I don't know. >> Hello. Good evening everyone. The town of Locka Hatchee Groves town council meeting will now come to order. >> Could I please have stand everyone stand for the pledge of
>> allegiance? United States. [Music] >> Thanks. Um, and if we could just have a moment of silence and I think it would be appropriate for us to silence forward for uh Veterans Day which is coming up next week and we have our celebration
actually happening this Saturday. So please join us if you can. Just have a moment of silence for our veterans, past, present, and our active servicemen. Thank you everyone. And if I could have a roll call back.
>> Council member Coleman >> present. >> Council member El Ramy is attending via Zoom. >> Here. >> Council member McClendon >> here. Vice Mayor Herszog >> here. >> Mayor Kaine >> present. >> Town manager Ramalia >> here.
>> Town attorney Kurtz >> here. >> Community standards director Gardenner Young. Public works director Galant >> present. >> Okay. And if I can have a motion to approve the agenda. >> Make a motion to approve the agenda. >> Second.
>> All in favor? >> I. >> Okay. We have some presentations tonight. So, first we have uh Kim Lancaster who I don't see. So, I'm here assuming she sent some proxies for us. Um, which is wonderful. I have to share because this is really kind of cool. So,
I have this woman who I've been working with for a number of years. She's actually one of my business partners and she has a sister that, you know, she always talks about who I had never actually met. And guess who I met today? Her sister who is one of our presenters this evening. So, I'm really super excited. Um, please.
>> Good evening everyone. Mayor Gates, council members, members of the public. Um, I'm not getting Lancaster. My name is Andreas Alexander. I'm the associate dean for academic affairs at the locket growth campus of Palm Beach
State College. I'm here on behalf of our executive dean of the Locka Hetry Grove campus, Kim Caster, and Dr. Germany Dixon, who is the associate dean for public safety. I'm joined today by Miss Joan Ramsey who is our facilities
assistant director. We are here today to present our emergency response training center with ERPC at the Loxetry Grove campus of Palm Beach State College. The main focus of this project is to build seamless and
effective interdicciplinary training for fire and law enforcement, ensuring optimal processes for live event activity and specifically handling difficult situation. There is no training facility like this
in the state of Florida. The closest one is in Georgia and the next closest one is in Texas. We had the opportunity for training needs for the state's department of emergency management. Director Guthrie visited the Lakeport
campus several times to discuss collaborating on his plan for statewide practical hands-on training. Our goal is to expand programmatic operations at both the Lux Epic Roads and our Belgrade campuses.
Since we are currently providing international training, we believe we can develop opportunities with other government agencies. This is a great opportunity for the town of Lat Gross and Palm Beach State College. I will now turn it over to Miss
Joan Ramsey, our facilities director, who will discuss the project in greater detail. >> Thank you, Andrea. >> Thank you. And with me today I think Tasha Lan association who's the architect on the project and Mary Lren
with EW consultants who are environmental as was saying some of the programs are for targeting our emergency responders then at the Losi campus we'll have search and rescue operations a lot of simulated activities vehicle machine
rescue and so forth that will be on the campus and over here is just an overview of the site on the south side to Southern Boulevard and then um the area was looking a little bit before construction was completed on our second building, but you can see the extents of
the parking lot. Does this have a pointer on it? Probably not. So, the northern end of the parking lot and the area identified in yellow is the site area for the emergency response training center. You can see um towards the south is the outline of our current dental
health innovation building and um talk a little bit further about what will be going on the site itself is Jill. >> Thank you gentlemen and good evening everyone again Jill again with song architects and I'm pleased to walk you
through some of the physical aspects of the project and some of the college's goals. Uh so as you can see by the area indicated in yellow, the site area is located fairly central to the campus and that northern portion of the site. It is
accessed by a drive connection to the main campus drive as it runs east toward B road. The complex is intended intentionally set deep within the trees and back from the road. This is intended to shield
from view these training activities and maintain the serene character of the site and the feel of the campus as you're moving through along the main drive. Uh as you enter the site, you would come to a well landscaped small
parking area and a single building. Within the building is where some of the um training activities take place. And then beyond that is a large outdoor area for additional training simulations. And this is all, as I mentioned, set in an
area of the site well within the trees, but is it's an area that's really high and dry. And it's set so respect two different areas of wetlands. One to the east, which you can see there on the slide, and another to the northwest.
Another aspect of this project will be extension of the campus's utilities, both the water main and the firewater mains. Right now, they originate from Southern Boulevard and they run north of the main campus drive. We're going to be
continuing those to the east to connect to the water manes that exist already in B road. This is going to make the campus a lot safer and more resilient. will have better access to for fire hydrants and things like that throughout the site. So, it'll be a great improvement
making things a bit more resilient. U taking you to more of a bird's eye view, I'll just point out to orient you. If you look at the upper right hand corner of this view is Southern Boulevard and this is looking primarily to the east.
In the foreground, you see the latest building that was just constructed on the campus. And then if you can see the the area of yellow indicated within the trees and it would be shielded from view and uh really set back from from the
road again to maintain that serene feel of the campus as we move the road. And uh at this point I'll turn things over to Mary Lindren who talk a little bit about the environmental. Um so yes Mary Linder and the
consultants um just briefly about the environmental um property. So we have a long history of environmental review on this property dating back to the mass around 2015.
Um so we've we've been all over the property conducted environmental assessments but we wanted to do an update for this specific um development area. Um we looked at as Bill mentioned there are two wetlands that were
previously identified and preserved as fable plant. Um one wetland to the east and one to the west. Those are both going to be preserved with a minimum one being buffer and those buffers those buffers are going to be completely
remain >> um they're going to completely remain with native trees and um shrubs all native and it's managed and preserved by the um so so those are the wetlands. There's no other wetlands within the development
area that will be impacted. Um we also looked we did an update to check for any habitat or presence of endangered and threatened species. We did not find any um none of those to be concerned with the specific development area. And then
lastly we looked we um had a tree survey completed. The tree survey identified um the tree survey identified all native trees within the proposed development area. um it located the trees and it gives the size and the species and we
use that in order to kind of shift things around and position them in order to avoid the minimal impact to some of the larger some of the larger concentrations of trees. Um so we were able to to um use that study to our
advantage. And lastly, as John mentioned, there's going to be a perimeter um screening of native trees. Um a complete level kind of screen sh >> Thank you, Mary. So, thank you for allowing us to the opportunity to share
our project vision and goals with you. We're very excited about the emergency response training center and we think it'll be a great opportunity to um train our first responders and emergency managers within the community for the overall goal of increasing the state's preparedness should a disaster.
So at this time I'd like to um thank you again and open it up for any questions or comments. >> Paul's right on it. Go Paul. >> Um I yeah just I took a couple notes. Um
where did there they page um so the facility the building I know you're have building and then you're going to have some like lay down area whatever is this are we looking to kind of mirror what Palm Beach County currently has at Pike Road is that kind of the idea a burnhouse the whole nine yards repel
tower >> so we actually have a fire academy there so those fire exercises are going to remain at our at our facility So, these are going to be more search and rescue. Um, again, that fits a little bit more with the environment
that is in locky. And then also, um, some trench simulated trench crop training where they'll be um, simulating some of those activities and and learning how to rescue people from collapse and also vehicle machine rescues. So, that's what the the
building will be there for. So those types of activities will be horizontal. >> I also noticed in the in in your aerial photo or rendering there's a perimeter of of um large canopy shade trees. Is
that that's the focus going forward or is that just for the purposes of rendering? >> Yeah, I'll speak to that. I think the um the rendering showed them in a little bit of an artistic way, but what we're actually doing is preserving a lot of the tall pines and oak trees and things
that are already there. So, we're utilizing those and then we'll be infilling with similar trees to um further shield where we need to. >> So, so through through your arborist survey, you found that you have some sustainable oak trees and things like that because I know other developments
nearby, they found some that weren't, you know, they weren't really viable for long term. the areas around preserving some of those helic. [Music] [Music]
>> Okay. And my next qu I'm sorry to make you keep switching. Um I should have prepared a little better. Um so as far as as the the school's concerned, the university is concerned. Um I know there was talks back when they were building the the original building. Uh I think
there was some more talks when they started getting started for the second building. Um you know and I' I've mentioned some desire whatever that you know we we have this aspiration here. I know that's a bad word sometimes to be spoken up here, but we have we have, you
know, we we we have this aspiration of these connected uh multi-use trails, horse trails, etc. throughout the whole town. Um, your facility sits right up against collecting canal, collecting canal, right, with a nice big easement.
and I just haven't had a chance to talk to to um Miss Lancaster yet again, but I mentioned to her I didn't know if there was a way that we can start, you know, working working that into a plan like for the whole campus cuz I mean as as
I'm looking at what you're laying out here and stuff like that, I know there's some more opportunity for you guys to develop um what you're allowed to do, right? Because you're a university, etc., right, state, right? Um that's a big misconception by folks as well. I mean, you got nice large lakes and
things like that that would, you know, so I don't know if that was an there's an opportunity to start working some of that stuff in with this project or at least, you know, maybe looking toward the future as as utilizing that that easement down the canal that's currently fenced off. Um, you know, and things
like that, maybe around to the west or whatever. Your thoughts on that? >> We don't have that currently in our our plans, the RTC project. Um but that is something that we'll bring to the mooncaster and president's attention that that is something that was
discussed so we can look forward um to maybe implementing that in the future with other projects. >> My questions are pretty similar. What is the height of the tall building that's going to be on this project? There's only one building in this
complex and that building would be less than 20 ft >> and you would have a pitch through that. >> Okay. >> And then you don't know what you said native trees but you don't know what kind of native trees you're going to put back. And the reason why I ask is the rest of the campus that they've developed the buildings look great but
it's very sparse for landscaping right it's very open no pine trees very sparse. So, I'm kind of curious if >> Can you come up to the mic? I'm sorry. So, that gets recorded. Thank you. >> Um, I can speak to what native trees are
existing in that area and specifically the perimeter is mostly slash pine, floral oaks, and cabbage. And there's there are some exotics mixed in like um I think it's Brazilian pepper. Those will be taken out. They're pretty exotic
that don't belong there. Um and then so any gaps the Romanian um could be filled in with those same similar species like SLS. >> Okay. Because it seems like all they >> we like live oaks. >> Yeah. It seems like all they all they plant is the palm trees and that's it.
You know >> you could take that back. We like live oaks >> or even the slash pine. Just the palm trees. It's like enough of that and they're very sparse. You know that's it for me. Mar has a question. >> Yeah. Um, mine was the height, but also
uh how many other um building projects will be fit into the the rest of the area that is still available. We do have a um a master plan which I believe was shared with you initially but we did um the ERT suite was not
initially on that master plan so we did get that approved by our district board of trustees so we'll be sharing that with you after the meeting I don't have it with me here but we'll forward that to you as well. Do you have an idea as to how many buildings roughly?
>> Jill worked on our master plan as well. So long-term future master plan. So it would be, you know, over a period of years. I know this putting the ERTC in this area actually took away two buildings that had been planned in the
master plan. So again, it's really preserving more green on the site. And I don't recall the total number of buildings and I at this point is really just very diagrammatic. Um, >> okay. >> So, we have we had put an anticipated
maximum building area that we would have, but I don't know it off the top of my head. So, we we'll share that with you. >> Okay. Because, you know, when I look at uh the the construction that you've already done, uh most of the area is now without vegetation,
tall vegetation. Um, you know, so I I would hate to see um five more projects going in and and no trees left on that uh whole complex. >> We understand. We love the natural
environment there as well. Um we did point out that in the future that we'll have a parking garage so we won't have so much surface parking. So that is planned in our master plan that if we're going to build more parking, we'll go up or down. So that'll be one of the buildings. >> Yes.
>> Okay. Of the many. Okay. >> Master plan really does respect the perimeter of this site. So along collecting Canal Road and B Road, uh the goal is to really screen things from view and maintain that rural feel. >> Okay. So um what will your distance from
collecting canal be for this site that's going in now? >> Good question. I'm estimating here, but I would say approximately 4 to 500 ft distance. >> Okay. Because I know we had uh I thought
in the beginning we had had like a 300 foot limit as to how close you can be to collecting canal. >> That's true. There is a a limit for height and we're we're well south of that limit along
>> and the distance >> the distance of that. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. >> Lisa, did you have any questions? I'm sorry I don't see a hand raised or anything. >> No, I'm good. Thank you. You guys covered it. >> Okay. Um, thank you very much for being
here, ladies and gentlemen, to present. We really do appreciate your time. Um, and thank you. Thank you for staying in part partnership with us and for bringing this to us. >> Should we get to do that? >> We don't on this item. >> We don't usually do public comment on
presentations, I don't think, but sure. If you have one, go ahead. >> I have a question. >> Okay, go ahead. Sorry, you have to stay. Yeah. So, um, my question for you guys is, how many acres are you total?
>> 75. >> Okay. And I'm just wondering, we would like you not only to be in our community, but to actually be part of our community. So, we have a horse trail that actually goes along back there.
We're hoping that you would maybe um allow us to use some of that land, especially along with now to extend the horse trail and you may give us some green space in exchange. Also, is the sheriff contributing? Is the sheriff's
department part of this? >> No. >> Okay. This is most fire rescue. Will you be using our canals for some of your Now I heard you were gonna rescue trucks and >> vehicle machine rescue is on the site
but it's not >> you won't be using our canals or anything. >> All right. Yeah, we would like to you know see you also join our community not just be an entity in >> Are you joining us on Saturday? um
>> within Thank you. >> Thank you again for being here. Thank you so much. >> Thank you everyone. >> Thank you. >> Okay. >> Saturday, Andreas. >> Yes. >> As you're leaving, I'd like to thank you for making your spaces available when we
need large areas to hold functions. It's it's >> our pleasure. >> Thank you so much. >> Thank you. which is very much being part of the community. Thank you. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Elen, you're up. Elon jump in. >> Jump in.
>> Well, thank you for the opportunity to be here again with Florida company. Just wanted to provide a few updates on some of the work that we've got ongoing and what's coming up. Um you may recall that uh mentioned that
we did some drone surveying on some of the lines um in the area as a direct result of some of the images that we were able to procure as well as some on you know regular but trout vis visitation on site. Um we're working on some vegetation management. Um you may
have seen that we're currently bringing the lateral that runs between road just south of north. That work began last week. Um they took a short pause yesterday just to assess where they were at and look at the next couple weeks work plan. Um I believe they were either
back starting again today. If not, they should be back by tomorrow to start working on that. They're done with about a third of the work that needs to be done on that lateral. Um and uh they're assuming that it should be done by by late November, early December, but that
obviously depends on weather conditions and if there's any flooded areas depending on the weather condition. But goal is that that lateral should be fully trimmed by early December. Um which was a direct result then of some of the reliability issues that we were getting from customers in that area. Um
calling with outages or momentaries and then the drone surveys and the on foot surveys. Uh so hopefully that should resolve some of the issues there. Um we're also replacing a pole um at 2241B road. We're in the process of figuring
out the exact timing that we're on site today to try and do it. There's a little additional vegetation management needs to occur, get access to that pole which was again reviewed as we kind of looked at the liability concerns was one of the things that we felt um would help
address some of that situation. So once those are all completed, we're hoping that we'll see some improvement in some of the momentarily durational outages that we were soon. Um but we're going to keep an eye on that as well and see if there's anything else
going on. You're not have a couple more updates, but happy to pause the work to the next one. >> Did you do you want to ask a question now or wait till he's done? >> When he's done. >> Okay. Um so in addition to that um we're continuing to work on some split spots
for replacements. Um your Paul student has been great about giving us the notice of learning in the damage. Um we'd all like I think that they give a place quicker. Um my colleague Danny Turner who works as your customer uh service account advisor and I are both
trying internally to expedite those as soon as we get them. Um but as soon as we are getting to those units we are getting in the process of replacement. Um, additionally, the ones that are being replaced are traffic rated. So, they're not the same ones that are out there now, which are not traffic rated.
They're being replaced with traffic rated boxes to hopefully avoid this type of damage in the future. So, um, I think there's four or five or so that have been replaced this year today. There's a couple that are outstanding, including one I think it's just been in a week or two ago. So, we'll hopefully get very
explained as best we can. Um, obviously in addition to that, we've been working um get some documentation on some of the undergrounding. We're working to make sure we've got uh paving plants, any paving plans or expansion panels or utility plans from the town so that we
can look at the areas that were not yet undergrounded during the last phase. um and ensure that we've got appropriate line of sight where we can kind of get the right easement acquisition so that we don't get in situations um where we're planning to use these important
infrastructure where maybe that may be gaining more a future infrastructure. So can't guarantee any time frame on that because as we talked about last time there's a a PSC approval process and a two-year plan that gets put in place for underground projects but uh we'll
continue to make sure that we get the right information so we can have our engineering team to look at it and then get back with your town staff um to kind of look at what the next steps would get that ball moving in the right direction. Um >> excuse me I do want to interrupt. So, so
yes or or no? Are we back on the undergrounding plan? Because I I thought when you and I spoke previously, you said something about January was when the decisions were made. >> So, like I said, we're still we got to get the engineering plans done and we got to get acquisition completed which is as we
know not was not an easy task before. So until the the information I've received from our engineering and underground teams is that until we can secure the right legal easements, we can't be put back on. >> So if you're having trouble in a certain
area to get those easements, can you hop to a different area or is there a particular order that's already prescribed that you have to stick with? >> So not for the not for those areas that were part of the last plan because technically they were supposed to be completed four or five years ago. So there's they're not that they it's not
that they've been removed entirely from being underbounded. It's just until those impediments on the legal side get resolved, they can't put them back into. So there's no there's no I wouldn't say there's necessarily completely impossibility of
getting back on a schedule just until the legal issues are resolved. >> So the answer to my question is you have to go in the order of what they are. And right now the what's holding up the undergrounding is people's refusal to give the easements on certain roads.
Okay. And until those people will give their easements, none of anybody else benefits from the undergrounding. >> Yes. >> Because it has to go in the order of however you put it in. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. >> I No, I understand that. But I again I
didn't know whether you could jump to the next area, you know, if that one but are underdoged, but they would be in different sequential phases. So, I can take a look at that and see where those are, >> right? Because if we can't get them, if
we couldn't get them years ago and we still can't get them, maybe it's time to jump ship on that part of town, I I hate to say it, and move on to a different one where there's less impediments. >> Right. I just want to make sure people are clear on what's keeping us from getting the undergrounding. Okay. All
right. >> That's that's kind of the updates I have today. Other than that, continue to work with your staff on anything that comes up. >> All right. I'm on the A road and the frequency of interruption, especially during heavy rainstorms. Our power will
go out one or two times within the period of the storm. Now, we're undergrounded already. Why are we having these issues? >> Um, I can certainly take a look at that. Um, you know, it wouldn't be vegetation obviously if it's undergrounded, but if there's any kind of voltage fluctuations
or if other pieces are a little further away from your home or overhead um and are experiencing vegetation that could cause no materials, but >> the power has to get to your underground. >> All right. So, is the construction a factor you think maybe Craig?
>> We spoke about this earlier today. about the construction. >> I wasn't in on your conversation. What' you say? >> What we have what the town has done already. >> So, as of public works already has done, it has nothing to do with any of your power flickers. We haven't dug broke
ground anywhere near the power line. >> Okay. things we we we can take a look at that particular area as well as your address to put you know we have different options like take a voltmeter on there see if there's voltage fluctuations that need to be occurring or or take a look
at the equipment to see if they like we're seeing anything on data wise that's showing them kind of equipment failure or malfunction that could be resulting down those periods so I'm happy to follow up and >> all right I I did report it um I'm on
record you know with with them to be aware that they need to pay attention to what's going on. Um, someone had mentioned that these flickers, which there may be three a month, um, could um
could affect the um increase in my uh power bill. Is that correct? That should the meter should only be you know but that's also something the meter see but smart meters that are on the home should only be recorded you know actual
usage and if it's a voluntary >> it shouldn't be you know using any power so for us >> thank you >> I don't know which one of you guys was first doing Todd was okay thank you >> I have another address for one of those manholes that was just destroyed um
yesterday 2792D road. >> Um, we've got a lot of poles throughout the town that have been >> broken and a new pole set next to them and the wire is transferred over, but the old pole is still there. And I
understand you're not responsible for all the poles, but what do we do about cleaning that up where we have like all these old poles? I know you can't do anything if they're not FPNL's polls, but if they're FPNL's pled, what can we do about getting that cleaned up? Because like at B- Road in Okchobee Boulevard, there's literally three poles
there. One of them was less than a year old. They got taken out by a car. They put a new pole in and moved stuff over, but the old pole is still sitting there in the ground. >> If it's an upfield pole and it doesn't have anything else to it, I would definitely look into doing. >> But I mean, there's a bunch around town like that. So, is public works we can
give that information to public works and they'll get it to you as to what pools are like not being used and they're still there? I think a lot of the problem is the fact that FPL transfers are stuff and then it takes an act of God to get AT&T and
Comcast to do anything. Um, I mean, we're still doing recovery from on on Droad from this the tornado where AT&T and Comcast stuff fell into the trees and it's a year and three months later and they still haven't moved their stuff and that's with constant calls and
threats and threatens to go over there and cut it ourselves and they just and FPL is not going to transfer AT&T and Comcast stuff to a new a new pulp. They can't. So, and and up until they do, our hands are tied unless somebody's got
a contact with them. >> Is there anything that you can do to help us with that? >> I mean, I can't do stuff for them, but I'm happy to there's information that I can get to some of my counterparts that we already >> Well, I mean, yeah, I mean, is there some kind of rules with the state that
you can provide to us that we can push something to get it done? >> I can look at that. I can I'm not proficient in the delta reducation building on the electric side. Um but but to your earlier question if there is an FDL pool that they want them transferred off of and that have not
been removed I certainly want to know about that so as we get our teams to you know get those off removed as soon as we can. >> And then to follow up on the well two things on the underground we have coververts that were damaged under the original project. What's being done to fix those damages?
