e we let's see Saturday we had to go to I think we played at Saturday okay then that was yeah I watched your game you guys look good hey I tell you what
first we stuck up the floor oh man yeah then I turned back on and you were coming back I okay good oh yeah second half they played much much better and uh say it
weii we beat Missi how's it going sir good how are you Missouri's they play tough defense Florida's what number two now number two yeah alurn is number
one they do I mean well mean they they put it on us when we went up there brought something for I swear iail floor yeah Lonnie emailed oh you got already it's okay that we have
these okay cool hoping we can get the same good do the power yes um you want to make sure that your monitors are on okay so duplicate not ex right how do I okay or
not here so they'll show this on there but I don't want them to see that that's your notse this go here just close this close this yeah you yeah so what
now I don't want that to show up I want it to be the full screen so when I go here there we go I can I don't mind seeing that okay the other one what happens if you extended
another yeah it's here I don't know stuck to the table INE you need it CU I don't think you have power the mouse comes up okay all right trying to figure
out if I close that what happens okay un first Robert's going to help us too are we do we have keep I think so he didn't tell me he wasn't coming I'll give him a little he
doesn't tell you when he comes either I'll tex him yeah you want to give him a [Music] call H no you don't no I don't cuz it comes with something else
talking there you go that was good is that what you're sticking around to is that why we're still here right okay cool thank you keep that is like the biggest most fabulous place to put that ever this seems like a
new first that's pretty awesome be nice when I change out the screens yes now the big question is can you drag one thing over here Tre like three different probably not that would
be so awesome I me with the slight curve okay all right I guess we'll get started uh good evening welcome to the city council work session um if we could
we have four members of council present we're missing council member Britain we will start off with our public comment section I have one written request to speak it is for Mr David Williamson if you could
please come up and state your name an address for the record hi David Williamson my address has been submitted on the record already science doesn't change with each new Administration and facts don't win or lose elections the unwarranted debate
on the health effects of water fluoridation has been going on long before it was a plot line in Doctor Strange Love and it will likely happen again here this evening I respectfully suggest that discussion you have on this tonight be about actual facts regarding
pending leg legislation and the cost of repairs and not conspiracy theories and misunderstandings the scientific process helps us answer important questions but it can be confusing to understand which
allows it to often be used against us not everyone who repeats a lie is a liar but when we repeat things that are wrong or that we don't understand we do a disservice to one another and that disservice is particularly magnified when when it's done by our public
officials whether federal state or local and whether elected or appointed the consequences can be severe so let's not signal boost the ignorance and the bad Health policy coming from the presidents and the governor's cabinet members who are apparently unable to read and understand scientific studies are
cherry-picking bad or inconclusive studies to make their case or both it's not possible in 3 minutes to dispute all the nonsense that makes up the arguments against fluoride treatment but I sent a very brief article to you a few minutes ago that's worth reading it's written in plain language and
explains a great deal about the issue I'll mention the most recent study in the news that found concentrations of fluoride that are twice the recommended amount are associated with IQ being lower in children in other words the recommended amount was not found to be
unsafe even with fluoride from other sources and improved oral hygiene over recent years for every $1 you spend on fluoridating water you reduce tooth decay by an estimated $20 to $50 per person in oral health care costs depending on where you measure that for
those looking for a good Roi there you go just a quick note on the word toxin or toxic these words are used to scare you so whenever you read that be aware that the person using them may be uninformed whether it's chloramine oxidane or fluoride too much of any of
these chemical compounds can be harmful which is why your Public Works teams measure and test the city's water regularly I encourage you to make the right decision based on the facts whatever those may be and not on fictions propped up by those willfully misunderstanding science or the victims of that
misunderstanding if you vote to remove fluoride from water children in this community will have more trips to the dentist higher costs of Health Care and More long-term dental health problems notably though our kids won't be any smarter Community water fluoridation is the most cost effective preventive
measure we have for tooth decay and there is no evidence that when it is properly administered there are any negative side effects thanks thank you I don't have any other written requests to speak is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak at this time please come up and say your name
and address for the record please hello there um my name is Justin Harvey I live at 103 South Oola in Orlando good evening mayor and uh council members thank you so much for revisiting this important topic of water fluoridation um this is it has new new
information and evolving science is what I'm here to basically talk about and that new information that I talk of is a conclusion of a seven-year court case that found based on the preponderance of an evidence that fluoride is associated with lower IQ in pregnant women and children uh now some will say this is just one court case you know
cherry-picking data as we may have heard but let me remind you 74 studies were published in jamama just the following month um citing the exact same thing lower IQ Dr Malin did studies in the US on low levels of fluoride and she found the same thing lower IQ but let's just say that those are not true and we don't
believe any of those 74 studies we still can't force the medication on the public I think that's the Crux of the issue here um we have documented health risks uh but like I said we shouldn't be forcing people to consume a drug but let's
assume the drug has no side effects um we can't control the dose to an infant an elderly person someone with a health condition and that's what we're doing here you know statins antio pressant don't get added to the water because that would be crazy we can't control the dose the same should go with fluoride and let's also remember that it is not
naturally occurring fluoride we're adding to the water it is a chemical waste you can see on your material safety data sheet it does show that it is a poison highly corrosive um this stuff eats through glass steel conrete and I personally don't want to be drinking that or my family what happens when we stop
fluoridation you know we hear a lot of things about what's going to happen to the kids teeth and this and that let me remind you uh Apopka um Winter Springs Castle bear Winter Garden they don't fluoridate 40 counties don't fluoridate in Florida 20 or so have never
floridated 95% of the world does not fluoridate we've actually seen a consistent decline in t decay in the floridated and the non- fluoridated communities and even if there are topical benefits to fluoride let's again assume there are we shouldn't be ingesting this it's going to our organs
going to our brain and it is much easier to fix a cavity than it is brain damage right when we know better we do better just like with lead arsenic DDT Agent Orange when the risks outweigh the benefits we have to cut back and protect the most vulnerable and in this case pregnant women and children as the
federal judge put it ending fluoridation is a win-win for all sides essentially the city saves money the utility department isn't dealing with this dangerous waste that can kill them the public isn't Mass medicated and the people that do want fluoride can go get it in a number of ways this was the whole reason the government's got into
the dental business in the first place they didn't have a bunch of ways to get fluoride they do now personally would just don't want to you know take my water bottle into restaurants buy expensive filtration systems which is what I've had to do for the last 12 years when I discovered what
was in my water uh so let's just give people a choice I think that's the best option with this so thank you very much for your time today thank you is there anybody else in the audience wishing to speak please say your name and address for the record good evening my name is Steve
Edmonds I live at 1022 Vanessa Drive oido um uh and I'm not sure where the first gentleman lives I don't recognize him as as a neighbor but I've been in this community for well over 20 years and uh been dealing with a number of water issues for several years after
that um so yeah I don't have any degrees particularly but I'm not a layman in the subject area either um Flora I particularly started being used uh shortly after uh World War II in 1947 um we discovered it because the Nazis
were using it so yeah conspiracy theories all that kind of stuff neat thing about conspiracy theory there's a lot of Truth in it sometimes and the reason why Nazis were using it specifically was so that they could keep their population subdued it also causes
a number of other health uh effects uh personally um I was uh impressed by the uh point that was brought out that um government shouldn't be in the business of drugging our population if people want fluoride and need to protect their
teeth or think they need to protect their teeth there's plenty of places that they can get it other than the public water supply as a resident of Ido i' like it to be on the record that I'm highly against fluoridation of the water and would very much enjoy it to cease
thank you very much thank you is there anybody else wishing to address the audience okay at this time I will close public comment and we will move on to our second order of business which is the public safety building project Mr C uh
thank you Deputy Mayor if you recall back in I believe it was your November meeting one of your November meetings you asked us to take a look at our different Alternatives and to look at what revenues we have and
what what what are what is something that we can do with the reeven Vues that we have and so tonight we wanted to bring you an update I have Mr Robert uty with me here tonight from Zha because we also not only want to talk about an update of the
um of the Alternatives but also to talk about process going forward and some of the things that we want to try to accomplish and so I've asked him if he would join us and review that with us but uh right now this is the revenue
that we have uh that we can say that and if you'll notice there it says fourth generation sales tax to be determined that's because we haven't collected any yet and so we're waiting on that to come in but like like of all of our discussions we've talked about but yes
the public safety building is part of the sales tax list and but we also remember that the I call them projects 1 A and B which would be the street resurfacing program and as well as the sidewalk replacement program so I
haven't shown any funding there yet so but we do have the $1.4 million from the referendum in 2016 we have we have $444,000 in law enforcement impact fees and then we have arpa interest and this is the nice thing about the arpa
interest is that it uh it it doesn't have any strings attached to it like some of the other arpa funds and so we're able to we have flexibility in the use of that so that gives us a total of about 12,770 $2,266 speaking of arpa we are spending
quite a bit of money on the public safety building in arpa and these are the projects that we're working on as you you can see we've just uh they're working on the roof right now they're also doing some painting and chief are they doing also some floor work right now or when to get the painting first
roof and roof just got completed and painting is almost done okay so we've got some these are a number of things the reason I put this up here is that if you decide that you want to go the renovation route these are things that we won't have to do because we've
already funded them through the through arpa uh what we found we found two projects that we feel we can do with our current sources uh one is an Annex Building and this is something that we talked about last year uh when we talked about it last year it was about 10,000
square ft and the price tag um well one of the things I will tell you the price tag was less than that because I added in the cost to issue the bond so the price tag is about 9.6 million 9.7 and this is the cost here uh one of
the things that I hear is that we have an allowance for the uh Central Energy plant so that's one of the things I'm a little leery about so that's why I've kept it at a 20% uh project contingency but with a
10,000 ft building cost is 9.6 million our 12 million that we have in total revenue so we have about $3 million left over that we have not allocated now one of the things that we've talked about through the series of discussions was that we wanted to be able to provide security fencing and
gating uh around the campus uh and so that's not in here that's one of the things that we need to that will need to be we'll need to go in and get those cost and bring those to you also um it also allows us we may be able to squeeze out a few more Square fet in the
building and not being limited to just the 10,000 square ft and thirdly we may have funding that we could then reallocate to doing more renovation on the public safety building so that's one of the things that I see as far as doing
