Oh man, start. >> I'm trying to I haven't got a response from see if she's coming. But I was >> Hey, Ricky. >> No, she's back. >> How you doing, buddy? >> She had to go pick her back today. So, >> not as good as you. >> I'm just outstanding's tough. I'm just
good. I'm pretty baseline good for a Monday. >> Yeah, for her Monday. getting splendid >> from it was my first day back so it was just straight fire. >> Yeah, those are always fun. >> Okay, I'm going to go ahead and get her possibly, but we're not showing her ETA,
so I'm going to get started. Right. Good evening, everyone. It's 6 PM. I'd like to go ahead and call tonight's meeting to order. It's August 3rd, 2026, and this is our workshop meeting. Maryanne, can I get roll call, please? >> Mayor Young, >> here. >> Vice Mayor Painter
>> here. Council member Brandon, Council Member Sartorii >> here, >> Council Member Stone >> here. >> Thank you. Our first agenda item tonight is to consider property casualty and workers comp insurance renewal renewal alternatives. Katherine,
good evening, mayor, council members. Thank you for having me this evening. Per our previous workshop, we introduced the state of the market and I was asked to bring Garen Group back with our renewals from FMIT
and we're very fortunate that they were able to get the information back to us sooner than we were expected. So I have Rammy here with us this evening, the senior consultant with Garing to go over those renewals and some alternatives and answer any questions that you may have.
Um, so I would like to introduce to her you now. Okay, good evening, mayor, vice mayor, council. Good to see you all. I know I missed the last session. I apologize for that, but I know that my co-orker and colleague Rodney did a great job just kind of explaining where things were at.
And as Katherine said, we did receive the villages renewal as well as some alternatives to help meet that target of reducing um that budget line item. So, in your packet, you do have our traditional evaluation spreadsheet that you've seen probably the last few years,
for as long as you all have been on the council. Um, you'll note that we list the current program to the left side of that evaluation and then every other alternative, including the renewal, is listed to the right. What we do is we do highlight plan design benefits or
enhancements in blue and plan design decrements in red. So you'll see a couple of those things on your screen. We also highlight some of those changes with respect to your exposures just to give you an idea of why those numbers may look the way they do. [clears throat]
So to get into it um the asis renewal with FMIT. So this is your property liability auto and workers compens compensation insurance renewal. You will see that the overall package came in at just under a 7% increase. This holds
your program the same. does not alter your property insurance or inland marine schedules, does not alter your auto schedule. The majority of what you're seeing here um and the increase is as a result of the workers compensation insurance. We did review that during the
um the previous workshop to let you know that it was expected that the villages, excuse me, experience modification was going to increase and it did so significantly. That is as a result of um two open large claims. one about
$490,000 incurred and one um about $218,000 incurred. One of those is a statutory benefit for a heart and lung claim. So that is probably going to be with the village for some time. Those typically do not close um in a short
period of time due to the nature of the class of employment that it affects. [laughter] The other was, you know, one of those things that may or may not be avoidable, but was definitely also a workplace injury that um did require some intense
services to mitigate the injury. So, you'll see that that number is about 29 basis points higher than it was in the previous year. So, that's how the experience modification factor was calculated and came out. In addition to that, your payrolls um are expected to increase about 4% year-over-year when we
look at FY27 budget. So outside of the workers compensation line, which in and of itself was a 35% increase, you'll see that the property insurance actually did decrease as is. It was a 10% reduction, which was in line with where we thought the market was going to come in for a single line carrier. And then you had
some slight adjustments to your liability and auto coverages. And that's again within the ranges that we would expect given where market trend is today thankfully or not thankfully. We're not sure how next year's session is going to go. But the governor did obviously veto
that um the bill that passed through both chambers with respect to sovereign immunity caps. So that did save us a little bit with respect to where these numbers came back. So on the next page you will see the renewal alternative. This is when we start to see some adjustments to premium based on changes
to the program. So first at the top we submitted I think about eight assets to potentially remove from your property insurance schedule. It reduces the total insured value by just under 3.1 million. Um those were some hardened assets. So a
few water treatment plant assets. Two of which being large um water gallon storage tanks that are concrete encapsulated that just contain water. Um, some of the others were some parks and wreck type assets that potentially um have low exposure when you think
about the perils that the the policy covers, fire, lightning, um, and windstorm, particularly the tennis and pickle ball, asphalt courts. I'm sure some of that value derives from netting, but those can be removed. So, kind of in the line of what potential assets could
you remove? I know that was a question from the last meeting. So, we did submit the potentiality to remove a few assets from the schedule in order to reduce, excuse me, the premium on that line. So, that adjustment is roughly, let me go back to where I was at the front page.