>> Do you guys want to jump in? Republic trust. Go ahead. >> Okay. >> Um, so we received a list from public works of the different about year and a half ago. We worked through that list with our contracted vendor pipe who's performed all that work. Um, they
reviewed all theirs and it was my understanding that they had gone through each of those to visually onsite inspect with one of our employees and then speak with any customers that were not satisfied. If there are remaining ones that have not been addressed, I certainly you know which I heard this
morning if there are. >> No, that's Yeah, it's it's my culvert but she drains into us as I Yeah, it's crazy. >> The new one I guess >> well somebody I I will tell you somebody attempted Todd stole my thunder. I think
he's reading over my my shoulder here. Um, somebody did come and attempt to fix it because I had I had opened it, exposed it because I had a clog in the culvert and I opened it and exposed it and somebody um I get I I think it was from you guys. I don't think it was
these guys. Um, came and tried to fix it. Um, and uh they basically cut a piece of plastic cover and zip tied it over and then filled it back in which is not doing anything. Um, you know, I mean, it it was the straw that broke the
camel's back. You know what I mean? Saying the the jack board going through it. So, I mean, that's just, you know, >> Well, that's something that I mean, I think they brought up on a call. We had a brief stop earlier today as well. I want to take a look at that. And back out there. >> Yeah. Knock on wood, we got uh 26 days
left and we haven't had a a hellacious rain, right, this season. and and I've been pretty lucky, but you know, I got horses and livestock on the property and stuff and, you know, I get standing water all the time because it it won't drain. I got to go out there, you know,
and uh basically take a PVC pipe and and just every other day >> but but you guys have given them that list a long time ago, right? So, what's going on here? here. I mean, it's been time, right? >> So, like I said, it was my understanding
that Pike went out and spoke with everyone. We looked at each one that was on that list. If that did not occur, we're going to work it back and find out why they did not. But the process to make sure there was, you know, people who performed the work are responsible for repairs. If they
are, you know, to an investigation, they can repair. If they denied that, then they would go through the damage claim process either through FB or you know, >> well, I mean, I understand they were the contractor that did it, but you guys hired him, right? So, you're ultimately responsive, >> right? So, it's not really fair to say
it's not our problem, Mr. Hikes. >> Investigation said for whatever reason, they're denying. >> So, they're in so they investigate themselves and say it's not their problem and wash their hands of it. Then then it would go through into the damn process for assessment. >> But you understand the problem with
that, right? You guys aren't assessing it and saying, "Yeah, Pike, you need to fix it." Pike is saying, "Nope, it's not us." And they walk away. >> We did the detections. We had on site with committed to last year. So we actually had one of our underground engineers go
out with Pipe to look at each of the cos. It was us and Pipe going. So you guys were satisfied with the result at the end of the day. >> I I can't say it for each one because I don't have that information in front of me and I don't know why I want to go back. >> Yeah, I mean basically five years ago it
happened, right? Five years ago it happened. I had the hole open for some time. I I do recall somebody coming out from FPL and and surveying whatever at that point. And that's when all of a sudden this showed up and covered up. And then the next time I opened it up,
you know, Proactive Code, uh, public works came and, you know, filled the hole back in, not knowing that it was meant to be there cuz it was meant to be there to say, "Hey, this thing is still because I mean, if you can walk on it today, you look at it today. You're not going to be able to tell, right?" So, you know, I've tried to contact a couple
people on my own and say, "Hey, listen. Here's my number. You know, if you don't want to do it, fine. Just give me the check. I'll I'll get it done. I can get, you know, I have the means to I know people. I can get the thing done. I can file for a permit and we can get it done. You know, if you don't want to hire somebody and go through all this stuff, that's not the problem. The
problem is just getting it done to where I'm not holding water and >> then my next question was you talked about the process of getting the um easements moving forward for the future underground. Is somebody actively working on those easements? because you said we can't move forward until we have them, but if you guys aren't working on
them, then right nothing's happening. >> Like I said, we what what we requested from the town was those infrastructure plans because um this is going back the years of the original project, but what happened during the last phase is we got some of our projects permitted when some
of those lines were put into areas which were then scheduled to be built. So there's a concern from our engineering teams that we don't have that again. So, we want to make sure that we've got the correct long-term infrastructure and paving plans from the town so that they
can evaluate where do we actually need to get easements how wide those easements need to be. So, then they can go out to the residents and experts because we're not sure based on what happened last time if we have the correct parameters and post for those
that we want to make sure we get it right. >> So, so I can understand this. Right. So, as it stands right now, you're waiting on the town is what you're saying. >> But for this initial next step, we Yeah, we want to get there. We did speak with them today and we're going to try to make sure we got the correct paving and
infrastructure plans around. >> And how long have you been waiting for the town? >> I don't know exactly. We've been discussing back and forth on different items related to >> hours. Yeah, what we asked for today. >> Okay. Since 1:15 this afternoon. Is that
accurate? I don't want to get into drawing number, but I believe the request. >> So, just I'd like to make a a point of clarification. The town has had a problem with easements and right away since, let's say, the original year of
the flood. We actually are completing a project with all of our east medicine rightways because we had to do that relative to the roads and drainage work we've done over the last couple of years. We're not quite done with that, but we are
finishing it. We do have a capital plan and it is published. So we are more than happy to provide our capital plan which is online and published a as well as the easement um project
that we put together which is warranty deeds. Now our easements that we get for us the town are different than the easements that FPL needs. So, we have to work together. But what we do is
strictly, I'm imagining, to help with the timing on when they might do the undergrounding because, you know, obviously they would want to do the undergrounding. When we're there instead of after we're
there. That's what I'm guessing. >> When we're there paving, you mean or what? when we're there doing whatever our road work is, whatever, you know, you only want to open the road up once, right? So, I think that's what they probably want to do. Probably want to
match their timing with our timing. And we actually only have two really more significant things to pave. One is a road and one is North Road. So, and those have been on our capital plan for quite a while. But, um,
we will we will share that. I do think that there's a problem with some of the previous roads for us paving and for you all getting the um easements and they remain on our paving plan without a
definite date. So I mean >> I mean that was kind of my thought is we only have two roads we're going to be looking to pave and if you're saying that the hold up is we want to put something in and you guys are going to be paving well that's only a very small percentage of the town. What about the other
>> 98% of the town is paved. 43rd is paved. 45th is paved. I mean, all the roads that they have the undergrounds on are today. >> Well, this specific question came up for the project four or five years ago, but we're not
>> we're not underground because of the legal dispute that was ongoing. >> Right. Right. >> That has since been resolved and >> Yes. Sure. >> these were to want to be these law appeal to go into those through specific
private utility easements to be able to do that which would be on the side of the road. What occurred in some of the other pavements is we put the easements that we hadn't fired for the underground. Some of those areas were end up being paid
were drawn to a board which is why as specific dimensions planning for those remaining. I'm glad I'm glad you brought brought that up about not putting lines under paved roads. I'm in the town of Palm
Beach three three times a week. Every single line is under a paved road in the town of Palm Beach. So why is that an issue here, but it's not there? >> Well, I mean they they pay to underground their entire town. >> I understand >> basically what it means. Can it be done?
Yes. But if there's a problem, we have to rip up entire road to get access to that, which means longer response times and longer needs. If there's a problem with that, the goal with this underground is to put easements in the front yards or next to roads without,
you know, if a repair or transformer needs to be repaired. Um, we can do that really without even bothering properly on ideally. Um, if there's underground pavement under concrete, you have to rip off the ice. >> So, so back to what I was saying, the
entire east side of town, there's nothing getting paved over there. So, how do we move forward with trying to get something done over there, >> right? >> Well, again, the way and I can I'm happy to get more prisons. The the full storm secure underground program is a 20-year program and only certain laterals on,
you know, are designated in a two-year period that have to be approved by the PSC. The way it works is the least um performing laterals based on the liability standards are the bottom tier of that or what's selected for those twoear periods going forward until the
20-year period. Hopefully all of them will become. So what we're seeing is those some of the areas of the town are not on the bottom performing till so they're not on the list yet to be completed. Once we kind of move up the list, the higher performing reliable
leaders liberals will eventually get undergrounded, but they're not on the list quite yet. The ones that were missed or not completed were already on that list five years ago because they were not they were on the bottom really. They were on the first couple of years
to be undergrounded because of their performance in terms of reliability, which really wasn't the equipment itself, but just the vegetation that's around. So the only reason that they weren't completed was that property squeak when we were shamed. Um I hope that that leads to kind of keep moving
down this path that we determine the right engineering and property boundaries so that we can go make another request to those residents for the easements. See what happens if those residents still decline to allow us there. That's another situation. But we
want to make sure our engineering parameters are correct that they'll be they'll ask you for those easements because if they get it wrong, we're going to have to go back down and do it all over. >> Can you tell us where the east side of town is on the list? I mean, are they like years down before they're going to get it because I understand is a
priority with the worst case. >> I can ask beyond those two years. They really don't give us a lot of information, but I can find out at least the performance metrics where it is. So that'll give us a general idea of where it is. I'm happy to go back and get that. >> Thank you. So, you're wondering where it
is in the in the overall state in the overall state of Florida for undergrounding. You want to know where Yeah, I I get what you're saying. I And to the mayor's point, you know, I don't understand why I I I get what you're saying about underperforming, but when we hit a roadblock and we got, you know,
we got some issue getting an easement and we have these little legs over here that could be done very easily. Why? Why? Why can't we shift and go that way? Now we're now we're four or five years later and now it's an afterthought, right? I mean, I know
you're the messenger. I'm not, you know, all due respect, but that's I mean, you know, generally you go to do a job and if you hit a roadblock and you go over here and you can complete something over here when you have this vast program, you know, but we stop short on one whole road. >> Definition of insanity, right? You keep
trying to do the same thing over and over again. you're now held up again by that same road and the same easement problem. I say skip that road. >> Well, and move on to people who do >> moved over to the acreage which which is next on >> they were they were doing the acreage at the same time. >> I mean
>> no but they did miles over there. >> The next one on the matrix in our community that may be a little bit more receptive to having it done. [Music] >> We have to go based on the liability. So just because one Maybe next that next is
performing right excuse excuse my >> right excuse my ignorance though the PSC right >> well the public service commission okay so you guys being FPL and being the only provider of power in the state can't go to the PSC and say hey listen we're
hitting a roadblock we can pivot over here now we got to go to the next lowest we're moving up from the bottom right Right. They'll pivot. Okay. Well, and listen, this gives a lot of information because there's a lot of people out there going, you know, that during the last little storm, whatever, got browned
out or whatever. I mean, I got I got underground. I got browned out, too, for about, you know, 45 seconds to a minute and a half. But, you know, it, you know, and I mean, of course, there's a lot of concern about, you know, the box, the height of the box, and it's it really is just a kind of a, for lack of a better
term, wire nutted connection in there, right? It's not a waterproof connection, and those boxes filling with water. And I mean, there's lots of concerns out there. And not to mention just, well, why couldn't they just move over here and do this? Why didn't they do the whole town at one time when they go to their their friend's house 2 miles north
of here and they're passing five Jackboard machines on the way there? Cuz that's that's really what was going on, you know, because I used to work out in this area when that was happening. And yeah, you go a few blocks in in Indian Trails, right? You go a few blocks and
you see one jack machine. You go get out on similar Pratt and go on the other side of Calgary Judge and hang a right and you see another jackport machine. So, it's kind of, you know, I guess the the information flow to the public isn't that the greatest, right? So, you know,
and I I you know, and if I would say if you need help with easements, whatever, as much as I know we're pretty limited in what we can do, I don't know if there's a workshop we can have or whatever, you know, to inform folks, this is what we're looking for. They're not coming trying to steal your land. It's just, you know, I don't know. I
don't know what the answer is, but Sorry, Todd. >> Well, we're getting conflicting things. It's about paved roads first, right? Waiting on the town, >> right? >> So, he's saying waiting on the town since 15, it sounds like. But, and two new paved roads that we're doing already. >> Yeah. And the and the and the current
capital improvement plan that has paving on it has been set in place for what, two years? >> So, there is no p there is no road that's going to get paved, >> right? >> That's not underground. >> This is our frustration. You >> several years are have been resolved and it's really
just a matter of making sure there's further infrastructure that needs to be placed in the rightway existing right away on site and then we can go back and kind of look at the parameters what we need and then you know identify the partial that we're going to need those
and I know there's spoken about getting that list of identification as well when we go to that step so that the town can assist with education information So hopefully, >> but we need to but we need to do that now because it takes a long time and and
people have to be educated and people have to be informed and there's a lot of urban legends that fly around this town. Um, and so that's why I wanted to make it clear that what seems to be holding it up right now is the procurement of easements. But then we went into several
other areas that might be holding it up. of we've we've eradicated the potential paving myth that that can go away now. Okay. And and so now really the only thing that really exists that is a blockage to us getting put back on that
list in January and it's now November at the beginning of November. So, if we can get that list together of those easements that aren't there and get it to council by, let's say, November 18th, if you can get that to to me and the rest of the council by November 18th, then we can come up with a strategy of
perhaps a workshop, perhaps some way of bringing people in and saying, "Hey, so we want to get we want to make every effort to give FPNL basically a shovel ready package to get us back on this list in January." And that is our jumping on point is my understanding
from my conversation with you is that if we don't get back on this January then we're on to next January, right? That there's one time of year to get back on this list. We now have two months to do that. So I really really really would ask you to try to get us that list so
that we can put our heads together with staff and with the community and try to see how we can get >> we be proactive about it. >> Get that together. we would like to be part of the solution and we would really really like to get back on that list which was my message to you three or four months ago when we met and is
remains my message to you and I believe that's what I'm hearing from the rest of council Lisa did you have anything you wanted to add >> yeah I think you covered it >> okay >> and you said it's a two-year noticing reviews it annually and then do a
two-year out >> right so so this January is one and if we don't get it now >> then over two years now. >> Yes. But because this is a project that was already on the list five years ago, that's where as we kind of move forward, we can continue those discussions to figure out how to
>> bid it back in January. >> I can't guarantee anything, but the more progress we make, the more we can hopefully get it back in the queue, even if it's off, you know, correctly. >> Who who's spec Who is it that's doing the easements for you guys? Because that was Bowman Engineering before. Is that
what it was? >> Bowman that does a lot of >> Are they still doing it now? Are they the ones that will work on this? >> But I can't say for sure they would be the ones that would do a lot of acquisition. >> So then nobody's working on the easements right now. >> Not right now
>> and we have two months. So you you're getting the urgency we're trying to >> So you're saying you're not sure if it's Bowman? Who would it be? If we if we had 10 ements here, who who would we're working with to give it to them? >> Would it be Bowman? Who would it be? >> We wouldn't be getting the ements. they would be getting. >> No, I think what Todd's saying is if we
had a list of 10 people that said yes, I will give FPL my easement, who who's going to get who is it going to get handed to? Yeah. >> So, we need to know that too. >> Yeah. >> That's the best I can provide, but this like any project, you know, once it gets initiated, there's different steps in
the project that will >> agreed. So open or any easement acquisition entity cannot be assigned to the easements until there's a plan in place and engineering plans are drawn up so that they can go do that. >> Okay. But we've got >> they're now four or five years old. The
engineers that's why they want to go verify this because just because four or five years ago our plan was put in place doesn't mean we >> How long is that going to take? Are we going to be able to make the January deadline with your engineers going out and verifying this? >> No. >> No way. They don't even know who's going to accept the easements. It's this whole
thing is ludicrous. We're worse than the deal with the federal government. It's crazy. >> Okay, we got we got to figure out a way to make this happen in the next two months. We started talking about this six months ago. I I don't remember we met. Well, I know that, but I'm just saying you and I sat down in a room and had a conversation several months ago.
I'm sorry. I don't remember exactly, but I know it was months ago. And we said we got to we got to be part of the solution and what we need to do moving forward. We got to try to figure that how to get this. It sounds like this is all, you know, theoretical right now. Like theoretically this could happen and
theoretically that could happen, but we need some action. And, you know, I thought I I was pretty sure I was really clear on that back then. So, I really would like you to let us know before our November 18th, is it November 18th meeting >> the workshop?
>> What what we can do to get this moving so we can get back on that list in January. Now, I realize that's a very short timeline to give you, but I'm sorry. We've waited years. We've literally waited years, and we have expressed a huge desire to be part of
the solution and get this moving on. We really need you to to bring us something. >> We're having to get another call with our engineering because this is what they've asked for several months ago. Um, well, I'll go back to them again and make sure that we're on the same page
with the public works team on any engineering specs that they need to get this kind of room. >> That would be lovely. Okay. Do we I appears that we have several people from the public that want to >> Oh, I'm sorry. >> That's all right. >> I'm sorry. >> Yeah. Well, I I did kind of have this flipped up because I had the map.
>> No, no, but sometimes you leave your life. >> I know. I've been I've been practicing. I've been practicing. No, it's it's all good. We were kind of having an ongoing thing here. >> Yeah. >> Um, okay. So, um, two things. When's the next poll survey? Because I know periodically you guys do
a poll survey. >> They do your poll surveys covering six to seven years. Um, >> when was the last one? >> I would say it was right before the So, we have a current poll. We have a poll survey. Right. >> Right. 00.
>> So I was I if you if you would not mind if if it has to filter through the is a map that's located that has dots that says the green dots are are Bell South because some of them are that old. I'm not saying that to be funny. Um you know or AT&T and and these are these are FPL.
I mean is that is that a thing or is that is it just a list? >> Right. But what I'm saying is so if if if you went into your your list right now and you clicked on your list, is there a map that pops up and you can see like I have this this areas like these
10 poles are owned by AT&T and these folds are owned by us, right? So if there's one that's broken right now and you know we we I guess my point is we don't have to bother you if we're driving by and we see a broken pole. We
we know we Well, this an FPL poll and the and look the wire's been transferred over. Why has And somebody could call you or whomever and say, "Hey, listen. You guys the wire got transferred. You guys probably didn't know, but can we get this old pole out that's hanging on by a a twig?
>> Report that to me so that we can escape. If it's not ours, we will make sure we get that to counterpart. Let them know that they can have them transform their lives. >> All right. >> If they've removed it, they should know. They should >> I get you. But I'm just saying things happen, right? People jack bore right
through culverts to never say a word because I know that they felt it when it went through. But I'm just saying that was to be funny. Yeah. No, I I get it. I just say if we had a map, right, we being the town, if we had a map that said this instead of just me walking out
to a poll and knowing that this tag means it belongs to FPL, right? That we could be more proactive about it. There's no no offense, you're a busy man, right? I don't know if you got half the state, the whole state, whatever, right? It help us help you help our
community. That's all we're asking, right? Awesome. And and then just I I know it it only goes by level of service or what what is the lowest performing? Sorry. Um but is there is there a map of how you you guys
have to do the direct bore, right? Like so I got a lateral running this way, but the direct bore is actually going to tee off and come down here two lots and then go up this way. you is there a map there that you because you're asking for this
stuff from us. So I mean saying we might be able to better plan and help you know if if we kind of had knew how it was going right. I just think I just think that's that's a good good tool to let us be good partners plan.
So there's opportunities for us to look at with the town. I'm sure we appreciate and move forward. >> Yeah. Just again just a way to be proactive so we're not hitting a speed bump like we hit because say we get approved next year to be on the next plan, right? Not next year in 27 to be
on the next plan for the east side to start working and we we then we go, oh well, we're running into problems here because we don't have easements now. We got to hustle to get easements. Maybe if you know we can be more proactive about it and we we know ahead of time we can prepare. All right. Thank you very much
for being here. >> On the B road, how many easements do you think you need still over there? Is it one? Is it 10? Is it 50? Any idea? >> I don't want to give you an number, but >> can you tell us whether it's in the
single or double digits? Okay. Okay. So, a lot. >> It was not insult unless >> Oh, no. 100%. I get it. I get it. Okay. Any We do have people that want to comment on the two.
>> Yes, Mayor. Um, Phyllis Monet, are you ready? Oh boy. >> So around six months ago they were here. And um so my question for you is because we told you about uh Lisa, correct me if
I'm wrong, 28 or 29 residents that the wind blows 5 miles an hour and they lose their power. >> So being that this is getting dragged out even longer, what can you do? and these residents are on B-roll. What are you doing since you're not giving them
underground right now to correct their issue? It's because they're out of power all the time. >> You said earlier they're doing vegetation now. >> Yeah, >> they already said they're doing vegetation. >> They're doing vegetation on for those 29 residents, correct?
>> On Brow. >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. I missed that. Yeah, that's the lateral, right, that you're talking about clearing. >> And a new pole. >> Oh, yeah. And a new pole. >> Miss Standish, >> Virginia Standish. I'm one of those 28 residents that's been affected. And I
want to thank FPNL for coming tonight. And I want to recap some of what I've been telling you for since this project started. Uh, but one, let's start with vegetation. I want to make council and staff aware, and I brought this up in an
email today to FPNL. When a Splendy comes out here, Ed, let me preface this by saying many of us took action on the north side and filed complaints with the PSC and we will continue to do so till we get results. Um, so we did get
responses. A Splenda is out, but I can tell you what we've observed. One of the we get told different things. One of the things we were told is that the plan for a splende is to come out once every five years and I have not looked at the
information you sent me completely but that was what was verbally told to us by someone who called me after my PSC complaint. My comment to council and staff is to encourage FPNL to encourage spending. If you're only coming out once
every few years, then please cut those trees way back, not where they're going to grow back in 6 months or one year to be back into power lines. That's the first problem I see out here. The second thing with the easements, some of these
easements were done back in the 70s and prior to that. Multiple times in dealing with our district or FPNL, I've had to point out, you already have it. I don't have to do anything. I would encourage
you these properties that you think have not given me easements to go back more than 30 years because most searches only go back 30 years. There may be right of way easements already there that you can use. I'm just stating the object to tell
them that >> all of you. This is for all of you. >> Um on North Road, yes, we have those lines under they've been put under. I was one of those culberts that was damaged. I was told, "Yes, you're we're going to
put in a cement culbert for you. No problem." After two years, I started making calls. I will share with you my email from Pipe where they claim it's it's not their responsibility. We caught them using cardboard to catch our holes. At least you got plastic. Hey, we got
>> I think we got cardboard the first time. There's >> a lot of issues. Um but the point is the project there are many issues with this project that need to be revolved pipe and FPNL the people we were dealing with
after two and a half years started saying it's the town's fault because the town didn't give us a map of all the culvers. So bottom line, we just need to bring this. The culverts need to be repaired before any roads get paid because if you're
going to do north road where those lines are, you are probably going to be paving over. >> Thank you. All righty. Thank you for being here. Sorry you it was kind of a an attack but this is a very sensitive issue and we are feel pretty strongly
about it and we are extremely frustrated in case you didn't get that app continue to work hard and as you know I try my best to make sure we're delivering our service and you know we're always trying to improve what we're doing so take that you know
information that we got and as always I think you know you have my contact information if any you don't call me anytime or there's questions, please. >> And if you can get us that list of the missing easements and who it is that we we can help to get them to, we'll we'll do something on our end to try to get it
make it happen. Okay. Thank you. >> Um, talk about a real slap in the face. Somebody got a damaged culvert and never got the underground done, right? I mean, damaged culvert and they got nothing out of it. At least you guys got underground. >> Yeah, our leg got done. Yeah.
>> All right. Red Speed camera enforcement update. Who is that? You. >> That's me. >> Okay. Thanks, Richard. >> Mayor, council, residents, uh this is an update to the uh Red Speed uh school and school zone enforcement uh program that the town incident. So, just a bit of
history. Uh late last year, the council adopted ordinance 2024-15 approving the amendment to article 26 for the school zone. >> One second, Lisa. You have an update paper that I presume was emailed to you.
Just want to make sure you're on the same page. >> Correct. >> You Okay. Just want to make sure you have it. Okay. All right. Great. I'm sorry. Go ahead, Richard. >> Um, >> so the uh article uh chapter 26 article 2 for the school zone speed enforcement
program. Also on December 3rd, the council passed resolution 2024-78 approving the agreement with Red Speed Florida LLC to provide speed detection system enforcement administrative services to the town. Since that time, we've worked with public works staff has worked with
Indian Trails Improvement District, Palm Beach County Engineering, and everybody else to make sure all of our school zone signs are right. Make sure all the the times are correct. Um, we've corrected the school zone speed limit through Lockachi Groves Elementary School to
match the standards set forth by the Florida Department of Transportation. On September 8th, we began the um warning phase of the program. Um, at that time we actually took our brand new shiny variable message boards, put them on
either side of the school zone with a big flashing message saying speed cameras in use effective 108 2025. And we left them up for over 30 days. U, which I can say compared to other municipalities around us, that is a lot
more than what they did. Most of the municipalities put these little tiny little signs that you can barely read. Um, we put up the big signs to warn the residents that these cameras will come. During that time period of time, there were 2,27
warning violations sent out to various people in the town. Um, of those 1,033 of them were eastbound traffic and 1,184 westbound traffic. And just a side note, I do find it amazing that most of the
major, not the majority, but more than half of our citations are westbound traffic, which means these are people who have traveled from wherever on the east side of town through the entire town at 30 miles an hour and wait till they get to Los Angeles Elementary School to speed.
Um, eastbound, where everybody would think the speed trap would be, where we go from 40 to 30, there's less citations written going that direction. So either more people are paying attention going that way or um I don't know.
