until March at least. Um that's very appreciative. Um, so se one
of the things I want staff to bring back at our next meeting is a resolution regarding uh life safety issues for code enforcement cases, specifically industrial uses on AR zone property where the resolution spells out that they're life safety issues. We don't
need a uh complaint for those for those cases citations. No, we don't need a complaint because because Florida statute says you you don't need a complaint if it's health and life safety, right? Um the resolution would make it where those cases come priority and they are moved
as efficiently as fast as possible. We discussed the fine reduction on that. Um perhaps we should add in there um that we start foreclosure proceedings after it gets to a certain dollar amount. Um
we have that already. So is there a consensus on council to bring back a resolution like that so we can start aggressively going to Well, I think we already have a resolution that says that that doesn't have to be complaint driven that the co that the code officers can initiate it.
So that's already done. I think we put correct me if I'm wrong anybody or $100,000 in fines. Was that was that the number that we put in? So we already have a resolution that for those things. So how do we make it clear that the
council deems those cases high priority and they need to come first and we need to aggressively go after those. I think we need to change what we've adopted because what we've adopted is general life health safety. we're going
a step further and you want that defined and that's fine because that means we're going to be proactive as opposed to reactive. So, we do need to make the change. Okay. I think I'm sorry. Go ahead. I think that goes more to the
conversation about priorities, right? There's not 165 priorities in this town, right? there's there is a hierarchy of code enforcement that I think most of us up here have have expressed some frustration with and um I think you know
in your your specific but vague statement we all know which properties are are the ones that are most egregious here and and need to be aggressively pursued and um it's actually one of my comment items also so
we should put the aggressive pursuit suit and for definition, you know, we should come up with that as well. Yeah. I don't think it's pursuing 200 RVs. I think it's about industrial use on AR property. On AR property, long-term offenders need
to stop it. It It's how you create a slum. Well, it's not even just long-term offenders. I mean, if if if there's 20 semis on a parcel for the past 30 days, that's a priority, right? Absolutely. So, it doesn't need to be long-term ones. It needs to be anything. I'm also speaking to the ones that we are all
aware of. Right. Yes. Right. 100%. So, are we in agreement to for staff to bring that back to us at the next meeting? Does that need to be by resolution? I would suspect so. I think so. All right. I think a direction a direction to
Can can it can you guys have it by the next meeting or do you need it by the I would like it to be in resolution because right now a lot of things that we are supposedly not doing we are you know and so by this being an official
direction we have something that you know is lasting it's an official action I've asked for a lot of things to be resolution. So, I'm happy with that. Yeah. I I would Well, I guess my my question was, does
it have to be a resolution at this can we have it written and be here by the next meeting or is it good enough to have a clear direction from us to proceed that that way with that as a priority as we're writing the
resolution? You follow? I think a resolution has way more weight. Yeah, for sure. We currently have nuisance abatement on the books and we have a nuisance on the books. That nuisance ordinance has needed to be changed for a long time. I don't know if
anybody remembers, but it came forward several times. It's one of the things that we've talked about. We never get to the dance. So, I'm not sure if it's a resolution or an ordinance, but it's covered in nuisance and we
per the last conversations we had with our attorneys and council with it could not enforce it. Does anybody remember when we brought it forward? Yeah. So in answering, yeah, I think we should have a resolution, but ultimately we may need
an ordinance, but we don't need a resolution that says that this is a priority. No, you don't have that as a resolution right now. Right. So that that's what my point is. We don't we don't An ordinance takes two adoptions and all that. We need a resolution that says this is where the
council stands. This is the priority. We need to pursue these. and this nonsense about and and you and I have discussed this about people that say, "Well, they've been here for 20 years and the whole nine yards." We discussed that maybe one of them that's small might fall into that because they were here
since 1976 and 76 is when the codes were adopted. But anything since then, if they weren't legal, then they weren't legal ever. But and that's my point is we need to we need to start straightening this up. This has been kicked down the This can
has been kicked down the road for so long. I think you should put uh landscaping uh maintenance companies in there, too. They're explicitly forbidden in the town. I I agree. I agree. Um I thought let's start with the
industrial uses. I don't know if that would be considered industrial. You know, certainly they have a gas can or pump that they haven't gotten approval for, which we've seen proliferate, too. Well, if we're talking about one that's got a sign No, I'm not talking about that one. Well, that's a if if they got if they
have a a gas pump that that that's a violation that build A510. You know, my point is that's a violation. You know, you can't just go put a gas pump in, right? Yeah. That's a building that's a building code issue. That's a permittable issue. That's that's a whole another ball of
wax, too. So, but yes, I agree. They got all their barriers in place. We're all in consensus to put something hopefully on the next agenda, but if not, I don't want to make it too broad because then they're going to be running all over the place. I want to try to focus on the very egregious things. And
that's why I said industrial uses, right? I'm not in disagreement with you. Let's let's try to focus on something small right now, you know, small group and get it done. But I guess that's my point. So, every time you want to redirect code enforcement, you got to come up with a resolution. Let's see how this goes. Resolution takes one vote and it's done.