It's roughly $48,000 um to remove those eight assets. It's about an 8% reduction to your total insured value. The biggest change would be with regards to the workers compensation program. FMIT did quote an
option as requested to put in a deductible um on those claims. So, this is not a standard deductible where it's assessed per claim. This is actually a deductible stop-loss, which is a little bit more favorable to the village. It would cap your deductible expenditures
at 10,000 per policy period rather than per year. And when we look at your claims, um your average claim outside of your high cost claims doesn't necessarily reach that deductible. So that would be a retention that the village would end up probably seeing come out as an expenditure, but for the
large loss claims, it would certainly, you know, cap maybe at one of those claims. So I thought that that was a pretty good option for you considering, excuse me, again, the amount of premium that that would save. I believe that was about $36,000 off the renewal. So, um,
this alternate one option does come in under the current budget, but not quite at that $100,000 savings that you were looking to achieve. It is about a 2% decrease under current when compared to the renewal. However, it is a little bit more um obviously we can't necessarily
compare it [laughter] to the current program because we have to factor in that we have some new figures. So, if we compare this alternate option to the renewal asis, it's about an $84,000 savings. so close to that $100,000 target just if you look at it a different way. So then the second
alternative that we provided um does adjust one more thing to your schedule. So in addition to removing those eight assets we covered, it does increase your name windstorm deductible from 5% to 10%. Um obviously on a full TIV basis
that seems like a large number. I think what we typically look at is your probable maximum loss in a one in 250ear storm. That's close to 7.4 million. So you're looking about a 300,000 $375,000, you know, possible retention to the
village in order to achieve premium savings. Now, you know, the net savings isn't really there when you look at premium to the potential retention on the village. However, um the probability of a storm is obviously volatile whereas the premium savings is fixed. Um so
immediately delivered to you. That does reduce um again another about $86,000 from where the renewal figure is. So thought that that was a good option to share with you. Again, if we compare this alternative to your renewal option,
it's actually about $123,000 in difference um in net savings there. So, I have kind of explained what changes we're presenting to you. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have, entertain any other potential, you know, discussion with respect to where
we can go with the program to help achieve that savings target. >> Thank you, council. I'll open it up for discussion. >> Um, thank you. Great work. Um I guess question for Jeremy and Katherine if you're involved with responsible for
this what's your gut tell you? I mean um the increasing the to 10% is a little bit scary because that's you get that liability um amount that's could deplete anything that we would ever have. Um [clears throat] what what's your I just
want to know what your opinion is. So going off of and I'm just going to give you a couple points. Uh going off of kind of what the mayor has talked about in the past about, you know, being very conservative with storms and and name storms and hurricanes and having the
money to be able to sustain that like that that 10% that you're talking about that that worries me a little bit. Um uh I mean I guess it depends on what your goal is. If you're trying to save money, obviously we we you would go with the option two. If you're trying to, you
know, be as conservative as we can, we'd stay with our current plan. So, it just depends on where you guys want to fall. But I I think, you know, from what Katherine and and Gary brought back some options, I think that was the intent and and so >> it's up for discussion.
>> Um I'd like to hear what the my colleagues up here um what their input is because insurance is really not my strong point. Um I'll be the first to admit that, but you know, I have a concern. I mean, yeah, I'd like to see that we can cut the
premiums and some of the options give us a, you know, a chunk, but um I'm say I too am concerned about the increase of the uh deductible and that scares me because that could wipe out anything that we have and we might need to hold on to
those. You know, the landscape could change in November, but right now I'm a little bit concerned about increasing the deductible. So, >> the only other comment that I had that I was going to bring up is, you know, I know we took we took the playground off
of off of this. I mean, with our current playground, probably not a huge deal, but if we if we're going to put in, you know, a $600,000 playground, you know, we may want to make sure that that's that's incurred. And I think we can probably do that at a later later time if we do change that next year if we
continue, you know, down that path. Um, but other than that, I just wanted to make sure I mentioned that one as well. >> Can you do we know I think you said seven assets were removed? >> I believe it was eight from that schedule. Um, they are listed in that attachment. It is the tennis
>> hard to read. >> The tennis courts on county line, the two water storage tanks at the water treatment plant, um, high service pumps, which they're very low elevated off the ground. Most of it is, um, pumps actually and pipes underground as well as the transfer pumps. That's the
multiplay at um Constitution Park. So that is the large structure there. And then we did take one of the other small wellhouses off the schedule consistent with what we've done in the past. >> Okay. >> So I guess one, two, three, that is seven. >> Those make the most sense. >> Yeah. I mean, we thoroughly went through
the last asset survey to just to get eyes on what these assets look like to again go through the policy and determine which exposures really were present and whether or not those justified premium being paid for those assets. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Certainly the water storage tanks, I
would advocate to take those off of the schedule any day just because they're just large concrete storage tanks and I know they're elevated, but it would take a heck of a lot to crash into that to really cause damage to it. So >> that's all I have right now. Thank you. >> And then just further to Jeremy's point,
at any point in time during the policy period, if you felt like there was really a need, you can endorse assets back onto the schedule at any point in time. Obviously, they would prorrate some premiums. So we would be looking at a different number year end, but that is a possibility and available. >> Thank you.
>> You're welcome. >> So help me understand. I think you guys have done an incredible job um over the years of being a great partner with with the village of Tquesta. Um, and one of the things I just want to understand just for for my purp personal side of things in my industry, I have to kind of identify if there's any conflicts of
interest. >> Do you guys have any conflicts of interest? >> No, not with the FMIT or any of the carriers that we represent. We're completely agnostic. >> Perfect. Thank you. Um, you mentioned something earlier um with regards to a total wipeout from a big storm. You mentioned a number of around 7 million.