>> So the um so since October 8th which is when the citations were actually starting to be written >> uh are the the civil violations were uh beginning to be enforced so far there's been 2,310 violations in the last three weeks.
of that uh right now 273 are waiting to be reviewed by the sheriff's office. 35 were dismissed and the dismissed ones are typically law enforcement fire rescue going through the zone like with their lights on and stuff like that because they're obviously speeding or
vehicles whose tags were unreadable uh whether they had a trailer hitch, the tag was dirty or whatever and they were unreadable. And so far 2002 notice of violations have been sent out in which 303 people have paid. Um to date the t
the total revenue collected has been 30 $30,300 in which the town has collected a little over almost $12,000 of that. Um you have the sheet in front of you that says where all the rest of the money goes. um $1,500 to the crossing guard program,
which is the sheriff's office, $3,700 to the school district, $900 to FDLE, and $6,000 to the department of revenue. So, um, currently the I have I have gone through every day and I because there have been complaints about, oh, your
cameras are, you know, giving me a citation in the school zone when the school zone lights aren't on or um, it is giving me, you know, I got a ticket 11:00 at night, stuff like that. I've gone through every single day since October 8th and looked at every single
violation and every violation has had a notice of violation has been valid. They're all validated by the sheriff's office. Um, a sheriff's deputy actually goes in, reviews, looks at the time, looks at the car, looks at the tag, looks at the information, make sure it's correct. They make sure all the information is exactly as it's
presented. Um, and that's before the violation goes out. Currently, the high score is 62.2 and a 30, which is in the state of Florida considered a criminal citation because it's double the speed limit. Would have been four points on their license. The fine would have been,
I think, somewhere in the neighborhood of $3 $400. And actually, it's double because it's in a school zone. So, it would have been probably a $600 fine, four points on their license, and a mandatory court date. Um, the high score right now for the school zone time is 42
miles an hour in a 15. So, um, you know, we've had a couple of emails. I know you guys received an email from a wonderful resident who threatened to, uh, go to Google and leave us a negative review. Um, and my answer and I have David here is somewhere there he is. I have David
here from Redspeed as well and him and I will tell you the same thing as probably everybody in here will. Um, the easiest way to get around the speed enforcement program is to don't speak >> Southern Boulevard. >> Go to Southern >> or go to Southern Boulevard said who sent the email.
>> Yeah, the guy use Southern Boulevard. But um so yeah, so so far there's been um seven requests for hearings of these 2002 citations. There's been seven requests for hearings and four of those
requests were from two people that got two tickets each. So um so far our the amount of people requesting hearings has been low. Obviously you see 303 of the 2002 people paid their citations. Many of these people probably haven't of the
2002 probably haven't gotten their citation yet. >> Excuse me for a second though. Once they request a hearing, it then goes to the level of >> the magistrate. >> The magistrate, right? And so it's not the it's not under the same program anymore. And then also, can't they get points if they do that? If they lose
when they request a hearing? >> Forgive me, ma'am. >> David David was great to be ready to be back. Uh so no when when they request a hearing that still is a civil infraction and it go before your magistrate. >> The only way it would convert into a uniform traffic citation is if they
completely ignore >> I got you. I knew there was something >> there will never be point consess. Uh even if it does convert into a uniform traffic citation, it's treated by the clerk's office by the courts as a non-moving violation at that point. >> Okay. Thank you. >> For and for anyone that hasn't seen it,
your mayor did a phenomenal job with the public service. two films. >> Yeah. >> You did? >> Yeah. >> And if I could really quick, um I just want to thank uh Richard for all his help in getting this program up and running. >> Um he's been fantastic in helping me
because there's a lot of moving parts that goes into the beginning of the program and you guys are really see you haven't even hit a month yet of going live. But um consistent with many of the other programs, the um VMS board that you all put out, the PSA that you filmed
and pushed out, all of the outreach that has been done has already seen a pretty significant drop from the initial speed studies. Now, we always say that it'll take about a year to achieve that 90 95% reduction in speed in the school zone when compared to that initial speed
study. you're already at close to 80% from just that initial speed study to today in terms of the average number of violations per day. That's going to fluctuate up and down uh you know for the next seven months. Uh but eventually it'll taper out and you'll start to see
that less and less residents are getting violations because they're now aware that this program is in place and really the goal of the entire program uh is to get to that reduction in speed so that we can make that school safe. So, thank you Richard for all your help. Um, it's
been good working with you and thank >> I think we have some questions Tom was first. >> Yeah, our workshop a couple weeks was last week, a couple weeks ago. Um, questions came up. So, at what point does it start because you know the school zone starts out past it starts
west of 162nd. Correct, Richard? >> Yeah, the school zone starts west of 162nd >> and that's where it starts picking it up, right? No, the camera itself is if you're going eastbound, if you're going east on um Okato Boulevard, you pass 162nd, the camera is is actually in the
town and they're from each other. >> So, I'm I'm doing this for clarification purposes, right? So, you are actually in the school zone >> and into the town. Yes, >> you're well into the school zone. So, you've been notified the school zone begins e uh west of 162nd, right? So
you're you're well into the school zone within the town limits and you are now as you said what 42 and a 15 during school hours >> correct >> okay okay the time start half hour so that's 7:30 school starts at 8 >> uh enforcement starts at 6:45
>> 6:45 and then >> 7:01 because from 6:45 to 7:00 is the non is because it's the half an hour before >> right >> so 6:45 to 7 o'clock is 30 miles an hour at 7 7:00 is when the lights start
flashing and I think at like 7:02 is when it actually starts enforcing the 15 mph speed line. >> The 15 but outside the 15 mph time frame, right? >> It does the >> which is why which is what's listed posted on the the the DOT school sign that's always been there, >> right?
>> It it's it's regulating the 30 mph. >> Correct. So, if if you're crossing 162nd at 7:46 a.m. and you're doing 45, you're going to get a notice of violation because you're 15 miles an hour over. If you're doing 39,
>> you're not >> you're golden, right? Because it's a 10 mile. So, when when does it cut off? What? Take me to the end of the day. >> 235. >> 235. So it's but it's still the the zone is about >> 702 72 to 809 is 15 mph and 146 to 235
is 15 >> and then and then a half hour past that. >> No 235 is the >> it just shuts off. So 235 >> it stops doing it. So all right um >> yeah it's you normal normal highway speeds on oak.
>> Yeah. So from 645 to 235 the cameras are in >> right. So, so what I'm gathering is all government vehicles are I mean because the to get a to you know you send a notice of violation to the town the city of Boon Beach and you know
we might we might you know >> oh no we sent one to fire rescue and they paid it >> and they paid it. >> Absolutely. >> You just said PBSO they got to have the lights on. What if it happens to take the picture right at the moment the lights are off like the wall. Just saying
>> PBSO has given themselves but no all the ones I've noticed from PBSO the because they it's a video. >> Yeah. No. No. >> So it's a so you could see the vehicles moving and most of the time the lights are are >> Okay. So >> but you know if they're on a call or not with the lights on. >> So So
the only people exempt from this is PBSO. >> PBSO and fire rescue. I think building I think building got one. Uh somebody in building got one. It looked like your truck. I don't like that was the mitra. I
didn't get a bad back bad. >> Actually actually fire rescue did get a ticket and they did pay it because they actually called here to figure out how to pay it. >> Okay. >> They gave one of the ones to their um the fire rescue uh fire prevention guys. >> Oh, it's another inspector.
>> Yeah. >> All right. Very good. Thank you. >> Are you done? >> Yeah. Oh, sorry. >> See you. All right, Todd. Go ahead. So, somebody has mentioned there was a school bus that got one. Is that right? >> There was a couple of school buses that I don't know if they I got to check to see if they actually got them or not. I
got to I got to look into that because I think they >> gave them a non-working violations, but I'm going to have a conversation with the sheriff's office because if anybody in this town should be doing the speed limit, it should be the school bus. >> I wholeheartedly agree with that. >> Right. kids in >> I actually have to have that conversation because they were they the
the citations were written at like 8:38 a.m. which means they were either leaving Lock Het Groves Elementary or they had middle school students on the buses. >> And then my next question, um I've been talking to Mary about this before. Are private schools able to have a school zone?
>> Private schools have school zones. >> Sure. So they could. >> Yeah, because the one over here does. >> And would a prek private school be allowed to have one? I don't think that they would grant them a school zone for prek. >> When you say they grant them, it would be us, right? Because we have traffic control. What What's that?
>> That has to go through I think that has to go through that thought. The school zone for all has to be a school zone. >> So if the children are under five, it doesn't matter if they get run over, but if they're over five, that's just I'm just curious. >> It's probably a matter of it's a drop
off scenario, not a walk-in scenario. I you know like daycarees are generally but >> I know but they ride bicycles or golf. >> So it's do that that specifies where the school zones are. >> So that designate them as school zone >> even though we have primary traffic control jurisdiction.
>> Yes. >> Did I put it in I think I put it in the memo. >> Lisa, did you have anything? >> Yeah, if you look at my memo um it talks about the FDOT speed zoning for highways and road streets in Florida under Florida statute 316.1895. That's the book that gives not only the
school zone locations but also the speeds. That's where the speed comes from. And that information was actually added to our website from the initial website. You know that page creation because somebody asked the question, why is the school zone 15 miles an hour on Okachelli Boulevard where everybody else is 20. It's because of the speed line.
>> I went down today and people were going 12 miles an hour. So they're paying attention. >> Well, I was like, >> I'm sorry. Lisa, did you have any questions? >> Yeah. Yes, I did. Thank you. Um, I know this is probably a heavy lift, but somebody spoke to me uh that travels
that every day, and this may answer why the eastbound is less uh violations. The cycle coming off of the traffic light at 160 um backs traffic up and then the cycle's
so short, there's very few cars that can get through because they're entering into that slow speed zone. So the question was posed, can that cycle on that light be adjusted to allow more traffic to flow through during that
reduced speed time? >> I could check with the county. I believe that's a demand light. So if there's traffic on 162nd, it's it clicks the counter and then it counts down and changes the light. I don't think we have any control over that, but I can check with the county. >> Okay, that would be great. And secondly,
um I think you said 12,000 so far to the town. Do we have any idea what our cost uh associated with the reviewer process that that goes into that yet? >> The sheriff's department has indicated
that they're waving that at this time. Lisa, >> yeah, there has been no cost at the time. >> There has been no cost >> except for my time dealing with all this. >> Okay. Yes, I'm I'm aware the sheriff mentioned that, but um obviously that's going to be something moving forward, but thank you. That's all I have.
Thanks. >> Okay, Todd Slade, it's back on. >> So, this isn't really a question. It's more of a statement. So, the crossing guard program gets $1,500 and that goes to PBSO, right? Mark said, >> and what's interesting is all these municipalities, we don't have it, but
say Wellington in their contract pays for crossing guards, right? So now PBSO is almost triple dipping, right? They're getting county taxes, they're getting the contract, and then now they're getting this in addition. >> Well, it's it's it's specific in the law what it has to go to. Even the part that
we get, it's specific in the law what it has to go to. I >> I get that. But my point is Wellington is paying for the crossing things. Shouldn't they are they getting a reduction of their contract, right? because it's figured into their contract on those crossing cards. >> Okay. Thank you so much for being here.
Nice to see you again. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. I need a motion to approve the consent agenda, but staff has asked um in my meeting before to pull number four because it's not ready. So four would be pulled. So I need a motion to approve
the consent agenda which which would consist of five, six, and seven. Unless someone something else to say. I'd like to pull item six, >> but I I'd like >> I'd like to >> quarterly reports. >> Yes, ma'am. I'd like to pull item six
because I haven't been able to get entirely through them and I think there's some very good information in there. So, could we put them on the November meeting agenda or the December one? >> I'm sorry.
>> It's good. Can you repeat what you said, Lisa? It was a little bit um >> Well, we're just receiving and filing. >> We're just we're just filing and receiving them. >> Yes, I understand. But there's information that I think council should be discussing and asking uh for further clarification on I haven't had time to
get through them entirely um because they didn't come out except when the agenda came out and I'd like to be able to discuss them in in full. So, can we move them to another meeting date to discuss instead of just postponing them
till later tonight? >> Does everybody else want to move them to December because I don't want to move them to our workshop meeting or do you want to just approve it with them on? >> I'd rather just approve it and we could look at it later. >> Yeah, if you want to bring something up for if you want something on the agenda for December, we from the quarterly report, we could have because it's just
a receive and file scenario >> because you may not have anything. You may look at it and be good with it, right? No, there's been grant requests for North Road Trail and F-road Trail and there's no clarification on what part of FRO and what those monies are supposed to go for there. That's just one of the
things. Um there's questions on some of the final budget um preliminary information that's been provided. There's questions. So, >> right. So, you can bring those. The point that they're making is we're just filing and receiving these now. You can bring up those questions in the December
meeting. You can put an item on there to discuss anything you want to discuss once you have time to go through it. >> Sure, that's fine. >> Okay. I mean, that that just kind of makes sense. >> I I'll make a motion to approve consent taking for all.
>> Okay. All in favor? Opposed? >> I didn't hear her vote. >> Council member Elrammy, can you please confirm your vote? >> Uh, I approved. >> Thank you. Okay, it passes five to zero. Okay,
>> with item four removed, is that what? Correct. >> Correct. Item four was pulled by was requested to be pulled by staff because it wasn't ready. Okay, we're on to item eight, which is this is a public hearing, but before we start the public hearing, and I have Bowie read the title. Um,
uh, in speaking with the town attorney prior to this meeting, um, this is on our agenda as a second reading, but because of council comments at the last meeting, substantial changes had to be made to this item. So, he's requesting
that we consider this a first reading. Um, so, um, how would you have Valerie read the title to consider it a first reading? I'm I know that you made that request, but how would you have it read? >> Um, what I would suggest is that we read
it as a second uh, reading and then, um, my suggestion to you when you're in your deliberations will be that we bring it back. uh consider this the first reading and um move it uh forward as a second
reading after the fact. But people it's been advertised and continued twice as public hearing advertised. It will be advertised again as a second reading basically after tonight. >> Yes. >> Gotcha. Okay. Valerie, can you read the title please? Thank you. >> Consideration of approval on ordinance number 202509
on second reading. An ordinance of the town council of the town of Loxahhatchee Gross, Florida, reorganizing and amending chapter 14 code enforcement by adding article one in general and article 2 lean reductions and releases amending section 14-4 application for
relief from code enforcement lean to provide general provisions applicable to lean fine reductions and releases to adopt section 14-5 special magistrate lean reductions and releases to address reductions by special magistrate to adopt section 14-6
other lean releases to address partial releases of leans and releases of enforce un enforcable leans and for other purposes providing for conflict severability codification and an effective date. Would you like me to
review the changes with the council from first reading that you had seemed to have like the lights question is first and then >> you were supposed to call me with an answer about the appeal >> five years.
>> Okay. So, I'm sorry. I just wanted to get that handled. Uh >> would you like me to like you're going to review the changes that were made? Okay. Go ahead. Yeah, I'll I'll go through them uh quickly for you. Um
first of all, with respect to um the fine aspect of this, uh that's been removed and we're only talking about uh lean reductions and
uh releases. Uh there are two basic types of uh lean reductions that we're talking about. There's the what we refer to as the lean reduction and that is uh dealing with the lean that is on the
property that actually had the violation. Um what happens when you have a lean, a code enforcement lean, is that the lean does not only attach to the property at which the violation uh occurred, but it
also attaches to >> Excuse me one second, Mr. Lee. I want to make sure you know there was supplementary information for this item as well. >> Yes, I was sent that via email and I believe I have the the most recent >> Make sure you're aware. Okay, thank you.
Go ahead. I'm sorry. >> That's right. So, um the lean also attaches to any other property that uh the violator may own uh in the in the same name. Um which is one of the
reasons that you'll see with especially commercial properties and things like that that people will say this is um Jeff's uh Jeff's Farm LLC one. uh Jeff's
Farm LLC too, even though Jeff controls them uh them both, but you're segregating the um title ownership on things. So, uh, a partial release of lean refers to the situation in which the, uh,
innocent, uh, property or the property that did not actually have the violation, um, would seek, uh, a a elimination of the lean with respect to that particular property. It doesn't
necessarily eliminate the entire lean um but it releases uh it as to that property. It's generally done um in situations where people are seeking to either uh get a loan on the innocent
property or sell the innocent property. at the um at first reading there had been the concept of um getting a release for uninforcable leans. The discussion at the council level was why would we give
a release if something is uninforceable? It just is uninforcable. Um and that is adequate protection for for those folks. So we have deleted that uh that portion. Um the special magistrate is authorized
um to grant lean reductions and partial releases of lean. Uh you would make an application. Um the first part of the application has or the first analysis under the of the application
has been revised to state that um if the underlying violation uh did endanger um any person's health, safety or
safety. um that lean will not be able to be considered by the special magistrate. Uh the determination of whether the under underlying violation endangers the um a person's health, safety or safety
will be made by the town manager or their design. Um what that addresses is the concern that the the town had um that those type of
uh proceedings would go to the town council. So, there's also been um added a section uh that allows all
uh all potential leans that would not go to the special magistrate uh to go to uh the town council. That would be those type of leans that had that underlying violation um that affected life, health,
and safety. Uh it would also uh deal with leans um or requests uh that um for a further reduction beyond what the special magistrate had
granted um that could come to the the council um as well as a denial um within a year because if the special magistrate denies it, the can't go back before the special magistrate
um for a year's time period, all of those um petitions for relief could come to the the town council. There is um proposed to be a $5,000 petition fee
um to bring it to the town council. Uh the special magistrate is limited in the amount that they can give a reduction to. that limit is they cannot reduce it
uh below 25% of the original lean or $5,000 whichever is greater. Um if they are talking about a release of lean it would be 10% of the lean amount or $5,000 whichever is greater.
Since the leans belong to the town, the town council has the um power and authority uh to completely eliminate um those uh those leans. So, there is a possibility that if somebody started off
with a $250,000 uh lean and the special magistrate said, "Oh, we'll reduce it to 25% by 20 to 25%." that would be still a $62,500 uh lean. And the folks may say, "Well,
we can't afford that. We want to come before the the town council." Um the town council would have the authority since it the lean belongs to the town to um reduce that down to to nothing, but there would be the petition fee. The
other thing that is in >> it would require unanimous. >> That's that's what we put we put in there pursuant to previous direction that in order to for the town council to reduce a lean, it would require the
unanimous decision of the town council with at least four members of the town council um being present and voting on the issue. Uh and the reason it's not five is there may be a conflict or there
may be an absence. Um but if you had a situation in which only three >> the council members might be the violator. >> Oh I I said there may be a conflict of interest. Yeah. Um but in any event uh it would not be possible under this
proposal that three of you could uh grant a fine red or a lean reduction. Um so those are the those are the highlights. the um elements that the town council would
consider in their determination are the same um as those that uh the special magistrate would consider. Um the other amendment uh that was made has to do with the
release of leans and it uh it's was an attempt to clarify that um a partial release of lean does require a hearing before the special magistrate and that the special magistrate will consider those some same factors that they would in the reduction
of the lean. So that's the the process. Um the town council um and the and the special magistrate can set time frames for the payment of the reduction
um the reduced amount and if those not paid within that time frame then uh the lean would rever revert to its original amount. That's the scenario or the uh the um
proposal that is before you on second reading. I think it's consistent with the direction that was given to the council by the council at the last meeting. >> Anybody have any questions? Lisa? >> Yeah. Uh, how does this comply with
state law as far as requiring a a fee to appear before council? Well, what this what this does is there is no
no requirement um that somebody be entitled to a lean reduction hearing. Um and so the the leans belong to the the town um and they
have the right to um come up with criteria uh and um establish requirements for the petition such as um things that are
included in here is that the property must be in compliance. um that there are no outstanding amounts due to the town either in the form of taxes, permits, um or we added
cost recovery fees to to this. Um and so the uh the minimum amount of the petition um is something that you have the authority to establish in the ordinance.
>> Okay. And then can you explain to me why the reduction and the release are two different thresholds? Um, it's the concept that the partial release of lean is dealing with a
property that was not not in violation or not the subject of the the hearing. Um, it's the concept that it is the innocent property. Um and you are not with a partial release of lean, you are
just releasing the lean to the extent um that it impacts that particular property. Um the remainder of the lean amount would uh remain against um the violating property.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> Paul, you are next, I think. >> Yeah. Yeah, I just have um and maybe it's just my non um legal ease mind, but um section
14, let's see, 14-4, section, subsection B, section D, subsection B. Wait, 144, >> page three of 12. >> Okay. Right.
A continues. It's all It's all >> That's stricken. You got a lot of stuff stricken, but then we corrected petitioner anyway. Um >> I didn't know if this was intended for A and B to totally be stricken. >> No. Uh duplicates the same. >> It's uh it should all been stricken and
um that was just uh >> probably overexuberant search >> and I'm with you. So then next 14-5 section A number one the determination whether the underlying
violation endangered violation any person's health is is violation added in there twice on accident. I just don't want to come back for a third fourth reading. >> No endangered any persons. There's a typo there. >> Okay. All right. That's what I thought. Okay. That was
I I from when I was scanning it just seems that's what we had intended. So, >> thank you. >> Yeah. I mean, sorry. This was something that Lisa and I had talked about before either of us were on the council that we saw hundreds of thousands of dollars
walk out of this building, right? And this is about stopping that, right? And and and not only does it stop that from happening, but it makes it more serious when code enforcement goes out and they're told the process when you want to try and get your fine reduced from $200,000 in a year from now, you're
going to have a hard time doing it. So, you better come into compliance because that's what it's about. It's about trying to get into compliance, right? So, you know, it's good to see this come to fruition here. Unfortunately, it's going to be first reading tonight, so it's not going to be finalized tonight, but happy. Well, if you Yeah, it'll be
it'll be in place in December. I was going to say uh we could do second reading at November 18th if you end up deciding to have that meeting, but that would be a rush on >> um the clerk's office to get it advertised, I think. >> Do you think you can get it advertised
for the November 18th meeting so that we can >> So, here's what here's a suggestion I was going to make. So number eight, >> let me make the suggestion to council first because we have a number of items on our agenda tonight,
>> particularly the ones having to do with the charter review recommendations that have to be voted on to sweet. So what I was going to suggest is that although the November 18th meeting is supposed to be our informal workshop and I and and
because of the enormous success of the last one um I want to keep that try to keep that pristine but since it looks like we might have I don't know two or three or five items that might need to be voted on my suggestion is that we we
start the November 18th meeting at the 6:00 that we have a half an hour regular council business meeting and then open up the informal workshop after that to take these votes that we have to take. Is Is everybody okay with that?
>> That's good. >> I got a feeling it's going to be more than half an hour. >> Yeah, I think so. >> And I don't want to mess up our two-hour workshop. >> Well, then we would have to have a second meeting, a third meeting. I mean, >> I'm fine with that. I'm fine. >> We need to have a third Well, you mean on the two meetings on the same night?
>> Two choices here. Okay. So, our choices are to either try to combine the two and and limit the voting and say if it the voting doesn't get done in x amount of time, then it moves on to the December 1st meeting and try to have staff order them
and the things that absolutely have to get voted on. You know, we can say it's a half hour meeting, it's a 45m minute meeting. We can say whatever we want to. So, that's one option. The second option is to have to keep the 18th informal meeting and to add another council meeting at some point. And the third
option is to just not have the informal meeting this month, which I would hate to not do because I think again it was a really wonderful success last month. So, we need to talk about what we're going to do before we vote on this because that that'll decide where this goes and
what our direction to the clerk's office is. >> Yeah. the the big item on your agenda is the um discussion of the charter review committee recommendations because if you decide uh to move forward with uh these
potential >> charter amendments or other charter amendments that you might want to consider, you have to have those adopted um and had the second reading at our December meeting because the time frame
to get the item on the uh ballot is December 10th. Um, and our next our December meeting is December 2nd, which gives us plenty of time uh or sufficient time to get it to the the supervisor.