a 10,000 ft building an Annex Building that it does give us some flexibility on what we can do with the money that we have I believe in your staff report the the uh this this uh one just had the 11.4 million and showed you had about a
1.7 to play with I wanted to go ahead and get that updated for tonight uh once again uh renovation of the public safety building it comes out around 12.9 million and uh you can see here uh roughly with the 12.9 million we have
still a little bit of a shortfall of 177,000 but the thing about it is is that with the arpa projects that we're already doing I think that we would still come out we would still have able to renovate the building utilizing our existing funding so that is one of the
things that I see in that uh we still would need to get some design work done and there once again with the with only an allowance up here for the central energy plant the HVAC system I want I wanted to keep that now as you know when we get bids that 20% will drop down to
probably a 10% so that's um so the I don't see the contingency staying at 20% the entire time but as until we can refine in on our costs a little bit more uh I believe that I want to keep that at the 20% for now just as
a safety measure also this doesn't take into account the security fencing and the gating and things like that that so uh I did ask Mr UT if he would join us tonight uh we do have a contract with them one of the things that we have is it's owner representative contract
it's a piggy back of an Oola cont Oola County contract that contract is still in effect until September of this year uh and so we can we have some options there we can issue them a work order to continue work the thing with the aola contract is
that it's even though it does have a termination date of in September there are two one-year renewals that can occur as well as there's a clause in there that says if there's a project ongoing then the agreement will stay in place until that time until that project is
completed so but I wanted to talk let him come back and refresh us on the different processes as far as design bid design build construction manager at risk those types of things those processes and uh so I wanted to turn that over to him now
and let him walk us through that and then we'll come back and uh would like to get some direction from you as far as if you would like us to proceed further down which which or both you would like us to see us proceed further down would also like to tell you that we met with
the folks from uh Clans inth and they are the group that were the contractors for the um Castleberry project and they we've given them all of our information and they're putting together some ideas as well uh so I'd like to come back when
they're when they get their Alternatives together I'd like to come back and visit with you again uh to go over and see what they've come up with as far as they see how they match up with the numbers that we had from last year so I'll turn it over to Mr udy okay great good
evening everyone good to see you again so I'm just going to go through uh the different delivery method options uh if you go to the next slide so one is uh design and bid so that's where you hire an architect and they do
a complete design based on input uh from you all and then uh we take those 100% drawings and go to the market for for a lumpsum bid from General Contractors that are interested in bidding on the project right so um this is one where
you have a contract with the architect and a separate contract with the contractor um the risks on this one are um you know the quality of the contractor um if if you got a contractor that's to low bidder and you select that
contractor the risk is is that contractor really a high quality contractor and also uh with the sub so when it's a hard bid and the the job is 100% designed the contractor only prices
what's in the drawings right and they're also aware of what's not in the drawings so they know that they identify change order opportunities upfront right so the price that uh is announced on bid day is
usually 10 to 20% less than the final cost because during the course of the project whatever is missing in the drawings becomes a change order right so um and there's there's really little collaboration in that in that approach the uh the architect and the contractor
and the owner are pretty siloed the next one is um design build go to the next yeah design build that's where the owner hires uh the contractor and the contractor has the AR ECT underneath their contract so um with
this delivery method uh as long as you know exactly what you want uh from the beginning early on then it can be a very efficient way to deliver the project the problem is if you want to change anything you know as you get into the
project it becomes expensive because they've designed it per the design criteria drawings right so this one is really dependent on the contractor being really good at at design management the uh the next one is CM at
risk and this is the most collaborative approach this is where you know the the owner has a contract with the architect and the CM and the architect and the CM are brought in early in the process and they
collaborate to uh Drive the design to the budget so when they're hired we know there's a budget let's just say it's 11.5 million all the parties know that that is the budget so the CM is working with the architect during the design
process to make sure that nothing gets out of out of range cost-wise U this is the most collaborative approach it gives the owner the most control the most predictability and
um and and really has Total Team Buy in so um we're currently doing uh we're helping the city of Apopka with their new Public Safety facility we're doing a fire station for Sanford and one for ooi and two in pelis county and they are all
done by CM at risk and we find that that is the most predictable uh process to use with the most predictable outcom and you can you you can pick the best teams to deliver the work based on their
experience so the uh this is just a little breakdown of of the difference as it relates to schedu and cost and and other other metrics so again uh design bid is is the riskiest of the three uh
design build is a is a good approach as long as you know exactly what you want you know up front and you're not going to change anything which in the world we live in that's that's not doesn't happen very often there's usually always some
level of changes and then the third uh see at risk gives the owner the most control the risk is lowest uh and the the owner management uh piece is you know moderate so
um based on our experience uh especially over the Last 5 Years our recommendation would be to go see them at risk whether you go for the renovation of the existing or if you go to the new annex um that will give you the the the best
chance for a positive outcome and and this is just an illustration of the of a typical schedule for the three different uh Concepts and see them at risk is at the bottom um so I'll be happy to answer any
questions if you have any but that's what we have are finding to be the most effective way to deliver projects of this type defy May that's that's what we were able to find and uh so we would like to seek your direction tonight on if you
would like us to keep pursuing on both of these these uh Alternatives or if you'd like us to narrow in on one alternative like I said I would once we meet we're going to meet again with Clancy and the and once we see their see their versions of things to be able to come back to you and let you see that as
well uh so just wanted to get counil Direction on how we move forward also would love to be a my I would recommend that we do start pursuing the uh construction manager at risk process for this project and uh but wanted to get your also get your opinions on that so
that you know if you want to us to move forward that is something that I can get purchasing working on so okay so I guess we'll start with uh the process of doing it you want to move see if we want to move forward with construction management at risk that would be that would be it yes everybody on board with
that I think that's yes can you say the question again so for I thought we start with the process of how we would go about this that we just went over with Mr uty so uh construction management at risk is what they're recommended if that's a we're looking for consensus but
I you have any questions about that well um that presentation wasn't in the packet so um it's I guess I don't really feel like I know enough about the differences between the three things I mean I see what you present um and one of them certainly looks
better but that's that's all I know um we've gone through this at previous meetings as well too um but I mean if you have any other questions previous last year no we get you on Bo got you got consensus it seems good all
right so we have consensus on the semar okay method but if you want to add what I was going to say Council this is what we normally do the as far as design bid we we'll we'll engage an architect engineer we'll go through the process
and then we engage the contractor based the the architect engineer prepares the bid documents then we'll go we take those documents we put them out the bid and the contractor comes in and they they that's what we normally do uh the design build is is different because you
bring the contractor in UPF front contractor is there and the contractor as Mr I said he's got the architect ER and but the thing is is that you've got to have a very very clear bid document you know your design plans have got to
be very very clear right uh because once once you give that goahead that's what you're building there isn't there isn't a lot of room for making changes and uh in most construction projects there are usually changes and so that's your
biggest risk with the design build is that if you have any type of change and uh one of the things that where we are with this with these with both of these Alternatives is that I'm not so comfortable saying we know exactly what
we want and so I think there's still some some brainstorming that needs to be done as far as programming these buildings and so that's why I'm a little leery of this just because you got to know what you got you know you got to know what you want and so but that's what that is it's basically taking out a
step of hiring this guy hiring this guy you know and doing the as far as the bid you're basically going with the contractors what you're doing I would I would say a nutshell too semr it seems to me the reason I like it it inspires them to keep the cost low but it also still gives you some control over what
you're adding in it's a good balance in that in that regard and that was one of the things with the construction management at risk learning from the Castleberry experience um the contractor came in first and then they hired the architect and then the two of them
worked together as Mr UT said they had a budget and they said build it to we want you to design it to this budget and so then that gso gave them there was some flexibility for them to move things around if they needed to as long as they were within the budget obviously if they
uh knowing the city manager over there that if they went to him and said we' got a change order he would probably have said go find another way to do it but um but that's that's the whole thing is that the design is I think what you get out of this process is that the
design is more constructible you know it's a constructible design and you know that you're going to be getting it's within what you want to spend as well so uh that's I mean as far as the as far as
the various processes are uh I think that's probably the biggest the biggest differences between them so where do you end up with the extra 5% um if you could go back to those sure pictures somebody's missing on one of
them right so who is it that I assume so right so youve got X Plus well you're so like design Bill the first one it's going to be at least 10% over the price at bid day generally it's between 10 and 20% higher at the
end so you're saying when the job is finished you're paying 10 to 20% more because there was things that were missing in the in the documents and those come change orders during the course of the job so anything that was not I mean if they're missing you know
lights here or there or electrical sockets then the contractor says okay we we got to put an electrical socket here so that's going to cost you you know $8,000 right that's what a I mean a change order just drives the cost of because there's no such thing as a
perfect set of of drawings or documents this so these costs in the middle these are kind of estimates here so you're saying that that one in the Middle where it just says X is really more like X plus 10 or 20 in your estimation by the time things are done because of change
orders from didn't get thought of design build but if if you all decide if if you decide to make some kind of a change that you weren't thinking about when you designed the the building up front then there's going to be an added cost for
that right so but you're you're hiring on the design bid you're not sure what you're getting as a relates to the quality of the contractor the quality of the subs you know what you're getting in the quality of the architect but everything else is kind of a crap Sho in
design build you know the quality of your Consultants your contractor and your architect but there's still generally always going to be something that changes and generally two or three or four things that change over the course of the building the job so maybe
a 12 to 14 month job and anytime there's any kind of a change then there's a C right sure on CM at risk there's much more flexibility and more collaboration uh as you go through the project you know if there's a change or two or three
