Present. >> Council member Stevens. Council member Cain. Council member Coleman. Okay. Um, we're going to wait like 2 minutes and give each one of them a call to see if they'll be joining us. Um, in the meantime I see that Karen's on the line,
Jeff's on the line, Craig's on the line, David's on the line, and Kentia is also on the line. So, just give us 2 minutes here. >> I'm giving Paul a call real quick. >> Okay, thank you. >> He's jumping on. Paul says he's about to log on right
now. >> I'm reaching out to Joe. Valerie, uh, Council member Stevens just said he's on, um, the cell number iPhone 106. >> Okay, he can hear us? >> I'm here. >> Okay. Thank you, sir.
All right, and Paul's on the line. Okay, great. We'll get started. Um Good evening, everyone. This is our agenda review meeting on July 7th at 6:00. I mean, for the July 7th meeting at 6:00. >> [snorts] >> Uh the first item on the agenda
is an annual um the annual report from fire rescue that will be presented. I'm just going to shut Item number two is the agreement with Southeast Highway Guardrail. Uh Craig, you want to jump in and kind of talk about that briefly?
>> Yes, all this is is pretty much we're just going to redo the um piggyback contract that we originally had with South uh Southeast uh Highway Guardrail. Um nothing special. They're They're another county already under contract. We're just going to piggyback off of
them. >> Any questions on that? >> Yeah, I had a question. This is Lisa. Um so, what is the status of this contract as far as like when will we be able to execute and when will you need product?
>> Um they're already under with the county. They're already They're already under contract with the county. This is just for as soon as we get approval on the 7th, we'll and we get their signature of approval back cuz they've already agreed, um we'll be able to move forward.
>> Okay, but we have to execute a contract as well or >> No, we're just going to piggyback this contract right here. It's just a a simple piggyback. >> PO on that? >> Yes, ma'am. >> Once this is approved. Okay, thank you. >> Yeah, it'll be a normal uh like our normal contract we piggyback off of.
>> Got it. Thanks. >> Craig, I have a question, Manisha. I would like to know, do you have a schedule of the streets or canals where you have a priority list for this financial year? >> For guardrails pertaining to this
>> Yeah, what what what where are the guardrails being installed? >> So So right off the bat, the first thing we're going to use this contract for will be at FN Collecting. We're going to replace the guardrail around that canal right there. >> Yeah. >> Um and then I'm looking at all the main
roads that come up to or the main canal roads that come up to like one of them in particular is North E, the guardrail right down there at the corner. It's been crushed for a while. The other one that's down there by Sunsport, that's been missing for a while.
>> Right. >> Um it's the main priority is to hit all the the main canals, the main um guardrails that are destructed or are getting destroyed. >> Got it. And then you you have the budget for that in the current budget, right? For all those
>> Yes, so we we have a a good amount of the budget right now in that GL that we're going to use for starting to implement. Um when we did the ones at E and Collecting each side of those straight ones that we did, that I think they were 106 ft long, they were right at
right at like 9,000 and that put us you know at the exact DOT approved everything. >> Okay. All right. But just just for the next financial year, I assume you have a list of the hot spots where accidents and all those things happen. >> Yeah, like I said, we're we're going for
>> Okay. >> And and then like I've implemented to you guys before was is that's like next year's step is to really start going and redoing all the infrastructure of the guardrails through the whole town. >> Okay. Thank you. >> You're welcome.
>> Any other questions? Okay. Um moving on to the next item, that's also you, Craig. This is a uh drainage easement at the property located at 15 410 North Road. >> Um this is a 15-ft by 15-ft drainage
easement for a culvert pipe that was um damaged by the FPNL back in the day. Um we did replace this actual pipe as the town. Um the resident himself did ask us, "Hey, you know, instead of the culvert pipe being so close to the edge
of the road, um I will give you 15 ft of easement so that we can extend the pipe further back into the property to get it you know, further away from the roadway." >> Yeah. I have a question. >> I do have a question on this. Uh >> Yes, ma'am.
>> you know, we've met with this resident before. So >> Correct. >> Um I don't see I see the easement on the attachment uh and a description of the easement, but do we have anything describing the scope of work
of what the town is going to do on that? >> Um the scope of work I I I was I don't see it here right now. It was put in by me and uh Gary and we had come to an agreement with the property owner. It was going to be a 10-ft piece
of pipe with a flare on the end, adding dirt to it, and then just sodding over top of it and putting a berm, a small berm alongside the edge of road to keep the water from rushing from edge of road and washing out the edge of this actual new sodded area.
>> Okay, can we get that added for >> Yes, ma'am. If you want, I can we can put the scope together and we can do it as an add-on on the 77 if you'd like. >> That'd be great. Thank you. >> That's simple and easy. >> Um just so I understand, do you want do you want that added in as an easement
provision or just want to see that before the item gets approved? >> It would be great to make it some sort of attachment to the easement paperwork, but definitely need it as backup for for the agenda. >> Okay.
The the problem with getting it >> the memo does >> getting it >> Go ahead, Jeff. >> The problem with getting it as a part of the easement is we would have to have them re-execute. But >> Um on the actual memo, uh Madam Mayor,
it does say right at the the bottom of the main paragraph that easement will allow the pipe to be extended approximately 10 ft to provide maintainable slopes. >> Okay. Yeah, if we can just as the backup material, I'm sure it'll be fine. It's It'll be published, documented that way.
So, if if it's problematic to get it um execute re-executing the easement agreement, I I would assume that would be fine that it's stated somewhere, and I appreciate you pointing out that it's partly in there. >> Okay, so I think um we can just modify
the memo to include a little bit more detail. >> That we can. >> Have a great night. >> Whoever that Whoever's having a great night. >> [laughter] >> Somebody's having a great night. >> Sorry. >> Somebody Somebody's leaving early? >> [laughter]
>> Yeah, no, right on time. Been here since 6:30. >> Madam Mayor, hold on 1 second. I just saw it. I just jumped pages. I just saw the 15 by 15. Where'd it go? Um exhibit A on item three.
>> Mhm. >> It says a partial of the land north Oh, that's just giving the description. I'm sorry. That's the description of the 15 by 15 ft. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> I'm sorry. Excuse me. >> Okay, so we'll just modify the memo to include a little bit more detail.
>> Great. Thank you. >> All right, thank you. Moving on to item number four, uh receive and file. This is what we're required to provide council with the vendor um expense report. This is from October 2025 through June 2026.
Any questions? Nope. >> Can you Sorry, this is Manish. Could you list in front of that lit column for each vendor which one is a non Uh I think the technical word is uh the the no
competition bid. Who are the vendors who are hired with no competition bids? Could you flag the ones that were hired without any bidding process? >> Yeah, we can we can provide you with that information. >> David, I don't know how you pull the
report. Are you able to >> Yeah, I might I might Yeah, uh Yeah, I'm trying to uh go Can you Can you scroll down to the item? >> You just If you click on it. >> Yeah.
Um Yeah, I don't know uh like Florida Blue, I don't uh I think that we we get that through our That's our health insurance. We get that through uh uh through our insurance broker,
uh FMIT. Uh Yeah, the the other ones are uh I guess a lease uh capital leases at Saunders. Morgan Stanley, that was part of the former
may uh former town manager's contract. >> David, do you don't have to go through right this minute. I just want those >> We'll We'll provide the report prior to Tuesday. Thank you. >> Okay, thank you.
All right, item number five are the minutes. >> Wait, wait, I had my hand up on that item. >> Oh, sorry. >> I will lower my hand. Uh, so I think in the past two there's been a request and maybe Vice Mayor Sood can verify this
that those items be provided with the um, the budget line item they came from. Am I dreaming that or did was that ever previously discussed? >> Um, I would have to say be a little bit hard for me cuz a lot of mine are multi
across GLs. >> Okay. >> You know, um, palm me down right off the top. I, you know, I go through a lot of CIP projects and different So, I mean some of mine are easy, but there are a couple that do jump all over the place. >> But it is on, but it is, Madam Mayor, it
is on the Power BI, the fourth tab. And it shows you what GL accounts every vendor uh, was allocated to. >> It says which vendor it's allocated to, but >> I'm sorry. Which, uh, I apologize. It It
outlines which GL accounts uh, a specific vendor, all the vendors from 2025 all the way up through 2026, probably June. >> So, is that something you can put into our agenda item? >> Um,
>> Let's back up. >> Yeah, this record comes right out of It's more electronic, comes right out of your system. But we'll we'll see what we can we can pull together. >> Yeah, I would just say some of mine
would be would have multiple GLs behind them. >> Okay, as long as as long as it includes it. And Paul, I see your hand up. >> Yeah, now I was just curious are all we trying to flag the stuff that should be for RFP but had no competition or we are we marking
every vendor that had no competition because technically a piggy if we opt to go with a piggyback contract with a certain vendor like we're just talking about guardrails, that's a no com that's a no compete vendor but you wouldn't flag that, right? Because it's I mean it's a
piggyback, right? You understand what I'm saying? Seems like a lot of work to have to flag every single one. >> That was that that would be a bid item. >> Yeah, it was competitive bid through the county. >> Yeah, but it's through the county. That's through the county. My my point
is is if we're if we're opting to go with a piggyback just for an example, right? Or even the insurance through a through the broker, right? So the insurance broker said this is your this is your your best whatever da da da da and we go through our our broker for a certain insurance or whatever,
we're going to flag that as a non-compete? I I don't understand the the the exercise in going through all this work to flag non-competes that really, you know, like a a piggyback is really a non-compete vendor at the point it gets to us because it's already gone through a bid process, you
know what I'm saying? So if am I am I just way off base here? >> Yeah, Paul, let me let me clarify for a second. The that's not an issue. If the vendor was used from county and it's a bid bidding happened, then it's not a no
bid. No bid is if that insurance broker in this case no, we did not contact three insurance brokers as the best of our knowledge and somebody just picked somebody, some people they know as an example, then it's a no bid contract. If that insurance broker forever is
grandfathered and every year that broker is the only one and we may have other better options. That's what we just want to be informed. There's no I think first let's see what data there is and then we intelligently focus on the services that could be probably bid out. Yeah.