Um, but in order for us to have a a second reading on >> uh so December 2nd, we need to have a middle of the month November meeting. >> I'd prefer to move our workshop to Wednesday or something. We come in for a Tuesday meeting, right? On the 18th. Do
that and we'll have a workshop on the Wednesday. >> Kill me. >> May I kill? >> Lisa, what did you want to say? I think the only thing that is is of a time constraint is the charter stuff and I think we can >> 100% >> and I think we can easily get that done
in 30 minutes and frankly we can extend it to a two and a half hour meeting slashworkshop you know it's just that one thing. So >> you beat me to it. >> I agree with you. I say I I say put the charter and charter amendments on first.
Put this on second. If we if for some reason in a half hour we can't get to two votes, well then we can't get to two votes in a half hour. >> I didn't say put the lean reduction a second. I I I don't think that's as timely as as the charter review. And I'm with Todd. I think that we should, you
know, manage our workshops as best as possible. And I I only think the charter should be what's considered um for November, what is that, 17, 18, something like that. Well, I just would hate to have staff stay here and not use the full half
hour. So, that's why I'd like to put a couple of items on there because we could always continue them till the next month just in case the charter review vote happens in 10 minutes, then we didn't bring staff in here for a 10-minute meeting. But >> and that will that way it doesn't uh you
know we don't we don't have the if we advertise it now for charter and for the lean reduction and we don't get to lean lean reduction and we table it till the December meeting no big deal no harm no foul >> correct >> right >> so I don't yeah no yeah we might get to
the charter review and we might have a half hour 45 minute conversation on it might you know I don't know right >> but you know that so if then we could just say listen we're going to table the lean reduction thing this way. We're >> we're still getting stuff done. If we can get it done, we get it done. >> And and the other thing that you can
consider um is you could consider having the business part of the meeting start at 5:30. >> I I'm okay with that. Can you be here at 5:30, Paul? I know that's a killer for you. >> Do 5:30 and Wednesday night. I mean,
>> let's just do 5:30 Tuesday. Can you make >> No, I'm just saying legally you you can hold these hearings uh after 5:00. >> No, I >> can you do it one night? >> Sure. >> Lisa, can you be here by 5:30 on the 18th?
>> That should be fine. >> Okay, Marge, you okay, Todd? >> Yep. >> Okay. All right. So, that's what we'll do. We'll have a limited time certain to halfhour business meeting >> on the 18th and our workshop will start
at six like it was originally planned to do so that we can keep that pristine. So that kills two birds with one stone. Um so I guess the motion about this ordinance needs to continue it. No, but you need to
>> to do it full >> vote on it uh as a first reading item so that the the passage is there. >> Okay. >> Um and then we'll readvertised for uh the Yeah. >> Okay. >> But do you want to do it on the 18th? Yeah, we want to do it put it on the
18th and then if we don't get to it, we don't get to I mean when you guys are setting up the agenda for that meeting, the understanding is that the charter stuff is your number one item and this is the number two and like that's basically the only things that are on it because there's no way we'll get to more than that in a half hour.
>> Would you mind if we put a consent item on? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> You wouldn't mind or you didn't mind? >> I would mind a consent. Well, you could put a consent on, but it'll probably get pulled. >> Okay. If it does,
>> if you get There's U. >> Well, I mean, you could do whatever you want. Oh, Virginia has a comment. I'm sorry. Go ahead. Yeah. >> Number eight. >> Yes. >> Yes. We're on number eight. >> We didn't have to shuffle any today.
You're >> being help. I just My concern on this $5,000 to come before the municipal housing. I think you might want to research that
a little bit more because that may be punitive and I really have to question why someone has to pay $5,000 to come before council to discuss fines and fees that already pay. >> Would you like to address that? I like
what you said is saying to to council >> well >> seems excessive and punitive. >> Well, remember that you would arguably only be coming here because your leans
on your property have gotten to the point where they are considerably above $5,000. Um, and you are, it's not punitive. You're asking for relief and it's an
opportunity to get relief. Well, I've gone through this with someone that had only expensive clients. They did not have to pay money to be heard. >> Well, they're I'm just I just find it
odd that somebody does have lean is going to have something has to pay in high feet and and that could I'm just repeating myself over and over. It seems punitive. >> What what what the uh the purpose of
this as I understand um the town council's intent is to encourage compliance. Um, and so the earlier you comply, the less you will have to worry about this because there
won't be leans that have accumulated on the property. I think that >> but I see you drifting away from that and turning this into a cash chaing machine. I'm being very blunt with you. >> Yeah. It seems you're more focused on
getting money out of people than you are getting compliance. >> I think that the the the the point is is that if allow me I think that the point is and I'll give you 20 30 seconds. I think I think the point is that when if you get a notice of violation for
something sim is you know minute simple whatever that's taken care of you're coming into compliance. If you let something drag on and drag on because you think that you think that you don't have to, like parking trailers on a property illegally, like dumping manure
illegally, things like these that people drag on that we've we've fought for years. Okay? If you want to try, that's that. So I it's not a it's not a money grab. It's a if this is what you want to do, you're going to have to, you know, it's
no different of variance. my point, >> right? >> So, you were saying, "We already have this lean against you. We're already going to take this money. If you sell the property, whatever you do, we're going to take your property, and if you want to try and get it reduced, you got
to pay us more money, try and get that reduced." I'm just saying the lean is out there and it's probably exorbitant already. It just seems to me that you're not getting away from the punitive legal action that could come against you. So, I'm saying I'm just as not an attorney
to someone who's witnessed other people go through this. I'd be very careful. Thank you. >> Well, I I think that the reason that Jeff chose that number of $5,000 is that's the minimum. That's the that's the lowest reduction that we allow. So
the point is if somebody comes to us with an enormous thing and we're and say there is some egregious circumstance and or with some horrible circumstance and we five of us do decide to go ahead and give them some relief. Once again, we would be guaranteed by the fee of coming
in front of us of what is our set minimum amount that's allowed. I believe that would be the logic that you used in picking that number. Uh that's where the number came from is that the >> so our bottom line no matter what the
minimum that the special magistrate could go down to is $5,000. Um so did not want to set up a situation in which somebody would say, "Well, the the special magistrate reduced my fine
to $5,000. I want to go lower. The council has the authority to go lower." Um, and they might have a wonderful argument and be persuasive, but uh, but they can't. >> You're consistent with it. Would make more sense for them in that situation to
pay the $5,000 lean. >> Okay. Is there anybody else who wants to speak? Valerie? >> Yes. >> Okay. Todd, were you going to make a motion or did you have a question? >> Well, I just want to make a quick comment. In all reality, we could wave that $5,000 fine at the same time. >> Right. Correct. We if if if it's we so
choose as a council to wave that fee, we could wave that fee. I don't think we'd have to put it in here to do that, but we would have that option. But anyway, so I'll make a motion to approve ordinance 2025-09 as first reading. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I.
>> Lisa, I'm sorry we didn't hear you. >> Yeah, it's going to be scheduled for November 18th. Um and we'll get the added Lisa. >> We didn't hear Lisa. I I am in opposition. >> Okay. So, passes 4 to one.
Okay. We're on to our regular agenda. >> Consideration of approval on ordinance number 202518. >> Valerie, >> two seconds. >> I'm sorry. >> I can read it if you want me to. >> Go ahead. Yeah.
Um, ordinance number 25 202518, an ordinance of the town council of the town of Lockache Groves, Florida, repealing section 2- 111, payment of money of article 4, finance of chapter 2, administration of the town of Lockache Groves code ordinances program
conflict, severability, cotification, and an effective date. This is before you on first reading for consideration. Uh this this item was discussed at a previous meeting that the practice of
the town for ever um or at least ever as we've been able to find it is that uh the town manager does not sign off on checks um and that two council people
do. There is this ordinance that has been in existence um which had the requirement that the town manager sign off on all uh checks. Um
it has been considered a uh a safer practice and and a higher level of security if it is uh the two council people because the town manager has already or their design has already gone through and uh approved the check
process. Um so this was something we wanted to clean up. the direction at the last meeting when I brought this up was uh remove this from the ordinance um and we can
deal with check signing on a resolution basis um and make sure that it's consistent with our banking agreements. Uh what is needed in addition to um passage on this item is uh to for the res for the
preparation of the resolution. Um how many uh does the council want to uh be involved in the approval of the EFTs and so forth because most of our bills are paid through an EFT? That's the electric
uh electronic funds transfer. Um and the practice has not been at this point in time to have those um items uh confirmed by council. Uh I think the direction at the last meeting
was that you did want to participate in that. Um, and I guess my question is, uh, is it sufficient to have one council member sign off on the EFTs or do you want two of them to sign off on the EFT runs? Uh, typically those are run uh,
we're hoping to get to a process where it is run consistently uh, twice a month. Um, and there would be a volume of uh, payments um, essentially like a check run, but it's
just an EFT run that you would uh, uh, be involved in reviewing. So >> Paul, you have your light on. >> Yeah, we currently do a two two signature verific uh, policy, right? >> On checks. >> On checks. >> On checks. >> So I mean, why understand why we
wouldn't do the same on the EFT? I mean, we discussed it a little bit at the at the at our workshop briefly, but I mean, >> I agree with you. I think it should be two signatures and I think it should be done like, you know, back in the old water control days, we we had warrants where I had to come in as the treasurer
for years and spend, you know, several hours going over and unfortunately that's the time it takes. And even now when I do checks, you know, it's a half an hour, an hour by the time I review them all and look at all the supporting documentation and everything to sign them. So, I'm, you know, I'm happy to schedule more time and if we I I
understand it's going to be larger volumes because these are going to be things like credit card bills. These are kind of your your larger payments meds, things like that. >> I understand a bigger list of of items. Yeah. >> Right. I think it's that's our commitment as council members, but you
know, >> I agree that it should be two. I mean, we we have whoever's approving the PO originally, right? We have our finance director and then we should have the two council members. I think that's that's pretty much what what the community expects
from us and what we need to do responsibly for oversight, but >> not a problem. Just wanted a direction. >> Could we break it into I mean, like you said, it's that could be kind of cumbersome. Could Could we break it into two payments two payment cycles a month instead of one? Because are we currently at once a month or
>> No, we're currently well that but that's not accurate guys. Come on. I get called here like been here all the time twice a week sometimes. >> You are right. We are we are trying to establish um payments on the 10th and
the and the 20th. >> Well, that'll be lovely for planning purposes, but I won't count on that. So, as long as we have willing signatures and multiple, we could, you know, it won't necessarily fall on everyone to be here twice a month or whatever. We could, you know, rotate or
what have you. So, >> I think all council members, >> I think all of us are signatures, but >> um >> but it's it's generally done on availab most of the time. When I'm called in, it's like, can you get here by 3:00 to
we got to get it out. That's generally what that's generally why sounds like we're moving to a better process and I maybe Todd have have more availability during the day than you and Lisa do. >> Um so uh >> it's whatever. I mean it is what it is. It will be nice if it's on a twice a
month and I can plan for an hour, you know, on this date and an hour on that date. That would be lovely. But um >> we or whoever >> we'll try to set it up and it and with the the EFTs um the confirmation signature um would
be internal only. It would it doesn't go out to other folks. So, um, we we'll be able to to handle it. I'll I'll talk >> in the in the location type of thing or is it you send me a link and I go and I look at
>> that's that's what I'm going to uh talk to our finance guys about and and see if we can set it up that way to make it easier. Yeah. >> If that if those could be done electronically. Yeah, >> I would be interested in that because I know that when I became the treasurer of
the water control district, um the first warrants that I had to sign um were not available because they had been removed from the water control district by the treasurer prior to me, which I subsequently found out was a violation
of state law, but was done quite often apparently for the treasurer before me. Um and so and it took us some weeks to get those back um in house. So I would be interested in how the electronic realm works with that same concept of
whether that's something that's allowed to >> leave the office even if it's electronically. I don't know. You know, I mean the legality of it. I know it's like intellectual property and stuff like I don't >> I don't I don't think I don't think with the EFTs it's a
it's a problem um uh for it leaving the office or anything like that. It's >> then it becomes an external technically an offite document I >> except once again we're not that that signature is not going to be presented
to somebody else. >> Okay. Okay. All right. I got it. Before I do my next, >> it's authorizing somebody to hit a button. >> Right. Basically, okay. >> You have a comment, >> I'd like to make a motion to approve uh consideration or the ordinance.
>> Check for me, Paul. >> Not a problem. I just I was just going to jump right in, but I don't want to cut anybody off. 2025-18. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I You're opposed, Lisa. You're in favor.
>> Sorry. In favor? >> Okay. So, passes five to zero. It was just a little late. I wasn't sure whether it was opposed or not. Sorry. Just wanted to be sure to get the record straight. All right. We're on to item number 10. Discussion and direction on the Palm Beach County Sheriff's
Contract. Jeff. >> Okay. Um the we need we need direction. Uh the town council during the budget process
only approved uh I think $120,000 um towards the the sheriff's payments. Um the payments are about $58,000
uh a month. So we have paid for the October and November um services. Uh we don't have monies to pay for December at this point in time.
Um we had the council has not directed us to terminate the the contract. We did have negotiations um with the sheriff's department. uh they um indicated
two things as or two items as concessions. One that they were not going to pursue uh their requested amendment that they would get overtime u pay for review of
um our redspeed cameras. Um and uh the second thing is that they uh offered us a 1% reduction um for this year's um uh contract uh
which is about $7,000 uh annually. Um, and so, uh, I think four, uh, I think most of you have had the opportunity to meet with the the sheriff's office. >> Negative.
>> Negative. I was given one time on a Monday that I could not make and no other opportunity was given after that. So, I did not have a chance to meet with the sheriff's office. >> Okay. >> And I don't know about you, but I mean, $6,800. I mean, may as well keep the 1%. was
what's seven grand on $630,000. I mean, >> it it's back to what was said before previously years ago is there is no negotiation. You take this or you get nothing. So, there is no negotiation. I I know Laura sat here and said that we should negotiate with them and that sort of thing. And there is no negotiating.
So, that that's when >> if there's a negotiation, it's one thing, but >> but it's not. I mean, >> so when Jeff said that, you know, we we entered into negotiations, that's not really an accurate statement. We didn't >> Well, uh we we discussed it. We we we we
discussed it and and their their position um is that uh the uh amount that they're charging is very reasonable and and fair. Um and uh I I I do not
think there is any substantial reduction forthcoming through further negotiation. How about that? >> What What are we What are we getting? How many square miles are we? Somebody's about that. >> How many 12 and a half square miles? 3,500 people.
And we have what? two grocery stores, a feed store, two feed stores, a part store, and it cost us $630,000 a year. I mean, it just it the math doesn't matter. >> 675 >> 675 The math doesn't matter. Well, in in
my discussions, I had posed the possibility of trying to kind of split it and reduce it maybe back to what the original rate was, like the 230 or 240 with for for maybe the business section, which is
where they're indicating most of the crime is, and then let the rest of town revert back to to Palm Beach County, you know, which we're already paying for anyhow. Um, did we hear back about any possibility with that? I know that I had discussed that, but >> no, they they haven't they haven't come
uh back to us in in response to to any of that >> offer. >> I get it. I mean, listen, up until up until when we incorporated, you know, and for some reason because we incorporated, this became an issue and then we got commercial, but so became a real issue. But, you know, we relied on
whatever coverage was out here. And I don't know that we have any more thefts today than we had then. I don't know. You know, we're pretty much, you know, and and they have to re they have to respond to life safety issues. Somebody breaks in your house, they have to respond. >> Correct.
>> If somebody steals your car, they have to come write a report. That's what you know, somebody steals your car. No, >> they don't have to write a report. >> I don't think that would be their position. And what they indicated to uh to to us is >> So you're telling me if somebody steals
a car and on Tangerine and 65th Street that they're not going to go out and write a report. That's what they pay for out there with >> No, they they will the that specific issue was um you know brought up by
their sheriff's representatives and they said in that case um they would just simply tell you contact your insurance company. Um >> we already pay for that. That's my point. That's everybody's point. We pay for that with our app form just like everybody else does. This is my
confusion of the whole thing, right? because it's a monopoly, right? I mean, it that's all intents and purposes. I mean, you know, >> can I can I say something? Let me jump in here if you don't mind. I don't know if you guys remember Marjgerie Sman Douglas, the officer that was on site
left the building, right? There was a shooting. Let me finish. There was a shooting going on. He left the building and the parent sued and they said, "Why did he leave the building? He was he was responsible." There is state law that says there is no duty to protect. >> Yeah. >> There is no requirement. So if an officer was in Publix, there was a
shooting going on, he get in his car and drive home and that's it. He has provided his service. He there is no duty to protect. So when PBSO says that they don't have to do this and they don't have to do that, they don't have to do anything anywhere throughout the county. There is no duty to protect. So
if he said somebody got killed, he doesn't have to go in and do anything. There is no duty to protect. So if he wants to say that he's only going to come here for emergencies or that sort of thing, he can. But he can also say that in unincorporated. He could say that in Wellington. He could say that anywhere in the county. There is no duty
to protect. So >> but but they did they did make it very clear that if there if there was a a life safety type of issue, of course they they would respond and they would give it all the priority that they would anywhere else. They did indicate that um
if there was a shoplifting incident at at Publix, um that may be something that they would not respond to. I >> I don't know if you remember what Dave Browning said when we were going through this. I'm not going to repeat the word because somebody got really upset about
it, but he used a pretty strong word as to what their position was, what they were doing to us, and it holds true today. Starts with a he. So, >> are you done because March had hurt? >> Yeah. March. Sorry.
>> Okay. Um the um tax portion that we pay that u uh Yeah. Yeah. Um I asked um the officers that came, you know, um how does that fit in with any of our
expenses? and he said that's used to pay for um uh responses that uh require uh extensive equipment, you know, like the the crime scene on-site uh equipment um
and uh and and other things. So, so it is um it is eaten up by those types of responses that it it isn't available for reduction of our expenses.
Um they also said that there's 11 towns that u contract with uh PBSO and there are some um uh county uh PBSOs
um uh that are incorporated that do not have any any coverage at all, you know, uh other than whatever whatever the county makes available. uh through this
tax portion and uh the balance of the towns provide their own um they they buy their own officers. >> So you know it it doesn't sound like they were negotiating any any numbers
for us. >> I mean even though we are a small demand and a um small population, >> right? I brought up Havhill again and I was told, well, that was something that was negotiated, you know, 20 years ago or in the 50s. And I'm like, okay, but
we're asking you to negotiate something like that now. And I I I was told he would get back to us, but obviously we haven't heard anything back. I'm sorry. Were you done, Marge? That's it. >> Well, I know Todd's not done. You go ahead. >> So, I have a memorandum from the Florida House of Representative the speaker
there. Um, and I have some language that's in I think seven or eight bills that are being presented when it comes to property taxes. And it talks about, and all these are going to pass, and it talks about um the amount of funding that we have for law enforcement services this year. It would have to
remain going forward for the future indefinitely. So, this is what I was me and I were going back and forth about not having it here. So, I want to There's one here for the clerk. >> Um, make a motion to receive and file. It's a memorandum and >> can I have a second?
>> Second. >> So, like I said, it talks about the amount of money that we've appropriated this year would have to stay that way indefinitely. So, if we've appropriated 120,000 this year, if we don't add anything else to it, moving forward, we still have to do 120,000. I don't know what we would do with those funds. I
guess they would roll over into the to the next year if we didn't spend it, right? Well, and we could use it to hire services from PBSO for whatever we need. Should they be willing to allow us to alakart services for whatever. >> And I want to make it clear that the men
and women of PBSO do a great job. It has nothing to do about the quality of service. They're they're professional all the way. That's not what it's about. This is about finances for us. That's not >> Yeah. >> And Okay. Question. So,
um, you know, maybe Lieutenant Can, but the city of Atlantis, do they >> Atlanta has their own police? >> They have their own police department. >> G has none. >> Golf has none. >> Glam. >> So, so, so >> Timber Hills is two something. I can't remember off the top of my head. Two something. And that's the one that I
said that's kind of where we need to be because that's a similar >> size population and everything to us. And >> actually, we probably have less people, but however, >> I understand. was trying to find the I mean that is a municipality very close by
>> that's very similar in volume and size to us >> said that there's not as much commercial >> well exactly and then that's when I went to and and that's when I went to and and and that's when I went to the okay so let's slough up our commercial zone and
let's pay that amount for them and then let's let the rest of it reverse back to Palm Beach County. I thought that was like a pretty good solution actually that um the town manager suggested in one of our conversations but there was no negotiation as clearly >> there was an explanation that we
originally started at 243,000 and it was supposed to be for three years but somehow or another they fell asleep or whatever and it it was never reviewed until 10 years out. So, right.
So, we stayed 43 at 10 years. >> Oh, so now we got to we're paying for it now because somebody else somebody didn't do their due diligence, so we're we're paying for it now. I it it just it's very it's very disconcerting really. I mean, it does I don't understand. I mean, again, pair what
Todd said, very pleased with the service that we're getting and the and the men and women of of >> the sheriff's department. It's not about that. It's about the exorbitant amount of money for 12 square miles and 3,500
people with some minimal commercial stuff that really is not much more than was here, you know, acreage wise, you know, and I I I guess I I mean I can make an argument that some of those places probably have higher crime rate than we have. Um, you know, without
naming names, I mean, it just >> Yeah. Jeff, can you address one of the fears that's that's out there and one of the threats, let's be real, that's out there is that this could somehow affect our corporation. >> Um,
>> because it's in our charter. The language is in our charter that says that we have to have >> they police have suggested that >> two different things. No, >> you're gonna talk about She wants to discuss specifically our charter and the ordinance that was passed that takes
care >> right about something else. >> No, I I might mention something else, but I'll talk about I'll talk about >> you to wrap the whole ball of twine up. That's >> okay. Um they have they have indicated to us uh
in the discussions that the town's charter requires uh that there be police service and that the police service uh would come from
the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office as There are no other municipalities uh that are surrounding us and could provide us with the police service and that our
charter says that if you are going to create your own police force, you need to go out to voter referendum. the they did not acknowledge the ordinance that was passed
a year and a half ago although they are certainly aware of it that uh states that if uh we terminate the agreement with the sheriff's office or don't enter into an agreement with the sheriff's
office for municipal level ser services that we would be accepting of county um level services, unincorporated county level services. Uh that's when they pointed out and they I think are correct under the law that
they do not have to give a municipality the same level of service as the unincorporated area. They can give different levels of service throughout the the county. That's within the sheriff's prerogative.
So they're not legally required to give a certain level of service uh to an unincorporated area or a municipality um that doesn't have its own police force. They suggest that one uh there is
a provision uh 166 I think it's 49 uh 049 that requires there to municipalities to have a police force. Um that particular language deals
with uh levels of staffing for a police force and basically says that uh you have to have one more you have to have more than one officer on duty at any one time
or have entered into a mutual aid agreement to support that officer. They don't want them to be left out out there. It does not specifically say thou shalt have a police force if you are a
municipality or provide law enforcement um if you are a police um if you are a municipality they they they have an argument that it's inferred but they can they did not provide and I have not found uh any uh
attorney general's opinion on the on the subject subject or case law on the subject and I have consulted with their attorney and he has not pointed me to any such um authority. So it's an argument that they have. Um
>> so so his his his his position is that if we have our own police force, we have to have we can't have just one person on on duty, >> right? >> You gota have gota have coverage, right? >> You got to have you got to have Andy and Barney. Okay. So, so I think so what
what does the law say about the sheriff's department >> in that scenario? >> Um it it the that particular section uh is in 166 that deals with municipalities and doesn't put
>> I'm just curious because I can tell you on any given holiday, right? because I can tell you it happened to me Christmas morning at like 3:00 in the morning. Some very um interesting individual went
through two gates and was on my back deck, right? And by the time the you know, no offense to anybody, but by the because the deputy was all the way up by North Lake. By the time the deputy got here, it was a 20 minutes to a half hour right to my
house. They were gone. Okay. luckily I didn't have to discharge a firearm or anything like that. I'm just saying it, you know, 3:00 in the morning on a holiday, right? We know it's limited staff. We're not saying they got to be full staff, but to to say that we got to any given time, right?