that need to be made generally they can be fit and done within the budget without a change order because it's more of a collaborative approach right so that's that's kind of in a nutshell the three different ways of doing it and again our our experience especially over
the past five years we've done a lot of Public Safety type we've managed them for the on behalf of the owner and that by far has been the best approach to take and the least risky most predictable okay so let's let's move on to I guess the options we have on the
table um and make sure I get these right Mr Cobb is we can do the annex and the renovation or just the annex or just the renovation or and that's what you're looking for direction on correct uh yes so I guess I will start with well I
guess here's the thing you can do the annex and possibly do some renovation okay okay not full not a full renovation if you do the if you do the renovation then you're doing just the renovation and not not anything with the NX okay
understood does anybody want to kick us off over here well we ask Chief what what do you think is going to work best for you I think that's a great idea I'm in favor of the annex myself okay I think it gives us a a blank slate to design a building design
the the the everything inside of it and the needs that we need and have an architect uh help us with that planning and which would be the best layout versus now currently the renovation you're going to still deal with things that cannot be moved whether they're
electrical panels HVAC room things of that nature and this would give us the ability to move them if needed if it if it was more advantageous it also add you 10,000 squ ft which I think would pretty helpful corre and the other one would not it's I think I think about 6,500 is
so if you did the annex and you're not going to be able to do the full-blown renovation in the uh in the safety building you going to be okay with that I think it definitely is we're obviously moving in the right direction and I think it'll give us enough of our needs that we we for the foreseeable
future um that we'll be fine yeah plus with what they're doing now the 800,000 has is uh and we're not near about done will be a uh uh a big step in the right direction can we see that list again of everything that we're doing right now yes
sir painting flooring concrete replacement and the bay this the Bas this is actually outside the base outside the base yes sir so more like the driveway up to them that's it yes looks like you got a new roof is that all done being put on or still in
progress the roof is was completed Friday nice just before the rain today well congrat ulations thank and so far no leak so I'm good I'm happy excellent excellent and I believe the fire pole mes underway yeah the two areas where they had fire department had two fire
poles and it's just wasted space uh we want to make them into storage areas so they remove the fire pole floor it and it gives us about a 6x8 room to to put storage in for training and other folks because there two rooms right now it's
just waste of space cuz it's a hole going down the first Flor the power pole in so I mean if he says he's best with the annex I'm kind of lean in his Direction makes sense to me you guys have some input here it makes the most
sense I think it I think it also makes most sense I'm interested in the the renovation um what might be done on the renovation because seems like we've heard in the past that if you do any renovation you have to do all the renovation because of code and Ada and all that kind of stuff sounds was like
maybe that's not the case now or it was never the case um so as long as we don't do it all at the same time we'll never trip the rule that we have to bring it all up to code so that to me seems like the path
we are on she hits it I mean if we replace the windows we would obviously have to bring them up to code if we replace the doors we'd have to bring those up to code uh I remember one I believe it was Mr Lauren walked in and said if you touch this
bathroom you have to bring it up to code and which would have meant expanding the um the Stalls and losing lockers you know uh so there's there's little things like that that mostly are Ada related because the
building is pre Ada that we would have to be careful with but um I think once again being able now knowing that um basically would see see what the budget would be if we had budget left over that
we could after after we program the Annex Building do the safety the safety work around it if there's any storm water work that needs to be done because we are adding impervious area to the campus uh then if there whatever is left
over that then we can decide if we want to reinvest that into the building and if there's ways that we can do that it may be that it would be replacing furniture that might be part of that it might be you know things that don't require building code issues that we
could do so so mentioned before was things like uh taking the bay and putting a second floor in it stuff like that so nothing nothing like that is set or determined there's nothing in the plan right now add square footage right
yeah that would be if we had the money if we have enough money to do that then obviously that would be a great thing for us to do to create that more space so but once again we would have to look at what's there now which is the rolling storage okay what do we do with that right uh there's all there's you had the
Castleberry example where they basically built canopies they have aluminum canopies throughout their parking lot and The Bu in the uh vehicles are parked underneath it so it protects it doesn't protects them from the Sun uh but it doesn't necessarily protect them from
the other parts of the weather you know other weather things uh then you have there is the idea of well if we had enough money left over maybe we build build another garage and build some storage and get there's a lot of things that are being stored in the public safety building get all those things out
of the public safety building to create more space for humans so that's another idea that we're we're exploring as well and but those are types of those are the types of things that you know we can look at uh but you're right if we're doing the annx building more than likely any Renovations that we're doing over
there we're going to as the mayor said try to stay under those thresholds so that uh we can you know obviously get more bang for our buck in that as far as that's concerned so for the Annex Building this is all one floor or two floors or good question my guess is
because we have such a tight space no matter that sighting is going to be very important M uh that I think we may have to go two floors uh but it could we may be able to eek out one floor we'll see I'm not sure and is it something that we're going to see what we can do that if we need to
expand it in the future there's a way to add on to it that makes sense if possible we can look at that as well okay so it sounds like we have consensus for doing the annex and as far as whatever we have left over to look at what we can do for
renovations I've got four head knots here so I think we're good there okay thank you that work for you chief that will definitely work for me it's nice to see it uh something come to fruition or start start the progress and uh start the planning stage appreciate
your help and I guess my favorite question is uh how fast we get this moving forward well right now I I want to uh I want to get the concepts back from Clancy okay and see what those are and then come back to you again so I'm hoping that's going to be next month is
what I'm hoping that will be and then then we can I'll also be getting with Mrs Scott uh in purchasing to see how we get the cart process started as well and we hope bring that back to you as well
too okay so and maybe and once again also diving deeper into these costs and seeing how we can refine them and stretch them and see if we can eek out some more square footage that that would really I would love to be able to eek out more square footage is what I'd love to be able to do so and as far as um a
training facility we're going to make sure we have room for that a new EOC we can do all that in this Annex that's one of the things that I Know Chief and I have been talking about is we have to be very very careful with how we program this building uh if you think about a 10,000 ft building if your EOC takes up
the majority of the space then you're not really creating much office space out of it but uh so that's going to be something that we have to look at and that was one of the reasons that going with the semr rather than going with the design build was that not knowing
exactly where we're at um you really have to have that nailed down as far as what those what's going to be programmed inside of that building and how they design the inside of that building and that's what they're going to build so I wanted to be a I really want the flexibility right now and than so but I
would love to be able to set up a large room that you can make into smaller rooms and you know have that Flex have it so that you can have classrooms and also have physical training and do all those different things you know as and even to be able to allow people much
like U many of you I don't know if you remember when we had the dog training course out behind behind the building and agencies came from all over just to run their dogs through our Dr our our homemade uh uh course made out of porta
potties you know and and tubes and things and but it was very it was a very active um useful course and that's the same thing I Know Chief has envisioned here is that if we can get a training room that is flexible enough to bring
others can come in and we can do group Group Training and that we don't just it's not just limited to us and yes if it if it also doubles as our EOC that's even better so so go so just to be sure um as far as how we're going to pay for this right we
have the authorization to get a bond that came in 2016 we do not have that money currently no we have to issue those we still have to process yeah some of the residents are are unclear on from the from the survey right so this would be borrowing this money yeah but again
that the residents have authorized us to do um and then that would in represent an increase in the millage because there does not seem to be um uh there does not seem to be consensus to use once it sales tax money or is there or this is
what they already voted on to pay for back in 201 16 yep correct right so this would this would entirely be a bond and that Bond would be that if I remember pre it from a previous meeting that Bond would requ be
required to be 30 years no doesn't have to be 30 years no we can look at we can look at various ones and that's one of the things I know Mr Boop is looking at is how's one best way to hit the market to get the best best interest rate and
then also we can yes we can look at different terms as far as if it's 15 20 30 most of the time people do do 30 just so they can stretch it out you you make like in a building like this you want to believe that it's going to last you 30 years and so you want to spread those
payments over the life of the building um but we can look at shorter terms as well so okay but the entire thing does have to be a bond is what you're saying uh as far as a general as far as we as far as the general obligation bond is
concerned uh we can go up to 11.4 million that's our maximum we can we could issue bonds for less but we can't go over good okay well I think we're good on that one you have everything you need Mr C uh yes ma'am thank you okay excellent
all right so we'll move on to the next order of business this is the City Attorney Services Mr cob or Mr Hall I don't know who's taking this one off I'm going to start and I'm GNA probably need help from Miss Collins but let me get up let me switch out of
here and [Applause] oops ran do you want me to hand these out sure yeah Connie let good okay he's here and Council as you know uh at your
January work session uh Mr Hall uh announced that stener Macintosh will be closing the J their doors in in May and so staff has been working on two two different options as far as how we go forward with City Attorney Services
one option is to continue Outsourcing uh the other option is to bring the service inhouse and so the we've been going down this dual track Miss Collins has been surveying as many cities as she can get to respond to her uh asking both as far
as Outsourcing versus uh versus in-house and we've been collecting information regarding what they're paying for the Outsourcing what they're paying for what they what they have as far as inhouse Services uh Mrs Scott has also prepared a a uh an RFP for City Attorney Services
uh as we mentioned last time uh this as far as the recruitment of a City attorney you're not required to go through a formal RFP process and so you have some flexibility regarding this but we went ahead and prepared the RFP on the assumption that we would be doing a
formal process and so there are some things in there that reflect a formal process that maybe you say for this process don't be as formal you may want to take some we actually have some recommendations for you as well but I wanted to wanted to walk through a few
of these things um and then to be able to have a discussion with you at the end regarding how you would like us to continue obviously we need to have the whatever we do we need to get it on board by May uh which would lead us to say let's
move toward Outsourcing because I don't know if we could recruit an in-house City attorney by May uh but also to be able to with as far as the RFP process we want to be also to talk about the evaluation committee and how we would
like to do that process and how we would like how we want to learn more about the uh firms that would send us proposals and so I just we'll start this off uh as I said before we did do we have a draft
we did provide you with the draft RFP uh we talk about these are the different things that we address in the RFP as far as the scope of services the thing knowledge of our knowledge of Municipal uh Ser Municipal legal issues uh as far