>> I guess my point is you I think you need to clarify what data you're looking for because if not you're sending people down a rabbit hole marking every single thing that's not you know, that's a non-compete when 75% of them or 80% of them might not even apply for what
you're looking for. You you see what I'm >> I think they get the intent. >> I guess that's what I'm saying because I get it. The insurance broker is the same insurance broker we use for 10 years. Just maybe we just haven't gone back to find a new broker, right? And maybe that's that's the one you want flagged.
But you know >> I think they get the intent. We we are not looking The point here is to see what vendor contracts haven't been bid out and just let let the information come out and then we intelligently decide >> Okay. Let let let them just pile through every single vendor and and and and mark
all the Okay, I get you. All right, thanks. Well, and just from from my perspective um a a piggyback contract is um a a contract that has been competitively bid and and we would not consider it a
no bid contract or I wouldn't consider it a no bid contract. >> Well, I I get what you're saying, Jeff, and I agree cuz it did at one point go for a bid. >> Right. >> But us on the other hand have not bid that con- This is why I'm asking for clarity cuz somebody might construe that as well, we didn't put it out for a bid.
We just we went to the county and got a piggyback or we went to Point Beach got a piggyback for a bids company. So, it might have a staff member spending days on something where it doesn't take days because we have more we gave more clarity. Is all I is all I'm looking for. That's all I'm saying. You know
what I mean? I don't think Yeah, I don't think we need to send somebody down a rabbit hole, you know, chasing out we got and then we find out 80% of the list is no big contract or piggyback contracts, you know what I'm saying? That's all player contracts. >> No, I understand it and it should I mean it'll take
it'll take probably concerted effort between me and Jeff cuz a lot of these are older. Um you know, Florida retirement uh you know, that's that's probably >> Obviously that's you know, yeah. >> But yeah, I mean I was I was just going through them now. Some of the other ones
that I don't, you know, I I don't know I don't know how you got Coastal or Herron Homes, but you know, that'll be interesting and and we'll we'll we'll put that data together, you know, based on my knowledge of >> They're both based on bids. >> Okay. >> Right. >> So the RFP was chosen.
>> Yeah, I I don't I don't think if you're limiting to to this list, it's going to be very difficult for us to to identify those. >> All right. That's I just didn't want to see people spending hours upon hours. >> Yeah. >> But yeah, thank you. That's Thank you
for the clarification, guys. >> Okay, thank you. Item number five, minutes. Item number six, we have the proposed ordinance 2026-01 on second reading. This one is regarding the recreational vehicles.
I don't know if Karen or Jeff want to jump in. >> Yeah, I'll jump in. >> Jeff, if you want, go ahead. >> Yeah, um this is the follow-up to the first reading. It went to ULDC.
Um ULDC had a um good discussion on the item. Uh they came back with essentially four recommendations. Um uh four specific recommendations.
Um uh and that was uh on the permit information for the occupied vehicles, um, require the, um, RV occupants information in addition to the owner's information, so we know who's going to be staying there. And
they also suggested that, um, for the for the occupants, that they be required to have a, um, have submitted a an ID, um, a photo photo ID that we can
identify them. Um, and then, uh, they also suggested instead of having the um, six-month period be anytime during the year, um, that the six months you could have
up to six months, but it would have to be within the November through April equestrian season. Um, and the fourth thing was, and this had to do with the discussion of vacant land, um, and the council had considered some
language to to be redundant. Um, they liked the original redundant language, even though they acknowledged that it was redundant. Um, so those were their their four specific suggestions. The the changes in the when you review
the ordinance, um, the changes that are shown in yellow reflect, um, direction from council between, uh, after first reading. Um, and there are some,
uh, red changes that indicate those, um, three items. The fourth item, uh, I didn't identify cuz it's simply, um, you know, you can read it either without that that, uh, that sentence or with the sentence.
Um, and they also, uh, wanted, uh, the council to take a look at Wellington's ordinances on the subject. So we have attached those for your reference.
Um They they were concerned um but they did not come up with any specific recommendations. Um with the fact that this ordinance
primarily addresses occupied RVs and not unoccupied RVs and so um there was the the discussion that there is not a limitation on the number of
um RVs that you could have on your on your property. Um in the sense of if they're if if they were unoccupied. Um and So
those are the things that that probably need to be addressed. I don't know Karen, do you have anything else? >> No, you pretty much hit it. >> Mhm. >> Yeah. >> What is your recommendation Jeff and Karen looking at these four requirements? What do you think you you
recommend it or not? >> Um first of all with with respect to the language in 92001B, which is number four on the the list if you're following along in the in the memo. The the redundant language. Um I told
them and I'll tell you that that's totally up to the council. Um I can live with the the redundancy but it it's not necessary in my opinion.
Um with respect to the other information, you know with the the limitation on the six months limiting it to specifically November to April that's once again an
that's an issue for for council to to decide. I I imagine that most in our experience is that most of the activity is during that time period. Um but I think there have been uh situations that have been pointed to
um where that that may not fit. The difficulty that we have um you know is ascertaining when when people might start but this also assumes that they went through the permitting process
and told us. Um and with respect to the um identity of uh the occupant um I think that's probably a pretty good
idea so we know who's in town. >> Okay. So answer is yes, you agree meaning you recommend. >> If you read the agenda item it says that they recommend approval. >> Okay. I I I know the staff I wanted to hear the council. Okay. So >> Uh oh sorry.
>> Let let let me intervene for a second here. Uh could you tell me on the record how many of the ULDC member voted for these four changes? How meaning what is the it was unanimous or was there a vote? >> I
I I believe it was unanimous. I don't believe there was a discussion about it. >> All right. Thank you. So if we So we vote on these four things and if it is a Is that how it is now? If this passes with these four changes is that those
>> May I interrupt please? >> Yes yes. >> So Manish this is just the recommendations coming from the the committee back to us. We we decide whether we want to adopt these changes into the second reading. I personally, and I see your hand up Paul,
I personally think this needs to be pulled for further discussion because there's additional language in there that we put this through on the first reading so that it could get to committee and that I think there's some things in there and and Paul may conclude the same thing. I don't know
what he's going to say, but I would like to pull this item for discussion to make some additional changes after reading through it again with what the committee suggestions were. So, that's my position, but sorry to interrupt you Manish. I just
>> No, I I hear you. I think it's as I agree with you that I think if if the if the direction is these four changes make sense, I think they absolutely make sense. We should update the the the document before it comes. So,
yeah, whatever procedure is the fastest. >> You the this will be on second reading you have a a public hearing that has been advertised. And so, generally read the title for the
second time. You open it up to public hearing and then you guys will make a a decision and and give direction. I think that the changes that have been proposed do not affect the title and so
they could be they could be made based on your direction um on the on the 7th. But >> I have about a half a dozen items that I think need to be stricken from this document. So,
it was and Paul may want to speak any moment, but In our workshop, in our workshop on this, we said we didn't want inspections. They were only going to be complaint-driven. We did not um you know, require certain inspections.
We didn't require documentation of things. You just had to attest that they were true under perjury, penalty of perjury. And this document that has been presented goes well beyond that in some of these cases. Um so, I'm going to stop speaking.