Can you explain go further into that? I was going to ask that question. So, thank you. >> Yeah, sure. Absolutely. So after Hurricane Ian, and there's been some adjustments since, so we haven't done one of those in the last two iterations, but after Hurricane Ian, both of the large U modeling
um software systems updated the way that they look at storms and incorporate surge data in that. So after you know 2022 when that occurred the RMS 23 version came out and when that study was done based on the assets that the
village does schedule the potential maximum loss model about 7.4 million for a 1 in 250ear storm that was about an Ian size um and what it carried. So when we talk about probable maximum loss, that's the maximum probable loss in one
of those storms, you know, with that, you know, 1 and 250 year potentiality. So that's a number that, you know, the market typically looks at if they're trying to underwrite coverage, if you're going in a standard market to see where you should set your limit ultimately. Um, that's what we look at to kind of
gauge again what that risk retention would be if you were to move your deductible. >> Okay. Yeah, that makes total sense. So in theory, >> worst case scenario for a large storm in here, >> well, I can't say that because you never know, [laughter] but the way that it models,
>> case, everything gets destroyed, $34 million gets destroyed. Yes. Right. So three So 10% of that is 3.4 million. >> Correct. >> But the high likelihood of that happening is extremely rare and probably has never happened before in reality. >> Correct. So I'll give you an idea with regards to hurricane
>> real quick. I'm sorry, council member if you don't mind because I it's along lines of the questions you're asking and I want to clarify we're talking about the name storm for wind. Can you also as you're answering this question um uh appine if that includes flood because I know sometimes flood is different
depending on how the flooding happens during a storm. So can you put that into your >> adjuster is going to look at what the root peril is and if it is a name storm it would fall under your name storm deductible. However, if it were a deluge, just, you know, a a normal
rainstorm that came through or another event that caused flooding, I mean, we don't have a lot of dams or leaves here, but in a situation potentially where the inter coastal, you know, flooded, that would be subject to a different deductible. So, most of your assets are not in I actually don't think any of
these assets are in a special flood hazard area. So, it's subject to your um aloe apparel's deductible of $100,000 if you do um or uh do result or if that does result in damage. Sorry. Um but I was going along the lines of to give you an example of Hurricane Ian. So, we have
a very large county over on the West Coast that actually was directly impacted by Ian. Their total insured value at the time on the policy was like 500 and some odd million. They did experience about $44 million in damage. So that's kind of the, you know, and they had a lot of surge damage.
Obviously, that was a very significant storm that nobody really expected um as a result of the surge water coming in, but that gives you an idea. And they've actually been hit by probably two or bigger storms that hit Florida with a lot of large losses. And again, in a 500 plus million dollar insured value,
they've only um susceptible been susceptible to I think paid losses were 46 and the one and 44 in Ian. So that just gives you an idea of what that gap could potentially be. And that's what the PMLs are there for, the probable maximum loss studies. >> Sure. And and that makes total sense. So the way I think about deductibles is
more long-term >> and not something from year to year to year, but I bet you if you look over a period of 10 years, 15 years, if you looked if you had a 10% deductible, how much that would have saved the village over that period of time, it probably been significant. Yes, a storm might happen next year and it's going to come back and bite us in the butt, but if you
keep it for 20 years, it will pay itself off. >> That's the way I kind of look at and if I'm looking at that differently, and maybe I shouldn't, please speak up. >> No, no. I think that you're, you know, in the in the lines of where do you weigh your risk tolerance, right? What do you look at? You have immediate savings and then you have the
potentiality for loss, >> right? Mhm. >> And so the way I look at it is we potentially have call it worst case scenarion worth of a deductible that could happen next year because of or this year because of a large storm. And that's I think extreme. Um >> so I will say that there is another
deductible option in between that I didn't present to you but I do have figures because I figured maybe we might get on this topic. So there is the the option to implement a 7 and 12% deductible which kind of splits it in half. If we look at the um if we're
looking at that one where we take off some of those assets, I believe the additional well the differential is about $19,000 under where um it would be at 5%. So it's not quite as high as the 38,000. It's kind of a split. Um so
instead of you know saving that 86,000 on that line, you'd probably be looking at something like 567. So that's another option. I can certainly put that together and we can get that to you in terms of what a final figure dollar-wise and percentage-wise
that would look like if you want to see that option. I'm happy to do that. And that may be like a nice middle ground to where you're adjusting it a little bit. You're still saving some money in premium, you know, and we're not doubling our retention at that point.
>> And Jeremy, correct me on the bun that we have set aside for hurricane. Is it currently at a million or 500,000 here? 500,000 water. >> Yeah. The second one it's a million dollars. $500,000 from the general fund, $500,000 from the water utility. >> Okay. So, that tell that tells me that
we're we're locked and loaded, ready to go and could cover a 10% anytime. So, I'm in favor of the 10% um deductible. >> Okay, those are very good questions. Um
so not [clears throat] never uh my desire to purchase insurance for insurance but >> is there any type of like deductible buy down programs for something like this that would be wouldn't be cost prohibitive you know like let's say we went with alternative for 905
>> and there was a secondary uh product out there that would not so let's say I don't know what the premium could be but it would make sense to purchase a secondary insurance instead of going with the 5% deductible program. >> So there are products in the standard