as attending meetings and of our Council of the boards uh as far as reviewing the various documents and and and legal instruments Services as far as um providing us with legal legal
opinions uh reviewing uh different um actually reviewing RFP documents they do that as well uh so doing all these different Services we have the services listed out for you in the RFP I also have the RP with me tonight so I can put it up on the screen if you'd like me to
do that uh we are asking that they also they obviously licensed in the State of Florida as far as being a business but also licensed with the Florida bar to be practice to be a City attorney uh a minimum of 7 years experience of practicing in Florida minimum 5 years
experience of Municipal uh representing Municipal governments and so those as far as minimum qualifications uh so we did look at some pros and cons as far as Outsourcing uh Outsourcing is obviously cost effective I think the biggest Pro that I see with
Outsourcing is you have depth uh when you have a City attorney if you only have one City attorney uh if that City attorney goes on vacation if the City attorney gets ill you still have to have a backup and so that's one of the things that I see as far as the biggest probe
in continuing to Outsource is that you have death in most firms most firms usually have five six different attorneys that practice Municipal law they also have uh legal uh paralegals they have legal assistants they have all these different folks to con to u to
support them uh as far as you know the negatives regarding the uh as far as Outsourcing wild one they're not here and that's probably the biggest one too is that they're not here and uh so you're paying for a travel time you're paying for uh even though I know that
our good friend here doesn't sometimes charge us for travel uh but uh they you you sometimes get into that that situation and so you have and there's as you see less control over legal strategy um inhouse obviously the pros he's
they're here uh they become part of the culture within the city they uh they understand they I think they get a good understanding of the council and what you want and uh so it's that's I think that's the biggest Pro is that they're here some of the things as far as the
negatives are concerned is that yes it's probably going to be a higher cost uh especially that um that's a big assumption though that is a big assumption but I think from the standpoint of where when you need when you need an attorney par legal legal
assistant you and plus we also have a space issue uh that uh you could end up you can end up with all when you throw into salaries benefits operating costs all those things you could end up as a higher cost as I mentioned before the lack of depth as
well uh as I mentioned before Miss Collins has been surveying different cities uh we've received as far as outsourced you can see that we we we tried to focus in on all of simal County we focused in on uh cities that were comparable in Orange simol Lake and Bard
valua uh we did receive responses you can see the range of cities that we uh we receive responses from the average charge per hour is around $230 per hour uh the average retainer charge is around $83,400 a year inhouse we received six
responses uh the populations range from 32,000 to 87,000 you can see you find most inhouse are going to be more in the larger cities uh average uh attorney salaries around a little over 200,000 uh the Staffing and ranges from
4 to 9 usually a minimum is going to be an attorney probably an assisted attorney a a paralal and Legal Assistant but average budget is just just shy of a million dollars uh like I said before tonight uh
we would like to get your direction uh regarding uh if you want to continue with Outsourcing if you like us to also continue to investigate inhouse uh how would you like to see the makeup of the evaluation committee I as
far as as well as changes to the RFP if there's something and we actually have some recommendations for you on the draft RFP as well so uh these are just some of the things that we would like to uh discuss with you tonight and get your direction and M Collins did I miss anything if we got did I hit all the
points yes you did okay all right great and uh so turn it back to you Deputy Mayor okay and I will open discussion um I have a lot of thoughts go figure I thought you'd start us off go ahead um
so on this the assumption that that we have to have an attorney who cannot type and we have somebody else do it for them I think that is a big assumption a lot of people who come out of law school prefer even in the bigger law firms to do their own work and there's not a lot of stuff here where our City attorney is
the one actively doing the litigation and the filing at the court that I'm aware of so may maybe there are a lot of Court interactions that I'm not aware of where we would need a pargal but just kind of looking at what Altimont pays with a full-time in
in-house person this to me looks like a beautiful opportunity for somebody who has a lot of experience and drive in the private sector to shift gears um and bring that level of expertise and that oomph to our scenario if we are willing
to offer uh a little bit more flexibility than than happens in the private sector where you're you're doing billable hours and all the things that people in that industry don't enjoy doing um as for the criteria if if the
consensus is to Outsource it which I do think will be more expensive um I don't know a lot of attorneys that work for $230 an hour um I know a lot that start at 300 and go on up to 900 and the more
you charge the faster you work and yeah I'd like us to have in a flexibility in our RFP to potentially harness some of the really skilled people if we go that route but if we have 40 hours a week
dedicated from somebody who may not know as much you got so much time in that 40 hours you can learn it uh and I think there's people who are willing to do that who are coming to the table with a lot of expertise who may want to shift gears um the seven years experience I
guess it was 5 years the recommendation was 5 years experience serving Municipal governments I I'd rather see that shift to 5 years operating in the local government space I can think of a lot of people who I'd be very excited to see
interested in being our City attorney who have no experience uh representing on the government side but have a lot of experience on the developer side on on the you know tangential to this but they know better than us in a lot of
situations and I feel like we have been at a significant disadvantage over the years because the lawyers for the developers are very Savvy and we have an opportunity to get one of them to be just as Savvy back so those are my initial thoughts
council member Buford I think I'm more in a camp of being outsourced I like the idea of having the depth um and experience to their point when you're if you have an in-house City attorney and they do go on vacation what do you do hopefully you
you don't have anything major and from this list that we got looks like most of them do have paralegals um I'm kind of leading in the camp of being outsourced it seems like there's a lot of f flexibility and you're looking
at these firms that are here um I don't know whether to say I saw down here Sanford's going to do they're not doing an RFP they're just going to send a letter of interest to six recommended firms I don't know if that's better if we better off doing an RFP um I mean do you guys have an idea
if you have firms that you would be going after to talk to that's one of the things in in the RFP process you can put it out you can cast a wide net but you can also if you identify firms that you want to to uh communicate directly you can send it directly to them as well so
you have you have the option of doing both you can you can okay and you guys feel you can execute that and have somebody probably lined up by May Mr Hall is end of May end of May
okay that's kind of where I'm at I'm thinking Outsourcing and then I'm fine with the RFP or doing it both ways okay council member Rock so um so one thing you said in the presentation you talked about travel cost our RFP specifically
says we're not paying travel cost is that correct or did I read that wrong uh no I think you read it right okay s so that's not something we're going to have to worry about then but then who's going to want to do it nobody wants their time not to be accounted for I'm just as a person in Industry that's
weird does the current contract we don't charge Trav time no stenstrom does not charge travel right we just bill for the time spent on the projects okay but but you're saying that it's it's customary standard indry customary okay and it's usually a
different rate than the my brain is engaged rate but it's not low right yeah law firms charge absolutely so it says here that um our budget for this year includes 1481 hours
of um well it just says 400 or sorry 1481 hours at1 170 per hour um and that is it it's unspecific about what that is is is that for attorney or is that for attorney
paralal everybody you pay the same for everything is that we only Bill for attorney time we don't bill for paralal time you don't bill for paralal time so there is an undisclosed amount of paralal time that's additional to that 1481
hours no that you you pay attorney time and that's it so it's like free so we get free access to paral we don't yeah I have two legal assistants that work for me but they're not you're not build for them about how much time do you think those those professionals invest so we
can get an idea what it would be attorney time plus the two legal assistants I have they probably spend at least um as much time as they probably
spend one probably spends 25 to 30 hours a week and the other probably 12 to 15 so it's a fulltime job on city of Vito on city of OVO correct doing what I I'm keeping track
keeping track you would be surprised that my my list of projects that that we go through we have a you don't see them yeah contracts and and all the ordinances and so forth so keeping track is is a big job but yeah and and they
proof everything I do um sometimes I actually find it draft and give it to me so I can do it and so forth but uh they do stay busy I do keep them busy but then again the city's not built for the time the firm absorbs that time and and 170 is the rate and that's
that's less than half my normal rate my nor R 350 cuz we've had a contract for a long time 45 years right what's that 45 years yeah yeah and that sounds more like the normal going rate upwards of
300 yeah I'm 350 when I was in Tampa 10 years ago was 550 but that's a bigger firm but yeah the the rate now normal rate is at 350 did you have any more questions I well yes so I'm also kind of hung up on that you would need two all these cities
here they have a City attorney and then a deputy City attorney looking here you know we spent less than fulltime for attorney hours right but then these cities have two and it sounds like it's being proposed that we would have two if
we brought it in house so now you're looking at paying two attorneys but then also pargal is on top of it but you've really only got 1481 hours of attorney work to
do I mean well that that's an average of time you can the large firms like that that the mayor talked about the large firms the one I was with in Tampa was JS of the world we had to build 2,000 hours a year we had to we had to build that so you have to work obviously a lot more
than that to build that so 1,400 is on the really on the low side for billing for an attorney the uh most most most of the law firms require 16,800 hours of Bill Bill years as the mayor and I'm sure I'm sure your husband's passed the bill somewhere in that range right but my
point, 2,000 my point is if we hired two attorneys as it seems like all these other cities do you're buying 4,000 hours of attorney time I don't think that's what's proposed it sounds like it's one attorney plus a pargal to help the attorney May let's let him finish
well okay so I guess I haven't heard anything proposed uh other than what's been hinted at in the presentation right that this is what the other cities do right and and I'm trying to understand why we need so many hours of why we would need
so many hours why we need 4,000 hours when we're currently only using uh 1,400 hours wow like could we get away with with only having one attorney I would think that you would at a minimum you would have one attorney a
pair legal and a legal assistant just based on what Mr Hall has explained to us as far as the services that they provide and so you may not need two attorneys but here once again like I said if that attorney gets sick or that attorney goes on vacation who serves as
your attorney you usually end up Outsourcing while they're gone is what you end up doing um so but I think at a minimum you need one of each a legal assistant a paralal and then an attorney as well you're just trying to tank this
idea so does it and if there's 1400 hours divided by 50 hours 50 weeks so you have two weeks time off it's 28 hours a week and we don't meet multiple times a lot of times we have a month off
a week off in July the attorney can work remotely I every attorney I know Works remotely so the only thing we might possibly Miss is somebody physically sitting here to listen to us at a meeting so if a person comes on board and we say look you just
need to you plan your vacation for July or plan it for December when we're all going to not have a meeting or March a lot of times we'll skip a meeting okay mayor were you done with your questions uh well I guess the only observation I had was you know you talked about faster
work you know some people might charge more money and work faster but there's no way to work faster right now right in this meeting so how much of the how much of the time can actually be accelerated if you were to pay more um on a given week because I know you attend a lot of
meetings here yes yes um it doesn't matter how good you are they still take the same amount of time that's correct billable hours that's correct that's correct yeah what what percentage of your time is is spent in these meetings uh