Uh Paul, if you want to weigh in. >> Well, thanks for that Lisa cuz honestly, you know, with the late issue on Sierra or whatever, I didn't get a chance to even look at it. So, um I appreciate that. Um but yeah, Mike and I I understand you already said you you agree with the whole
you know, got to have an ID and all that. I just was curious about the legality of that, but I guess if Jeff, if you're saying that's perfectly legal, I mean, there's nothing if as long as we're not infringing on somebody's rights, I you know, cuz I you know, I mean, how does that work with
with a rental property? If if somebody has a rental property that they own, is essentially that's what we we're dealing with here, right? You know, >> Right. It it >> if somebody has a rental property that they own, are they are they required to supply us with you know, uh driver's
license, social security number, da da da da da, you know, background checks on their tenants? >> Um the answer is no, but there are if you if you adopt a rental registration um ordinance, um yes, that information
can be required. >> Oh, so the answer is not at this point cuz we haven't adopted a rental registration. >> Well, if you with respect to the RVs, this in essence wouldn't um you be able to do it through
this ordinance for RVs. >> Okay. >> Um and then and your your question's your question's relevant as to whether if you're going to do it for RVs, shouldn't you do it for all rentals? >> Right. And then and it's totally legal all the way across the board is what I'm getting at. >> Yes.
>> Okay, all right. Whether it's Airbnb, RV, or a year-long rental of a of a house, right? >> Very difficult to enforce, but yes. >> Thank you, sir. >> Any other questions before we move on? >> Could Could Could just for clarity, what
did you guys decide? Are you bringing it up for In other words, this is the second hearing. Even in the first one I said, "It's not ready." Now, what are we doing in this meeting? Are we Are we saying What What is the Just clarify. What is the expectation from
this upcoming council meeting? >> You You will You will make that decision on It sounds like you're going to make that decision on Tuesday when you're all together and you have heard from the public and
you'll make a decision as to whether it is uh adoptable with some changes, whether or not you uh the changes are significant enough that we need to to go back. Um you can
you can continue second um the the second reading and the public hearing if you want to. Um there's a number of ways you can go about it, and then you'll you'll you will the five of you will make that decision
on uh on uh on on Tuesday. >> So, what you're saying is we can leave it in public hearing, still have a discussion, pore over the the six items that Lisa is concerned about, and whatever else would
comes up at that point. And then if if the the act is too extravagant, we can actually adopt it that night with the edits is what you're saying. >> Cuz it's the second reading, right? >> Correct. >> All right, thank you. >> Yep. >> Okay, item number seven proposed
ordinance number 2026-02 on second reading. This one is with regards to the site plans, the mandatory site plan approval clarifying that residential development of more than 20 acres regardless of number or size of
plots requires site plan approval. Karen, did you want to talk on this item or Jeff? >> This This is >> Um I will This is the same This is the same item that you saw on first reading. It went to um PZB. They recommended it unanimously.
Um there are no changes to this um ordinance between first and second reading. >> Any questions? >> I'll save mine for the for the hearing. >> Okay. All right, the next item number eight under regular agenda, code enforcement
lien foreclosures. Um there are five resolutions here. Uh Jeff, go ahead. Actually, there's six resolutions, five properties, right? Go ahead. >> There There's four properties that are
uh under consideration um at this point. The The first of which is um 16169 Southern Boulevard that's owned by Lantana Holdings.
Um uh in that um they have proposed um that a um we hold in abeyance the foreclosure.
Um uh And they in consideration of us holding it in abeyance, they would uh they would pay us um a total of uh I think it's $136,000. Um which is 1/4 of the
uh amount that is due. Um and we would hold in abeyance up to a year um the foreclosure process. Uh That would allow them to uh seek relief
before the special magistrate. Um I have indicated to to them and they understand that the town's position would we we would be opposing any um reduction in the the the lien amount. Um
but we would allow them to go through that process. Um and then depending on the outcome of that process, um if there was a fine reduction, the special magistrate would have given them a specific time frame to
make the payment. Um and if there was no fine uh reduction, um then uh we would not move forward with the foreclosure uh for 6 months. Um During that time
period, hopefully we could negotiate a payment of whatever uh the remaining balance was. This property and and I should say with respect to all these foreclosure cases, these actually represent success already.
Um if if you look at it, um there has been at least partial compliance in every one of these code enforcement cases. Um In this particular uh case,
uh the owner of the property had to evict their their tenant. That eviction was completed on June 4th. That got rid of the use violation. So, they came into compliance with the the use violation. Um and
they will we're discussing how they can come into compliance with the vegetative removal um permit requirement for the trees that were taken down. Um it would either be in the form of a bond or we have been discussing potentially a a
cash payment. Um uh so, we're working on on those numbers, but they will begin to they will be in compliance. Um and once they're in compliance, that's that's when they would be able to um uh petition the the special magistrate for
a potential um lien reduction. So, I I think uh this is a this is a case that had lingered for a a while and uh after Karen and I um assumed our current
positions, we moved forward. Um and the the town made the decision to um get the liens uh applied and and I I So, I think this has been a success. Um
The one of the reasons that I'm recommending that you approve the agreement is that that that fund of the 130-some thousand dollars um would then be available to
uh pay for the attorneys' fees that would be incurred in the um remainder of the the foreclosure action. So, you sort of get into a rolling a rolling type fund. Um All these foreclosure actions, if they
are successful, uh would end up in a situation in which not only uh some amounts would be due, but um attorney's fees and costs
could be assessed. Now, so you have a decision to to make on that as to whether or not you want to authorize the agreement and I was just in negotiations with them
at 4:30. So you'll see a a revised agreement in the next couple of days assuming that that's the direction you want to to go in. If >> [clears throat] >> if you don't and you want to
move forward with the foreclosure action, there is a resolution to that end. In the event you want to go forward with these foreclosures and you don't want to utilize the proceeds from
this uh standstill agreement, then you're then we would need to get money's allocated from the contingency fund. And I have suggested that we allocate
as a starting matter $20,000. I think that's a reasonable amount. That should carry the the litigation forward through trial. On all these litigations we anticipate it to be take about a year to to complete.
Um during the course of that year you will be in a situation that discussions of settlement and strategy would take place in shade sessions.
And then ultimately you would if there was a settlement and there may be a settlement in some of these, uh, you would um, have to approve that that settlement in in a public meeting. >> Hey Jeff, this is Joe. >> Hey Joe.
>> Hey, listen, I'll I'll save most of my comments for Tuesday. I'm going to be I'm going to be fairly vocal about about these. I don't think that's a shock to anyone. Um, but, uh, I'm going to push back on what you call success. And we'll discuss that more on
Tuesday because I I I I I think you're You know where I'm I'm going to be heading with that. Uh, I mean, what what you see a success, um, I mean, residents property values argue otherwise. So, I just want to throw that out there. I'm going to be pretty vocal come Tuesday
night. Thanks, sir. >> Yeah. Um, so, uh, that's uh, 16169 uh, Southern Boulevard. Um, I think the next one on the list is, um, 1300 D.
Um, that's a that's a property, um, uh, that has, um, outstanding leans of about, uh, 600,000
Let me see if that's on that here. I'll pause this. Um, I think it's in excess of $600,000. Um, for >> [clears throat] >> uh, for that property. I have 642,900. Um, they are in compliance at this point in time. Most of their
Most of these vi- the Most of the fines associated, um, uh, with the next three cases, um, come out of violations of, uh, 175,
not having an FDA. Um, But so there's $642,000 um on on that property. Uh the property is not homesteaded um and uh the property has no liens
uh that would take priority over um our lien. Um And so we're recommending going forward on on that one. Uh the next one is uh 3138
um A Road. Um that property has a um homestead exemption associated with it, but the homestead exemption is was created um after
um the liens. Um there is a significant uh first mortgage on the property. Um total amount of those the liens on that property, and that property is not fully in compliance at this point in time.
Um are uh about a million dollars. Um and so uh that is that's a property that uh um you're the
and you'll you'll discuss this if you approve it um later on down the the line. It's a it's a situation where we're not going to probably be able to recover the full amount of um those liens based on the valuation of
the property and the um and the value of the the mortgage that's in front of us. Um And I'm sorry, Paul. I didn't >> I'm being patient, Jeff. Keep going. Keep going. >> Okay. >> I dropped my
>> And and and the last one uh uh on this list is 1032 Hyde Park. Um that property is not completely in compliance. Um they have uh received an FDA
permit at this point in time. Um but the there are still some compliance issues. Um the total amount of liens on that property are in excess of $700,000. The
the biggest problem with this case, if you will, is um that there is a homestead exemption on the uh on the property. It is homesteaded property. Um the homestead in a municipality
extends up to um a half an acre. Uh so uh there if if we went through and completed a foreclosure on this property,
um the way we would be successful would be not being able to foreclose on the homestead portion of the property, but actually getting the court to um order that the the property be split. Um
this property also has a significant mortgage on on it that would be um ahead of the uh priority of the town's liens. So, it's it's got some uh it's got some
difficulties associated um with it. I think there is public support uh for you to move forward. I don't know I'm not trying to make a prediction as to how these things would go. Um but there is the possibility that
um our foreclosure action could trigger uh the primary foreclosure action. And I don't want to make light of any of these cases. You are when you contemplate a foreclosure action, you are
contemplating the possibility that you will take property away from people. That's a very significant thing to to do. And in each of these cases, they would be planned in the alternative
of foreclosure or the debt collection. And that would be especially significant in this um in this 1032 case because of the the homestead issue.