market. You'd have to shop that. So that would be outside of FMIT. They don't offer a deductible buy down, but there are products out in the standard market with like an Everest for example, US markets, London markets. I don't know what the pricing on those would be, particularly because you're already at,
you know, a kind of a lower percent and dollar value. Because when we look at deductible buy downs, we're talking about like entities that have 75$100 $150 million deductibles. So the appetite for that in the market and the premium that they may want to charge just to even take that on or even try to
underwrite that um as a part of their program, I'm not going to say it wouldn't be beneficial, but I just don't know that there would even be an appetite for that. >> Okay. Just curious. Um, >> yeah. I mean, I'm I'm leaning more
towards where Council Member Stone is. I mean, it's 10%'s a lot, but I don't think it's something we couldn't survive. God forbid it did happen. And um the premium is certainly a lot more attractive. >> Yeah. And I do just want to caution
though, there are obviously a slew of assets that are not covered under the policy. So, those are fully self-insured. So, that's just something to keep into consideration as well. Those are the ones you would have removed from the schedule or you mean even in addition? >> In addition to correct. Yeah, because we only currently schedule assets are valued over $100,000. Most of it's going
to be your property in the open. So, not large structures which are obviously much more susceptible. Um, FMIT does provide that blanket non-scheduled property in the open coverage available to you. What's your TIV at? 340. So, it's probably somewhere around 350,000. Um, and it provides coverage up to
$25,000 in assets. So there is a little bit baked into the program, but that's just again if you guys are really wanting to to shop and talk this out, there are assets that are not currently, you know, a part of this program that would be fully self-insured if if damage does occur. >> What would be an example of one of those
assets like a >> So I mean there's there's a couple of water treatment plant assets. Um I would say most of it's going to be, you know, parks, >> okay? um park type assets, you know, the benches out front, you know, things like
that. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> We did look at the schedule carefully, too, because I think there was another asset that I was like, "Oh, maybe we can take off." But once you remove a a building or a structure from the policy, that blanket limit's not afforded. So, we kind of kept that in mind as well to
make sure that there was at least some protection still wrapping around those assets. >> Okay. And you said with the alternative that was the 7 and a half% that would be roughly like >> so if we're looking at a savings so yeah if we're looking at 905 we'd probably
add about 20 grand to that so 925 in that you know looking at that tiv on alternative number two removing the assets. Yeah. I mean, I think at that point I would just go with alternative one just >> Right. I know. Yeah. You're kind of splitting hairs at that point. So, um
>> options are nice. So, I appreciate that. >> No problem. Yeah. I just figured while we're up here talking, I mean, there are more. [clears throat] >> I don't have any other questions. I I think first of all, great job. I should have said the beginning. [laughter] >> Sorry. Um,
yeah, I I think uh I'm not obviously no one's a fan of big deductibles, but I think considering our preparation and the relative risk, I I can get comfortable with 10%. Given
that the premium's, you know, $40,000 less than the alternative. >> Um, but let me I'm going to kind of just keep thinking on that. >> Yeah. Hold on. Yep. All right, mayor. [laughter] Um, so just back on the floods, you did confirm that flood
during a storm, whether it's via storm surge or rain, that would be covered under the name storm, correct? Coverage. What about >> within a certain period of time? Like obviously the adjusters have to look into it. So let's say that the storm is present for maybe 48 hours, but let's say a storm come like a a rain comes
after it, that would be up to the adjusters. So there is, you know, there's obviously gray in every black and white policy. Um, but for the most part, they are going to consider that as a part of the name storm. So, I just want to make sure that I'm being full. >> Well, that's why I asked cuz I do know there's technicalities with flooding
sometimes. So, I want to make sure as we're, you know, considering any of these potential changes that we have that in mind. What about just general flood insurance? I don't, >> unless I'm totally missing it, I don't see that we have flood insurance or do we? >> No, I don't have it baked in there. That
is a part of the FMIT program. So they have a $5 million policy year aggregate limit available for flood coverage to the village and again it's subject to those either your $100,000 all other perils deductible um or the namestorm deductible depending on
>> Okay. So we do have correct yes it I don't there's a lot of things in the FMIT policy in terms of coverage extensions that we don't always list on the sheet but the policy document I mean I'd be happy to go through it because that's my thing but [laughter] there are a lot of things including flood. Yep. I just want to make sure we're covered
there. And then um you touched on this. I mean big picture with our historical claims history um with the workers comp. >> Yes. >> That we're really don't >> wouldn't really meet that on average most years, right? So that's not a huge risk.
>> It's not. >> Um I just want to revisit the >> the asset list again. >> Sure. >> And those decisions were made off of assessments that you guys have done. Um, but I really I want to understand the risk there because basically we're
[snorts] we'll be self-insuring those, right? >> Correct. >> So, what really is the risk on those items that I mean, you kind of touch base on the pickle ball, the storage tanks, um, >> you know, the pumps. I understand the place playground, you know, maybe it's
reasonable to not to selfinsure that now since it's older, but you know, our thoughts might change if and when that gets replaced. But can you kind of go through some of those too so we just really understand the likelihood of um because I think too we don't even really
know there's so much that goes into even making a claim. >> Yeah. >> So we don't even know what on these items could we even make a claim for. >> I got you. whether because sometimes it's not worth it to make a claim. So, you're going to pay for it yourself anyways. So, we this is so high level for us. We're not in the weeds there.