That was the term that was used the phrase any given time, right? Barney's got to have backup. So even if they had three people between Southern and North Lake and 110th and and whatever, say something pops off in Belgrade,
>> they're going to get they're going to send back up then we're you see what I'm saying? Be curious to to >> um I have one more question regarding legality, Jeff, and that is uh because I think it's important for us all to be aware of potential consequences or
consequences. So, so if we were to defund this contract now, would we be in fact voiding this contract and be in some kind of legal jeopardy or would we just be defunding something that we just simply can't afford? Like what what is your legal stance on that situation?
>> Well, right now, um it's not a matter of defunding. It is that you have not appropriated monies for uh this contract. uh the sheriff's office, if we did not make payment,
might very well consider that to be a breach of the agreement that is in existence at this point in time. The agreement did does speak to either party being able to terminate the
uh agreement. Um but the termination time frame is March 31st effective October 1st. So we are beyond that window for this year.
the defense that we would that the town would have to um uh an action to enforce the agreement is uh that we don't have to appropriate
u monies then that every contract is subject to appropriation whether it specifically says so or not. Whether um if there was such a um a lawsuit um
brought it is not clear as to who would prevail on the issue. Um it it would be it would be time consuming. Um uh I don't think the the damages would be
beyond um the monthly payments that uh are stated in the uh in the contract. There wouldn't be any punitive damages to that. But I cannot tell you um what the
what the result would be. Um uh and my advice to you would certainly be that uh we would issue a termination for the remainder remaining year of the contract
if that was uh your decision to >> to not fund it. We would also terminate the >> not appropriate any monies >> to the March 30th deadline. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Okay. Have we has anybody looked into or
sought out to see what it would cost? I mean, because there's it's not that we have to buy our own police car and get our own policeman. We have to >> millions of dollars. >> It's millions of dollars. >> Okay. >> All right. >> Yeah. I >> I'll just I'll stop right there, I guess. I I mean, I understand it's
millions of dollars to create a police force. I I I totally get that. But there's other avenues to where there's not other avenues. Well, there's >> there there's there's there's there's gated communities right now that ostensibly have police force, right? There's Atlanta's has their own police
force. Of course, you know, they pay a lot more taxes than we do here, right? Just putting that out there, right? I'm just saying. So, there the only option is to start a police force or is there is there private contingency that's that's available that could be, you know, because >> there is just no private company does
law enforcement. You you we went and the reason why I know is we went through all those years ago. >> Yeah. the the the nearest thing was um >> golf has a security force. >> What's what's Forest Hill 95? Um >> Lake Clark Shores. >> Lake Clark Shores. They were the smallest police department. This was back seven years ago was a million half
dollars a year, >> right? >> So that was the smallest. If we had a municipality next to us, like let's say we buted up to the city of West Palm and they had our own police department, we could contract with them, right? >> The only other options I know of is Fish and Wildlife or Highway Patrol. >> I don't think you can contract with them for law enforcement services. you'll
think that we haven't reached out to see. >> Well, no. Under the if you were if you're talking about establishing your own law enforcement department as a contract like we do at PBSO. >> Yeah. Uh it is it is limit
>> your contracting opportunities is are are limited to um the sheriff's department and adjacent municipalities. and there are no adjacent municipalities that have their own force. Um, so from a contracting
standpoint for law enforcement services, I think you are locked in >> state for for full law enforcement services >> other other types of services that fall within law enforcement. You may be able to do it for traffic control say right and
say, "Hey, we want you to come out for eight hours a day and do traffic control." That we could do that with Florida patrol or fish modeling. Yeah, fish always now, so it's not Yeah, >> I know. But I I I would be willing I I know. >> Hold on a second. Let me see if Lisa has
something to say because we've all been talking and I haven't checked in with her. Lisa, did you have something to say? >> You know, I'm kind of on the same page with the pros and the cons and I did have the opportunity to meet with them and um I I was a little disappointed to
say the least. Uh, and I agree that they're the people doing the work on the streets are great. Um, so I I'm torn. I I wish I had a more legal understanding and and a crystal ball, so to speak.
>> Okay. Do we have public comment on this? >> Yes, we do. On Phyllis Monia, >> you can let Virginia, she's up. >> Okay. I want to hear what you got to say first. >> Standish. Um
some uh observations when you're talking about where the officers get pulled from. Um my question is why aren't the patrol cars coming out of >> question behind? Let me tell you.
>> Good question. discussion while you're limited to cars coming from different areas, you know, that would benefit. I hear you talking about trying to come up with ways to get the commercial, which we have a lot more traffic. Okay. When when the charter was
developed as we got on a break for 10 years, so there's some consideration there. We start our own police force. Oh my gosh, Andy Griffith, here we come. not get all the back that we need. And we're a little rambunctious town. We know we
can dance when there's trouble. So, I I think I'd rather have PBSO at the back door than a couple of local guys. Uh what I'm saying is I think there's more questions to be asked PBSO as to level of service that have not been asked. I
say put your thinking caps on. I realize you've gone back and forth staff and council on how do you get more money out of the commercial. I realize there was the tax discussion, but I would and again because there this is a legal issue too as far as the ramifications of
if you breach this contract, you've got a lot of balls in the air on this one. Um, I mean, if this is something you're going to do in the future, they think you should plan better than just say, "Hey, oh, we're not paying you anymore." I mean, that causes
>> that's that's not the way to approach contracts from what I know. Um, and then my question, the one in the back of my mind, great. You're going to save this money. I'm going to ask the obvious question. What are you going to throw it away on? What are we going to see for that money you're going to save us? I
I'm darn serious about this. We we we have a lot of projects, a lot of things that go wrong. You're saving us money here and giving us little backing of our opportunity this year and and not having PDSO except for the basic level. So, get
all your pros and cons lined up because I don't think you've asked enough questions yet. Thank you. >> $1.2 billion. Where does he get it? Does he get federal assistance that we have a president on Palm Beach
or is the 1.2 2. What happens to the 1.2? He'll use it all. What happens when he doesn't use it all? Well, I've heard that he distributed in new cars, you know, computers, things like that to
his upper echelon. So, um, and I also have to say that I've been on the fence, not on the fence actually. I feel I've lived here since ' 89. You call the sheriff, they usually show up.
Paul, I am absolutely devastated that you said there was somebody at our neighborhood on Christmas. I must have been out of town. Didn't go to my house is my question for you. So, um,
I have people tell me that they're misinformed by the sheriff. I I by the deputies that come out that some seem interested, some seem very helpful, and some it's quite the opposite. So, I I I and that's human nature, I
guess. You know, some people love their job and some people just do their job to bring home a paycheck. But it was 2018 when they nailed us with $600,000. We were up to our heads and water. We
had a manager that said we had no money and they didn't, you know, our main our sheriff didn't care. He wanted the money anyway from us. We didn't pave roads. We didn't do all the infrastructure that we
needed to. We didn't fix canals. We had potholes that residents were crying about and we gave $600,000 to the sheriff. He did not hear us. We went in front of him. We told him we couldn't afford it. He didn't hear us or he
didn't care. We're asking him again, please negotiate. We're a small town. You negotiated with other towns. Now, I was in a meeting. I was a council member and I've sat with the upper
echelon of the sheriff's department when they told us that our appropriations in Tallahassee something might happen to them. So I say that let's go back to when we
were incorporated. Our taxes are triple quadruple what we paid back then and we pay for Palm Beach County Sheriff in our tax or give that back to us.
Anybody else have anything to say? >> I was I was gonna say that you know I I'm I'm like you said it's a lot to chew, right? So, I I think you know I think what in the meantime or for I think we fund
another month. I know what you're going to say, Todd. I have to look at you. Um I think we fund another month and and you know it's what another 50 >> 58,000 plan. >> Um I know it's it's not exactly what the
plan was, but I think you know we need to I don't know options. There's there has to be some kind of option. >> Yeah. >> And I don't think I don't think the option I don't think the option is to let's figure out after the fact. I think we need to have a plan.
>> That's where I'm at. >> Jeff, what what do you need from us? Do you need a motion? And what would the motion look like if we wanted to not fund it moving forward? Um, I'd like to I'd like to see staff reach out about law enforcement from Fish and Wildlife
and Highway Patrol to see if they would work on an hourly basis for us to do traffic control. >> Right. Right now, um, there is no money's appropriated for the December payment. So, uh there's not
the need for a motion at this point in time. If the uh prevailing view is not to to fund, that does not mean that you are terminating the agreement at this point in time. Um I don't I didn't hear
that from you. I don't think that >> without saying that, isn't it? Uh I I don't think that's necessary at this point in time because the services are paid for through October and November and you know you got a meeting on December 2nd. We'll come back uh to you.
>> So we just do we get a penalty if we make a late payment? >> No. >> I'm just being >> surprised. >> So how about this? How about we ask the town manager and the town attorney to
reach out one more time and and try to see what if anything can be negotiated before that December te second meeting. And then guys, December 2nd is like D-Day for us. We have to we we got to we got to make a decision on December 2nd
to fund or not to fund. And I like you know we can't kick the can any further down the road. But in the meantime, we can explore the FDLE option. We can the highway patrol option, whatever the fish and wildlife options and see what kind of services we could offer to our
residents through those. Um, we can give our town manager and our town attorney one more crack to offer back some of the options that we tried to bring up in our negotiations. Mr. Coleman, perhaps we can give you even an opportunity to meet with them. Maybe you have some other things that you'd like to say. I mean, you said you didn't get an opportunity.
So, I'm just saying >> I'd love to beat my head against the wall and say, you know, let's cut this in half because I I honestly think we could cut it in half. I'm just saying I mean, just >> I'm just saying it would give you an opportunity, >> you know, off the top of your head, what's what's the percentage that we I mean, is the percentage of the tax
that's paid the same for fire rescue as it is for PBSO? >> No. fire rescues more >> paid on on on a a countywide >> right >> break countywide >> MSTU I think I think their millage rate is like
>> they have their own millage rank they have their own that's how they're done which is often what I've said would be really the fairer thing for the sheriff's department to do as well because then it's done by >> values and so my argument that you know fire rescue does their deal but they're getting more money than the sheriff's
getting on the correct on the >> correct correct >> keep in mind we're paying through county taxes already, >> right? >> I But that's my point. It's all along. We're we're paying for, you know, correct. And and they even said >> you're going to be you're going to revert to unincorporated standard.
Unincorporated standard is is more than life safety. >> Correct. >> Unincorporated standard years. >> I know. Unincorporated standard is if somebody steals my tractor, you know, it might take them a week, but somebody's going to come out and look at my where my tractor used to sit and make a report, right? that, you know, that's I
mean, somebody steals something on E-ROD, somebody's going to show up and they're going to take the report and they're going to do whatever they got to do. I mean, you know, somebody breaks into a car at Publix. You know, I'd like to think if somebody pulls a gun and starts shooting somebody >> somewhere that they're going to show up because I think I think
>> they show up for life, safety of I think that fall under insurance company. I just want to make something clear and council member Herszog, sorry for me interrupting you. >> We have talked to PBSO
on numerous occasions and it hasn't been, you know, a cup of tea, if you will. It's been a very lively and assertive exchange in every time. And we definitely do need to get you, Council Member Coleman, with PBSL.
The mayor referenced some of the suggestions I made. I made them without counsel there. I made them with council there. That we would switch to a different level of service. that our frontage on southern would be where we
would focus our um incorporated efforts and everything north of collecting canal could be treated maybe as unincorporated level of service. There is no willingness, not that we're not going to
listen to council and go back, but I wish to say on the record, you know, in into the record for anyone who's watching and listening, we have asked and proposed multiple different
levels of service and PBSO has said not interested. It's an all orno engagement. We did offer the math that the mayor talked about. We did offer calculations using inflation of what we would be
paying today if we just did inflation so on and so forth. Both sides have very reasonable arguments and we will definitely go back and do it again. And everything that was said here tonight, we will incorporate in that conversation. I do think it would be to
all of our benefits to um motion to pay for December services because our attorney didn't mention we have to pay upfront. So that would be that would be due December 1st. So I
would ask you to um appropriate >> Why can't we do that on December 2nd? He said there's no late payment. >> There is no late payment. >> Well, then we'll do we'll we'll make that decision clarity from everyone >> on December 2nd. It'll either be, yeah, we're going to try to find the money to fund this and cut out another capital
project or no, we're >> I understand that, you know, I I sound like the silly one saying what I'm saying. I'm just trying to wrap this conversation into a couple of key bullet points. This is good conversation and we're going to go back and try again,
but when we come back with the same answer, we're going to have to be able to, as the attorney said, make a really hard decision, >> right? And you know to add to this extra month here, >> one of my hesitations with doing two months is I knew it would drag on and on
and on, which it did. How many weeks did it take to get these meetings set up, right? Because there's no rush, you know, and if we get another month, then there's no rush again. How many weeks dragged and all? >> How many weeks to get them to call up and say, "Hey, meet with me Monday." >> It's like, really? You didn't hear that? We were talking about this back in
September. Come on. >> But that's my point. So there's no rush on. >> No. No. Absolutely. >> So if there's no payment, then there's going to be a rush on their end. I guess my point there's a there is a a a another municipality >> more than >> and and more than one in a county that have have have pulled away.
>> Right. Correct. >> So you're telling me >> or never had it. But I mean but I'm saying in another county in the state recently this past year >> there was another another municipality that >> another one actively pulling away. >> Actively pulling away. >> Yeah. >> Every league of cities like event I go
to this is being discussed. It's being discussed about the either excessive increases in their contract with the sheriff or they're cutting them off and they're not moving forward anymore. They're going to go back to the county level services. This isn't unique to Palm Beach County. It's statewide issue
>> and >> in particular with the what's going on in the legislature with Perez's bills with those nine tax homestead those nine uh advalor tax bills that are coming forward. There nine or 11? 11 now. I think what
one of them's going to stick, more than one of them's going to stick. And the problem is >> all these municipalities, I mean, I was just in the taxation and and finance legislative sessions last month and the month before, and every single municipality that spoke up, and there
were 120 of us in the room. Every single one of them said that that's the first thing that's going to have to go, that they will no longer be able to afford law enforcement. >> Every single one of them. other lobbyist has this in their in their every single bill, right, to try to stop that from happening because they know that this is
going to happen. >> And it's it's a shame. It really I mean it's a shame that it has to even come to this. >> And unless anyone think that uninccorporating is the key because I I can tell you right now if if you if you think that you do not have a voice with the five of us, you will not have a voice with the however many you're
sitting down downtown. I can tell you that right now. We lived it. You shake your head. We got a cell phone tower behind our house that says we had no voice because some guy duped some little old lady, right, with a stealth tower, right? I didn't want the stealth tower behind my house. I went to the first
meeting because we were within the fall zone. So, you know, we we lose you lose something. The whole the whole purpose that we we started this incorporation thing and this whole purpose we we went here was so we had a legitimate voice and we could make our own decisions, you
know, local voice. >> And I'm just making the point December 2nd is that decision is going to have to be made one way or the other? Everybody understand? Everybody in agreement? Okay, good. >> Okay. Um, has anyone ever done a statewide survey of um the um
it isn't PBSO but the equivalent in the 67 counties in uh Florida? Uh how much you know a similar size uh population uh community would be paying there? I I haven't
>> in often cases I haven't done a survey, but I will tell you in the little bit of research that I have done that in many cases they don't charge municipalities anything additional at all. >> I I have a spreadsheet with the sher PBSO's contract with all the municipalities and the numbers >> of the state.
>> No, no, no. PBSO all the contracts with municipalities and the numbers are all over the place. You look at Belglade and you're like how are they paying less than us? It the numbers are all over the place. You know how much they pay how much we pay per citizen. If you take the population of those municipalities, if you look at how many officers they
provide under their contract and the dollar amount for each officer, the numbers are all all over the place. I don't know how they come up with their numbers for each municipality, but they're all over the place. >> So, to look at it as a state, >> are there any that separated by um what was suggested here with the commercial
at one rate and the residential at a different rate? >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Now, some of these contracts provide crossing guards and that sort of thing, which of course are going to be a lower rate, but if you look at these contracts, the numbers are all over the place. I can provide I can give it just that. >> Yeah. >> Um and you can see it the numbers for
that just for PBSO, their contracts, the numbers are all over the place. >> Okay. And um um Phyllis had said that uh 2018 they uh they gave us the 6,000. >> They doubled, right? >> They doubled. >> Okay. From 3,000 to 6,000. from 300,000
to 600,000. >> 600. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> And how many years were we at 300? >> We were We started at 240, I think it was. >> It went up a little bit over I think it was 10 years. It was for a 10-year period and then at that 11th year or
10th year, they doubled, >> right? >> So, it really had nothing to do with incorporation and it really had nothing to do with that. It had to do with Well, I don't we don't know what it had to do with was somebody asleep at the wheel. I mean, we we just don't know. But it just suddenly doubled in 2018, >> right? >> They said because we had a commercial
and that sort of thing that >> Yes, but we had commercial before that. >> I know. >> We had crime before that. We had commercial before. >> They just needed more money for their budget. >> I think that's probably legitimate. Okay. So, we're going to basically table this. This is what I'm hearing.
Everybody knows what we're asking them to do. Um, and we'll give it a shot. Um, and December 2nd is D-Day. Lisa, are you okay with that decision? >> Uh, yes. I mean, there's obviously still
a lot of questions. So, >> it gives you a chance, right? >> Is is there a way of reaching out to these communities that pay nothing and find out how they negotiated with their uh >> They don't want to get involved. They're like, "Don't bring us up.
>> Keep us out of it." Right. We're good over here. Have a nice day. >> We're on to item number 11, which is discussion and d direction on sign code enforcement. >> Is that you, Jeff again, or is that >> Oh, there she is. Karen. Hi, Karen. I was just going to ask if it was you and
then I didn't see you. There you are. almost hesitant to start this conversation after the last one, but >> Yep. Trying to get there. >> Thank you, my dear. >> No problem. >> Where the hell is it? >> I know bringing presentations. She knows
it. >> Perfect. Thank you. >> All right. So tonight bringing forward a discussion regarding uh sign code enforcement. So the question that we're asking the council is whether we should enforce the
sign amorization provisions the uldc and whether we should begin a sign enforcement program. So what's a sign amorization language? Our code contains language which basically said that when we adopted our
sign code, if there were legally conforming signs, we're not talking if they were given code, but if there were legally conforming signs, the property owner had five years in which to bring their sign into compliance with the town's code because when we adopted our
code, it might have been different than, you know, we incorporated might have been different than what was in Palm Beach County. So that was way back when and that fiveyear period has basically expired. >> Um
so >> mercy >> what happened was the council asked the um >> do you know how many people came into compliance within that 5year period? No idea. >> Okay. >> That's an assumption because I wasn't here but >> me.
>> Okay. Why? Yeah. >> Um, well, this came to be because we have the unified land development committee that you use to review our ulvc. >> One of the tasks you assigned the committee was for them to update our sign code. One of the reasons was that
our sign code we wanted to make sure was legally supportive for those who do not realize sign enforcement or sign codes are quite a bit legal been determined by the courts. Do you want to make sure that you can legally enforce your sign codes? During this discussion, we went
into the amorization provision and said, "Do we want to keep them? Do we want to get rid of them?" And we talked about the fact that there is one in existence. And the question came up, well, if it was in existence, why weren't we enforcing it? Right? So what happened
was we basically said look under code enforcement we have been given direction by the council to only do life health safety items and the idea of a sign being a life health safety item really didn't fit into the definition. So
that's why we did not enforce the sign code versus other codes. And I mean we're not proactive. In other words, we take complaints, but we will not individually go out and do anything. >> I'm sorry. We did not do anything because of the fact that it's to be
proactive is the life health safety issues. It's not something that is such as we defined as a code. But before we enforce the sign code, we did want to have a discussion with council because some of the signs have been around for a
while and many of the owners or tenants may not even realize that the sign that they have is not conforming at this point. So, I've kind of characterized some of these just to give you an idea. I'm not saying this is every single sign that's out there, but it kind of gives you a flavor so you're aware of what
we're talking Can you just give us the number of how many signs are not in compliance in this town at this time? Are we talking 50? Are we talking 500 or are we somewhere in between there? >> I would say we're probably somewhere in between there. I don't have an exact number, but it's not a small number.
>> So the the first one as I talked about here is pole signs. And basically pole signs are exactly what it says assigned independent not attached to anything that's either one one pole, two poles. So here's an example of two that we have
in existence that were prohibited by our code. So they should have been gone back five years from when we adopted our code again. We're talking way before now. Okay. >> Are we asking questions as we go or
>> you tell me answer? >> I'm asking them before we ask it. Are we waiting? >> You can. I was going to wait. >> Yeah, that's fine. see the whole thing. >> Can you write it down in the whole >> I'll remember. >> The next category I gave was prohibited um uh signs within the AR zoning
district. Um you're not allowed to have monument signs in the AR zoning district. So your churches um some of the vetaries that are in the AR zoning district are not permitted to have the signs they presently have.
Window signage. So, our window signs are limited to 20%. You can see that obviously some of these are way beyond the 20% that would be allowed. Real estate signs are limited to six
square feet. Again, I'm not saying that they're not permitted, but the ones that are out there now may not meet the code requirement. >> Signs prohibited. Now, here's the kicker. Okay, everybody. You want to say
we all want to treat everybody equally, right? The problem we have here, not problem, but the situation we have to address is that a exempt are not required to get permits for signage if it's in reference to their activities.
So if they have a farm, they're entitled to put a sign up even if it would be prohibited in any other portion of the town as long as their property is designated as act purpose or >> on their property >> on their not
>> that red sign is on right property. >> Yeah. using an example, >> but again, so we got to be careful because some people are going to go, "Well, you see that over there? Why are they allowed to do it, but I'm not allowed to do it." And this is what I
wanted to point out that we're dealing with is that yes, they're allowed because they have an agricultural use or they have an agricultural exemption. >> Isn't that like 70% of our town? >> Yes. >> It's a substantial amount. I'm not going
to I'm not >> and don't the churches potentially have an exemption as well? >> Well, that would be a legal question. I would leave to legal counsel to take a look at. I think there is certain religious regulations that you have to look into to determine if that would be
applicable or not. So, um again, I wanted to bring to the attention so that we could get some guidance on, you know, what's the thought because you're going to get push back. There's going to be residents who said the sign's been there for 20 years. you telling me now I can't
have it and then we've got to go back to what's the remedy they have. Okay. So if you're a veterinary in the AR district, you're not allowed to have a mind. So I don't have a remedy. It's not like I
can say to them do it three square feet. You know what I'm saying? I I I don't have a remedy to give him or her. They may not be able to do what they're doing. which again the document was adopted and is policy. So that's what
we're here today is just to get do you want me to enforce the amorization provision? Your unified land development committee felt it was important for us to do that. If it's on records, you should do that. Now you do have an option that you can amend the code to
allow signage if you want to. But I don't want to say the only option is to say your sign is prohibited. You got to remove it. You may decide that you want to adopt language to allow. And again, that's a policy decision.
>> Okay. I think this first. >> So you showed some examples of signs there. Um we'll take plaza for example. You showed that sign. So are you saying that if we said move forward with enforcing our code that that sign is not legal? Right. >> Correct. >> So but they've got a building permit.