There is not to our knowledge a case in Florida involving a code enforcement lien on a homesteaded property
where um the the separation of the properties that I describe has been relied on. Um there's not a case one way or another. There are bankruptcy cases in which uh
that process was um was approved. So that's the theory of law that we would be moving forward with. Um if you uh deem that we should go forward on on
that case. So Paul, I'll take a question now. >> Uh So I mean there's no way to to to assess these properties like it's all all lean or nothing, right? That's kind of that's
kind of the way we get paid, right? There's no way tax bill, etc., etc. It's just lien or nothing, right? >> Yeah, it's it's a lien and and um you can wait for the property to be sold and that's a waiting game cuz the
liens are good for 20 years. They can be renewed and all those kind of things. You but uh um if you don't go through a foreclosure process um you are left with converting the
uh the lien to a judgment um and there is a process for doing uh that and as I said, we would plead that in the alternative. Um but uh uh >> I guess my point is there's no other
mechanism besides this to get paid unless they start paying, right? That's I mean >> unless we negotiate some sort of settlement. >> Right. Right. So, you mentioned earlier on the on on the Piquette Park that um they they removed their tenant. Who was
Who was the tenant? >> Uh the the tenant was um uh a company called Furp, but you publicly you would have known it as Piquette, the operator. >> Oh, okay. So, so they're no longer doing a golf uh go-kart track there?
>> Nope, that that ceased. >> So, so okay. All right. >> And and they do not have an intent to to go back to that. Um I think their intent is to uh
petition uh the town for um a land use uh plan change to commercial to be consistent with properties immediately to the >> [gasps and sighs] >> the west of them and the shopping center um to the east of them, but that's not
something you would have to decide or >> The churches and the nursery are commercial, huh? Huh? The churches and the nursery are commercial to the west of them, really? Okay. I see how you could draw that line. Anyway, that's Sorry, my bad. I I'm
All right, thank you. >> Okay, this is Manish. Um Jeff, in plain English, could I haven't been familiar with all the cases they've been running for a while. Let me understand. These individual these residents
were given a due process. They had the opportunity to come in front of the system, present their evidence. Everybody did. Town presented theirs. And now, after exhausting all that, we Is that Is that correct? Could you explain in
>> Yes, what What happened in all these cases um they were presented to the special magistrate. They were found to be in violation. They had an opportunity to correct the
violation prior to incurring any any fines. And then, after that time period went through, there was another hearing in which a fine was assessed. Um and beginning to run at
in in these cases somewhere between 100 and 250 dollars a day um on some of these cases there were multiple uh there were multiple cases. And
when you don't correct the violations within 3 years and you're getting assessed at um you know, 500 dollars a day between two outstanding cases,
um, that adds [clears throat] up to real money uh in a relatively short period of time. So, it's about, you know, if you get $500 a day, that's $186,000 a year. Um, and so, uh
you can you can mount up significant um, significant liens uh if you don't come into compliance. >> Okay. I understand. So, we have the intent here is to give them to settle or what is the just
to understand intent is with this we have an ability to negotiate in good faith and come to an a settlement or is this the the I I think the intent of the the
foreclosure actions is um to to collect money. Um, that's that's one intent. The the second intent is to um tell the world out there
um, that Loxahatchee Groves is serious about code violations um, and therefore should you should not get yourself into a situation in which you have uh ignored the problem um, and
run up liens under the hope that they will somehow vanish or be um you know, get mitigated down to to nothing. Um, now, during during the process and you're going to end up making business
decisions. You're making business decisions right now as to whether it is worthwhile to to pursue um, these uh these cases. Um and you know, uh there may be
uh there may be offers of of settlement. Um Um >> Yeah, I mean that's what I was getting to is there an offer for from their from their attorneys there an offer on the table for all these properties for settlement? Is there an offer? No. >> There is there is there is not an offer
for complete settlement with any of them. There is the offer with respect to the 16169 um process they would pay us 25% of the amounts due.
Um and that does not release any more than 25%. We still have a 75% um uh lien out there which is over $400,000. It does not mean that we can never for
foreclose on that $400,000. We're just The proposal is that we would um get paid those monies, give them some time to go through some additional process and see how everything plays out.
Um with the other uh with the other cases I do not have uh an offer from any of them. Um they are all represented by counsel. Um
and I would imagine we will have some discussions but the the property owners and the counsel have been aware that the special magistrate authorized um
uh the potential foreclosure and they have been aware uh that um we have hired counsel to uh to look into this and that these potential actions might be um forthcoming. So,
but they have not they have not come forward with any offers at this point in time. >> Okay, thank you, sir. >> And you know, um there have been some discussions. I don't know uh uh I don't know whether or not the folks
have the the wherewithal to to make a significant offer. Um So. >> Yeah. Jeff, it's Joe. Can you hear me? >> Yes, Jeff. >> I mean, the these have been going on
I mean, majority of these cases it's not they're not just a few months old. These have been going on for years. Yes? >> Correct. Correct. >> Okay. I just want to make I want to get that out there. I want that on the record that this is uh this is a lot of these have been going
for for quite some time. And it's not just the last week or the week before last kind of a situation. And we'll talk more Thank you, sir. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Okay, I believe Valerie stepped away. So, um can we we're going to go on to
item nine. Which is the proposed resolution for the Florida League of Cities voting delegate. Any comments, questions? >> I thought Mayor is the delegate, right? Typically, is that the standard?
>> It's whoever we appoint. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Uh okay, I'm back. Um at this time I believe um who is going to the conference is uh Lisa, Anita, and Manish.
Okay, so that way you're aware. I think historically they um appointed the mayor. >> So, to clarify, we voted back uh 202619 was the Palm Beach County League of Cities voting delegate.
So, this is a different voting delegate for the League of Cities. >> That is correct. >> Yes. >> But >> Yeah, this is for the Florida League of Cities, right? >> Yes, correct. >> Well, yes, historically yeah, I mean it's your point, it was the it has been kind of deemed the mayor as
the one of the mayor is going, you know, that's the person who's representing as the voting delegate. >> Yeah, I I think that's the right decision. I I mean, I would say yes, that >> We're not voting tonight. This is >> All right. >> Lisa, I may change my mind.
>> [laughter] >> Yeah, I was just answering his question. He asked if that if if it was that's the way it was supposed to go. And historically, that's the decision, but hey, what you know? >> Okay. Um moving on to the next item. We have
proposed resolution 202661, consideration of a professional grant writing and strategic grants planning services. Uh historically, staff has encountered challenges associated with the grant writing process, such as last-minute grant opportunities
and compressed application deadlines, limited staff capacity to dedicate sufficient time to grant research and development, lack of specialized grant writing expertise within the organization, reliance on multiple parties assisting with portions of grant applications without centralized
coordination, difficulty maintaining a comprehensive inventory of grant opportunities and submission schedules, limited long-range planning for grant funding opportunities, matching fund requirements, and budget impacts. Staff believes that the town would
benefit from a more strategic and proactive grants program that focuses not only on writing grant applications, but also on developing a comprehensive grant strategy aligned with the town's operational, capital improvement, and strategic priorities.
To explore this concept, staff contacted several firms listed within the Florida League of Cities Grant Resource Directory seeking information regarding professional grant consultant services. LinkedIn Associates Inc. was the only firm that responded uh and met with
staff to discuss the town's current grant environment, challenges, opportunities, and future funding goals. Rather than solely focusing on individual grant applications, the proposed approach emphasizes establishing a sustainable grants
program for the town and the steps would be one, funding um needs assessment. So, they would conduct interviews with all of town's leadership uh to identify the priority projects, uh operational
needs, capital improvements, and funding opportunities. Then, that would be converted into a strategic grant plan um and that would be a one-to-two-year grant strategy. Then, they would do a grant inventory and calendar
uh to create and maintain uh a grant inventory and identify eligible grant programs so we can anticipate deadlines, um estimated award amounts, matching fund requirements. Uh the next step would be a grant research and development. Uh and then
the final step would be financial planning support. This approach would allow the town to transition from a reactive grant application process to a proactive funding strategy designed to increase competitiveness and long-term success.
Uh the proposed agreement is limited to pre-award grant services and does not include post-award grant administration. That would be a completely separate service, which is outlined in more detail in your memo. We can discuss that
further if you would like, but again, that that would be something completely separate. The fiscal impact is that the proposed agreement would result in an estimated expenditure of approximately $6,000 and the contract would run through September 30th, 2026.