So, I'm trying to weigh these risks of self-insuring these so we can see realize savings now. >> Yeah. So, with respect to the tennis and pickle ball courts, I mean, it's an asphalt court. The only thing that's really, you know, standing freestanding is the netting and then the poles that
obviously hold the netting together. So you're talking about wind, I mean fire that could potentially burn it. I know the nets themselves are not that expensive. The court obviously to pour the concrete, but when we think about a property insurance policy, it covers things like lightning, um, you know,
fire, wind, flood. So most of those with respect to like, you know, I I don't like seeing courts on a schedule because they're costly in terms of TIV and premium because they're out in the open. Um, so when you think about the perils and you think about the amount of premium you're paying, it's not for wear
and tear. So that's one of those assets that I'm always like, hey, we really probably need to consider this um to take it off the schedule just because there's really not a lot afforded under the policy when it comes to damage. The ground storage tanks we covered. So in the same manner, those don't I mean I've never seen a claim for one. One, number
two, they don't catch on fire. If they get struck by lightning, it might be a mechanical piece of equipment. if it is a mechanical piece of equipment, but hardly ever does that happen. Um, the high service pumps and the transfer pumps. So, when I went through and I looked, I think the high service pumps are actually behind one of those storage
tanks and it may be in between another building. So, again, the potentiality for something that is large enough, heavy enough to crash into them during a windstorm because I wouldn't be concerned with those with flood or fire um or lightning is very low. they are,
you know, mostly pipes that are in the ground underneath and they're just exposed with a pump on top that's helping to move the water. Okay? And that's the same thing for the transfer pumps. Now, you might want to ask the utilities director more specifically because I obviously don't know um some
of the functionality and where those are pulling and pushing to, but in terms of what that asset structure is, that is, you know, it's it's in concrete, so it's not lifting out of the ground, that's for sure. And then we talked about the multiplay structure. The wellhouse is
probably like a 10 by12 concrete flat concrete roof, concrete walled building that has some electrical panels in it with a pump inside that's probably helping, you know, with lift stations and and water transfer. So, and again, there are other wellhouses on the schedule, I mean, sorry, not on the
schedule that the village does um own or is an asset of the village that we don't schedule. And that's for that very reason because what are the chances that that building is going to blow down and the contents inside are going to be completely ruined. So I guess that would be a question for
the manager. There's based off what we just heard. Some were not even insuring it. Are the ones that are on here was there a specific reason we felt they needed to be insured versus the others that aren't? And then has >> So I definitely keep the RORO stuff on there because that equipment inside if
you did have damage to that building. Those are really expensive. But these smaller wellhouses, like I said, there's maybe one um you know, pump in there with a pipe that's going underground and an electrical or telemetry panel that's helping you know with the controls for
it. So I'm sorry. I didn't mean to cut you off, Jeremy, but that I just wanted to make sure because you see that there's the R3 and the RO4 that we still have on the schedule for that purpose. >> And has Allison looked at that or >> No, I mean, we we can take a look at,
you know, what what's left on here and see if, you know, there's some >> that would that would be my recommendation that staff looks at everything and agrees. So, I know we've done this, you know, and Allison hasn't done this, but I know with the previous two utility directors, we had this exercise because I think what two years
ago, we really like purged a lot and these were the ones that >> um you know, our utility director at time really fought to keep on there. Um and so, but I mean, we can have Allison take a look and see if she has a different opinion. >> Yeah. And that's why I asked because the fact that some are currently insured and
some aren't like there might be a specific reason that we're just not aware of. So, it would be nice to have Allison take a look at this and any other staff members that would be appropriate to um review. >> Can I cl make one clarification? Um
looking at your chart, the renewal number for the premium for the property. >> Yes. >> You had at 369,000. >> Mhm. >> If we do the 10% um deductible >> on that, >> that's >> I have that number for you. >> A saving of down to 283,000.
Um, so if we look at the renewal, that total insured value of 37.79 million, if we moved from a 5% deductible there to a 10% deductible, instead of 369 $370,000, we're looking at $325,000
in premium. So that does also give you a $40,000 savings roughly $44,000 savings on that line which is come measure it with um the alternative number one premium. So you'd be looking at
something close to the 944,000. >> What I'm trying to the number I'm trying to get is if we don't if we renew as is >> versus if we do it with the 10% >> right number. So it's 369 versus 32557.
>> And help me understand what's happening on that third example. >> The third example, we are >> premiums >> altering the property schedule to remove these assets >> and then we're also reducing or I'm sorry increasing the combination of both. >> Correct. >> Got it. Yes.
>> Okay. Thank you. [clears throat] >> Yes. >> So you're Yeah. Can I ask one other go ahead? Okay. Um, so there's a distinction between uh namestorm and windstorm, right?
>> Not under this policy. In a standard program, probably there would be. There's usually like a little bit of a buffer in between. The FMIT does consider a windstorm such as like a tornado the same as a name and as far as deductible is concerned. Same.
>> So it's the same. Okay. >> Can I ask just one more clarifying question? you mentioned um so anything that's scheduled is has to be over $100,000. >> Well, currently that's been the program for quite some time now. Yeah. >> And what is the all other perils? All
other >> Okay. All other perils are those things like I said fire, lightning, um you know, regular flood, uh vehicular damage, so somebody crashes into something. Okay. >> And there's a few other perils that are probably like an airplane falling from the sky, you know, those kinds of things.
>> And is there a deductible on that? those. Yeah, that's that 100,000 all other perils deductible. Correct. >> And you mentioned a $7 million figure, which would be the anticipated. >> That is what the modeling would suggest would be your probable maximum loss in a
one and 250 year named storm. And that does include surge and those are ground up losses, meaning not factoring in your >> but we'd have $7 million in losses at 10% would be $700,000. >> Correct. And I think what you were saying is we've already got a million dollars set aside. >> Yep. >> So like locked and loaded.
>> Totally. Okay. I grasp it now. Thank you. [laughter] >> And of that that 7.4 million that is not uh that doesn't take into account any potential money we would get from FEMA or anything. Is it >> correct? Public assistance is completely separate.