So, is there a way I think the majority of our issues with signs out here are the ones that there's no building permit for, right? Those places those places got building permits. Is there a way that we can add something to the code that gives them the ability to remain with those signs that they got a
building permit for? Because I think 98% of the issues we have with signs are the ones on 4x4 post, right? Those are they never got a permit. So, is there something that we can do in that regard where hey, you got a permit for that sign before. is unincorporated Palm
Beach County and it can remain >> and we grandfather that one in somehow. >> Yes, you can extend either extend the amortization period or go forward and u create an exemption
from that grand for grandfather it in for forever, >> right? So, I mean let's say he let's say we find out he didn't get a permit for it. Well, then okay, you're out of the program because you never did it legally, right? That's my thought process. And when it comes to the window signs, let's start with if it's a we'll
enforce a sign code within 20 feet of the property line. Something to that effect where the window signs, we can get to that later because, you know, we're talking about signs on the on the corners and that sort of thing. That's kind of my thought process. >> A lot of these things have slipped by
no for permitting purposes. I mean, they may have submitted diagrams of their signs and the the review board and the council never reviewed the uh rural Vista guidelines that were in place for signs.
>> All right, that's >> possibly. And they they they got approved. >> Well, and they got >> even though they weren't legal. >> I I get it. But my thought process if they tried to do with the legal process and they got permission to do it, I think we're stuck with with it even if
it doesn't meet our code. That's my thought process. >> Yeah. >> But I think if it's in a certain amount of deterioration, then I mean I think there has to be something. I think we have to at some point slip back to the amortization and it has to >> it has to be kept up. You know what I
mean? It can't be it can't just be falling apart because that's the whole point. If it gets to what was the usage that was on there? Was it 25% 50%? >> 25 20% >> 20% for the wear and tear that it has to be replaced. No matter what 20% in the
window no what there was something that you said to me when we were talking in the office about when the sign gets to a certain percent of disrepair. >> 50% >> 50% of disrepair then it has to be replaced. >> So that's >> how do we make that determine
>> I guess code makes it I don't code. Yeah that's in code. So, so the layers >> so the ones that are all falling apart had pieces hunks falling off of them that you got to replace those. I mean, you know, like >> I don't know if any examples you showed had >> no there there couple.
>> What happened was it said either five years it had to be gone or if in year two your sign was more than 50% damaged, you would have to replace it then. So that was typically has to deal with the maintenance of of of the signage. I
think if I think for right now, if we didn't deal with the ones that had permits before, you're going to have plenty to do. That's that's my thought. You know what I mean? Even if it's a dilapitated sign, if they had a bu a permit for it originally, it's dilapitated. We can worry about that when she gets done with the other
>> 90%. That's kind >> you had something to say. Yeah, I was just, you know, I mean, yeah, to Mary's point, yeah, sometimes they might have submitted something whatever and it never got the permit never got approved, but they sign up anyway, >> right? >> But but there's but there statutory requirements that that within x amount
of period of time and you've submitted all your paperwork and the building department takes over x amount of days to to issue the permit, whatever, you can assume you have a permit, you're good to go. >> That's kind of a new statue the past 10 years, right?
>> It's newer. that she's talking about >> 20 point is is that >> page 157 Paul as an example now I I remember that the storage uh building came through us and they have the uh
prime storage sign as one that's not but but yet it went through it went through >> that's but that's a c that's that's a sign that they put sign oh well >> that's kind of like oh what It's a permanent sign now.
>> That's a permanent sign. >> No. Well, I mean on the building now they >> I know we fought Aldi for a smaller sign than that. >> Yeah. >> When you look at the building, you'll see that this is not canvas anymore. >> The prime storage is allowed. That's the sign that that was
the rights of the sign, but it's not the banner. >> Is it still a banner today? >> Yes. Oh, >> I guess my point is like like you said, ye I believe that is a per it was permanent through Palm Beach County. That's a permitted sign. >> Not much we could do about that. I mean, I guess we could say, you know, we could
we could I'm trying, but I don't think we should. >> I'm I'm trying. So, I guess we could I guess we could say that, you know, if if we hit a, you know, if we were going to remodel the sign or whatever and, you know, we hit a substantial mark, then
the sign has to become compliant, right? We we could Jeff, what do you think about we could put some verbiage in there like that? That's not punitive, right? So, so the verbiage is already there that if if if I go to remodel my sign
and it cost me more than 50% of the value of the sign, then I have to tear if it's ye sign, he's got to tear it down and put up a little small monument sign, >> right? Got, you know, people say, "Well, I'll only do part of it, so it'll still
be crappy." I mean, you could replace 25% of the sign and you're in compliance with our code. And if they got it permanented, then they don't have to replace it. >> So, do we now? >> Okay. I'm going to take you one further. Do we have do we have verbiage about cumulative value
>> in the code? Because that solves that problem, right? You have cumulative value. So, I'm going to do this, I'm going to do this. That's not saying I'm going to do a face change and another face change, another fa if I'm going to remodel the sign, right? I mean, I don't I think the AR district thing is a little can't have a monument sign in the
AR district. We're trying to maintain AR district everywhere. So, if somebody puts a vet, you know, I mean, a vet on Falsam, which there is one is in within the AR district. Within the AR district, right? It's kind of like >> and they have six signs up.
>> Yeah. So, well, that's But again, then you go back to Macy, right? Farm, which is the red sign. And I'm not picking anybody, but the sign that was up there, right? That one is probably in the easement, >> or there's one that's >> there's, you know, Yeah. There. So, I
mean, yeah, like I think >> like Simon has his then all is well. >> Correct. Yeah. Simon's is behind the fence, right? It's it's on his property. It's an a property. You're in there. Thank you. >> So yeah, I would say that the focus is, you know,
>> so yeah, I think what we're hearing is that the focus is on to get people into compliance voluntarily to find out which one of those ones that are out of compliance were permitted through Palm Beach County prior to incorporation.
Like that giant clock tower I'm sure was. That wasn't just built that was permitted obviously that structure. Which one? Um that >> Oh yeah, that was Yeah, >> obviously permitted. You probably were the inspector. >> No, I was that was that was before my
time >> on my way home. >> Point being, but also even some of those that were permitted. I mean, you know, some kind of a courtesy letter of like, hey, could you pressure wash it? And I clean it up like try to make it, >> you know, look nice. Um
>> because that's that's ultimately the goal is for some kind of uniformity. But I think we've got a real conundrum with the fact that we can't I I mean I'm a huge stickler since I became involved in liberal government here of everybody being treated the same and being treated fairly, right?
>> Um and this is a real sticky wicket because it leaves an a lot of opportunity for people not to be, >> you know, we have people being taxed at different rates. you know, when I started in this game and everything and and and I'm
I'm pressed to figure out how we can do this and remain equitable to everybody. So, um I think it's something that we're going to have to come back in December and talk about a little bit more. But I think in the meantime, what I'm hearing and consensus is that we need some more
categorization of which ones were permitted through Palm Beach County, which ones weren't, which ones are in disrepair, and maybe a list of which ones fall into which categories. >> I think the fall off to be honest with
you. I don't think that's I mean you can't if it was permitted you can't >> I say go after the ones that aren't permitted that that right away that gives you plenty to do >> that's like yeah it's like >> can I speak >> and obtained it? >> Yes. Hold on. >> Those are the ones that you want to go
after. Is there a desire for me also to on a courtesy notice talk to those that have not been maintaining their signs? >> Yes, I think so. Lisa Lisa's got something to add. Go ahead, Lisa. Yeah, I say it's about time. Hallelujah. Go,
go, go. And and um I I I find it somewhat laughable that page 183 is the one monument sign that Jim Flechman approved that happened this past March for God's sakes. Um and you know, our
hands were supposedly tied. So, >> can you show us 183, please? >> Sorry. It's the church next to a >> 1395 Okobee. >> Yes.
>> It's the church. >> Yes. >> With the tractor trailer. >> It's the tractor trailer church. >> Yes. >> Well, that I thought that was I thought that was approved with the original site plan with Palm Beach County when they renovated the house that was there to make it a church
>> 25 years later. I but there's no there's no statute of limitations on that from what I understand >> on a site plan. >> Again, this is the this is the documentation >> devil's advocate. That's what >> correct >> was it and whoever whether it was done
by the town or whether it was done by the the county. Uh we have to figure out now there are some that signs that don't get permits like snipe signs, you know, the signs that go into the ground >> or the feather signs, you know, that
those don't get permits. Those are typically not allowed. >> Yeah. No, they're not allowed. >> Those would be also we'd be enforcing. >> Yeah. >> So, we're not we don't allow feather signs during the business hours. The reason being is then the idea is
you're not supposed to distract the driver. That's the intent. You see things flying, it distracts people. >> Yeah. >> You know, even like the car wash says that guy, >> you know, that creating community. >> Can you do that again? That's very good.
>> He's not a sign though. >> Do we have any comment um comments on this? No. >> Yes. >> You put 16. >> Oh, we did. >> You put item 16. 11 TV. >> Madame Mayor, may I say >> some of the window signs are 100%
coverage? >> So, you're getting 100% coverage on some of the window signs. >> Yeah, I see. I find those flashing window signs and everything more egregious than anything else personally, but >> Well, I know there's one specific store
that's uh been cited because the brightness of the lights in the white. >> Okay. Yes. That was the name of names. >> March. >> March. >> Jose. >> I I'm sure you know I sit on the seat
and as we discuss what we've been discussing this for years basically. Um microphone. It's not working. >> Yes, it is. I just picked you up. >> It just made a noise. It's not
>> It's not work. This one's working. So, so second verse, same as the first verse. Um, I think I think I'm going to speak, please correct me if I'm wrong, but it was a couple months ago. I I think our goal as in the ULDC was to
just get going and let everybody out there know that, you know, that that all of these signs were just going to be becoming too much. I mean, with also too
with this SB180 and and having our hands tied as far as being able to enforce or be more strict on the newer buildings coming up was part of the reason why there was a bit of a hesitation, I guess, to get this in
front of you sooner as far as direction for us to do something else because we can't really do anything except for now work on signs that have and falling apart or and and it's not just the signs that are falling apart, it's the number
of them. Some places have 2 3 4 5 10 20 signs. The the window signs I I Global Mart in 7-Eleven or wherever. It's just it's overload. And I feel like I feel like we just need to start
pulling it back. Otherwise, we're going to look like, you know, Miami. All right. Thanks. >> Who was Paul? Was it you or >> got to do my level? >> Karen, you were going to check into our
code enforcement policy whether it was only reactive or proactive. >> Yeah, Jeff looked into it. >> Uh, yes. At this point in time, there is not an active resolution um
describing whether it is proactive or re um or subject to complaint only. The direction from or the understanding of the direction I think is that uh it is
basically complaintbased. Um but there is no requirement for that on a state statute basis or any formal resolution that's been adopted. So if the council wanted
uh the code enforcement department to be proactive um on all things or limit it to uh sign uh sign violations, you could do so uh by motion tonight. I thought we that we
said to be proactive for a commercial that we gave that guidance months ago >> in May. >> We did a code 101 and at the code 101 the proactive was life health safety and
we have not had a resolution with regard to reactive or proactive for years. The direction has been confirmed in public workshops, but there is nothing any of us would like better than to get clarity
on the expectation. And we can certainly do that tonight in a motion and come back and stick a resolution on to be ratified at the next meeting. >> I just don't understand why we need a resolution. >> If we give if we give direction to Okay.
Well, you just said to bring back for resolution. I'm saying why can't we just give a direction to be proactive proactive toward commercial and life, health, safety? Because I thought that's the direction we talked about in May. I apologize if I'm mistaken. But >> I do apologize if I was unclear. You
don't have to do a resolution and the council has not done a resolution since 2017. >> Yeah, I know we haven't. ution has been to be complaindriven and proactive on life health safety and tonight it sounds
like we're going to add commercial if we did not recognize that that was the full consensus of council in May. I think we all miss that. >> Here's the problem with doing it by consensus or whatever and not documenting it. >> You have to go by memorization, right?
Oh well, somebody said something at a meeting in 2017. We got to go pull those minutes where if it's a resolution, here's the resolution. What was adopted? That's the difference. >> And we did go back to May today and double check. >> We did go back and double check.
>> Most most communities uh the direction is when you pass an ordinance and you have a code enforcement department, code enforcement department enforces that ordinance. This this community has been different
in focusing on well only if you get a complaint uh about it. >> That's because before you got here we had two guys come from cab govern and they started citing people for for how tall their lawn was. J No, I >> and blocks edge grows. Come on.
>> I I I I understand I I I under I understand that the the concerns. Um so I think you you don't generally have to have a resolution um on the idea of
proactivity. If you are going to limit proactivity, do it by motion. And I agree that if it is not blanket that they're going to be proactive, it's better to have it in writing uh for the future generations.
>> Yeah. And I mean your thought process, Paul, regarding just commercial, then you start getting into what's commercial. Well, what if it's AR property and there's a sign on there that's a real estate sign, right? That's a 4 by8 sheet of real estate sign. Is that commercial? Well, no, I guess that's not because AR's own property.
Well, it's they're commercially trying to sell it. That's where you start getting into that issue when you say just commercial. So, I wouldn't Yeah. Well, I I'm not I'm not I'm not No offense, Karen. I'm I'm not comfortable just opening up the the floodgate. There's not I'm not I'm not comfortable
with that. >> Well, I am. >> I mean, unless unless they've got a building permit, you know, that's where I say we can deal with those that have had a building permit later. But if you've never >> You're talking about signs now. I was talking about signs, too. I'm just saying I'm not comfortable opening the floodgate and going
>> run wild. >> I'm talking about just for signs. >> Just for signs. Yeah. So, we're going to make a resolution that says life, health, safety, and this and signs. >> We don't have to. >> Yeah, that's fine. We could. >> No, he says saying we should. So, it's
>> the discussion was specific about signs, not >> I agree, but I'm just saying >> to address the other stuff I don't already have. I think we just need to address signs and how we're going to pursue signs, which is >> Yeah, >> it sounds like somebody make a motion of how they want to pursue signs. Go. >> Yeah. I I I would like to pursue signs
on a proactive basis. Signs everywhere in town within 50 feet of a property line. That way we don't have to deal with the window sign right now and the signs that have never been permitted. >> That would be my motion.
>> Is there some way we can incorporate the window signs? >> I don't like the window signs. They're the ones that bother me the worst. >> Okay, I'll modify my >> I think what Todd's point is they're going to be busy enough doing this portion the phase one
>> by none of them are going to be easy. She's going to have a fight with every single one of them, you know. And I think the more egregious ones are you go down over Joey Boulevard and there's a hundred signs there and it looks like hell, you know. Those are the egregious ones, you know. So, that's kind of my thought. I guess we can leave it to your
discretion, you know. So, I'll modify my motion to include all signs and leave it to staff's discretion as >> that are that are unpermitted as I >> So, again, just to make sure we got it clear, the motion is for code enforcement staff to be proactive
regarding signage which has never previously been approved and is illegal or permitted and illegal. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> Sign something. We have a motion pod made and a second by Marge. All in
favor? >> Lisa, >> she sent me a message that she had to step away for a second. >> Well, we waiting on her to vote. >> No. >> Oh, no. >> Um cuz I had a somebody mentioned something
>> about SP 180 and the whole sign code and that, you know, we didn't enact that. we didn't ratify rule of Vista and I'm I'm just I was curious then and we didn't get a chance to talk about it because we got wrapped up in you know everything else. So I was just
curious is if we were to I I know we can't restrict things. We can't get more restrictive about things but you know rule Vista is not I mean it's restricted with types of trees and things like that. It's not but couldn't we enact it
now? Couldn't we enact it now and then once the SB 180 goes away if there's no you know emergency? >> We could always make the argument that Royal Vista has been our guide. I mean, it's been there all along. It's just it's been our a guideline. It's just not
been >> enforced. So, I think we need to revisit that because I think I don't I don't think that's >> in the spirit of 180s. >> Let's hold that for another night. >> Yeah. No, no, that's >> I'm going to make a suggestion right now because it's 9:30 almost. Thank you, Karen. I'm going to make a suggestion
because the only thing that we absolutely have to do tonight is number 16, which is still four or five things items away. So, I'm just going to make the suggestion that we move number 16 to the next item. Um, and then and get
through that because that has to be done for the vote to happen on the 18th and then we can see how far we get before we have to continue or do whatever. And I've been informed by staff that we cannot continue till next till tomorrow night. So, just FYI. Is everybody okay with
>> can we? >> I I don't know. There's some kind of conflict. I was informed by staff that they can't continue till next night that they're not tomorrow night that they're not available or can't continue. >> Francine, is that right? >> Um, yeah, we do have some conflicts, but
you know, um, I can be here that >> who's got the conflict. >> Did I misunderstand that? >> I think >> conflict. >> Yeah, I didn't indicate that there was a conflict. It was just my suggestion that um rather than continue it to tomorrow
night, if you were going to have the meeting on the 18th, we would we could handle those items. But >> but because yes, because the the workshop and everything else. Uh >> all right. So is everybody okay with moving 16 to now? >> Yes. >> Okay. Can I have a motion to do that
just for formality? >> So moved. >> Second. >> Okay. All in favor? >> Passes four to zero. Lisa has still in the house. >> I was here. That's a yes. >> Okay. Are you okay? Okay. We voted on the the sign. Did you hear the the
motion on the sign code? >> No. I walked back in after you had already like was dismissing. >> Right. Would you like to weigh in and vote now or >> I'm a I'm an absolutely yes. Go. >> Okay. So, that passes five to zero. Okay. And you're okay with moving 16 up?
You're an eye on that also? >> Yes. >> To get that handled? Yes. >> Okay. All right. So, we're going to discuss the charter review committee recommendations, Jeff. And on to item 16. Skipping. >> Okay. Can I ask a question real quick? The conservation easement and the PL 12
and 13. >> We'll come back to them. >> Maybe tomorrow night. >> It might be tomorrow night, but right now, >> that's what I'm getting at. >> Yeah, >> that's what I'm getting at. I mean, this is something new that's popped up. It's not nothing pressing, right? >> Correct. >> So, we also choose to move it to
December 2nd. Let's see where we get. But let's go ahead and get through this one before the 10:00 cut off and then and then you can make all the recommendations you want. >> Okay. >> Charter review committee recommendations. >> Uh charter review committee
recommendations. They did a great job of of meeting and getting through the items that you had uh assigned them to get through. The timing on the uh charter review amendment is if you want to get
it on the March ballot, we need to have first and second reading of ordinances by December your December 2nd meeting, which is why we would need to have the November 18th meeting for that purpose.
If you want to uh pass on any of these items, the charter review committee recommendations are just that, recommendations. Um you are free as the governing body to accept their recommendations,
uh reject the the recommendations or come up with something entirely new. There had been some discussion um as to whether or not there were any additional items that you wanted the
charter review committee to uh review. Um I told them at their last meeting that uh if such direction was given by the the council, we would have to meet tomorrow night on November 5th to be
able to get you um anything further. Uh but with that being said, I won't you've got the memo. I won't go through all the things that they rejected. They came up with two suggestions uh to move forward with.
Um that was uh that uh charter review officers would be removed from office not by a supermajority vote but um by a majority vote. uh so that it would only
take uh three three members not four to remove the charter uh officers. Uh the second item they dealt with was the town attorney review of contracts. They concurred that uh the literal reading of
the the the charter was problematic. Um and uh they suggested they suggested language uh that uh would basically put
um the types of contracts that needed to be reviewed into an ordinance. The language would be approve the form and correctness of contracts, bonds, and other instruments in which the town is concerned as as further defined by
ordinance or resolution adopted by the town council. Um any ordinance implementing this provision would have to be approved by an affirmative vote of no fewer than four members of the town council. Um they uh the committee did
not want to remove this provision entirely from the charter because they wanted that uh somewhat of a charter um uh protection. Uh but the the meat of the matter would be in an ordinance. the
committee came up with a suggested ordinance um in case the uh charter was amended. Um with that, I'll take any questions or comments. Um
>> so was the recommendation was not to change that at all. The vote the the how many votes it takes to for charter officers, right? >> No, the the it was to change it. >> Simple. That's Yeah, that's where I got >> Yeah, I'm sorry. I should have been more
clear. Charter currently says four votes. >> I understand that part. >> And uh the committee recommended that it be three votes and and there's and there's very simple
language >> that put out the referendum. Do we agree with the charter review committee to move removal of a charter officer from supermajority to simple majority? Anybody have anything to say about that? >> Yes, I agree with that.
>> You agree with that? Lisa thinks it's a good idea. Paul, >> yeah, put it on the ballot. >> I think it's a bad idea, but we'll put it on the ballot. >> Okay, so we're going to put that one on the ballot. Um, second one was the uh
little more complex >> the contract. >> The contracts, Jeff. So, what exactly are we putting on the B? Let me ask a question. Wouldn't it be more prudent for us to just remove that requirement from the charter and then put an an
ordinance in that has what the requirements are because like one again at this legislative things that I've been going to with the league up in Orlando and one of at at actually an EOSI whatever class we did we were we
were looking at the charters of other municipalities and I was noticing that majority of their charters are significantly more simple than ours. Significantly less um restrictive than ours. Now, I'm not
saying ours is bad or wrong, but I'm just saying that they found over the years is what the because I asked I asked about that is that keeping it simple is a better idea and then doing by ordinance your governance by ordinance is a better idea. putting the things that are really important and
critical to you there, you know, in your charter, that's the meat of it, and then having the filling be done. >> Yeah. The general governance by ordinance or or resolution >> resolution. So, would it be more prudent to put on the ballot a a a choice of
just removing it and making it done by ordinance or >> But that's essentially what is what they're recommending. >> No, but they're not saying to remove it. They're saying to leave it and then specify by ordinance. >> That's what you're saying we're going to do anyway. >> No, I'm saying completely remove any
>> But the end result would be you would adopt an ordinance anyway, >> right? But >> for a resolution that language there that might be cumbersome. >> I don't know. I'm just I'm just throwing out possibilities of of things because you're saying we would adopt an
ordinance, which is all they're saying we have to do. The chart already said we have to adopt an ordinance. So >> yeah and this is >> as further defined by >> this is this is a long way around. um >> for the same result
>> and for the same result you could just remove it. it. The the question that I would pose to to you is which way is it going to be easier for the voters to have it explained to them?
>> Probably >> and um you know adopt I don't >> I would go >> no probably this way. You're right because whenever you talk about removing something that causes a knee-jerk reaction, so this is probably a better You are absolutely correct. Probably a
better way to >> get the voters to consider it. >> My my only concern is where it says reform form and correctness. But when it says correctness, what does that mean? I mean, what if the attorney says I don't think it's correct to pay >> $100,000 to this or whatever. What does
correctness mean? I mean, shouldn't it say legally sufficient? >> Legal sufficiency, >> not correctness. correctness just seems way too broad for the attorney to be able to say, "No, I don't think it's correct." >> Why not legal sufficiency?
>> Um, it I'm fine with either one. >> Legal sufficiency. That sounds >> I I like that one better, too. Is is there any way that um the number of um uh the majority would be spelled
out in here in parentheses or something? >> Majority of what? >> It says if it says that in order to be adopted, it's got to be at least four council members that adopt it instead of just three. >> Yeah. Pass the stricken line. The next underline. >> This is what they're voting on, isn't it?
>> Page 225. >> Correct. You're on page 225, >> right? The second paragraph. >> No, >> it's a second sentence actually. Any >> Yeah. >> Um and that was the that was the
committee's suggestion. Um >> that the committee did not vote yes for that we asked them to consider that they feel strongly should be put on the ballot. >> Okay. >> Do we have any >> We do have a public comment. If you're
ready, are you asking for public comment? >> Are we accept are we accepting this with the correction of the >> Helloish? >> I haven't yet >> potentially. >> Okay, go ahead, Lisa. We've got Virginia coming up to do a public comment, but
I'm sure she'll wait while you talk. >> Okay. So, I'm sorry I got a little confused at the end there. So, with the contract conversation, what was the final decision on that? It's it's not quite been final. What was
suggested um is instead of the word correctness uh after approve the form and correctness um it would read instead approve the form and legal sufficiency.