Um and that would give us kind of some time to uh establish a relationship with LinkedIn and Associates and see if we want to um renew for a one-year contract um and utilize them during that um
uh sh- strategic grants plan um strategy. The funding for the service is not currently included within the town's adopted budget. So, if the council supports this initiative, staff would recommend utilizing available contingency funds
um from the remainder fiscal year 25-26. Do we have any questions? >> What's the dollar amount? >> It's $2,000 a month. So, for until the end of this fiscal
year would be $6,000. If we wanted to continue utilizing them uh to be our grant writers for the entire year, it would be 24,000 per year. >> We don't have to commit to the whole year or is there a minimal annual
commitment for this contract? >> This contract would be through September 30th because I wanted to kind of try them out before we commit for a whole year. >> So, you're just asking for a 6,000 at this time.
>> At this time, yes. >> Does it decrease any other cost, any staff time? Does it save anyone else's time or any past positions that were eliminated? >> Um so in the past we haven't had someone
that was dedicated to grant writing. I think some folks here kind of assumed some of those responsibilities as certain grants came up but they were not professional grant writers. This process would allow us to have someone that is a professional skilled
grant writer. Which as you know it takes a certain skill set and I'm hoping that that will help us to be more successful. But again, this approach is not just having the grant writer. It's also identifying
our needs, coming up with a full grant strategic plan for the next year or two. So that way we can be proactive, have our deadlines and again have a clear financial snapshot of you know, if
we are applying for this grant and they're asking for matching funds, we want to make sure do we have those funds? Rather than let's just throw the spaghetti on the wall, see what sticks and then what if in faith we get
approved and we don't have the money. >> Okay. >> And so this is just taking a more proactive approach. Again, identifying our needs and you know, just making sure all the information is cohesive because during this process is I've been trying
to get more information with regards to the current grants that we've submitted. It's been a challenge you know, trying to kind of locate all of the information, the requirements and things of that nature. And so we're trying to centralize this area.
Especially since you know, we are grant reliant. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome. Any other questions? Okay. Uh moving on to proposed resolution 2026-62.
Uh the next three resolutions, 62, 63, and DD05, all pertain to trims. I am going to have David take that away. >> Yes, thank you. Uh today, uh July 1st, the property
appraiser released another round of uh property valuations uh across all of uh uh Palm Beach County. Uh you your your jurisdiction was in the top five as far as growth goes, as far
as the percentage increase. I think you increased a little bit over 11 uh 11%. Uh and overall property values, as well as uh you did very well with uh new construction. Uh
the big buzz in the budgeting in local government community is obviously uh homestead exemptions. Uh right now, uh it looks uh it's pulling favorably as it gets closer. Uh
it won't affect our current year budget, uh but there are some Senate bills 4F that just talk about the limitations on uh what can be
uh what the millage rate can be based on whether or not there is a unanimous vote versus 2/3 vote. Um and we'll walk we'll walk through that, but what uh this is the first step in the
process. If you recall, uh you'll get in uh you get a uh a flyer from uh not a flyer, you'll get uh a tax notice that says this is not a bill. And what that tax notice basically does
is that's what these resolutions are for that were given to you right now. We have to set not in stone uh but we do have to set our preliminary millage and obviously preliminary
uh uh assessments and we have to set our first public hearing dates. The reason why we have to set that is because that's what goes on the notice and that's what gets mailed out to everybody. Um what we did you have it
there in front of you and and we'll I'll have the line item detailed budget for you. Staff has been working obviously to reduce the budget. Um but we'll walk through uh what uh what we're anticipating. But
for ease of uh ease of understanding, you know, we're hoping that we can keep the current year millage the same because we are anticipating if the homestead exemption passes uh then
our 2028 budget will be about $300,000 less and our 2029 budget will be about $614,000 less because of those thresholds of exemptions that could pass.
Um but uh we tried to do a very conservative approach. Uh I would say we're about 75% there. Uh we looked at trying to keep the current millage uh rate the same on
property values as well as uh decrease the solid waste assessment because of the staff's great negotiation with the solid waste
contractor and as well as slightly increase the road and drainage assessment of from $220 to a per acre to $310 per acre. The
reason why we're we're we're trying to do that is because we're trying to get that road and drainage assessment fund to stand on its own. And so if you could just scroll down one more, if you wouldn't mind go to the next slide there.
So what we're going to be asking you for is right now those three orange highlighted areas. Those are the levers if you if if you will that we get to control. You know,
we don't get to control property values, but we do get to control the millage rate based on our expenses. As well as the assessments there. And so you can see that based on our
preliminary, this is preliminary, the final budget doesn't happen until the end of September. But the the idea is is that you know, we're really trying to Obviously, we know in the future years that the general fund could potentially
take a significant hit in revenues. And so therefore, we really need to get these other funds, i.e. road and drainage, to be more self-sufficient and self-supporting. And so therefore, that's why the increase
in the road and drainage assessment is is proposed as preliminary. Uh so that the general fund doesn't have to keep funding uh that fund. As well as a this idea here helps us
build up our cash reserves for within the next 2 to 3 years when money really gets tight, uh we have reserves for uh emergencies. Um keep in mind uh this time last year
the big uh the big uh item was uh the local option sales tax, right? So, uh that ended in December of this year and we do not budget that for this year cuz we are not going to be
receiving uh those funds us or any other uh municipality. Um so, we're you know, we're still working through it. We still have some open areas in which the state of Florida has to get back to us on in terms of
uh what the uh pension rates are going to be, uh maybe some health insurance costs we're still looking at. But right now I would say preliminary um high level this is where we're looking at for the budget and uh we're
looking to pass those three resolutions with uh a not to exceed preliminary rate and a date. Uh and that's what we need to move on to the next step in this process as we work with
the state of Florida Department of Revenue as well as the property appraiser. But Jeff, you if you want to go into uh some of these Senate bills which limit what the resolutions will work our
millage rate can be based on a unanimous vote versus a 2/3 vote. Um uh you know, it it gets a little sticky, but we're hoping for a unanimous board support.
But, we'll see what happens. >> Well, where we are in the process right now is uh preliminary trim um and the preliminary trim uh requires a 3 to 2 vote. It doesn't require um those
supermajorities that um would be required for the millage rate to be at 3.2564. Um but, those discussions and our recommendation is uh to >> [snorts]
>> um adopt these numbers preliminarily um to give uh the council flexibility to consider um the the budgeting issues. You know, among the budgeting issues is uh
discussion about the the sheriff's contract. That's a a $7 million item. Um you will probably have discussions about whether or not the general fund should continue to support um
the road and drainage or district um fund. And, you know, that historically has been a $600,000 item. Um and there's a projected
um You've got David's got projections of um 1.6 million more dollars in revenues uh than expenses in the general fund. Um but, you can quickly see how that number
can go down depending on the the council's decision cuz the two I just mentioned are $1.3 million. Um you know, historically. So, um we suggest you you keep your options open.
Um the uh um the the capital um uh is where the general fund the general fund uh would be recommended to to fund
capital. Um and so if you reduce that that millage rate, then you are putting yourself in a situation that you might not be able to consider much in the way of capital. >> [gasps] >> Um and obviously, it's going to be up to
to the council, but from a preliminary standpoint, um we do strongly recommend that you uh uh adopt the uh the rates that are proposed by the manager. I guess there's questions from
>> So, yeah. So, um you know, we just got to into this deep last year, you know, the the conversation was millage over assessment because millage actually does what everybody wants it to
do, right? Wants us to do, which is tax or whatever commercial prop- commercial properties higher, right? Higher value, higher percentage means they pay more. Acreage assessment does not get us that. So, albeit the general the general fund
{quote} {unquote} supports the road and drainage, you can't go backwards, right? So, if we if we up the the in- David, Jeff, correct me if I'm wrong, but if we up the acreage assessment, we can't backfeed the money from public works into the town. We can only feed money from the town into
public works if need be, correct? Um that >> That is That is correct that the assessment is supposed to be utilized for the purposes of Um the the
the road and that that the district is involved in. Um and the only the only hesitancy I I say on that is um there could be um probably a uh more accurate or better assessment as to
what the cost of uh the management side of things are. Um I think it's a I think there's there's a transfer of about $180,000. Um Uh and that number may be a little low
if you went and did the the full analysis. >> So my my my my thinking is correct. The the public public works can't give money to the town, but the town can give money to public works, right? Just to play it safe. Right? So >> Yeah.
>> So I guess you know So when we say So with the the new homestead exemption I know it locks in the sheriff. Does it lock in our millage rate or is it after that is when the millage rate is it this this budget cycle that the the whole you know, well,
if you get if you get a unanimous, you can do this. If you don't, you can do that. Is that locked in now? >> The The unanimous, yes. Yes, those those unanimous um votes are uh to at this point in time. >> Okay.