on an average probably 25 to 30% yeah because you've got Council you got LPA you know we had the charter committee we had the uh the um L con code committee we have the public ours board and all so yeah those
add up those do take a lot of time yeah okay yeah yeah so it's probably 25% and personally I would say as far as you know we can sit here and go over the dollars we could save to the tunes of a th000 or $2,000 or maybe more but as far
as what we're looking at here if we bring in a house I think we're not talking about the risk with that um we could we could get someone really driven and check off all the boxes or we could also not and then we're left without a deep bench um there's so many times where we ask our attorneys questions and
they go back to the rest of their firm and consult years of expertise and and give us a a good answer um and I'm concerned about losing that by not Outsourcing it and I'm also to the point of if we don't have an attorney here and we have to Outsource we're still doing
that um and that costs money so I don't know if that's I guess I don't want to go the cheap cheaper and riskier option um for the sake of losing out on some good council is my concern if that
makes sense what about some kind of hybrid where we see if there's anybody who's qualified who's willing to do it what they might be willing to do it for and if we can't find somebody by May well then of course we've got to find legal counsel
somehow well if I get injected if you anticipate hiring might cheap they won't stay long well yeah we don't want it to be cheap salaries being paid now I quite honestly surprised I don't I I don't follow salaries until we start looking at this to see I mean I I just received
an email the other day uh about a syst City assistant City attorney for Lakeland and the the salary ranges to 166,000 which which is astounding to me for for assistant City attorney but that means the the City attorney is probably making 250 you said 166 166 well our
pitch right now is not really great come work for us you're not getting a paralal and we're going to see how cheap we can get you for I just don't feel like we're going to get the best candidates I I would much rather go through our process of you know what we did for like the audit where we went through and we did
just we looked at cost that was definitely on our scaled sheet but I mean it's a pretty proven process of making sure you get the best um course and maybe someone bids it out as my firm is two people that's the same thing as bringing it in house right um so they could bid um but as far as ranking them
on years of experience on how many cities they've worked with before on knowing what what kind of questions we're going to ask and making sure they have the answers I I see a big benefit of going through the bid process and if you get a crew of two right an attorney and and a paralal that's Outsourcing but
it's also in-house so I think we could kind of knock out both scenarios with an RFP and then go through the process of seeing what works best for that's kind of an hybrid of looking at both it is yeah is there any opposition to doing that so going out
for RFP and you know if if a crew comes in and says it's it's me and my paralal that's essentially inous but they can bid on this and then we can rank them and we could be their sole clients at working 28 hours a week what a deal that will give both scenarios an option to
bid on this process I think yeah if you're if you're looking for that you're going to look forward in torney practicing he was willing to give up his practice to work because I I doubt that a onep person firm with an assistant could do this and still maintain a practice so the rate you would pay the
whatever it is is going to be less than that J could could get running his own firm so you may not get that I say he it should be she as well but they could but they could bid on it that's enti possible there there may may be that that person out there those persons out there but into the level experience
you're looking for you know you you have to take that into account too and I think the mayor's right 5 years seven years is probably a minimum that you need somebody I wouldn't think you'd want a young attorney learn learning on your dime right because it it city is quite involved in of course a big part
of what we do of of the city attorneys is with the development services they probably generate the most work well I I think there's a lot of times where I've seen in the past couple years where we ask a question on the spot and we don't we don't want to wait for an answer so if you don't have that expertise where you can answer on the spot I mean you
only learn that from doing it for so long so but but the the comments that you guys made about Outsourcing with a bigger firm that has the other uh other skills and sets like I said most of what a good part of what I do is development service which is real estate which is my
career I've done I've practiced real estate law for 40 years uh but um you know somebody had just coming in may not have that and will be more difficult for them no question about so is everybody on board with eliminating in the RFP the
requirement to have actually worked with municipalities I think it's something to disclose but to completely rule out anybody who's worked significantly in that you know in that space I don't think we should get rid of that I feel
like we need City experience I mean that's that's what we do here we could rule that person out on an individual basis if you know if we were to get a bid and somebody said hey I've been yeah work for a developer a long time take it but well but if they have a
whole team they could have someone who doesn't have City experience on their team that's fine but if it's an individual like if we're hiring one person and they don't have City experience that goes back to the risk I'm talking about I think that's really risky I don't think it's that risky I I think it shows that a person is
competent enough to be hired by the the public sector and has been able to avoid going to the government which is the easiest the lowest hanging fruit the Le least work as it just this is the reputation in the legal universe that this is the easiest and the cushiest
work um so people who have done the harder things if they're trying to shift shift gears let's welcome them to shift gears with us I I only have one concern and that is conflict of interest
that if they don't have any Municipal background and that all they've done is worked for especially in the development side of things that are they going to be willing to not Venture into that Arena what I would want not want to have
happen is where that they have a conflict where their firms representing an applicant and then they're representing us and so where does the Loyalty lie and but I do understand because having worked with number of the attorneys in this area and
knowing how they operate you're right they would be you would want them on your side and uh but that would be my one concern would be can would they are they able to put aside that private practice in order to do public
work not that's the only thing I'm worried about and um I think um you know obviously what we've recommended is a minimum 7 years experience in Florida with a minimum five uh with Municipal governments uh can we just put it as a
preference and then it's open and again we can sift through them in the bid process the only question or only thought I would throw out is is if you're going to bring some of without experience then probably anticipates is a lower salary and if you do that you're
going to have them for two years and they're going to go to one of the higher payent jobs in cities that you're train you're going to train somebody but why would we pay less I would be willing to pay more like for that meeting with red apple where our our City attorney said you cannot do what the vested rights
certificate says and I don't think you were here for that meeting um but I I am going to be annoyed by that forever because it costs the city $4 million because we got bad legal advice uh and I want somebody who will come and tell us the things we don't want to hear if it's
the legally correct way to proceed and I think a m Municipal background person may just be so used to telling us you whatever you do we'll defend it versus here's what the law is and here's what's defensible based on your actions
so I don't know making it optional seems good I would leave it in leave it in leave it in out out out I mean I mean I still prefer it I prefer it in some ways but well but this is a this is a you can bid
on this and not meet all the requirements and we still get a copy of it isn't that true like they could still bid on this right I I mean if we took it out or made it optional we could still make the determination later when we look at the bids I'm I'm so on board with having it in there I'm really on
offense SP so I'm I I'll just use my own husband as an example he he's not going to apply absolutely not going to because that would be like lots of problems with that but he does not meet these criteria and you will not find a person who would kick honey better at such a job
and I can think of a lot of his colleagues a variety of firms who would kick heiney at this job and none of them meet that criteria but if we want to rule out all of the high performing people I mean this is the way we do
it like split so I well I didn't hear you wanted to do there yeah well what I said was if we make it optional we can always make the determination later so I I would I would be okay with taking it out yeah making that an optional requirement and then we can just look at
it we can see what the applicants look like and um and not be excluding not be excluding people Mr cob as far as sending this out I assume this would work like the auditor practice where we get back whoever wants to apply to this correct
and then we go through the list and rank them all we'll go through them all are you looking for Direction you don't no back up you don't have to rank them that that's going to be things list list ATT Attorney Services is an exemption from the competed bid processing okay you don't even have to competive B it
you could go hire a firm right now if you wanted to you wouldn't have to compete there's no competitive I think the the RFP Pro a good process cuz then you see the applicant pool but if you wanted to go hire a firm right now you could do it and nobody could challenge it it is exemption that was your next
question for direction on how we want to do this correct that was sort of yes and one of the things here as far as this is concerned I mean if we want to I I believe the minimum seven years experience practicing law in Florida I think that's we everybody we're good
there so I mean we could we could state in here that uh minimum 5 years experience representing Florida municipal government is preferred you could say that and you that's one of the things that you do have that you have that flexibility in this process that you don't have to be
rigid you I would like that's fine with me if you put preferred that's a good would that Medium um it says we want it but it opens the door if someone wants to apply if I'm fine with saying that 5 years experience operating in the
Florida municipal government space is mandatory I that to me is what adds value thing Define that I don't I don't know what operating in space means okay well let's we get the idea right um as far as moving on to process um
personally I think you can get the hunch that I would like to go through through a process to evaluating this so we're all on the same page and go through qualities but one of the things that we've talked about is this evaluation criteria and the scoring we don't think you should do that you don't think we
should do that no we don't we don't think you should do that uh what would you prefer we do I think we we would put it out uh as far as asking for these different types of things as far as asking for well the cover letter is normal uh but asking for you know
experience and qualifications and things but not assigning it not assigning a points to it okay and uh then it would be a more holistic approach that it would be based on the value of the proposal and the committee would then be
able to say okay we want to interview these based on you know our review we want our consensus is we we interview these ones what is the what is the difference of doing it that way versus the signing points it's just a little less rigid you're inviting somebody to ch
you okay I mean they say we have the lowest rat so we have to have a lowest score and if their scores may be off you're inviting cuz we went through that with the U with the trash collection a good point so when you when you do that and you're ranking then you're inviting somebody challenge him but but you do
this point system with lots of things so we do when that the point system is is normal and you're not worried about those companies challenging you except that apparently we did have one yeah we did it has happened required by Florida Statutes that we do it in those
situations that reques fla statute because you have to have a criteria then you have to rank them and you and all being equal you have to take the lowest that's not legal services that's not required because it's our discretion you you can go and hire the highest Law Firm rate you wanted to right now if that's
what you choose and nobody can challenge it so okay so moving forward with this because I we at least good on going forward with a bid process as far as you need direction on how we want to review that after the fact or we need to make a committee I think the biggest thing is
we normally are in an RFP process and as you mentioned with the audit committee uh we usually have a group that reviews it uh these services are a bit different in that they work directly with Council and they work directly with staff and so
I guess the question I wanted to ask you was do you want do you all want to serve as the committee do you want to do as we normally do have staff Serv as the committee uh which we would get the high user departments to get involved or do you want some form of a hybrid you know