>> Okay. Um, and then there there may be some uh question about uh whether the affirmative vote should be uh four or three. I'm not sure that that's been decided, but there hasn't been a motion
on the issue yet. >> Okay. So, that that was my next question. What were we talking about on the four and the three? Was was that for >> for adopting the ordinance? for adopting the ordinance of what we are going to require the attorney to review.
>> That's where you lost me in the conversation. Um, and I know that we had discussed in our workshop and I I believe that the charter committee did discuss this was adding the town clerk as a charter officer. >> Correct. And they rejected that idea. But is that something you feel strongly
>> that's that's not that's not true. The >> it's not true. the the charter committee did not consider it because because the charter committee was directed by resolution to only consider those matters that you had put before them.
>> No, that's there was >> that's not true. They were they were and any other matters that they wish to consider that that is exactly what it said but that's okay. I mean I know you were pressed for time. I'm not holding you to that. But they um uh so there was
some discussion about the the issue. Um I think that if you were to consider adding charter officers um beyond the be beyond what you
currently have, you have to really think that through and it has other charter implications. It's not it's not a simple one and done. If you want to consider that, my suggestion is that be considered um in
the next goround because there's some there's some big issues as to if you become a charter officer, does that mean that uh the say for example, it was that you want to make the the clerk a charter
officer? Well, does the the clerk have their employees and control their employees, their own budget? >> Tell me what to do because I work for the council. >> Walker. Exactly. Um, you know, uh, those
kind of things really have to be discussed and fleshed out. Um uh and it uh uh in my opinion significantly alters what we think of as a council manager form of government. So
>> okay, you had a comment. >> Yes. Serving on the charter committee. I'll give you a recap. Um one it said if it's 32 to hire 32 to fire.
Um we did the election also. I maybe I'm jumping ahead in that. >> Oh no, we have in here what you didn't make a recommendation on. It was the only thing he was reviewing with us was the two recommendations. The election you said to leave it the same. >> We did make a recommendation on the way to win the election. Also, let me just recap very quickly what I
>> was to it was to leave it to the same. And and so those things that that you decided were asis, I didn't mention. >> It says it, >> but to the public it wasn't said. So make sure to hire 32 to fire. There was
discussion on that. The election there was different options and we said leave it as is. Um and then uh the other thing uh remind me where we're at was what was the second thing you >> the attorney contract. >> Attorney reviewing contract. Our concern
on the attorney contracting general and the chair went to great detail on the verbiage on this was just making sure that the template forms that are used by the public are reviewed by the attorney as well and I believe he covered in his language but we wanted to emphasize that
to you that there there was a concern about the forms also being reviewed for approval for use by the public. Um, and then having watched your meetings, I did bring up and so even though it was not on the agenda and I did suggest uh and
that or acknowledge that the council had brought it up of having the town clerk be a charter officer um and noted it was not on the agenda. It had not been added to the agenda, but it was just uh briefly discussed as well. So that's it.
I just wanted to give you a brief short recap. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Lisa, were you done or did you get cut off? >> No, I'm done. Thank you. >> Okay, just checking. >> We have some other comments.
Um I served on the charter microphone >> and there is one microphone >> item of discussion that that I was kind of the odd man out in this one and that well a lot of but this is the election I
repeated >> yes while the groups I'm okay while the groups 12 decided while the next >> turn might take a couple minutes. >> Yeah, this was
>> I want to see the bathroom. >> No, >> is this thing on? >> Okay. While the committee as a whole rejected the idea of changing the um elections,
I as a person, as a resident sitting out here in the cheap seats, would like to say that that is not was not I didn't feel that that was is the best way forward for our town. I
watch us year after year get bogged down by an election. everybody ramping up for early election, then it's into budget and then we have just a few more short months until there's another election, which keeps us from having long-term
vision in my opinion and sort of concentrating on stuff that's coming up quickly or perhaps things that might be hot tickets for you to get elected or reelected for one to get elected or reelected. And um again, sitting out
here, it just gives the impression that we're just constantly pushing issues off to the next and then to the next and then to the next. And I thought that in my opinion, if there was a bit of a break, it would allow for long-term
vision and cohesiveness to sort of take root and and get the town moving in a little more town direction and not just town council direction. Okay, that's it. Thanks.
>> Yeah. >> Okay. Do I have some kind of a motion? I do not. I I'll make a motion to approve this um with the towner town attorney review of contracts. Um motion to approve it. Changing correctness to legal deficiencies.
>> Second leaving the four members. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> All in favor? I opposed. >> Are you in favor? Lisa >> in favor. >> Okay. We were kind of on the crux. Just wanted to make sure I passed this five
to zero. Okay. So that takes care of both of those items. Okay. Let's go back to item number 12 and try to cover that in >> real real quick to to clarify the record. Um could we have a motion on the
charter officers uh being removed um by a majority that >> the whole thing >> there wasn't an actual motion that was made. It was just stated. >> Okay. Go ahead. >> Make somebody make a motion on the charter officers taking four to I mean three to
>> Are you sure? I I thought I thought you voted because because I to approve uh adding to the ballot >> to approve. Yes. >> And we did have a motion to approve, but >> let's get we'll cover it. I'll I'll make a motion to to approve adding the uh
change in in um >> charter officers to from >> three >> four to three to three to two. >> No, from four that's what you said >> to three to remove. >> Yes. Yes. That's why Yeah. 41. Yeah. Okay. >> From four to remove to three to remove.
Thank you. >> Okay. All in fa seconded by T. Motion made by Paul, seconded by Todd. All in favor? >> I. >> Lisa, >> I'm a supporter. >> Okay. Five to zero. So those both on the ballot by referendum. Back to item
number 12. The status of the conservation easements. >> Conservation easements. Okay. >> What conservation about the conservation? We pull up the >> US are within the town. There are like
Yeah, there are a few. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Talking move this forward. Do I just click on it? Yeah. >> Private properties. >> I'm gonna I'm going to go through this as quickly as possible. Um there are two
people on uh at the meeting, Tony Flame and um Jerry Renick. Tony is uh the representative of the owners of uh 1400E, which is one of these
um properties. They had this is the the folks that I think all of you had met with previously. um they had made an offer to the town to pay $150,000 uh for the release of the conservation
easement. Um they are have also had discussions with us about um replanting the um the property but they would like to do it in another location if
possible. Um and so they are looking for direction specifically and the council was going to consider a policy as to how to move forward with these things. whether you would consider um uh people
being able to buy them out. Um whether you would consider people being able to relocate them um or is the the word that they would have to replant them in the same location um which is certainly uh
would would bring it into compliance over time. What the council had previously directed is that we look at um and give you a handle on all of the uh the conservation easements. Uh that
process um has been done with respect to an aerial review. There are 20 properties that were identified. Uh, one of them was is the park
um next door. We're not going to talk about that. Five of them um were uh restrictive covenants um having uh
some um some preserve issues. They are a different animal than the conservation easements. We're not going to talk about them. We're going to talk about uh 13 properties because um there's a 14th but we weren't able to locate it. Um these
are the 13 properties. Uh there is in red uh is the the property. The area in yellow is the area of the conservation easement.
You can see that this property um the conservation easement seems to um be intact. We are going to schedule actual visits to
all of these properties for um our arborist. The the reason for that is so that they can get onto the property and truly identify um that these are in in good shape um and we can begin a
monitoring uh program so that uh the deforestation or denuting of the property does not happen. >> Yes. Yeah. Um so that's the the first property. This is the the second
property uh 2525B road. Um you'll note that the um area the conservation easement uh is still pretty heavily wooded. Um then you have 322
D road. Um there you see that the conservation easement um has been denuted. Um, and this is 13689 Okchobee Boulevard. Um, the conservation area
appears to be in good shape. Uh, this is Tangerine Drive. The reason it doesn't have the yellow, and correct me if I'm wrong, Jerry, um, it's because the area, the conservation easement
encompasses the entirety of the area. Um this is 530 uh C road. Um once again the conservation easement area appears to be relatively intact.
Uh this is parcel 10 that's um near Sea Road. It doesn't have a particular address to it. Uh this is one that there appears to be um uh some uh trees in there. That's
obviously one that is going to be subject to an inspection. Um but uh it um uh there there there are trees there. Um
that's off of near sea in and Okachobee, the southern side. >> Same owner, both cars. >> Yeah. Um the next parcel is uh 1400 E road um which is the property um that
Mr. Flame um is the representative of and you all have had discussions with him back in uh I think it was the August time period. Um and that that property is for sale as
is the 322 um property. Uh went the wrong way there. Um this is 1201 F Road. Um, as you can see, the conservation area
appears to be relatively intact. Uh, this is D-road, no address. It's a strip of property between two um nurseries. Um, it that that property needs to be uh
inspected. It's green, but uh uh it it >> it may not um have uh have met the conditions of the uh uh the conservation easement. Um
1544C road. Um the conservation area is around the pond um as I understand it. And once again, Jerry, if I'm incorrect in that, please please advise. So,
>> why is there no yellow around it? >> Um, Jerry, who produced these um can uh let us know why there's no yellow around it, but uh it does appear that there is um a
substantial amount of trees there. Then you have 2330 D road. Um and once again that appears to be maintained in an intact fashion. Once again as we indicated inspections to actually check
the condition of them is important. But those are the 13 properties. The 14th property um there is an easement on but it has we have not been able to identify we have not been able to identify where
the property is. discussions, please. Sorry. Go ahead. >> Um, so there are uh 10 properties which look to be in um good shape. There are two properties um that are currently
completely denuted um of uh from the conser where the conservation easement area was supposed to be. Um, and there is one property that we need to get on the ground and see what's what's there.
As Tony uh, who represents the uh, the property owner of 1400E and we have had conversations with them um, about uh, this issue. Um, they have operated in
total good faith. they were not the property owners um at the time that the um easement was removed or the the the property was denuted. Um they got the
property by virtue of a foreclosure that they went through. Uh he is looking for direction from the council as to whether you would consider a monetary payment. uh whether you would consider relocation
or whether the only alternative is to uh restore the easement in that area which was close to the facing the the road on the um eastern side of the property. I can pull that up if you need to see
that. >> It was like two acres right up on the canal. Yeah, if >> I remember correctly. So, where does it how does it sit now? >> What do you mean by how does it sit now? >> How does it sit now currently? Is it
Holly? Is it totally >> It's It's totally gone. >> If you look at the satellite picture, there's a whole little line of trees along the canal. That's what I'm asking. What we're >> I got question. It's right here. I know everything's texting.
>> Um I'll get it. >> It might be get it from there. >> But the the whole line of trees, >> this corner, it was like the corner. It was like the >> south southeast corner, I believe, is what if memory serves?
>> Have we looked at the wording of the uh these property for >> Yeah. >> Yeah. We've we've looked at the conservation easement. >> Same picture. I mean what what kind of investment did these people make or give
or whatever uh when they when they owned the land? >> Did they get some kind of compensation for accepting the easements? >> No, I think in this case it was a penalty. >> Yeah. The >> it was these the the the source of most
of these easements um comes from uh the county and M. um and I think it was an extraction uh from from them. So >> that example was >> so there was no financial gain to the
people forgiving the easement. That's what I'm just making. No, I'm just just checking. >> But is there any wording that in perpetuity these will remain? >> They are they are they are supposed to they are supposed to remain.
Um but they were transferred they were transferred from the county to uh the town. Um and so >> what >> I don't think I don't think when matters at this point.
>> No it doesn't matter when it was transferred and this it's not an open this comment yet. I think >> to give to the town back in my first year of serving on the council, >> right? >> Because they didn't know who else to
give them to. So, they called me, >> right? >> Really not relevant when it was done. They were transferred to the tap. Paul, please finish your point. >> Yeah. No, I was just I mean, my point is is as you can see in this picture, the picture's not I mean, you did Google Earth. I don't know how long ago that
was. I mean, if you pull up GIS right now, I mean, you can pull up a photo from January, so of last year, February from last year. But my point is the the the the gentleman or the party who got foreclosed on
duted, clearcut, cleared this whole this property, right? The one on the D-Road side. That's what they did. So I mean my inclination is to
um assess a you know put a number on it and we put that in escrow to our mitigation fund which we tree mitigation fund which we've already determined that can be used for education d etc whatever and in lie of >> you know forcing to go back in and
replant you know a few trees. What about >> about offering another piece of property someplace else as a conservation easement? >> I mean, >> so what is that? Two acres or
>> 1.41. I think that one is >> Yeah. Is it like >> Well, no offense. I know. I know Mr. I know Mr. Flame's on the on the call, so I'm not gonna be like, "Oh, listen. I want to develop this golf course over here is I'm going to give you two and a half acres,
>> you know, a thousand miles away. >> That's what happens with wetland mitigation. >> I I understand. No, they >> situation. >> Then they're supposed to go >> No, they they just pile money, >> but they're supposed to be creating a wetland with that money. >> They're supposed to be >> go to a mitigation bank. >> So that's the idea. >> I guess my my point is is you're going to go make we're going to make them
replant in this little corner in the front. For what purpose? There's no access right now to that property except to the guy the D-Road property. So there's no real access. They got to put a culver across the canal. Whoever buys this piece of property, whatever, right? Because they're not
>> So if we if we ask for a mitigation amount, I'm just I'm just throwing out points here. If we ask for a mitigation amount for the damage that was done, does that still remain a conservation ease? >> No, it would be we would release it. we
would release the conservation e easement. Yes. >> So my point is I don't want to have less conservation easements in the town and so is there any way to get the damage to that one mitigated and create another conservation someplace else?
>> I think the concept would be well first of all let me say with respect to these conservation easements the public doesn't have any access to any of these. um the town has the right to go in and ex inspect them but beyond that there is
no public access. I think the suggestion would be if you're going to collect money uh for this is that the town could acquire a property or develop would get an easement that would allow for public
access to a conservation area. um and um get hopefully um with maybe some of the other tree mitigation monies um >> the second property >> a larger a larger piece of property that
would be under our control and therefore would be able to be maintained as a conservation for in perpetuity. question. That canal, do we own that easement? Is that part of
the trail network or do we not? Is that one of the >> It's maintenance ements that we don't have. >> It's on it's on it's on the road to approximately that right now. >> I know where it is. I'm just saying do is that our because if not I'm I'm going
to amend my first statement and say yes we mitigate with funds but we want to secure the easement at that same point because we're dealing a lot with whether we have easements don't have easements and I know in some places it gets really thin and then it thickens back out so that just to look at it on the picture
and go oh it's mowed we have it you know >> 60 feet wide >> where the canal sits who knows right but it's always 60 feet wide >> I agree we've run into problems before where It's so I guess my point is is to to we have an opportunity whether it be
on this one postage stamp if we don't have it to say we'll take this and this. >> Yeah. As a part of the evaluation if you were to if we were to bring it back to you and you were considering something like that um the public works department would uh advise us as to whether
additional area would be beneficial to them. >> Right. It was just popped in my head like cuz I know >> it's like that yellow triang we we get tight in spots and we open them up. So yeah I mean >> yeah it's a good idea Paul. All right so does it Lisa? Did you have anything you
wanted to add? >> Yes. Uh I think that it's important that that while you know this may not be a public access conservation easement some of the complaints that we hear from some of the agriculture is that they come in
and they they clearcut things. So to your point Anita I think it's important that we try to preserve as much of the tree canopy and encourage that. And I I I would say I'm leaning more toward whether they move it to a new location
that there is some form of conservation still on the property. >> Devil's advocate. I go buy 40 acres that doesn't have a a conservation ement on currently. I do an FDA. All it does is it says I got to plant so many trees because of my building or whatever. I
don't have to give a conservation ement. Like I don't know about this particular one, but I can tell you the one behind my house, right? They put up a cell phone tower. To put to get approved for that cell phone tower, aside from the variances I talked about earlier, they had to a lot 1 acre of conservation
easement, right? And it still maintains conservation easement because as far as I know, when he was doing his building of his barn and stuff, he came and asked if he could move it and they said no. And it's actually away from the from the cell phone tower. It's not even on top of the cell phone tower. Okay. So, how
about to address both things? How about is everybody okay with the number of $150,000, which I believe is the number that's on the table? Everybody okay with that? >> I have issues with the fact that, you know, the whoever the person was that
created this. We're not honoring their wish. >> No, but I mean, the the the person the person that created it was forced to create it. They didn't do it out of the goodness of their hearts. >> Let me finish my thought. So my thought,
if you just bear with me and let me finish my thought. >> My my question is, can we accept this amount of money? >> You do >> for this one. And and is the other one exactly the same size? >> No.
>> Is the other one smaller or bigger? >> Larger. >> Okay. and then and a proportionate number for the other one which might wind up being another two or $300,000, right? And then take that half a million dollar and and then put that in a in tree mitigation but in a dedicated part
that we have to buy a piece of property for that 500,000 that will allow us to can we do it that way? Can we say it has to be for conservation purchasing conservation property? you would be able to say whatever you
wanted to say about the >> That's my vote then that that we accept this $150,000 for this one that we that we reach out to the other property owner and ask for a proportionately similar payment depend what's what's the size of the other one? This one's 1.41. What's
the other one? >> Um Jerry, is it five acres? >> It is. >> Yeah. >> Okay. asked for a proportion. >> Excuse me, let me finish speaking and stop calling out from the audience.
>> Sorry. >> And let's all consider this, okay? and accept a proportionate amount of money from the other property and then put that into a sub fund in the tree
mitigation fund that is strictly for purchasing another conservation property at some point right >> when one becomes available. Is that sound okay with everybody on council? No. >> And then we'll allow public comment. >> Where is this one? >> No, >> you're not okay with that. Okay. All right. Go ahead. Thank This is the
Murker property. >> Lisa, what did you say? >> I I'm also not on board with that. >> 322D. >> Go ahead, Todd. What do you What do you want to say? >> Well, I'd like to I mean, just because let's say it's five acres and we get 500,000, doesn't mean we can buy five acres for 500,000. Right.
>> Right. So, if it was a wash, right? If if they're giving us if it's five acres, then why can't they have to provide us with five acres? It might point somewhere else. >> Right. >> So, we're asking the guy with the 1.4 acres to provide us with 1.4. Well, because because they were it was a
conservation easement that did not benefit us and give us access to it. So, um just it's it's different than it's a limitation on the use of their
property, but it's not a loss of their property. It's different than five acres, you know, that you give in exchange for an easement. That doesn't seem to be a fair trade to make me. >> I can tell you what my wetland mitigation I'm doing right now for half an acre is going to cost me about
$70,000 for half an acre. >> Yeah, >> but that's wetland mitigation. >> It is. It is. And I'm willing to pay it because I'm I'm going to get to be able to use that half acre of property on my on my parcel. So, I'm willing to pay 70,000 for half an acre of my own land
to be able to use. >> Yeah. And they're proposing just about 55 or 60 something like that, right? 1.41 ver and 150,000 for 1.41 the 55 or something along those lines.
>> So Lisa, what what did you want to say? >> Yeah. So the mitigation, the idea that you can, and I get this is a developer mindset that you can take land and you can strip it off and you can strip off
the the wildlife and um habitats and everything else and we're going to take it over here and we're going to concentrate it somewhere else and that's going to fix the problem. I I I don't agree that this has to be something that has to benefit the whole community. We live on 5 acre parcels for the most
part. So, no, I I totally disagree with this this concept of trying to purchase other land and focus all the trees down onto one property and and stripping them off others, letting people buy that. So, that's where I stand. >> So, you stand with that the only option
is to have them replant that on that property. >> Absolutely. >> Okay. >> So, I mean, here's one of the arguments about against that. So, let's say you had 10.1 acre pieces, right? That's that's one acre. You're better off to have a solid one acre piece somewhere
than 0.1 acres in 10 different places because nothing is going to survive on 0.1 acres. But if you had a whole acre at one location, that's more econ that's more bene. >> So that's more beneficial. So that's kind of an argument against what you're
saying, Lisa. So if we take, you know, these two and combine them or we take all 10 of them and combine them into 20 acres, one 20 acre parcel is better than it spread out throughout the town. So >> yeah, and I'm not >> especially because one of the things I asked was, is there any was there any
strategy to where these are, you know? I mean, are they connected or was there any strategy like you know that this was there any plan on it? But no, it was just kind of like somebody threw a dart at the dart board and they're just very random throughout town size-wise,
everything. There's no rhyme or reason to why they were selected. >> I'm sure there was at the time. Somebody probably had a reason. >> Apparently, there was not. >> Well, I don't think there was a cohesive reason um where they were there were I Yeah, I think the mayor is thinking of like there linkage and those kind of
things. Oh, no. I can tell you there there is some relevance as to why and where they were chosen. If I may, if my if I may input, you know, that mostly go right ahead. >> Yeah. Mo most of these are a result of
the you when they're still part of the unincorporated county, they were part of their uh code requirements. So, if you were going to develop a parcel, you know, in in Palm Beach County prior to the um
uh incorporation of the town of Lockah Hatchee that uh you know, if if it met the requirements for a preserve set aside, it was essentially 25% was based upon 25% of the upland habitat on the
site. That was how it was subject to the code. So these areas for the most part, not all of them, but for the most part, that's how they were created. Um, some of them, you know, one or two of them, I think, were based on uh violations of the vegetation preservation code. In
other words, they they cleared more land or land without a permit and and there was a negotiation and a result, you end up with a conservation easement on the property. Um, now if I may also just add, so if somebody's going to buy something out, this this is not just,
you know, this is kind of, you know, uh, typical of, you know, many different municipalities, not not all of them. They all handle a little bit differently, but generally speaking, if you were going to buy something out, you know, you know, it's it's it's something you can do per code. You know, if the
let's say, you know, town council or county commission, whatever agrees to it, what you would do is you would do an appraisal of the land based on the current land use. And the value per acre of however many acres or parts of an acre that are under a conservation
easement is how what you would pay into a fund. And what you do with that money into that fund is, you know, up to that municipality. But it's based on the at that time the current land value times the number of acres of conservation area
or proposed conservation area. So it's not a you know a indiscriminate number. It's you know based on an actual monetary value based on the land value. >> Okay. Excuse me. I need a motion to extend so we can finish this item at least to
>> extend. Second. >> All in favor? I. Okay. Does anybody have any other suggestions? What would be the current land value? Jeff, have you looked into that?
>> Um, no. We have we have not done uh an appraisal analysis on this. And one of the things I think in those circumstances, it's not the full value of the the land. Um because a
conservation easement is not worth the full value of the land. >> It it is now because it's not really a conservation ement anymore. It's now clearcut wide open land. >> Yeah. >> So and we're talking about getting rid
of the conservation easement. So it's kind of like paying the value for buying the land. But anyhow, Paul, you have something to say? >> Yeah. So I I know we talked about the was it 144 44 was what was it 1400 >> whatever it doesn't matter >> yeah road d road whatever we talked
about that one previously this is a new one that's come up so is this >> well this is you had asked about the other property that was >> yeah we asked about the property >> and this is 322 >> but I what I'm saying is Mr. We we have
had we have not had negotiations with these people at all. >> All right. So, this this is off the off the board then. We're not talking about this one. >> Probably the next >> Well, I mean, >> well, we have to whatever decision we make is going to apply to both of them. So, that's why I'm saying that
>> I need to speak. >> Okay. We haven't got there yet. >> Okay. Well, we haven't got Phyllis >> take these two properties. >> Okay. That's what I'm trying to do. Thank you. that well my point is >> combining the properties. We're simply trying to make an equitable decision
whether the properties are owned by the same people by 14 different people. I don't care. We're trying to make it >> what I'm trying to tell you when >> Okay, let's let Phyllis get up and talk because otherwise we're just going to keep being interrupted. Go ahead, Phyllis. Please say what you have to
say. >> Okay. Regarding 322D road, it's 43 acres. When the 5 acre conservation easement was put on it, it was 63 acres. This is what you don't know. This is the information that you should have gotten
from staff regarding I sent staff every single individual conservation easement. What happened to it? This conservation easement on this 5 acres, not that one, the 322 has a different parcel number.