So >> The The rollback is like 2.8. >> Right. So say we say we unanimously vote to adopt this the way it sits, right? Just for argument's sake. The And then everything goes live in November, right? It gets approved It
gets voted in by by by the referendum, right? And everybody votes it in. And is our is our military then locked down for an X amount of time? Or or how does that work in the future? What it I I'm sure there's some stipulations there. I know there's kind
of a a step down on the on the you know, we're not going to hit it get the hit right away for the on the homestead exemption stuff. There's kind of a step in there. But you know, this is >> Yeah, it Yeah, if you want to go to slide, go up or go down one slide. Uh
I'm sorry, go up one slide. Other way. Um I'm sorry, down. Keep going down. Keep on going down. Keep on going right there. Keep going. Right there. Oh, no, keep on going down. I'm sorry. Go to slide three. Keep going. Keep going.
Keep going. >> Go on a little. Hold on, David. It's going a little slow. >> Okay. So, right here, right? Uh none of this really takes effect. Right? Number one, it assumes that it passes. And number two, here are the proposed
uh uh you know, actions that they're proposing. Now, what this looks at is a snapshot in today's who is homesteaded.
Now, you can understand that if this gets passed, that you might see a a pretty increased flood of those properties getting homesteaded. Could be. But right now, the property appraiser has estimated that all things being
equal, you know, you're looking at about, you know, three to $400,000 of lost revenue in '28, 600,000 in '29 based on those assess assessments there. Um Right. And so,
uh now what what helps Loxahatchee is is that we have a historically a low millage rate, which is great. There are some towns that their millage rate is six seven per seven mills. You know, uh
they're going to have a a challenge because they don't have the the buffer room of flexibility that that we do. Our goal is to try to uh
save dollars while we can for the future reductions in revenue that are on the horizon. >> Yeah, I I I get that part. I got that from what you're saying. My I guess my point is is is if, you know,
yeah, if it's 20 acre prop if it's 20 acre property that, you know, is not homesteaded, right? It's just a horse farm, whatever. I mean, it's got, you know, we got they got exemptions and all this stuff that's filed in there, but it, you know, certain things, the property value goes up, it does whatever, you know. So, I mean, or if
it's a house that's not homesteaded, you know, the house portion, say say uh Joe Smith, ultra billionaire guy, buys 40 acres and builds a house and a barn and everything. The only thing that's that's exempt, to use the old term, right, is
the the portions you being used for the for the agricultural purpose. The house is not. And he builds a $3 million house on the property, right? And it's not homesteaded. So, you know, I I I guess I get what you're saying because the acreage assessment's the acreage assessment. There's no exempt
exemption from that. But then again, on the on the flip side, Tractor Supply doesn't get hit with the acreage assessment. Aldi doesn't get hit with the acreage assessment, right? And that's what we hear all the time. Stop raising our taxes and figure out how commercial can pay more. So, that's
that's just that's my two cents. I don't know. I'm I'm interested to see where we go. Thank you. >> I Yeah, I think everybody pays the acreage assessment. I don't think anybody gets around that one. Except the government owned
>> Yeah, I don't mean they get around it, but I mean inevitably Tractor Supply is paying a portion of the acreage assessment which on say they're sitting on 20 acres, they're paying a fraction of that. So, we up the you know, we up the assessment 120 $100
just call it for argument's sake. We up it $100. They're not paying extra 100 bucks an acre. Yeah, they're passing that on to Tractor Supply and public >> Paul. >> That's what I'm saying. >> I think the Treasure Coast Regional Planning people came up with a great suggestion that we will be discussing.
Um so, that hopefully that will help cover some of those impacts, but um I think Jeff, you touched on for me the question of what is the rollback rate? And you said 2.8, but I think there's probably some other decimal points behind that. >> Yeah, I think I think David's got it
listed somewhere in here. >> Yeah, I think it's uh let me see. It's not uh The current rollback rate is uh I got 3.11586. >> I think that's the 110% rate.
>> I'm sorry. Yeah, that's I I'm so sorry. Yeah, I'm so right. Thank you, Jeff. The current rollback rate is 2.8326. >> 2.8326 >> Yes, ma'am. >> All right, thank you. Um also, we approved the adoption of the cooperative
purchasing agreement with solid waste bid with Coastal um back in March and by my calculations, it was 1950 a month or the 2416 a month and council directed the 1950 a month which
does not total $300. So, I was curious as to why um the the solid waste assessment was set at 300. >> The um the bid amount um in
three was 2260 >> bucks >> $22.66. >> Right. >> Um and we're in current discussions with them and I think pursuant it looks like pursuant to the the way the
um matter was bid, they're going to be entitled to an increase um on that um as of October 1st. Um uh is the way the
the contract language is. Um and so, the contracted amount will be something in the order of 23 to $24. They're they're coming back to >> That is different from the agenda item
from March. So, explain to me how it comes up different. >> Um it comes up It comes up different because the actual contract that was entered into um that we're piggybacking off of
came out at $22.66. I don't know whether there was a >> Hold on. So, what was what was proposed or agreed to by solid waste that was presented to us back in March was not what ultimately was agreed to
by the two entities? >> No, I think there might have been a mistake in in the in the 1950 number. >> Okay. Um so that you're saying it's going to be somewhere around $22, $24, but that's
still not $300. So are we just padding that for for till we don't have a contract? I mean >> No, the I mean the $25 is is $300. Um if
if we get the exact number there, it might it might come up to 200 like $24 is $296, I think. No, it's $22 and 288. I'm
sorry, 288 is the number. Um so Um I think we just the $300 um that >> I'm sorry, Jeff. Jeff, can you can you hold on just a second? Whoever whoever's talking in the background, can you mute your
your microphone, please? Thank you. Go on, Jeff. Sorry. Really distracting. >> I'm sorry. The $300 includes the the actual amount and then there's you know
a slight a slight variance to to cover administrative costs and things like that and the fact that we do have some time involved in it and all those kind of things. And we will have if you wanted to go to the exact number, we can have the exact
number of when we get the the final numbers for you during you know, you'll have that information as to what the contracted amount is exactly. So that if you wanted to do the
units at let's say dollars and 37 cents, you could do that. But if it turned out to be 301, you'd be limited to the 300. So, 300 if that round number is safe. >> If If we could just provide
an explanation of why what we approved in March is now different than what we're talking about. If that could be provided for this agenda item, that would be helpful because we have some very astute public that are probably going to bring that up.
>> Amen. >> All right. >> So, Madam Mayor, if I may speak, there there is two options to that actual contract. Um, we are looking at the one that's going to be, you know, within 50 cents more
because it's going to be instead of a 6-cubic-yard vegetation pickup, we're going with the one that has a 12-yard vegetation pickup. And it was just cents more. >> Okay. >> I I just wanted to throw that in there as well. That's why we're looking a little more.
>> It was originally $19.50 per month. Um, and $24.16 for the 12. And council, I believe, directed staff to move forward with it. >> Yes. At the >> I personally am not excited about paying
for 12 cubic yards um, for somebody who doesn't put their garbage or or their vegetation waste out. I I I'm a burn girl. Um, so, you know, we already have trouble with that waste stream being already abused by the
the uh nursery folks. Um, so, uh that needs to be explained, too, if this is where it's going in that agenda item. >> Yes, ma'am. And then, I I just want to state back when you guys were approving that contract was not fully executed at
that point in time. The county didn't The SWA did not fully execute it at that that So, the pricing we have now is the fully executed pricing. >> Okay. Well, again, just some explanation, I think again, for our very diligent folks
taking notes. >> Okay. Yes, ma'am. >> All right. Hi there. Speaking of diligence, I have some good questions. Uh let's start with the backup for your analysis. You said
um that with the next year's uh proposed referendum, there would be less 372K or 614K. Could you share that? I want to, for example, understand how many of our
properties are homestead, etc. So, we have some backup on that. Would you please provide that, David? >> Yeah. Uh yeah, that's provided. We get that from Palm Beach County. Uh all the counties in the state of Florida gave us these preliminary
revenue reduction numbers. Uh that Now, remember that that doesn't that doesn't affect this budget year, 2026 to 2027. That will go if if it's passed. >> I understand. Okay. I just want the backup. Okay, second thing.
So, all these things are on referendum. It doesn't affect our 2026 budget. So, your hypothesis is that let's collect more money in case that referendum get get passed.