Let's do this and see who it goes because I suspect in a year we're not going to be done with those industrial uses. Forget about the landscape companies. Right. Right. Let's not let's not thicken the stew to Yes. But they seem to be one of the most prolific expanders at the moment.
Seemed like the trucks were because they're all getting kicked out of the acres and coming here. Well, there's that. But I I know that uh Francine has had some success with those and they seem to have been curtailed somewhat. But she's not stopping with those. No, I understand. I'm just saying that I
can speak of one I pass every day going from here north that has two gas and everybody has to drive right past. It's not like they're hiding what they're doing. And um that's true. I mean, is that something they also have a bunch of semi-trailers back there, too. Is that something the fire department
could deal with or Well, you know, it's interesting. We've talked to the fire department numerous times and as long as the zoning is AR or they they cannot go on there because that's what we said if you already know
that there's a use on there that's commercial. We said the same thing to the property appraiser. That's why we look at the BTRs because with the BTR we can get I can't remember what NIC stands for but it's the national industry code of your business.
And so if your business has a BTR from the county and the county NIC is for industrial then why isn't the property classified as industrial by the property appraiser and taxed? Because that's the
other thing. We haven't gotten the taxes from those properties. So, you know, we can start with this resolution and see where it goes. Okay. Thank you. Is that all you have, Todd? I have a lot more, but we have so many things on the plate right now with the legal thing and this. So, let's leave it
there. Let's end the plate. Okay, Lisa. Uh, so yeah, Todd, I'm going to piggyback on that. Um, we were all aware of a legal document that named people personally and I I think hopefully this will resolve some of that getting getting the town staff actively involved in and
stuff like this so that it it doesn't require um action that way. Um Francine, you mentioned the vested rights properties would be coming forward to us. They will have to eventually because um what's eventually look like?
I don't know. We do have a meeting with one of the attorneys on Thursday morning. I think I would know better after that. Um they're supposed to talk to us about their tree mitigation. Now we go for everything on those
properties. Um unfortunately Mr. Galant left, but maybe you know the answer to this. At the very end of a road north where North Road connects um at what is that 160th, right? And then there's people that use
the canal bank to access their property when they have a road in front of their property at 161st. Correct. We're trying to block that. We we got a gate coming in because this has been I've been working on it. Okay. Um one of the problems
so I've been uh working with Craig on that and one of the problems is there's a gentleman we're trying to make sure they can still be used as a trail. Right. Sure. Okay. because that's the whole point and that this stems out of a lot of concerns from people who trail ride up there and
can no longer trail ride on the trail because road rock was put down on the trail. So, so in the past six months we fixed the canal bank because they were driving on it so egregiously. We have our community standards officer
looking into the residences that are in the back. So that are using those roads to go there and that had dissipated the road service so much that that they had to actually go put Bill in. But um there is a gentleman on the next block down
where 161st starts that lives there that drives his carriage up and down. So we're trying He only goes to a certain property and back. Yes. But I thought that property was for sale. We're trying to um create a structure.