I will say obviously there's some FEMA reform going on. So, I know that that in conjunction with some of these potential property tax reform is causing a lot of heartburn for entities because CATG G parks and wreck is one of those um categories that they are potentially,
you know, looking to eliminate in terms of public assistance. So, for those damages where you either be self-insuring those or subject to the deductible, you may not see remuneration come back. But certainly for obviously roads, bridges, those types of things which we can't even really schedule on
these policies. um in addition to you know your major operations those would still potentially be eligible for FEM reform just I mean public assistance just depending on if and where FEMA reform goes anywhere any other council >> I have no further questions
>> okay is there any public comment okay um based on what I've heard I mean I don't I don't have any red flags or alarm bells going off that it would be fiscally irresponsible to try to um update the
policy with some of these suggestions so we have some financial savings there. I do again just would like staff the appropriate staff members to review that asset list um just [snorts] to make sure
we're all on the same page. Is there enough time to do that? Does this have to be approved at our August council meeting? I don't think the property insurance has to be done by August. Um, but we planned on trying to turn it around and we and we'll see if we can. Um, if we're just
talking about looking at those those things and we can get with the gearing group and see if we can turn those around fairly quickly. >> Does council have a preference on the alter alternatives that were proposed today? >> You mean uh
>> we had alternative one and alternative two? Yeah. I would be based on what we've discussed this evening be in favor of alternative two. >> Yeah. I like the 10,000 deductible for workman's comp and I like the 10% um deductible for when and all that fun
stuff. But I'm same. >> Okay. So with that, are we comfortable so we don't have to work shop it again? Are we comfortable um with having staff just review the asset list? if they think there's adjustments that need to be made, they can make it and then then they can bring that back to us for um to
vote on with the alt number two. >> Yep. >> Absolutely. >> That clear direction? >> Okay. >> Can I You talked about this about the uh playground equipment. Let's say hypothetically we got uh everything just goes splinterally with the property tax and we buy some new playground
equipment. >> We would and let's say we did that within the calendar year. You can endorse it anytime >> but and but we don't know the exact increase to the premium. >> You would not know. Yeah, the underwriter would have to calculate that for you. I mean, we could try to figure out, you know, a number based on what
the premium is assigned to the current asset based on the the value, but >> I think that'd be helpful because that's a possibility, you know, >> and we're, you know, beating up the cost would but by adding that back, we could
be right back where we started real quick. So >> yeah, >> but that's okay. >> Potentially, >> right? That's okay. We're going to have to insure it if it's new. So >> if it's needed to insure it, then we'll we'll do that. >> Yeah. >> Regardless. >> Mhm. >> I agree. Okay. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> All right. Moving on. Agenda item two, consider medical plan renewal alternatives for employee health insurance coverage. Katherine, >> thank you again, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council. This topic is about our current medical plan versus alternatives. At the last workshop, we were asked to present
potential uh cost savings with our, as I mentioned, current plan and Blue Cross Blue Shield. So, I'm very happy to announce that our Garing representatives were able to go back and negotiate with Bluec Cross Blue Shield. Um, initially
our renewal rate was 12.9% and they were able to come back with 7.0%. Um, with that being said, the village did budget 9%. But again, we asked Garing to get creative, look at co-
insurance, deductibles, come back with alternative PPOs, HMO, and many different things for us um and council to consider this evening and going forward. So, I'm going to introduce uh Christian Bureau, go over some of these
plans for us to talk about. Mayor, council, good evening. Christian Burkham with the Garing Group. Uh, so as Katherine did mention, we were able to successfully negotiate with Florida Blue from the 12.9% increase to a 7%
increase. That is with no changes to the plan at all. Um, that is a savings of $153,000 uh from the original renewal. Um important to point point out that that 7% is actually below market trend. So
market trend is at where the budget was set at 9 9 to 10%. Um if you look on medical evaluation page three, page four and page five, those were alternatives based upon your
existing PO plans that you have today. Those plans do though significantly increase the cost for employees and their family members by introducing deductibles, co- insurance and
increasing out-ofpocket expenses um including their out-of- pocket maximums for both single and family coverage as well as increasing their co-pays. Alternative number four does provide the
village with savings from the actual current budget and it also introduces a HMO plan. Uh this is Florida Blue's Blue Care network which is their largest HMO network there
is. Um while there is a little bit smaller of a network, we tend to find that that is around specialty um practitioners and that is a way that Florida Blue can control cost. There would be absolutely no disruption to the
hospitals or outpatient facilities. All of those would remain in network. And the HMO option, it does achieve the savings, but it also does not necessarily put the additional cost uh
onto the employees. In fact, employees would actually see some cost enhancements um in the form of lower co-pays. Um, if that HMO model did not work for a particular employee, like they wanted to stay with a doctor, then they do have
the option to enroll in the high deductible health plan in which the village does contribute towards the health savings account. So, they could keep um their physicians. These options do though. Um, Florida
Blue did have a caveat that um, we would transition your dental plan from Solstice to Florida Blue. Solstice is going through their own transition right now. They are transitioning to United Healthcare.
And so there would be a transition with that. and they also indicated an 8% premium increase for the dental and told us that they would not be negotiating. So, Florida Blue did us a favor and they were able to lower the rates for all of
these packages that we presented and they also came in at an 8% increase matching the benefits. So, we thought that that was fair for the savings that were achieved through the negotiations from the medical. Okay. Thank you, council. Open it up for
discussion. [snorts] >> Thank you. A lot of work. A lot of work. Thank you very much. Um I like that we were able to add You said it was option four, correct? >> Yes, sir. >> Added an HMO option. I did I hear that?
>> Yes, sir. >> Yes. So, the HMO option, it would overall um it's going to differentiate a little bit based upon cost share between how the village does it, but approximately save the village $140,000.