So, here is my question. What is the increase in the cost? Do you have some estimate on the on each of these uh let's say two funds? We know the coastal one, but >> Yeah. Yeah, I mean, your general fund, you know, we estimate that the
year budget over budget increase is about 5.2%. Uh your your you know, now again, we we had but you can see you can see the the the detail and you can see >> I understand just the big numbers of
general fund increases by 5.2% and what about the roads and drainage fund? >> Yeah, road and drainage the road and drainage actually goes down because our contract goes down, right? Because we right now your 2026 budget for for for
road and drainage was about I'm sorry. >> You're thinking of you're thinking of solid waste. >> Okay. So road and I'm sorry. Thank you. Road and drainage that budget actually goes down because we reduced facilities
and equipment we reduced down some engineering but it's all it's all there in the details and I'll be glad to >> Okay. So that is reduced understood. Okay. So just do you have the number what percent is reduced roads and drainage? >> It reduced it will it reduced down
operating reduced by 6.7% >> Okay. 6.7 Okay. And what about the capital budget? Do you have any outline on the capital? >> I don't all as I know right now is is that we estimated how much and it's and it's
also in the in the capital budget slide we estimated what we think we're going to spend in 2026 and with these proposed millage rates that that we're hoping we
can achieve we can have the general fund sent over to the capital improvement fund about $820,000 and it it automatically gets $413,000
because when we get our our gas tax money transportation that has to be uh that's a segregated and so we we put that into CIP and so we transfer that over. >> Yeah. Okay. So, your assumption >> A portion of it. A portion of it does and a portion of it goes to road
maintenance and that's in the uh >> Yeah. >> That's in the solid in the road drainage fund. >> Let me ask you this. Let's say hypothetically, if we don't increase the magnitude that you are recommending,
we Are you saying then the capital budget will be taking a hit of that much magnitude or is that a correct statement because it seems to me that What? >> Well, Manish, I think if you if you if you look at the budget summary,
>> Mhm. >> you've got the general fund having about $5 million of revenue and I think it's about what, 3.3? I'm I'm looking at the screen. >> Yeah, 3.4.
So, you've got you've got $1.6 million in >> Yeah. >> revenue over um expenditures um before you do any transfers. >> Now, keep Keep in mind, Jeff, we don't have any law enforcement in there,
right? >> Right. And that's what I was going to say. Law If you if if the if the ultimate decision of the council is to try to re-engage with the Sheriff's Office, that's going to be at least a $700,000 expenditure. >> Wait. Wait. one Let me Let me clarify.
So, you're saying general fund increased by 5.2% without PBSO in there. >> Because PBSO is not in PBSO is not in this one. So, >> Okay. >> I think >> What What happens to the cash that was
in the PBSO that we did not pay their invoices this year? How is that cash carrying forward? >> That cash goes >> That'll carry forward to fund balance. >> Yeah. No, no, I know. I'm saying is that reducing our In other words, where is that liquidity
going? Where is that money going in 2027? How are you accommodating that? >> That goes into your fund balance as a reserve to increase your fund balance. I think it's on uh
I have I have your estimated fund balance and what that and what that and what that reserve goes for is it goes for future emergencies or future issues that >> I understand, David. Let me ask.
So, if hypothetically, that money does not go to the reserves, do we have state mandatory level of reserves that we have to have, right? >> You don't have a state mandatory. You've got a policy mandatory policy.
>> mandatory? We have minimum We already meet those objectives. >> We do have it. This is on top of that 25%. Is that correct? >> Your preliminary estimates are yes. Yes, that is >> Okay, got it. So, final question. You
are saying to recommend to to go with your recommendation since it's more than 110% increase than the rollback rate, you need unanimous vote. Is that correct?
>> For for ultimate for ultimate adoption, for Tuesday night to set the preliminary trim, you need a three to two vote. Um because and and that's what we're recommending at this point in time to keep options open so that you have
flexibility to to make those decisions. Um one of the things that that'll be talked about is with the uncertainty that um we're facing um with the homestead exemption and all
those kind of things. If you reduce um the the current year's ad valorem millage rate and it has kind of a compounding effect
on on future years because then your rollback rate gets um gets altered. Um and you're you're still going to be subject to those um those vote requirements of
uh the more you know, you need a 2/3 or you'll um to to pass a um a budget up to 110% and then over 110% of the rollback rate um you'll need a unanimous. So, there is somewhat of a
compounding effect. >> Understood. >> If you if you chose to reduce millage rate this year. >> Thank you. Is that 110% applicable to both uh millage and assessment? >> No. >> or just for millage? Okay.
>> The assessments are the assessments are a 3-2 vote. >> Okay. Yeah. >> Um and uh they can They can be um adjusted so long as that they are relative to the the cost of the operation, you know. And the cost of the
operation can uh you know, the the district has the ability to do some uh >> Let me >> some capital They could do capital and and those kind of things as a part of their program. >> Thank you. Okay, let me ask you this.
Did you explore other alternative method of revenue generation such as charging fees on commercial or something along those lines? Like for example, pay PBSO because they spend a lot of time there, charge more
fees to commercial areas. Is there a >> No, we we we didn't explore that because that would require um the creation of a taxing district that would allow us to do that.
>> How long does that process take? >> Um it >> I would I would say about 18 months, 18 19 months. >> It can't It cannot be accomplished prior to >> Understood. >> your adoption of this budget. >> Okay, so next year I saw that if
this referendum gets passed, towns have an ability to levy a fee based on their services. So, does it make our job to charge commercial easier with this referendum? Do you know?
>> Um no, I don't think so. The The town has the ability to charge fees for services right now, and we do charge um fees for services such as permits and and those kind of things. Um if we had
um if we had a a parks department and a parks and rec department, um you know, there are fees that are charged by municipalities for those services. >> Okay, thank you. All right, okay. That answers my question. Thank you.
>> I I had a couple questions again with all the questions. So, uh David, you're where we we magically made it through the gauntlet at the state level, and we have now matching funds of 375,000 for this budget. Okay. Um so,
>> Now now now we still have I mean, you know, we still have some receivables from the the the prior year that we're still waiting on. And all those funds, you know, uh uh we're still those are receivables on our books. Uh but uh
you know, when we when we budget, we the the the things I did not budget for in this preliminary budget, 75% done-ish, is that uh I I didn't uh I didn't budget for any red light camera revenue, right? I knew that was a big big thing
uh or a big uh potential problem. I wanted to be conservative on the revenues and uh you know, conservative-ish on the you know, expenditures. >> Okay. Just so, I just want to make sure we're we're accounting for that. Uh I also had a question, when the property
appraiser, since they just came out today, um updates all their tax stuff, who in the town is reviewing those properties? >> Uh that uh reviewing those properties, uh
tip- uh well, typically that's the role of the property appraiser. >> Yeah, I understand. But, I pointed I pointed out recently that we have some properties that are paying no ad valorem um and from all appearances, there's no reason they should not have zero ad
valorem. Uh and it could be an accounting error on the or just a website error because obviously you're, you know, looking at these things on any particular day on the internet. So, I my question is um when the town gets
the the tax roll information, um are we able to is it in a spreadsheet format where we're able to then manipulate the data so we could take like the ad valorem column and and sort by that information,
non ad valorem by that information? Um obviously, uh land um zoning um whether it's ag classified and the classifications thereof, do we have that information that we get directly from the property appraiser.
>> I don't think we get it. I think that we can request it from Dino and he'll you know he'll obviously provide us any any information we we we we need or want. >> I think it might be beneficial that we do
request that information and and make sure we're reviewing to make sure that the the property appraiser is getting it right. Right? >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, absolutely. >> Thank you. That was it. >> Yes. Yes, ma'am. Paul?
>> Paul's got his hand up. >> Sorry. So, just to be clear, Jeff, if we start if you know if we were to do a special even though it takes 18 months and whatever is kind of future thing, but we start a special task taxing district that special whatever we do that
increase there, that money has to be spent in that taxing district, right? We can't use it to >> Correct. >> buy shovels. We can't use it to you know >> Correct. >> It's kind of like having an enterprise fund. It can't be used anywhere else but in that taxing district for that taxing district and they have to be involved, correct?
>> Yes, and the and the property owners would have to approve it. >> All right. Thank you. >> Any other questions? >> Well, again, you know, just to reiterate, you know, these are preliminary. Uh nothing is set in stone. All this does for us at this meeting
when we if we can get these three resolutions approved, that allows me to go on to the state of Florida Department of Revenues and uh the property appraiser's website and put in
uh these preliminary values. That's why you get that uh that notice in the mail that says this is not a bill. Uh and what it does is it just shows you the maximum amount. And that's what we're trying to set here. That's why Jeff said, "Hey, this
is These are maximums. Let's not drop anything down." If you recall last year, we we tried to do a four mills. It It's really just to give us some leverage if things change. And And then the other thing too it does is
it sets the public hearing notice so that the Florida Department of Revenue and the property appraisers can print off those notices and send to the the property owners. So.