Craig was trying to come up with a structure that would still or a place where that blockage is that would allow that man to continue using it for those purposes. I thought he's I thought that property was for sale. I you're talking about Dupont. Yeah. Yeah. I think I think it was for sale. I I don't know. But that that that's
where the last conversation, which was about a week ago, was so it is being worked on. All right. And um we had talked previously about the commercial district and I know that there was some action on it or discussion on it. it had to be through the district and has there been any further
Oh, I actually have been drafting uh a document to use perhaps for um partnering with the um Department of Commerce with the state of Florida because they provide rural
infrastructure funding and um thought that that might be a way that we could get some of that infrastructure covered relative to the roads and drainage. Well, I think we were talking about a taxing district. Yes, we were talking about a taxing district and they would be part of it.
In summary, if we were going to do a taxing district, there's a couple ways that it could happen. One is that there can be a vote of the property owners, 60% uh through a petition process that could be handled through mail and so on. Then
it would come forward to council and council would vote on whether they wish to create that footprint and that district. And then the second part of that would be how it is taxed. If it is taxed with an advalorum assessment, then
that would require a referendum vote of the property owners in the area. So they get to decide if they're going to raise their own taxes. That's there is no there is no possibility for us to just do it. There is there is possibility of us to
be able to do it if we create an improvement zone and we just have to be able to ascribe a benefit to it and it can still be a neighborhood improvement district if we use the nonadalorum assessment.
But they would still have to vote for it. They would have to go through the public hearing process on the non-advalorum assessment. It could be a non-advalorum assessment taxing unit. So there's a way for council to create this correct without the
effect. I don't think that's how you would proceed, but it is an option to proceed. Yeah. All right. Um but I laid out the ones that require the votes. I I know that um Karen mentioned earlier about the SB80 and uh Mr. books um
weighed in on this with his staff, but I would like to see a state attorney general opinion um asking from the town specifically to declare whether that is only the properties um affected by the hurricanes.
I think Joe Jose spent hours on the phone speaking to people up there and she's already got that opinion. So you might want to ask her because she she she actually spoke to the committee members and she gotten all and she spoken to their lawyers and she got all the interpretations and the answer is
not the one you want to hear. Okay. Um the church ask her cuz she's got Okay. The church sign that got put in because the county had approved it back uh you know eons ago. Um I happened to drive late uh several times because of
dancing in the in the airport. Um, not dancing in the airport, but dancing and the airport. Um, that sign is on at all hours of the night and it's supposed to be on during business hours. Correct. Right. So, I would like to see that happen. And any report on the 4th of July, I happen
to be out of town. Did it go well? Was it quiet? Sirens going all up and down Southern Boulevard. I can tell you that soon as soon as twilight hit, everything started going off and all you heard was fire rescue up and down Southern.
I think it was probably I I was in the acorage petsitting and never heard it as bad out there as it was. I understand Darcy is my neighbor and she had texted me a couple of days before and said, you know, "Hey,
the signs are great. Maybe people will notice them because they're so big and they're too big to steal." Yeah. Which I thought was a great comment. Um but then she texted me on that night and said, "So much for the signs." So I my assumption by her comment is that it was pretty bad.
Did uh the sheriff give us any feedback? We did not get any feedback from the sheriff. Maybe for their quarterly report something that would be good. Rescue man is a report both of them. Paul had nothing to say. Oh crud.