>> Ken, this might help, I think, with our um discussion. Can you educate us on the HSA? Because it's it's not really um evident here what that program entails. So depending on what plan is selected,
we offer HSA and I think the village contributes a certain amount, but then employees can also sell back sick leave to contribute to that account. Can you explain that so we have a clear understanding and then as we you know
consider other alternatives what the village cost of that would be because it's going to you know come out of the um you know bottom line totals you have here >> right so all all of the alternatives do have the high deductible health plan so
which is qualified in order to open a health savings account and the village does contribute depending on the level of coverage, single or family, they contribute a dollar amount. Um, so we will have to work on this depending on
what options because there was a premium differential between the two and that determined actually what the difference was that you, the village, would contribute to the high deductible health plan. There are currently only eight employees enrolled in that plan. Um and
that was at the request of the unions probably about 10 plus years ago. So that plan has been in place. The village does contribute a portion towards that deductible. Again, I believe it's about 61% this year that the village contributes towards the deductible. The
employees on their own can through a pre-tax paycheck deduction contribute additional funds into that bank account as well as do sick leave sellback that they can sell back into that account. A HSA plan
is a triple tax advantaged product. So money goes into it tax-free, it grows tax-free, and money comes out of it tax-free uh for use of qualified medical expenses. >> Thank you for explaining that because
that's a really great benefit I think we offer that is not apparent in the agenda backup and that that would apply. The HSA option is available with all these alternatives that you correct. >> Okay. So, just so everyone's aware,
>> council members, you have anything? >> No, I'm sorry. I mean, nothing else at this time. Thank you. >> For me, it's it's important to understand what the baseline offering of of health insurance that we provide to our employees. And and that to me with everything going on is kind of where we
need to really kind of focus, I think. Um, and then from there giving them the options to be able to purchase if they if they can or want to have those the different options. In your professional opinion, doing this for a handful of other governmental agencies and knowing what you know throughout what's
happening in the state of Florida, which one do you think is the best option? If the village is okay with renewing as is at a 7%, that is an
extremely valuable coverage option for your employees, especially this year, not knowing what financial predicament we're going to be in next year. Uh because again if this property tax
reform does get voted in, we will be having to find the true savings and that's when we're going to have to look for sure at going into a narrow network HMO models increasing cost to the
employees. So if that's the case, then I would recommend you renew asis with your existing plans. Or if you do want to achieve some savings without burdening employees out-ofpocket expenses, then I
would recommend alternative 4 with the rich HMO model. >> Okay. >> Thank you. Welcome. >> That's probably the only question I would have asked. Sorry. Thank you. >> So, there is um
back up in our agenda. I don't I don't know if um Gary Group put this together or if it was staff, but it kind of uh it's a comparison of our benefits compared to multiple other cities and I think even county. Um, and if I'm
reading it correctly, it seems cuz I think the goal is I we have property tax looming over our head, right? But I think we always need to be fiscally responsible and I think Dquesta has always um wanted to ensure we remain competitive. We all we don't need to be the top top, but we never want to be
below that competitive market because we really value our employees. Our community values our employees and the job that they do. So, we want to be able to retain um the high quality um staff we have here. But looking at this backup, it looks like in many categories
we're well above the average. Can someone kind of explain that that backup and what that means? We got the comparables that Gary Group gave us and we crunched the numbers with the 19 comparable agencies and you know
based on you know we're talking about you know HSA you know where we don't we don't offer that as in our standard plan anyways and then you know office visits you know and just basically broke it down by category and gave you guys what
the the typical municipality does what the average is what the ranges are and there's there's some you know some footnotes in there like 11 and n in the physician office 11 and 19 agencies do that. So we basically just summarize the document that uh the Garing group send
us based on you know their their clients that they have. Um, I would like to point out that item number eight, the employee cost per month. I believe that that would be the tradeoff and that would be the discussion that I
know the the unions would probably be pointing out is that the cost share that they pay out of their paycheck is higher than the benchmark. So in return, the thinking would be that they should pay
lower when they use the plan. So that that's one thing that based upon my experience with the unions here that would probably come back at. >> And you mentioned option four would re they would actually have a decrease in out-of- pocket expenses potentially.
>> Yes. >> And what what if any cons would go with option four? The cons uh you know for option four would be the potential of network disruption where individuals may be seeing certain providers and they are
just not in uh the blue care network. I know for example I can say that for dermatology I can print a blue options directory and there's five pages of dermatologist while for blue care there's maybe two or
three pages. So um it is a smaller network of providers. However, again all of the hospitals, all of the outpatient surgery centers are in network. >> Okay. So that's what we referring to earlier when it it mostly would affect
special specialty type. >> Okay. Got it. >> But would they have the option to get a PO or the high deductible? >> Yes, they could enroll in the high deductible potentially cover that that disruptment. >> Yes. And that also
um if they were to upgrade to the blue options plan that does include out of network coverage >> if they were concerned about that too because the blue care predictable does not have out of network. Correct. >> Correct. >> Right. So if there's concern there
there's option to upgrade to the the blue options and then that >> very it's very rare to find an out of network provider. So I mean in the blue options plan they're pretty much every provider accepts that. >> Okay. And what about would the dental be HMO2 then or?
>> No, the dental would remain PO. It matches your existing schedule and I actually feel that you'll actually have more dentists. >> Okay. Yeah. The the dental HMO scene is pretty >> No, we don't offer a dental HMO. >> Okay. I just want to make sure that was an HMO because I know that that one's
not >> there's like no one that accepts that in the area. So, okay. >> I I guess more out of curiosity, um [clears throat] I have no doubt that you all are fantastic negotiators, but how did you get other than us picking up the
blue dental? How did you guys get them from 12 to seven? I mean, that's such a huge >> So, they actually are really trying to bundle coverages and um I believe there
are some, you know, margins there that they're able to, you know, not having just a standalone dental plan, they have margins from the medical that can offset some of the dental and and vice versa. Um, and we are good at negotiating. [laughter]
>> Okay. So that's good to good good to know. >> Um and with alternative four, so if an employee were to upgrade for the blue options plan, that would um they don't have to do the HSA, but it they would have the ability to. Is that correct?
>> Absolutely. >> And then so the village pays a difference between Well, basically we pay the deductible into the HSA. Can you explain that again? I'm just trying to understand that cost for those that would want to upgrade and participate in the HSA.
>> I would recommend we cap the HSA at a a dollar amount contribution annually knowing that they have the ability to I know he's going to answer that, but just >> Yeah. >> Um they have the ability to put sick time in there, I think is absolutely incredible. >> Yeah. No, it's a great benefit >> knowing that a lot of the employees have
hundreds of hours of sick time. Sorry. Sorry to cut you off. Is that something we can do? I don't know if there's any um >> we have to look at it. I know our union contracts um are specific about our
contribution with the difference, I believe, but let me I'd have to look at it and get back to you. >> So, if we can't do a dollar cap like council member Stone, what what is the um what is the village's contribution with alternative 4 to an HFA?