sort of like we do with the audit committee where we had how many we had two of you then a citizen I think it was yeah it was two on Council and then a citizen and then two staff members I believe okay something like that and and so that would be you know that's one of the things that we would want to find
out from you actually I'd like to know tonight if that's something that what Tye how you would like to see this committee who would be on this committee I do like the hybrid since it works with both of us I'd like to be there the whole process through uh we I have been
frustrated with our legal situation since I got elected and I think we can for what it's worth I think it should be Council Mr Cobb Mr Miss Collins and Mr boot I think that should be your committee the entire Council entire Council Mr Miss K Mr cob and Mr Bo okay
I think and and and and I like I I do like the idea of Staff having input cuz because Mr Cobin is share with directors and so on so forth but attorney works for the councel MH they work for the council it's you know obviously work with Mr CS forth but so my
recommendation is is is Council and then the three other individuals as the committee that makes sense to me good my only problem is again when we're going through this and I don't want to hold the process up there a my day job requires your time and and travel and I don't want to hold the this process so
you can do that by Zoom cuz that's not yes that's even that mean that could be a committee meeting but you know you could probably attend Zoom you couldn't vote obviously if you had to vote on yeah like said I don't want to hold up the process I mean I was F doing hybrid you or I mean you don't you wouldn't
have to be there for everyone you know what you just say he wouldn't have to be there for everyone cuz I mean well what will happen well I would the process I would assume you'll be is you'll get the applications packages in each shall review it and you'll decide who you want to who you want to invite in if any of
for interview you might find one firm you say that's it we don't go any further yeah we don't have to interview we got 20 there probably won't be multiple meetings I would think you'll you'll get a feel okay because Sanford has six Sanford went out for the RP they they've gotten six
responses okay that's all they got they did oh they got six from you guys six recommendations does that help no they got six they got six firms who who submitted to our okay so they already went out and did that they didn't do a formal RFP so they just asked six people
who were recommended they did a request for I I I can't I'm not really sure what they did to be honest with you but it wasn't a formal RFP I think what have I like that we're doing it to anybody who's willing versus pick and
six so maybe we do once we get them all back we have a kind of work session with that committee and then decide which ones you want to whittle down to maybe three that we interview something like that that be that would be my my thinking does that sound good M okay I think we're we're good y have Direction
okay anything else on that topic I think we're good excellent okay we will move on to the fourth order of business which is the West Mitchell hammock water treatment facility
fluoride treatment Mr Cobb okay I'm going to let Mr I come up and uh give you an overview I do have some news for you as well um and that's this right here there
has been a f two bills filed one in the house one in the Senate uh they're both uh agricultural bills uh and this is this is House Bill 651 and what it does it they they say the same thing the language is the same in both uh they add
subsection night to section 40385 2 of the Florida Statutes and it adds a definition for water quality additive and you can see that it means chemical addi chemical or additive which is used in a public water system for the
purpose of removing contaminant and increasing water quality this term does not include additives used for health related purposes which in conventional thinking is that that's the reference to fluoride if you search through these bills with the word fluoride you will
not find it uh so but when you search for water this is what pops up then it also adds a subsection 8 to 43859 talks about prohibited acts and the prohibited Act is the use of any
additives in a public water system which do not meet the definition of a water quality additive and or the use of any additives included primarily for health related purposes once again I think this is to address fluoride uh soide and not
chlorine right right not chlorine okay I believe chlorine would fall underwater quality because it's to remove contaminant just and so the this is what this bill these two bills have been introduced in the house in the Senate and I don't think they've been assigned
a committee yet uh I haven't I haven't been able to find a staff analysis on it yet either and so that's been one of the things that we've been looking for so I wanted to let you know that these bills have been filed in state legislature there is a possibility that if this does get does get
adopted that uh I'm sure there will be somewhere somehow someone makes an interpretation that fluoride falls under health related purposes and uh so but that's that's I wanted to bring that to your attention obviously Mr White here tonight uh to
explain some things that's happening at the water treatment plant right now and just need direction on if we want to go and invest in whole new equipment so I'll turn it over to him well to your point you're bringing this up and I was reading about the Senate Bill 700 which is the other farm bill you know that's that's there yeah which I know you're
going to want Direction on what to do but if we give you Direction this comes to pass well and that's what I was going to suggest that why don't we just table this till after because we're not bad right now right the system's broken it's just it's
an equipment issue right so we got to make a decision on whether or not we repair it or not and we but with this over hanging over our heads if this it could be a waste of $300,000 so can we just table this right now yes is that I mean and and to
explain what's going on hold on one second we have a broken analyzer correct correct and it's $300,000 to fix right now the whole system is in excess in excess of $300,000 to fix it to put it back online so we are not currently putting fluoride in the water right now that is correct so if we wanted to fix
our analyzer we would have to pay $300,000 and right now if we did that and they could ban it 3 months later that would be not a good financial decision regardless of whatever science we're discussing here yes ma'am that is that is accurate from my perspective staff's not going to Advocate one way or
the other from my perspective it's operational it's a business decision either you make the investment to continue the practice or you do away with practice and we have a minor Savings of chemical cost each year okay so I would like to discuss this but as far as what we want to discuss I think
we should table it till after the session since we cannot make a good decision right now based on what the state is doing is there a consensus to table this till afterwards yes good okay and in the meantime there will be no fluoride in the water and we will re that's because
it's not safe with the broken analyzer and if I say this wrong Mr White please correct me it with the broken analyzer we can't say for sure that we're getting the right dosing so right and we get that and again I think the point is is that you
can't you don't want to spend $300,000 to get f and then they pass these two bills and then all of a sudden we got dismantled the thing that's that's exactly it so can we also have consensus to reopen this for discussion if this does not pass yes yes okay good you have
Direction anything else Mr C that was quick direction is no direction I think well we can't really give you one so we are tabling it for now to the answer the the direction is do not move forward with replacing the equipment until we know we know what's going on here and if the
state does not pass this we will have another work session another discussion on it okay I I one were there any other things that were part of your presentation no that you had prepared okay no this is strictly operational from me it's it's what I just mentioned to you yeah we we really just wanted to
know do you want us to move forward with the replacing of the equipment obviously there's lead times involved or do we want to wait and see what happens in Tallahassee and I I just want to make sure we heard all of it yes sir okay yeah there was no formal presentation this evening it was just based off with
some St no I know if there were any more points that you wanted to make that no sir that's well thank you okay with that we will move on to order business number five which is campaign signs and other temporary signs and did you guys want to take a five minute are you guys good
good it's up to you good I'm good you want a minute not not necessarily no all right we'll move on then so campaign signs and other temporary signs okay okay and well one of the primary reasons we're here
tonight is because Mr Brittain needed additional time so um well apparently I apologize um but I will I think one of the things I know when we came before you before and was and Dr P come on up
and when we came before you before we we just basically showed you the um the language and what we and I can understand what what I thought was something was showing the language would would was enough but it then hearing
your reaction so it made me go back and say okay we need to break this down and try to get it into some bullets so that we can obviously we are talking about campaign signs and this is sort of what the front of our polling places looks like uh this is somewhere in simal County I'm not sure where it was but it
was a picture that I did find and currently right now this is this is our our uh our code of ordinances and and if you remember I told you the story about when this came up as part of the as part of the uh the ordinance the ordinance
was to a complete prohibition and during the public hearing for the for the ordinance uh Council said well we would like an exception for election day and so the the city manager and the City attorney wrote in there that there would be an
accept uh is prohibited except for the actual day of primary General in special or special election held in the city and you know and that it can be removed by anyone designated by the city manager and that uh of course and it also talks
about being a violation uh the the thing was is that we off we why did they break this out well we found out why they broke it out it's because these things are addressed in State Statute and general election is the first Tuesday after the first Monday
in November of each even numbered year the primary election is 11 weeks prior to the general election in the special election I I didn't List It All Out it says you can have a special election for there's like five different things that you're allowed to do but so but that is why that this says actual day of the
primary General special election if you remember back in November some of the some of the arguments were well it's it's early voting everyday's election day you know and but when you look at the statutes now there's only only one day of general election there's only one
day of primary election so but taking into account early voting we decided okay we need we do need to change that's what we decided we needed to change and I do have the actual changes with us tonight if you want to go over it but in a nutshell this is what it does it says
that um City properties you is prohibited to put a campaign sign on city property unless it's a polling place these are It also says that a code enforcement officer or an election worker can remove can remove a sign that doesn't comply it can't be placed in
public right away if it's located on C city property the maximum height maximum side is 6 feet uh we we do deserve the right to designate off liit areas which I brought in our famous little signs from November there uh and then as far as the if you put it up take it down
that's the that is the uh responsibility of the sign owner these are the general things that we we uh we put into the amendment to section 30-3 there's also some amendment in the land of Elma code that we're recommending but now for the primary election okay so if the property
is designated as a polling place which we all know a lot of times for primary elections we have the gym Cultural Center sometimes City Hall hopefully Riverside will get back online uh I know that that that has been a traditional one as well so if it is a polling place
now this was one of the things at the last time I know we had discussion and we weren't sure if there was actual consensus for this so uh we left it as it is right now uh with uh beginning two hours before the opening of the polls for early voting and ending one hour
after the closing of the polls on the day of the primary election the whole G the whole goal of this is that the signs won't be uh between the primary election and early voting of the general election uh if we do op the city does have the right to opt out of early voting so if
if we did uh then it would be 5 days prior to the opening of the polls uh for the uh the actual day of the primary election and then removed within one hour I remember during our discussion some of there was some discussion about no let's push it to the day before and
possibly the day after but we weren't sure if we had clear consensus on it and so that's one of the things we wanted to ask tonight and that will go through all of these actually because we pretty much say pretty much the same thing for a primary election for a general election for a special election and but we want