Oh um you already said it. Oh. Oh. Oh. The uh I I know that a lot of the stuff on the uldc list that we had, all those changes, etc. the chart that we did because of 180, you know, a lot of that
stuff can't transpire as of right now. Karen is actually doing an analysis of it because we believe two things. One, the law hasn't changed for anybody's private application, right? So, you know, all those things
can still process through. Our question is when they come to counsel is the only answer denial. So, we're researching that. With regard to some of the other things, we believe that if it's not restrictive, not more restrictive, then
we can bring it forward. Well, that was our question with rule visit because it wasn't necessarily there was a couple of more restrictive things I think as far as buffer size got greater but everything else was just kind of language based you know it was you know we talked about trying to put some
language in the intent you know a lot of ordinances and code sections have intent and purpose and so on so we thought like for instance with things we couldn't implement now you know that it would be our invention to have a 300 foot buffer
you know, longer. So, we were trying to think out how we could perhaps let people know because if people agree to if an applicant agrees to the 300 foot buffer, that's not a problem. It's not
more restrictive. So, we were trying to think of how we could word it so that they would know what we want if it's peaceful. And I mean, I don't know if you guys would have a problem, but I I was approached by a gentleman I
and the the charity is escaping me, but basically what the idea is is they are partnering with um Southtech um vocational school and they're trying to work a deal to uh rehab some of the road prison site.
Actually, I think they're going to tear down buildings and rebuild and build a vocational school there. and he was trying to garner support to take back to the to the county commission, you know, to the board to, you know, show that other communities were supportive or
whatever. If we want to address something like that, I can bring more detail back on the 22nd, 29th or the 2nd or whatever. But if you if you like, I'll bring some more. I'll get some more details and bring it back or I could have him come in and and talk to us about it,
whatever. It's a really good program. It's going to be like a charter school but for vocational like all trades type of thing. That's really great. Yeah. Why don't you have him come on the second? Is everybody okay with that? Because I'd like to hear more about it before we do Yeah. We do.
Okay. I'll reach out to him. Thank you. Vice Mayor Herszog. Yes. um a-ro um north of my property. The horsemanor
um vehicles are coming and going and they're really ripping up the turn road there. So, I know we got a letter. I think everyone received the the letter.
Um what is the status of that? Do you have any updates? It was in front of the magistrate yesterday and um it is in violation running fines. Okay. Well,
there the garbage truck broke down and was impeding the traffic. Uh they're they're hauling manure in in like a coastal garbage truck. It's not coastal. It's a old dilapidated
white one. and um it had to be towed up the road to be taken into the property to be unloaded. So would you agree that the manure operation is life, health, safety? Absolutely. So,
right. Yeah. Uh I mean they're using all kinds of ways of transporting it. I I mean these these dump trailers that you know you can flip them and uh empty them. They're they're using those. They're like four foot high with uh
maybe 12 foot uh base on them and they seem to be coming from Wellington over. They're not from within our town. Um and they're loading up 18 wheelers. I don't know how they're putting
everything in there, but they're loading up 18 wheelers and they're they're making turns and knocking down the the burm that uh is there because they can't maneuver. It's like living by the sod farm. What's that?
I said it's like living by the sod farm with their 18-wheelers, dump truck. Yep. Okay. Um what is the procedure for bringing forward previously discussed items that um like the the ones that we had talked
about for uh referendum vote for instance um the elections um uh committee remember we were going to do a charter review committee and we were all supposed to bring forward
five names. Does everybody have their names? All right. Bye. Dang it. Okay. So, how about August 2nd? Hard and fast. If you know August 5th. Okay. August 5th. Bring your five names. Do we have to have a committee with that many people? No.
No. But if we figured overlap and we figured overlap, everybody would appoint three. Yeah. Two to three. We'll decide at that time. Everybody point two to three. But bring five names because we figured there'd be over. So, so the committee is going to be how many people? Five 10 to 10 to 15.