>> Um one other thing real quick on the the solid waste assessment. Um the town has historically um assessed for
a residential property for multiple cans, if you will. Um So, whatever the unit rate was, you know, if you had three cans, you would have paid triple the the unit
rate. Um in reviewing the the contract and reviewing our assessment methodology, I'm not quite sure how
uh that was authorized. Um And so, that's a That's a question that we have as to whether or not you want to continue that that practice. There's a
rationale, obviously, for it that you're you know, uh collecting twice as as much garbage and therefore you're having twice as much impact. Um but I think if if that practice is desired
to to be kept um we will need to revise our assessment methodology and we have that ability to to do it. Um but that's just something to to keep in
mind and I'll be probably reporting on that more um on on Tuesday. >> Okay. >> Okay. Just last comment one quickly. I think it'll be good to hear comments
from you Miss Oaks on the cost side with poor V. What what what is your estimate even high level without uh PBSO and with PBSO how what is the increase from the last year and some big picture
on the cost? Thank you. >> Uh so with staff we have had multiple meetings where we have been really delving into the budget looking at things line item by line item and really trying to just restructure the budget to be more
department level focused. >> [snorts] >> Um so you will see that in some areas it it gives the appearance as though that there's an increase in a in a department but it's really that we're reallocating uh funds to the appropriate area. Um
we've gone through quite a bit of the the departments. I believe that we need to go into a little bit more further detail with about two more departments. So I'm not ready to kind of talk at that level just yet
but we are working very closely with the finance director looking to see where we can ultimately um you know, reduce in each department and and bring forth savings. >> Okay, thank you. >> You're welcome. Uh if that's all, we'll move on to I
don't know if >> um I'm I'm sorry, Valerie. One One other thing that we needed to to talk about is um by Tuesday, we need to have the um the
dates and the council's availability for um a meeting. Our regular meeting is set for September 1st um in September. Uh you can still have the regular meeting if you want to, or you can move it to another date, but you
cannot adopt um any of these rates um until at least September 3rd. Um and so we need to to have um your availability. I think the clerk's office has reached out to you, but that's
That's a part a final part of those resolutions. I think they're sitting there as blanks right now. We need to fill in the date um to inform everybody as to when our public hear our initial public hearing will be.
>> Yes, and the two dates that we proposed uh for the first budget hearing is we're looking at Tuesday, September 8th 8th. Uh which we if there is uh an item for PZ uh planning and zoning, we will have to reschedule their meeting. Uh and for the
second budget hearing, we're proposing Tuesday, September 22nd. So, if you would look at your calendars and let us know um sooner rather than later so we can plug that information into the resolution, that would be great. >> Yeah, I've already responded. >> Me, too.
>> Okay, great. All right, on to item number 14, discussion regarding the Loxahatchee Avenue road closure. Craig. >> Um, Becca. All right, so as you guys requested, um, for the
the T for at the corner, I mean, down at the end right there, this, um, myself and Gary went on to >> [sighs] >> on the Palm Beach County with the MUDCTC approves. We pulled there's a Y you can put down
there that would actually fit in the 50-ft right-of-way or the T would fit down there at the end of that 50-ft right-of-way. Um, this is still up discussion to you guys if we're going to move forward with this or do we want to um, leave it as an open road.
Fully up to council. >> Where is the budget coming for this item? >> Um, this would be the the only major cost would be is the gate itself that I think we're coming out like $2,500. Um, and then we would not be paving
that little that little section down there. It would just stay as like a dead end shell rock road. So, you would be light, you know, we just reconstruct the end down there just adding a little bit of shell rock to the corners. It would not be a massive amount of
money at all. If we move forward with this. >> And Craig's probably got money in his road maintenance fund for that. Just got to carry over funds from previous year. >> Correct. >> Hey Craig, it's Joe. >> Yes, sir, [snorts] go ahead. >> Have there been any further discussions
with that business in regards to that traffic coming off of there? >> No, we I have not spoke with any of them about it. Um, and we have not received any other um, comments from the local residents, either. >> All right, thank you, sir.
>> Any other questions? No? All right, moving on to the next item. Uh, item number 15, discussion regarding the town attorney's contract uh, at our June 2nd meeting, Council requested that
uh, this item be placed on the agenda. In the memo, I kind of put a little bit of a history of how [clears throat] we went from outsourcing uh, attorney services to bring it in-house. Uh, put that in there for the new Council
members' edification. Um, and attached kind of a legal analysis of what those costs were um, when it was outsourced. Additionally, uh, the attorney's contract is included in here, along with
his job description. I'll turn it over to you guys if you have any questions at this time. >> Yeah, I know that we had um, a couple of outside firms that uh, had come forward at that time.
Uh, I I know Weiss Serota we're using for foreclosures. Um, I would like to ask that um, those be contacted and see if there's any interest there and um, if we have
you know, any any other firms that have inquired um, that they have a letter they would like to submit. It doesn't need to be an extensive proposal. Um, I think one of the concerns for me is the um, the turnaround time
on on items and what's kind of an industry standard versus what we're experiencing um, going to the in-house model and you know, if the in-house model is working in the capacity you want it, does it does it require
additional resources to be uh, allocated to it. I think at this stage looking at an in-house model versus an external model we we're still not fully getting a picture of of the cost versus the
deliverables on this. So, um, I think we need a little more information as we move into this discussion phase on what that looks like and um, if that could be provided in some backup format that would be helpful for me, anyway.
>> Any other questions or comments? >> Yeah, this is Manish. I I So, to Mia's comment just now, I can you if you could I don't know if there is a easy way to do this, but when we say deliverables
and timeline, is there a way to list the projects that are right now that are legal projects that are in progress you know, delayed or whatever the reason is, is there a way to understand some
information on what our needs are, how much work is it? Do we have external firms? If we do, are we engaging them plus in-house? Um, I think uh, from the financial point of view and from the visibility point of view, it
would be good to know the status of the various legal initiatives and if we if they're not getting completed then let's understand them. So, if you have a list of the initiatives or whatever the case is or whatever, just quickly to understand
what's on time, what's delayed. That would help inform some of those decisions. Thank you. >> Anyone else? All right. Well, I guess that >> Oh, sorry. Um I don't know how timely
this is, but the Treasure Coast Regional Planning folks had suggested removing center road striping. We discussed it briefly at our workshop. Um Craig had suggested um I think uh the input of
um a traffic engineer. I'd reached out to Jessica for some clarification on what she had shared with council. Um she agreed that possibly the opinion of a traffic engineer and that were those were for 10-ft lanes or less.
Um and I know we've got the paving coming up and the additional cost of striping if ultimately we decide to remove striping, I think would kind of be money you know, good money at bad if that's going to be a change in that policy. And
maybe Craig, could you could we add that as maybe a discussion item since the the paving's coming up and the striping is within like 3 weeks after that? Is that possible to add it? I Manish, I know I said we wouldn't add things at these meetings, so I apologize, but I
the timing of it, I'm a little concerned since we've got the paving people kind of on on speed dial here at this point. >> Um yes, I don't see why not. I would for me, I would make I would have to get with our town engineer Gary and then
possibly get with um Cashaw Barr as well. >> But Cashaw Barr is not a traffic engineer. Simmons I believe Simmons and White is our traffic engineer. >> Yeah. So, I would get with Gary and then get his opinion on it and he can discuss it with the safe Simmons and White so
that they can give their an engineering review on it. I don't want to say hey we're you know, we want to remove it. I would leave it up to them to say hey this is the what they recommend. >> Okay. >> May May I also suggest another item if that's okay with you?
>> Well, since I did I guess it's only fair. >> Thank you. Uh well, I think one of the things we all have discussed in the past that we want Okeechobee to be a local rural
uh road and we I think all we have in the past had discussed various ways to do it and one of the cheapest and most efficient uh mechanisms was to study if we can put stop signs
and and crossing lanes or trails to slow down the traffic and it will help um residents who are living on various lateral roads to come out easily. So, may I suggest that in the upcoming budget discussion
if you can put a just a range, what is the dollar amount range if at certain intersection, let's say the first road and the last cross-section or some major ones if you put stop signs, you can say per road it will cost, per intersection it
cost us X. Could you please um put together an analysis on if the council decides to move forward with the stop signs, how much will it cost us? >> So, >> Yeah. >> Yeah, so we the mayor, the public works
director and I, we had a meeting with the county mayor Baxter and her team with regards to this specific um uh Okeechobee and and the calming of it and whatnot. Um the mayor will be
reporting on that at our meeting on July 7th. With regards to funding, I am in communication with them and there's some information that they need from me um before I can bring it forward to council, but we are in communication with them um and we'll give you a Well, the mayor will give you an update at our
next meeting. >> Okay, no, I I appreciate the update, but I don't know if the stop sign was discussed, but I want to know if we have to take the matters in our own hand. If county gives us money, wonderful. But I don't want to be waiting on their thing
even if we have to put one and two on beginning and the end. Uh I I would just like to know the options. How much will it cost us? If you can give us a range, that would be helpful. >> Thank you.
Any other uh comments from council? >> Not at this time. >> Team USA is about to kick off. >> Okay, that means we need to get off the line. It's already been 2 hours. >> [laughter] >> All right, everyone have a good night. >> Thank you all.
>> All right, you too. Thank you. >> Oh, hey real quick, everybody. Everybody got their July 1st deadline stuff in today? >> Yes, got it in. >> Good deal. All right, just helping out. Have a good night. >> You too.