to if if you do want us to say okay let's go the day before let's go the day after for removal then that we wanted to get consensus for that tonight because we didn't feel like we had it uh in the last time uh same thing here with the general election uh got to be a polling
place two hours before the opening on the first day of early voting we try to take early voting into account because the current code doesn't and then ending one hour after the closure of the polls of course the 5 days as far as 5 days before and 1 hour after on the city on
as far as uh if we don't if we don't do early voting same with the special election uh 2 hours before and one hour after the closing of the polls so that's probably the first thing I wanted to ask was I know we had that discussion do we want to expand the
time frame as far as I thought we had consensus on that I was just going to say the same thing I think we did have consensus last time we were just we wanted to I some members wanted to look into the wording to make sure that it's said with what they intended is that correct and I think
that might have been from Sunset the night before till sunrise the day after correct so sunet yep so you could drop off your signs the night before leave them up for the day and pick them up by the next morning and I think that's what we had consensus on if anybody recalls
differently please correct me yeah um and then I think that was for early voting as well as the general election for all of them yep for all of them and and then they were just questioning as far as wording and uh placement correct there might have been some questions on
the right of way versus yeah I I had brought that up I think if the the city's if the city is not a polling place but we own right of way adjacent to the polling place uh that it would meet expectations better if we allowed
the right of way to be used and some kind of perhaps not an unlimited capacity but within X number 100 feet of the polling place but outside of the Zone where you're not allowed to have signs I think sorry can we go back to the timing when do we said the signs to be picked up the night before you could
drop them off and then election day happens and then the morning after you have to pick them up before work starts essentially before a little bit more time maybe at least till midday nah you still got to get around everywhere and pick up all your songs but you you got people at every poll and they pick them
up it's no big deal you think till noon I mean I don't if it's 10: or noon what care that's true there an extra 4 hours it's not a big deal uh is that okay that's okay yes okay so Sundown the night before noon the day
after does that make sense the day after okay so noon now noon yep noon the day after the day after 12:00 p.m. okay that gives you time to go around to all the locations and grab them all okay okay so question for you with the sunet the day before you have people putting up signs
in the dark got to remember that well maybe not for primary because that's in August so you probably have some daylight hours there you want to say six and you have in the November election you're four what's sunset time what we
care do we know you suround well I mean in is it a August 20th this time it's always sunny at 5:00 p.m. 5:00 p.m. it is or 4 4 cuz it's 4:00 somewhere I don't care let's do four is it tip the hat to J Buffet 4 o.m o00 the day before
yeah gives them a little bit of daylight if you're out there at 3:59 you better watch out yeah cuz Sunset if we were to write that in is not until 759 on August 20th in oo save time to get around all the polls okay 4:00 okay so 4:00 400
p.m. and then day standard and then 1200 p.m. the day after the day after daylight time time in a they were like wait did the time change all right so as far as as far as placement I think that was the only thing we really had a question on was
are we going to allow them in the right away for these special elections I guess the big one is and they're going to put them there anyways yes they will put them there anyway so we should create limits that are are sensible limits in my research I didn't find any City that
allowed them in the RightWay oh but they're in every city they are right but they're there they're there so so the I think the biggest issue is what what's actually going to be in forced because that's where it was um well there was a
difference in expectation this this last time right I mean there were a bunch of signs they all got picked up and argument was made that well they've always been there in the past well Mr Hall can we allow them in the right way because that is the right question that it's up to this Council yes so can we just do that standand up there anyways
well hang on a second not everywhere just in front of the location that's not what we were told previously in my recollection did you say something Mr cob about the the state prevents us from doing that or these no our code prevents
us for doing that right the the code but we can change the code this is already an exception to the code for these specific days for for okay so there's no State issue with being in the right away no okay maybe I misunderstood previous conversation so does anybody have an issue well let's first of all go with
the right away um on Election Day is that okay and then what restriction do we want to put to that just in front of the polling location property how many do we need to specify that could we say and this is really getting into the
weeds one sign that looks like that per location it's never going to happen I know I know but that would be phenomenal wouldn't it just one from everybody okay if someone breaks that how is our code enforcement going to say this sign can stay in this can well then you say these
match these ones match so I'm taking all but the one each candidate one yeah I know I think that's too much be so may I ask a question are we saying that we're going to allow um signs in the right way
during the three um election periods so early voting yes so that that yeah I guess that's the question because I heard well Lou in the rideway on Election Day the whole time any would be
the same time as far as up as far as before all the way through but would it be just the limits of the property of the polling place yes and we we'll say that but we know it's not going to be but how do you define that the limits of the property
of the polling place I would say let's take the property line to property line of and you're counting across the street as well so for example the oh it have to be on that side that's cuz I would have gone either side yeah I I would say only
on the the adjacent to the property I mean if you're talking about in the right of way it would be the adjacent to the property now everybody wants to go across the street I'll tell you they like both sides sure yeah people drive both ways yes they do exactly so this is I will say this even
though we have a pro we're we're recommending that it' be prohibited but you're still allowed to hold them you can hold them in the right way well yeah but that's a very different thing yeah oh can't be three places at once for you to say that but no I I can tell
you my favorite was the lady out in front of the gym she she uh she had the sign planted in the rideway and as soon as she'd see a car coming she'd jump out of her chair and run over and grab it mm and then with the car would leave she'd sit it back down and she'd go sit down
again so you know so to that to So to that there um there was somebody who was an election worker was telling people that their sign could not be touching the ground like you can hold a sign right but if if you're holding the sign and the sign is touching the ground now
that's a violation is that something we could because that seems ridiculous to me cuz had that told to me you have a person with a sign at City Hall that I can't put my sign on the ground because it's city property right well that's why we're trying to that's what we're doing
we're try yeah but are we addressing that as well and one of the things too is that the there is a rental agreement there's an agreement between the city and the in the elections office and there are boxes that said yes we will allow signs on the property no we want
and we've always checked no no signs on the property and so with making these changes we would then uh we would be able to say they're allowed during these times you know so that would be and then
the election workers would know obviously we have the what is it 150 ft from the front entrance of the polling place they put their sign that's touch some so you can't put anything so the election workers would remove anything from there uh from that point uh to the
um basically to the property line you would be able to put signs up because the city would allow it during those time frames and so the question becomes now do we allow it in the right of way you make a good question my thought is it's only there the right of way
immediately adjacent to the property but do we want to stretch it all the way across cross to the other side but even if I can add even if it's just um in our property on our side um for instance the our campus goes you
know until clar Lee Evans right so that the whole area would be adjacent to the polling site uh we just need to expect and it's it's a level of comfort a lot of clutter for during a long time period
there will be issues there may be issues with line of sight right so if you have a lot of you know signs blocking entrance and then we have to be careful with Ada as well so no City careful with what Ada with sex ability right can
obstruct the sidewalk not obstructing sidewalk or or access um for us it has always been right away it's a no right because it's not allowed in the in the LC if there were times that signs were
there and Court enforcement did not have time to pick up that's the only you know possibility that I see that people put signs in the right way we enforce right away not only us all the cities that we research and with 30 cities around all the cities in SEO County do not allow
signs in the right away so for us it's a huge precedent of course we will follow whatever direction from Council but it may raise other issues that's what I'm saying line of sight is is a big one it's a big one and we did not control I know I was looking specifically at that hey if this is here you can't see around
this corner it's dangerous you can't see that light for example can we fix this with an easy handout I mean can we say you can put it in the RightWay in front of polling locations and then the city clerk can put in the packets when you file a highlighted section in front of
each polling location that they allowed to put signs that's only when it hit that's hit Municipal yeah it's not going to hit you ones outside the okay and those are the on you're going to show up and line the right of way so but those can be picked up right those what those can be picked up the out of out of City ones and in this last election they were
they were and it upset everybody and that's why we're having this discussion great we're trying to make it actually works so what or we could say 250 ft from both sides of the no sign sides of the whatever the supervisor puts out or something like that like restrict it
that way does that make sense well that might be a little bit too big uh some of the people some kind of well even if it's just in front like the Library as an example to mark that this is a polling location look at this festive thing happening here we have some
political signs I I get the argument for this helps people realize that they have arrived at the place to vote um and and I think that as to both sides because it's a narrower Street on ID Boulevard we're always early voting there too that's a way oh you have broader on
Boulevard you have signs stretching all the way up to 419 because they want to hit the corner yeah and and that I there's got to be some way to limit that because it's from where it looks like the properties like the driveways to the driveway like and you have enough space
mhm that it should be in front of the polling location like only in front of it so how do you do that when it's do we own we don't own all the way to 419 right no we don't no so do we own just a little bit past the driveway so we can we could have code enforcement go get
off uh Yes actually the the good news is at least in there we on both sides of the road cuz we could let people put them in the median which is you a whole other so let's just let's just go with the property line and then if it's not on the property line they pull them up and as far as clutter it's a couple days
I guess I guess that's a big question if if you if we're going to if we allow in the right of way is it on both sides that's the big question I I I'm okay with sideline to sideline that's F think we may have Bryant but is it on both sides they're
going to do it both sides and be upset out of town people at least yeah but then we may upset the the property owner on the other side right we allow but not if it's in the right way if it's in the right way now blocking if it's blocking their sign
they blocking definitely have language that it won't be blocking the sidewalk why don't we just say polling location property because across the street if it's still City you're fine and if it's not they know they can't put it there or if they do we pull it up doesn't that make it easy like as far as constraining it what what
are you proposing on I think on this I'm starting to like more and more on the same side is where the B that seems that seems sensible okay that's enough so then the go ahead so then the issue is on this property that's a corner that there's
the line of sight at the corner that they're 3et high really not a line of sight issue Mr I actually we may be able to pull something from our current sign code because we we do actually in our current sign code do not allow certain signs to
be I think one I think I think it's like they have to be at least 75 ft from the corner so I mean we can set upt we can set up we can set up things like if it's a corner that no sign can be placed within so many feet of the corner we can do that L comes a long way here