10 10 to 15. We'll make a decision on that night. Let's see if everybody brings five names, right? To to Well, actually, we're only bringing five because we figure everybody's going to have the same names and that's for the charter review. Yeah. And that's part of the voting
thing. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. because um I mean there were several things I know the the um term of you know the uh the people how long they sit here um was one of them. Um
the salary for the council was listed as a referendum item but uh the last time the change was made by ordinance. So yeah, it's not in the charter. It's not in the charter. Well, that's what I was saying that it wasn't
correct. Yeah. So, that should um be addressed. um BTRs. Um there seems to be some complaint about um uh the excessive uh
charges for like a homebased computer operated um instructor being charged for BTR. Uh and they felt that uh it seemed like
it was excessive. It's $25 for one thing and 75 for another coming up to a total of 100. Whereas it seems like it's it's more expensive in our town than county.
We use Royal Palm Beach, right? What we originally adopted. Yeah, you adopted. We adopted Royal Palm Beach and we adopted it I think in 2018 and we have looked at it multiple times since 2018 on how we could do something
different. Um and we cannot because of um statutory preeemption. What we can do is if we want to be Wellington, we can denounce our Royal Palm Beach BTR and we can pick up the Wellington BTR. Or if we
want to be Westlake, we could denounce our, you know, Royal Palm Beach BTR and pick up theirs. That's the only thing we can do. Wesley probably did Royal Palm though probably. So, we're kind of limited and essentially everything is a hundred
buck. Pretty close to everything. Standard and reasonable for a BTR really. I mean, this occupational license prior to being a BTR is all generally around 100 bucks. Yeah. Yeah. doesn't change. It's really not that high. Okay. So whether whether you do it by um
computer or whether you do it by a business is a business doesn't matter. Business is a business. Yeah. Homebased business. Okay. Yeah. Home business. I was kind of concerned about Glenn's letter to Francine.
No, it was to you all. Well, um, where where was the direction for for him to issue that to us, you know, what was the
cost for for all of that? I mean, now it's public record, you know, and it's exposed to everything. An unfinished document, you mean? Yeah. Yeah, I share that concern. So,
is there any any issue that we should be discussing at this point about that? Well, the cat's out of the bag at this point, right? So, I mean, I don't know how you retract that. The whole point is we're trying to move forward with a different services, right? And that'll resolve
anything with that. Okay. But who or how do you re in what Glenn is able to do? I mean, is he always self-directed or No, he's supposed to work at the
direction of council. Okay. Am I not? Well, I think you just did. I believe you just achieved that goal. All right, that's it.
That's all you got. I I I don't have a whole lot to add other than um you know I've I've mowled about whether to talk about this or not. I prayed about it in church on Sunday. I was just going to let it go cuz church
was all about this weekend about you know spreading love and thought Yeah. So, I would just say try to be kind to each other. Um,
calling people names and saying cruel things about people, it's it's it's not who we are. You know, who we are is a community that really needs to try to work together. And we face a lot
of really difficult issues um right now. And um it's it's super important that we uh we be kind to each other and and of course we're going to have different opinions and of course we're going to have different viewpoints. Um but we
should be able to express them. It's something that's become like really pervasive in the world today. You know that you can't say something different than somebody else and and you you get this like rapid, you know, attacking reaction. And I I like to think that we
can rise above that. Um I like to think that this little community can rise above that and that we can um you know have different ideas and different opinions and the world will still revolve and go around and we'll come to kind some kind of a compromise and
consensus and and decision together that that works for all of us. So yeah, real quick. Um completely unrelated to that. Oh, I thought you were going to do a little kumbaya, too, but okay. When you were the chair of the finance committee, things moved a lot more
smoothly and it seemed like everybody knew what was going on. Is it possible that you can go to the next finance meeting and discuss the finance committee's role and try to keep them on task as to where they should be going with that committee? That's directed to you, Anita.