It took me a long time to go research the book in pages to actually find this five acres. It doesn't have the same address. It doesn't have the same PCN number, nothing. And it was made five
acres when it was 63 acres. That's what I've been trying to tell you. This is a separate parcel. Also, Jim Flehman signed a clearcut order permit that we
have to clear the five the entire 43 acres. No mention of a conservation easement. And that was done in 2022. >> So, you don't have all the information. I would like to make sure you have it
before you make a decision on 322D road. >> That's all I'm asking. >> We're trying to make a decision on how we're going to move forward with things. We're not making a decision on 322B road. Right now, >> I understand, but you're making a decision on land value and the value of
these trees. >> I I think I think I I understand, but I think I think things are getting >> All right. I just want to make sure you had the information that this 5 acres was done when it was 63 acres. >> Okay. Okay. Still, it's still a
conservation. Whether they were allowed to subdivide is still 5 acres of conservation. >> Um, no, I listen, I still maintain I think like to go in there and replant, you know, today's value, how many oak trees are we going to get for the 150 or
whatever? I mean, and do we really want them to replant it right in the corner? We're talking about a whole like redevelop >> to everybody as a conservation. >> Yeah. I mean, there could be a there could be a a property that's there that's a small like on Los Angeles or
one of these other small roads that that is, for lack of a better term, unusable, right? It could be all wetland and it's going to cost how much did you say an acre? >> 70 grand. >> 75. >> 70 for half an acre. So, say you had a twoacre piece of property to mitigate
two acres and then demunk it and you're talking exponentially. It's just out of the realm of possibility, right? Well, we could probably get it at a reasonable sum, put a boardwalk in there maybe, I don't know, >> one day when we could afford to maintain it. >> Well, I mean, but >> with this one and potentially money from
the other, >> I think the prudent thing, and it's not saying, hey, listen, you just come in here and clear cut your property and we're going to, you know, whatever. I I think it's saying at this point in time because yeah, that that got cut a couple years ago as as Phyllis said, but the
other one's been sitting there like that for a long time. Um so, you know, I'm I'm for the I think we just need to come up with how we're going to value it. >> We need to create a policy so that it's fair and equitable to everybody and people know what it is moving forward.
Well, what I hear what I hear from you is that um there is support for the idea of uh being able to um uh take money for a
release. The amount of the money um is obviously subject to negotiation. uh as we had uh an offer of $150,000. I'm not sure that that amount is still available or um whether you want us to
negotiate uh a higher amount. Obviously, we would try to get as much as we can. The question is whether you know that was raised by Jerry is do you want us to secure an appraisal on uh on that understanding that appraisals you know
>> secure an appraisal on a on something acres of >> of vacant land. >> I am >> with no access. >> I am I I'm asking No offense I'm I'm asking the question. I I I understand
the point that uh uh that you're making. Um but uh I think what we would do is try to work with um uh Mr. Flame and uh the party that he represents and see if
we can bring back something to you um in December at the December meeting. >> I am. My only sad part is I know that money will go in an account and then it'll just sit there for 10 years, right? And then at some point you'll be able to buy a quarter of an acre with it, >> right? >> Because how much money do we have in the tree mitigation now? And we haven't
spent a nickel out of it, right? And now we're gonna that's the only set, you know, I I understand both sides of it. That's I know. And that's our fault, right? It's not nobody else's fault that the money's just sitting there. I get it. >> So, >> no, we got to gave some direction as to what that can be used for now anyway. So, I think we're moving we're moving
forward, right? So, >> mayor, >> it's another step forward. Yet another Todd, >> I think that the fair market value of a piece of property that size in that condition should be ascertained before we uh >> I think that's what Jeff just said.
>> Well, I'm asking I'm asking whether you you want that to to happen. That's a discussion that you would have to to to make. >> The only fair way to do it is to do the fair market value of the whole parcel and then use that portion portionality
of it. You can't just like like like Paul said, you can't say a landlock, >> right, >> 1.4 acres on the back of a property is going to have a different value than 1.4 acres of a 10acre parcel. So, I think you have to ascertain the fair market value of the 10 acre property and then
do the math to figure out what 1.4 acres of it is and let's see how close to 150 we are. >> It's the need for appraisal. >> Somebody may be willing to buy even though it's it's near-ode. I mean, they they may be willing to invest in a in an
access uh culvert. >> Well, I think one of the unless I'm wrong, one of the options was to let them move it to another part of that site, right, >> somewhere else. And that would solve both issues, right? It still remained the same acreage on the same parcel, just laid out differently. Of course,
you'd want them to blame it. Is that that sort of thing, >> but that's Yeah, that that's then you're you're trying to bet down the road that it's going to be >> then you're taking away your devil's advocate argument of using the money to buy something else. Okay, we have one more public comment and then we need to come up with a consensus. Go ahead. >> I was going to say consensus, but
>> we actually have two public comments, but before I call them up, um, Phyllis provided me with a few documents that she requested for them to be received and filed. I'll make a motion. >> Second. >> Sorry.
All in favor? >> Thank you. >> I >> Okay, that's five to zero. >> Missuchi, >> Cassie Sushi. Um, I'm just sitting in the audience and it makes me think of some
words that came to mind that this is a contiguous rural community which was experiencing certain impacts from urbanization in surrounding areas. So to protect that rural community they decided to incorporate and in the
charter it talks about to serve to preserve and protect the distinctive characteristics substantial open spaces rural habitats stuff like that. We have people what I see for whatever reason
had to give over a conservation easement because they had bad behavior sometime back then. you whatever and and it was kept cleared. It wasn't repopulated with trees. What I see is just from sitting out there, I have a conservation
easement on my property, so I'm going to clear it and then I can go ahead and sell it for 150,000 an acre. We need to protect our community. It doesn't have to be accessed to the public. One thing I I was sitting on the charter review committee and we have many different opinions and I got to
tell you it was a really great group of people talking but the one common denominator and I know we disagreed on things was we like this town, we don't like this town, we love this town and we want to protect this town and the words about protecting our rural community.
Require them to put trees up or use our tree medication to put trees up. It's a conservation area. It doesn't have to be accessed. We just have to know it's there to protect our character. What I'm hearing from you guys is, "Well, they did something. It's clear-cut, so it's
useless. So, we're going to go ahead and sell it for 150,000 an acre." Well, I sure as heck want to buy a house from you guys for 150,000 an acre because I think that's way beyond market value here. But I just want you to protect our community. I remember I don't know how many people remember uh Bobby or the
Finley Bambi Bird and Wildlife Acme Road. Does anybody remember them? >> Yep. >> Well, that was supposed to be preserved. Do you think that Bonnie Finley and her brother would be rolling over in their grave knowing that there's apartments now built on it? Because some Neil sold
that easement to acquire some land somewhere else. And I won't go into that. So, the point is we need to protect that. You are the stewards of our town. You're the voice of the people. And I don't think anybody in this town wants to sell it just because somebody decided to strip strip it
because there's a lot of property out there that people decided to strip. We need to protect it. I remember we had a an east west road. It was a trail a railroad system railroad that was given back. Now that we're talking about trails, it sure would have been nice to
maybe have an east west access access between roads because I really don't want to ride three miles doi to go down to seaw road. So, we need to think ahead. It's there for a reason. It doesn't have to be used to walk on. Just us knowing it's there and protecting our town.
>> Okay. We have anybody else? >> Joe, just sil for us to enjoy. Well, that's a lovely idea and and hopefully someday um our park gets its trees back.
You don't have any trees in that park either. Um but like Paul was saying, perhaps perhaps um maybe work the acres into a wider swath or maybe goes further
around. I don't know. But definitely I don't feel like if for whatever reason that person was punished or the whoever had that property and and had to receive that for for whatever it was or it went in there because they were need to leave it green
because they were going to build some other habitats in there. Uh it now has been stripped for how long? >> Years. >> Years. years, you know, and and and clearly apparently it's just going to stay stripped and and until
more years. So why don't we just put some trees, have that person put the trees back in and have that be what you set up for everybody going forward. If you have a conservation easement, you take care of it. You conserve it and then you don't get in trouble.
Thanks. >> Okay. Anybody want to Anybody think they can roll this up into something to ask Jeff to bring to the December 2nd meeting? >> Um, >> or do you want to just tonight reject
any offer at money and just say no, they have to re they have to make it whole again. >> Do we want to just take that vote and make that be our policy? You have to make it whole again. >> I I I think You know, the talk is about future and the talk is about having a broader view
and being stewards and this and that. I think it was very shortsight of the county to say, "Oh, hey, you went did this, so you're giving me this little box in the front, right?" But you can't tell somebody how to develop their property either. If I'm going to put a horse farm in on 40 acres or 100 acres, whatever
the case may be, you can't tell me that I got to put my house here, I got to put my barn here, I got to do this. So to say this is my conservation easement up front and they're going to maintain the conservation easement. I mean we could design it, redesign it any other way. I mean you could put a you know just a
stripe along the back so it's a buffer between the neighbor and you know whatever. But I mean I I think talking about being good stewards and maintaining stuff I mean right now what are you going to get? I mean way seriously any if it had been let to grow over I mean really reality that
conservation ement that was sitting there was it could have been holly trees were crying out I mean there was the the one not to mix two together but the one over here right off was citrus and you know um road that's back up to D- road that in there was some slash pines and a
bunch of holly familiar my old boss she my old friend used to have cows on that property so you know and it got clearcut But see, you know, and yes, holly trees, they they help with dissemination of water, things like that. I mean, they they do help, but they're invasive,
right? So, I don't know. I I think that um you know, I think this is a good opportunity uh for us to be able to turn that into something good. Um because the reality is, you know, the conservation ement, somebody else could come mitigate it, whatever. I mean, they clear cut the
property. you got 40 acres without one, you're going to clear cut it anyway and they're going to do what they want with their FDA and this and that. So, um I say I say make a motion that we move forward with evaluating what Mr. Flame is and see if Mr. Flame
is still proposing the 150 and seeing if that works with our But we have to I'm not making a motion yet. We have to Yeah, >> taking the motion part back. >> Yeah, take the motion part back. But I think I think we move forward >> consensus. Yeah. To to move forward in that direction and that we need to, you
know, you're you're absolutely right. We can't go until Mr. Flame, it's going to be X amount. And then Jimmy comes, you know, 3 months, six months later and goes, hey, listen, I'm trying to sell this one and, you know, got the same problem here, you know, because it might not
>> Well, and conversely, we can't we we have to establish a precedent, right? We can't and we can't do something different further down the line. What we're trying to do is treat everybody equitably. >> Fairly. >> We we've all talked about this before before last March that there wasn't
enough of um equitable treatment going on and there wasn't enough of there not there wasn't standard there wasn't this. So >> don't send it in. it might create a a
broader picture in our mind of of all of these 11 uh preserves that >> right but I mean listen we might look at one and go hey listen >> we look at her faith >> you know we got this and we could swap it out and you know whatever so I mean it's something to look at
>> what I'm hearing is that you should explore the possibilities that that that still exist or don't exist maybe they're maybe they're taking it off the shelf and uh and and then we'll come back on December 2nd and we'll and we'll make a
decision based on that. >> Sure. >> Okay. And have some real choice. >> Mayor Phyllis has requested to speak again. >> Okay. Great. >> May I? >> Sure. >> So, I agree with Cassie and Joe. I have
20 oaks on my two acres and 20 pines at least. I'm very proud of those trees and I I love my property. But I I need to tell you that I've investigated most of these easements and I'm glad to say that many
of them are intact. Okay. The fewer intacts have changed hands and Palm Beach County in the 1990s um did this on 108 on larger parcels.
And I want to read this. Flexibility conservation easements are thoughtfully designed to meet your needs, allowing you to enjoy and care for your land while continuing activities like
farming, ranching, and recreational purpose. Okay. There are many things about conservation easements, and they are to preserve. But some of the conservation easements that Palm Beach County did and in the instance of
Wagflow, you all know if you've lived here a long time, that was a vegetable farm. So when I read um when I read some of them, it appears that he wanted to clearcut to grow vegetables. So they made him leave that conservation
easement perhaps. So there's not nefarious. Everything is not nefarious. But these conservation easements were not supposed to hurt the land owner either. And like I said, and I I did not know Marge, I've been asking this town
for these conservation easements since Vie bought his property back in like 2017. You were talking about it earlier. Okay. I've been asking the town for them. They have never been able to provide them. I was told Mr. Flashmen
got a box from the gentleman at M who I talked to personally and that box never made it to town hall. Lands were changed hands and these owners for some reason did not realize that they were acquiring
these conservation easements and as I said Mr. Fleshman, who also had the box at his office of the conservation easements, also clearcut signed off to clearcut the 43 acres of all the
vegetations under an ad classification. Do I agree to that? No. And I'm very happy now that people are not taking all the trees out like they did years ago. The equestrians came in and clearcut and then what? They, you know, they didn't
care. They weren't here during the summer, but now they care because they're here year round and they appreciate our canopy and our trees. So, I'm not asking which way one way or another, but I'm asking you to look at
these individually if possible because they each have different issues in some cases. Okay? And I do believe buying you guys need to start buying land. there's in this town. We need to start buying
some of the foreclosures and some of the land that has been turned into like many ponds and things like that. And the town needs to acquire some of these lands for public works and other use and to keep
our canopy somewhere. So, thank you for letting me speak. >> Okay. Um I I'd like race suggestion. >> Great. I'm sorry. >> The agenda. >> Lisa's hand is raised. >> Oh, sorry,
>> Stan. But let's let Paul make a suggestion and then I'm going to make a suggestion that we recess till tomorrow night because we have some large items. Three large >> that I I was going to Okay. I wasn't sure what the planning process was about, but let let Lisa go ahead and I'll say what I'm gonna say.
>> Okay. Lisa Paul was aren't you letting Lisa speak first? >> Yes. >> Okay, Lisa, go first. Go. >> Thank you. Uh, yes. I I find it pretty interesting that we incorporated to preserve our town and yet it sounds like the county is doing a better job at at
keeping these uh conservation easements. So, I Paul, I I have to say I disagree with you on this and uh I I would prefer to go by the way of what I spoke earlier. Thank you. Okay, Paul, what did you
>> No, I was going to I was I thought we had a kind of a consensus to kind of move a step forward and see what was going on. So, I was going to make a suggestion about I wasn't sure what the platting process topic was, but because unfortunately, for some reason, I didn't. I skipped over. >> I can do the platting process in two
minutes. >> Items and our closing stuff. Yeah. Anybody okay with recessing till tomorrow night at six o'clock to finish it? >> Sure. >> Let me check my calendar. Lisa, are you okay?
>> Yes. I will come again as Zoom because of my arm. >> What you do to your arms? >> I'll turn on the camera. Nice. Can you see my arm? You're very small up there. But yes,
>> I see some big mass of something waving in the air. >> Purple cast and my big bruise. Yes. Very special. >> That is a nasty bruise. >> So feel better.
>> Thank you. Um, I guess I'm I'm I guess I'm okay with >> Well, I mean, I thought I thought we were going to at our next workshop, we were going to talk about the SWAT analysis thing, >> right? >> Come up with plans >> with staff.
>> We need staff to talk about the SWAT analysis. >> I have something tomorrow night at six o'clock, so that's a little bit of a problem. Um >> I I I say we table the platting process. We can have preliminary discussion about
the SWAT analysis on our at our workshop. We table the platting process and table there was one other thing >> well the discussion about what the next >> I think we covered some of them. >> I think I can do platting in two minutes.
>> Okay, go do platting in two minutes. that >> um the the state um passed a revision uh to the platting requirements. Um it is now required to be done administratively.
Um, so this is an ordinance that is uh proposed to uh change this from a council review to an administrative process in according with state statute.
Um, we can bring it back for first reading on December at your December meeting. >> Okay. >> Yeah, >> I'm okay with that. Lisa, >> what date was it not advertised for tonight? >> No,
>> no, no. We do the discussion first to let you know what's happening. >> Lisa, you okay with that? >> That's fine. >> Okay. So, that takes care of that. We've handled a lot of the SWAT stuff as we've gone along, right?
We really haven't. >> We haven't. We haven't. >> We can add that to our our next one. We can have the preliminary SWAT discussion on the 18th and then come back on the 2nd and have >> the full discussion because we had already said we were going to stop me everybody if you're not okay with this.
>> That's fine. >> Um is everybody okay with that? So we'll have the preliminary because we said there was going to be two things we're going to talk about that night. >> Priority list and SWAT. >> The priority and SWAT and we can do it. Shouldn't take us very long. I don't
think if we do the on the 18th a half hour business meeting we can do I don't think that those two items are going to be very long. No. >> So why don't we add the discussion of our workshop meeting also to that agenda. Put three things on it and and
and then maybe before the actual next workshop starts we can actually start talking about a little bit. Does that make sense? The last one does everybody following >> like a recap for staff and they can leave and we can have our >> meeting logic.
>> Well, that's I say then so so >> the next meeting will be on the 18th at 5:30, >> right? >> We're going to have a half hour business meeting. It's going to start with the charter review vote. >> Then it's going to have the >> Give me a break everybody. There was one
other thing that we were voting on. majority >> um >> the super majority v vote. Um and then we will handle item 14 from tonight with whatever remaining time we have left of
that half hour and then we'll add the SWAT analysis to the beginning of our informal meeting and continue the more formal part of the SWAT analysis discussion to >> right >> to to the December second meeting. can leave if they want or they can stick around.
>> Correct. >> Okay, everybody okay with that? >> Fabulous. Town manager report. >> I need a motion to extend for another couple of minutes. >> Motion to extend for a couple minutes. >> All in favor? >> I
that's not an item. I just wanted to say thank you to Richard Gla. He's done an incredible job since he's been here for the last two years. Some of the things that we've been able to make decisions on, we were never able to make decisions on because we did not have that
information. He is a super historian and he is a super implementer. We finally got a fully functioning public works department. We finally started to get a lot of things moving along. We had
regularized maintenance programs. We have um a fully functioning um LMS program. We have a fully functioning emergency management program with all of
our staff trained up in that. From A to Z, he has turned around the public works department. But I also think he's leaving it in good hands um with Mr. Lowour. He's trained. He's trained
Craig. Um, we will definitely miss Mi Mr. Galant. He is irreplaceable. His humor is not only above my head most of the time, which a lot funnier than anybody even
realizes all of the time. And um anyway, I just don't know how to say thank you enough. you've done an excellent job and we will definitely miss you. And by the way, on his way out the door, he got all
the FEMA cleaned up. Um and um we will be making a budget amendment to show how much money um we will be collecting from FEMA. As of right now, the only place that we have gone over budget is in the
solid waste fund and right now it's $83,000 due to the debris management cleanup. Also, the roads and drainage fund is likely to be right on the borderline.
It's within $9,000 of budget right now, but that's without acknowledging the budget amendment for the storm um that delayed us from getting a lot of the other work done. So again, incredible job handling Milton in the middle of
getting all the rest of the stuff done. Really, really tremendous work. So don't know how to say thank you enough. The other thing I also want to let everyone know is Department of Commerce has reached back out to us and we have um a
conference call with them this Thursday um to discuss our continued rural designation. And finally, I know you're all paying a lot of good attention to what's happening legislatively. I resent
something to you today with regard to taxes. Um, if you have any questions when you look at it, please give me a call. As I believe the mayor said, there's 11 bills right now on taxes. Um,
those are not the only things um that there will be bills diminishing our home rule authority on, but the taxes, if they pass, as of right now, um, we stand to lose something along a million
dollars. And before all these tax initiatives, we were kind of imbalanced. Well, we were structurally imbalanced financially for the maintenance that we need to do versus the monies that we collect. So, u it's a scary year and
thank goodness you'll all be going up there to Tallahassee and fighting for us. Anyway, thank you and thank you again, Richard. Okay, Mr. Kirks. Uh given the time and the amount of of talking I've done already, I'm going to
pass until uh November 18th. >> Okay. Val, >> uh as the mayor had mentioned earlier, we have the uh Veterans Day, Founders Day event on November 8th. Um we're asking all veterans and founders to please show up for the event um as we do
like to honor you on that day. um to the public. We will be having barbecue, face painting, bounce house, and more. And so we look forward to seeing you there. The parade starts at 10:30. The event starts at 11:00 over here at Lockahhatchee Groves Park. Um with regards to
qualifying, um again, because town hall is closed on Veterans Day, uh qualifying will begin 8:30 on Wednesday, November 12th through noon on Tuesday, November 18th. This is for the March 10th, 2026
election where we have two seats um that are on um that are available for for running. If you are interested, I ask that you please give me a call. We have a very very limited window for qualifying and I want to make sure that
I give everyone the opportunity and all of the information um and that we can, you know, complete the packet successfully together. So again, reach out to me. My number is 561 um 807-6672 and then we can schedule an appointment.
Thank you. >> Karen is gone. I take it. Uh Richard, any parting words? Parting shots? >> Fire them over the bell. >> Great. Um want to thank the uh town manager for the kind words. Um it has
been an adventure some uh two years. We got a lot of stuff done. Um when I started here, a lot of people had told me that, yeah, you're going to have a uphill battle um trying to turn public works around and everything else around. And I think Craig and I have done a great job with our team public works in
um turning the ship around, getting a lot of stuff done, getting a lot of um you know, regular maintenance done, starting to starting to move forward and actually improving the town. as many of you have said as well as other residents have said that they've seen a market improvement in the town in the last two
years since we've been here. Um you know the town still has a lot of work moving forward. Um I will definitely miss the crew and the residents um uh here in the town. Um but um again thank you guys for the opportunity and good luck in all your future endeavors.
>> You as well. >> And I'm listening to him and he's leaving because he's catching my um disease. Poor man. >> Todd Mlennon, >> I have a lot to say, but you know, we'll we'll save it till next meeting, but thank you, Richard. Uh, good luck to you
moving forward, >> Lisa. Yes, in the same vein, I will hold off on some of my comments um until our workshop. And yes, thank you, Richard, and sorry I wasn't there this evening. I'm going to follow suit and just say
tune in to the next one if you're at home watching because I think we'll discuss why we restructured the agenda a little bit. I think we covered it the last workshop, but I had some questions from folks and I said we covered tonight but a little long in the tooth. And I'd like to uh take an opportunity to mention that um the LGA
uh scholarship we handed out what is the past three years over 2 thou or $20,000 over the past three years and $6,000 this year. Right. So, um, for all those that participated and helped out, thank you very much. Um, it's all for the kids
and that's that's kind of the direction where we're going. So, um, with that, have a great night and we'll see you on the 18th. >> All right. Yes. I'd like to uh you know chime in on u thanking Richard for all you've done uh you know to get things
structured and organized and uh creating your uh town SWAT teams to get out there and do their job and make the town proud. So uh I'll hold my other comments until the 18th.
>> Yeah. The only timely comment that I want to make is just so the parade is starting at 10:30 from the um bread and breakfast on C road and then coming down Gubber Lane. No, coming down
C to collecting to D to Tangerine and Tangerine to the park. So, if anybody would like to put a launcher out on the road along the way and wave to us as we go by, it sure would be
appreciated it. Um because otherwise it's a parade from nowhere to nowhere. So, um yeah, Dro's got a big shoulder. Um so, if you guys uh want to come out and support your town as we parade past,
it would be really appreciated. Um, and I also want to thank you, Richard, for everything you've done um, for the town and for sharing your knowledge and your wisdom with us. It certainly made a difference. And
with that, I would like a motion to adjurnn. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I should answer what I called, right? >> What happened? It's not to complain. >> No, no, no, no. I'll be happy to. You know that.
>> A little closer. >> What? >> I said I'm a little closer if you want me to take you.