if it if it blocks the line of sight our code enforcement can pull it I mean that's a safety thing yeah and then we going to be criticized said we have picking up so put in there as long as it does not block line say done I mean good yes and so that that's
easily I mean is that easily enough defensible against uh you know complaints about hey you pulled my sign up and it should be legal and maybe we would have to provide like a some graphics to say we might and we'd have no setbacks cuz uh
when you you if you're if you're doing city council you get the thing says you know it needs to be set back five feet and so we're basically creating it all rules are off you put them in the right of way with 0o in set back as long as it does not interfere with the line of
sight is that where we're heading with this like I think that's the goal that's what I'm hearing okay I'd say also not blocking the sidewalk cannot encroach on the on the side can't mess with Ada can't mess with line of sight or safety issues and this also could be be a
free-for-all for all the pressure washing people and everything else or are we saying that this is commercial speech and that that would be commercial speech okay so commercial speech is not just just for for free speech yep okay first amendment I think we got there I think we're good are we good or we all
on the same page that that takes care of the code of ordinances do do you need us we can make the same changes to the Land Development code is there do you need me to run through the Land Development code changes no I mean I think this is essentially what everybody does anyways we're just making it a code and so there's one more thing that everybody
else does that is unclear right so the the right of way actually extends beyond the sidewalk right in almost everywhere everywhere that I'm aware of right sorry I did not hear your your question okay so uh the right of way actually extends
beyond the sidewalk so farther than the sidewalk from from the street um there are a lot of places around town where people will just stick a sign on um trying to get it in between what they think is the RightWay and the
property uh line for whatever home business wooded area whatever that is and it my understanding is that code enforcement doesn't pick up anything that's beyond the sidewalk or it seemed that that was the case uh code enforcement does not pick
up anything in private property so there is no in between private property right away I know there not yeah yeah legally speaking legally yeah but there there does seem to be a place where signs don't get picked up right so beyond the
sidewalk not in the private property or some of them end up all the way on the private property um without the private property owners knowledge private property owner's knowledge and so you know I know you can't send well there is code right I mean code is that you can
you can only do these certain things so there is a certain amount of Code Enforcement can happen on private property right and this would be a place where so they would notify the property owner they would not pick up signs on private property they pick up signs on
public right away if it's ours right we can pick it up but they would notifi if there is a sign in the private property that is not conforming then they there is a Code Enforcement process for that right the The Code Enforcement Officers will notify the property owner and will give
a courtes a letter if they do not respond then there will be notification um and if they don't respond they will go are you talking about where there is a space where we know up and down 426 we know that the right of way extends to the property side of the
CLE we know this and and I watch signs just litter both s both places that I am certain are right away and our Code Enforcement Officers could pick up is that what you're speaking to the parts that we all know are the right of way don't enforce and I mean even like on
Lockwood in front of the shopping center there right I mean signs show up kind of right on the edge of the flower bed on the on the property owner side of the sidewalk yet we know that the sidewalk is not the edge but rather 6 ft beyond the sidewalk in in some cases the side
the edge of sidewalk is the property line in a lot of cases it is that but you're right there are some areas on mainly on major roadways where you might have especially like with storm water storm water involved you the ride of void May expand beyond the back of the
sidewalk but in in most cases it is the back of the sidewalk but like wooded areas stuff like that you know you're saying the property owner the property owner could be out of state that whole process takes oh a few weeks the election's over by that time yeah and people get away with it
right well that's what I'm saying is there anything can be done about anything like that and sounds like no not not the way that and it's like I tell folks all the time code enforcement process is set up to protect the Violator and they make it they the the chapter is it
262 um it it is actually written to make it difficult to prosecute it really is and well and not that you'd want to prosecute the well I think I think we have consensus for what we need for tonight so I'm going to move this on okay that's fine um so we're going to move on to
item number six which is the discussion of the definition of family Mr cob okay actually I'm I'm going to turn it over to Dr K I'm I'm going to try to drive the the PowerPoint for her and uh I'll let her why this this coming up we got a
request from the mayor to to bring it back and uh if you remember we did have a discussion about it in it was probably last last last spring yeah and so mayor asked us if we would revisit it and so we wanted to bring this to you uh to
have this discussion and see if you're interested in uh changing our current definition of family I'll turn over Dr CRA yeah so we had this discussion last year as part of the LDC um um rewrite at that time there was no consensus from
Council to change um the family definition and basically what um the discussion was is to increase the number of unrelated persons leaving in the house so our definition definition of for family says that one or more persons
related by bludge marriage or adoption exclusive of of uh family servants occupying a single dwelling unit and living as a single household hold unit as distinguish from a group occupying A Boarding House lodging House hotel or
motel or fraternity or sority so that would be the definition of family and then we allow in the code um um a group of not exceeding three uh persons occupying the dwelling that is not related to you know by blood or you know
by marage marriage um to live in the house other cities and we research in the other um slides show um other cities veryy from 3 to five unrelated of person so um the mayor
requested that we brought it back to discussion um I think she would like to see an increased amount is that right mayor so that is um up to discussion today I can tell you it's very hard to
enforce already the three um usually we enforce um or people complain about the Nu senses that are created by the unrelated people so more more traffic more trips more cars in the house
sometimes noise I requested our Cod our code enforcement supervisor to give me the uh research from the five five uh five past years how many cases we had we had 26 cases related to um um uh the
definition of family so people uh complaining that uh um there appeared in that house to have more cars uh so the family or that they were renting places um rooms um and we could only um
identify as a violation three cases out of the 26 complaints so the only risk that there is um that you if you increase you know the unrelated persons then you probably increase the number of trips and and uh and um U parking um U
issues and then we have we'll have more complaints but it's a very hard case to substantiate the violation just because we cannot get into the house or we cannot ask for a rental agreement if people are not willing to offer that to us do I recall correctly that those
three cases were like causing major problems with parties and Noise is that correct wasn't this yes no right the the one I do know of one case in Twin Rivers uh the the house was across the street from the chairman of our code
enforcement board at the time and it was uh three young men who got who then became three couples and they got um they threw a party and that was enough uh the second
one was yeah once again we had six people in a home and they ended the end the semester they were students ended the semester had a party it was 3 weeks before finals and they had to leave um the third one they had to leave is that
to leave yes what does that mean had to leave the premise the city kick the lease was invalid the lease was invalid yeah so it it's sort of like if you if you allow somebody in Ovito to you you have four people rent a house it's kind of like you've made a contract to sell
cocaine like it's just not legal so nobody will uphold it uh and and that's my my motivation for bringing this back is cuz we have a lot of four-bedroom houses in this area and even in the three-bedroom houses the primary bedroom
suite is designed for two people so going to four or even five uh you know for a four-bedroom house that to me is not an over over stuffing of a house but this is in addition to the family right so if there is a family living there
then it's you're allowing three additional or four additional five additional unrelated persons to live in the house the three cases that we got um recently so this I I asked um Shakira to bring me the Last 5 Years so the three
cases one was the the case that we had some drug activity so that was you know we could prove that there were unrelated people living there but the house had more issues that a case uh was a Cod enforcement case another one was
an Airbnb that um you know uh was brought to our attention and uh the third one was U um um a rental house that um the property manager did not know that the tenant was um uh bringing
additional people in the house so they uh when they um when the city contact them they um um evicted the the tenant in all of these cases it sounds like there's an other thing we could
have code enforced that was not just the people living there is that correct like like as far as like drugs I mean that's illegal as far as like a party we have a noise ordinance in case of in case of the
party um at least the two times that I'm aware of when when there was a party uh there was the the complaint was that it was continuous you know even though we only they only finally called it mean like multiple days or what it
weekly they more than okay like the party house and there there was a party house having a party last Saturday so I had to turn on the brown noise at my own house yeah but even if the party is continuous I mean we have a noise ordinance well
they a lot of times most of the time we get complaints about it's because there's too many cars you know they well people turn into six people and they have cars you know we have a city street and City street allows parking on it precisely that's the point so the 26
cases that we had only three we could constitute as a a code violation cu the other 21 they it's just cars parked and if they are parked on the public Street you know in the proper place there is no
violation so we're not going out and searching people who have three roommates so four people in a house no it's it's all based on complaint yeah starts with a complaint that there's too many cars and then somebody knocks on the door presumably asks for ID or we're
allowed to get the lease we usually contact the property owner so you contact the property owners contact and then someone will tell the property owner that their lease is invalid we find out that they've they're violating the code yes we'll tell them that uh they're violating the code and
that they need to get the house in compliance well but most of the time they're going to say no there is no I'm not leing this is my the sister of my wife my whatever you know they can say whatever they want we cannot trespass
and get into the house to check if you know it doesn't sound like this is a big issue we got three cases happen over 5 years I I don't why I think that's exactly the reason why we should change it to five because it's always extra stuff and then the
government can get a little bit less out of the business of defining family yeah I think if people want to live there the downsizes is that we may have more complaints more cars on the street more TR trips that kind of that we
cannot do much about it they're already doing it I don't think people are making their decision on how many people in the house on our ordinance code I think it's by how many bedrooms they have to be I mean to be honest I mean as far as enforcing it I I agree with you like when it becomes a problem it's nice to
have as a almost like a tool but I I don't see an issue with four I mean it's about what should somebody be able or allowed to do with their house by right right I mean that's the ultimately the question here and whether people do
it and they violate and it's not a big deal I mean we should make it we should make that decision so that I do think if we're going to discuss changing that we should have all five people here so since we have discussed this in the past so okay well if we have three people who
are cool with going a little bit more maybe bring it back in that contest context I mean I would just prefer to wait um and have full Council for this one I don't have an objection to bringing it back though okay I'm okay waiting for Mr BR yeah that's fine okay
all right so good we're GNA we're going to hold off on this one we're going what I'm sorry we're going to hold off on this one hold off okay all right I do not have any other order of businesses on here does anybody have anything else Mr C I have nothing
Deputy Mayor does anybody else have anything else okay then at 7:32 I will adjourn this meeting thank you very good this kick in the can could been a l longer