I I I hear I hear who you're directing it to. Um, have a policy against that? We we we do have a policy against um individual council members um soliciting opinions from um different committee members. We
do other than the one that they you know seeking advice from or soliciting opinions. Um I don't know that we have a policy against that. I just don't know that um it just kind of seems like the
the current committee would be very receptive to that. Um I kind of feel like it's the job of staff to direct them, but if you if you know I serve at your pleasure if you guys would like me to go and and give it the old college
try if that's the consensus of council, I certainly would be willing to do that. I'm good with that. I mean, it's in a public forum. It's not private phone calls, right? It's at the committee meeting, correct? So, there's not that issue where you're trying to direct them or trying to It's about trying to let them know is that this is what their function should
be. Right now, it seems like they're all over the place. Um, and they're not focused. Council person, well, I I think there's a there's a greater fear out there that even after what we discussed last week and we said,
listen, got no problem with digging in. We expect that. But first and foremost is to get the budget done and then after dig in. I think the fear is I think anybody said dig in. But go ahead. Go ahead. I said dig in. Some people agreed with
me. Let's let's just play it back. Roll it back. And they didn't. Yeah, they didn't disagree. Okay. So, you know, I I I think there is some digging that needs to, you know, listen, there's nothing wrong with it. I think the fear is that they there's some there's some fear out there that that the committee is going to get sunset soon as we're done with
the budget. Kind of like what happened last time and they there was no that's you know that was the thing is like listen we got we got sunseted and well listen a lot of lot of committees got sunseted except for PCB right because got to have PCB because all the applications are coming. So I think
that's the fear is that once this process is done that it's not going to be sunsetted and I there's a few people up here maybe not all of us maybe it was just me maybe I'm having revisionist memory but you know that that tend to think that if you want to dig in then
the time to dig in was after the budget process. So I think that's you know Paul I'm with your digging in. Um but uh I I'm curious why you think the finance committee is all over the place. They haven't even met since our last meeting. Well, it's from their previous means
that they've had. Um, one of the things is, and I still can't wrap my head around this, was why was the RV park in front of them? I don't understand that. I can't wrap my head around. That was a staff decision. Fact. Never asked for that. Yeah. I I don't believe that was a staff decision. I believe that was an
applicant request and they paid for it. Yeah. I believe that's how that occurred. It was not a step. When that auditor was in front of them, they traded him horribly. orally. I mean, it was the auditor or the the finance director.
Oh, yeah. The the the new the new finance guy, they treated him horrible, like he had just robbed the bank or something like that. Well, you do know that the new finance guy had not been officially hired by the town and was there giving Munolytics information,
which wasn't his information, and that was really their question. As far as how they treated the auditor, I don't know. I didn't go back and watch the meeting. Um I had a lovely meeting with the auditor and we had a lot of questions answered. So
I mean so you know I mean I talked to Manish about you know doing an audit and he's like oh we should do a forensic audit. I mean the the dollar amount is is is insanity to do a forensic audit. I agree. Um and I asked him do you think there's money missing? No I don't think there's
money missing. So then what are we looking what do we Usually you want a forensic audit when you think there's money missing there's not and even he acknowledges there's not it's the way the money is being spent by five council members right not by necessarily by staff right I mean
well that's not true money moves around and there's there's amendments and this goes back to my earlier conversations we need amendments sooner we have in our HR manual that even though we can hire a temporary employee that still has to come back to us for the financial aspect
of it. We've had we've had an employee since April 2nd. Still no amendment for that. I was not happy the fact that that we're so over budget with legal fees and that hadn't come to us. But I just got here. I don't know what conversations were with town manager. But it doesn't matter what conversations an amendment has to come forward.
I I agree that the policy that I think council has to take forward as we we go into the budgeting. So yeah. So we can only talk here. So it's nice. They're not the consensus. That's all I
need to know. So I need to be in a meeting with it. Even if she just goes there and reviews. I don't see any need for it. Lisa doesn't see a need. Todd wants me to. I don't see how it works. How about you? I I think it might uh
calm them down a little. Okay. So more people three people are asking me to do it. So, please let me know when the next finance committee meeting is. And can I have a motion to motion to second? All in favor? I
You are so Oh my gosh, it was a Yes, I had such a great I didn't want to leave, but