It would be the I think I believe it's the difference between the two. So the difference between the two plans and then we deposit the the difference into the HSA account for those that that participate those eight people. >> Yeah. So we have to go back and re-evaluate that because now the HMO is
actually lower cost than the HSA. So maybe it would just then be the difference of the two, but there's only about a $100 differential in premium between the two. So that would be well that would be roughly 1,200 a year for a single employee
contributed into that account. >> Okay. you just want to pose a possible another option that I could pose to Christian as well to council >> potentially instead of having an HMO and a high deductible plan possibly having a
buy up PO alternative. >> So rather than the alternative being a high deductible >> plan having the PO as is. So, if you don't want the HMO, you could pay the
higher premium for the current PO and the employee would 100% have to pay the difference for that PO. >> Yeah. >> And then that way they're not losing any of their current providers. They're not losing any of their current benefits. Um, and they're it's 100% their option.
And the village is still seeing all the cost savings on the HMO. And then the employees who want to see the savings in their paycheck can still have that >> given those options. >> Just a thought. >> Yeah. And I actually have I have actually have the pricing for that.
>> So you're saying they would have three options basically. The employees would have three options. >> Yes. >> So it would be the per the blue options. Well, right now you have the predictable cost plan 03748 and then the blue options plan 051805181.
So, are you saying you would you would have the HMO and then both of these options to choose from? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Um, and so if you the village offered all three plans, the HMO, the existing
two PPOs that you have, so the 3748 and then the HSA plan, the village would still achieve an overall savings of 6.2% 2% which is approximately $147,000. Um you would offer all three. Um
and actually yeah now those that employees that wanted to buy up it it is costly to buy up. >> What is that cost? Is it in here? Um, no, it's not included in your backup. But, um, for example, if you did have
the HMO as your base plan, uh, an employee to keep what they have would they would pay 213 a month. >> Wow. >> Okay. Any other council questions?
>> No. For me, >> is there any public comment? >> And when um is this something we need to vote on this in on the August agenda next week? So, this we do need direction >> um to give staff direction on this.
>> Can you just explain that last option that's not listed on here again? So you would >> compared to the cost savings at um is alter. >> Yeah. Can you scroll down to like the the gold yellow? >> So that can you explain those numbers
again? If we h if we added this op this third option or I guess alter alternative number five [laughter] >> fifth option. >> So it would be triple option. You would offer the two PO plans that you have today. So, both of those plans would see
a 7% increase. And then you would add in this HMO plan, which would be the base plan, the standard offering. So, you would save 6% from current for that. Um, so that does
achieve a savings because the employer funding of all of three medical plans would be the same regardless of which plan you enroll. So it would be based off of the HMO. So the village would save 150,000 for the medical which is 6
and a.5%. But if I'm adding in everything dental, vision, life, employee assistance program, the village would save uh 6.2% from current. So your cost would decrease $147,194
based upon current enrollment. uh bringing your overall employer funding from 2.38 million to 2.233 million. >> Okay. Thank you for walking through that again. >> Absolutely. >> All right, council. What direction do we
want to give staff on this one? >> I'd like to see all three options as an op as an option for >> so the al alternative number five that is not in our agenda backup. >> Yeah. Um, yeah, I I think I agree. I mean, I
don't obviously savings. I don't want to burden our staff. Um, but I think giving those options, it sounds like we're not necessarily doing that. So, >> well, to be clear, it potentially could be $200 a month >> more the OPO.
>> So, two times 12 adds up. And earlier when you were talking about the the book that was five the dermatology example which policy you were saying was the five page >> the PO >> PO and then the two page would be the
>> okay. Yeah. I I think I'd second what council member Stone said. I like the kind of last one we brought up here that's not in the back. >> Okay. Council member. >> Okay. All right. I am as well. So that's
what you guys can bring for approval for next week's meeting. >> We will. >> All right. Thank you. So >> that said, you know, these are I I understand healthcare costs are like I would love to hear if if staff just has like a compelling reason to do something different. I I would love to hear your
thoughts as to why that is because $200 is a lot of money. So, I don't want to like if someone has a doctor that they have to go to um and they're not in the HMO and they're going to have to go up to that PO to cover that 200 or if there's multiple. I don't know. But I would just appreciate if there's a compelling
concern within, you know, our staff about any of these decisions we're making. >> It's just such a >> Yeah. So, typically from this point, we would take it to our like our our um benefits committee, which we will um but it's kind of late in the game at this
point for for these major changes to try to get any kind of feedback. Most of people won't know the impact until after we change over. I mean, I know a lot of times we change over from specific carriers. We have to worry about, you know, medications and things and what's covered, what's not. Uh, you know, it
sounds like, you know, just staying with with Florida Blue, there won't be as as many, but um I think most of it we're probably not going to recognize till later down the road. I would guess. >> Okay. >> And I think I mean it's very standard practice to assess benefits. I mean
there companies change every year. you probably, you know, are more, you know, um, able to speak more on this, but my experience is it's very common to change carriers and for benefits, for cost
reasons. Um, this isn't it's not uncommon to kind of go through what we're going through right now to consider options, but here we're staying with the same provider, too. So, which I think helps because like often people change providers and sometimes that's
because there's contractual issues with insurance carriers and um you know medical specials in the areas there's so many factors that go into play but assessing this and changing is not uncommon. Um, and I mean worst case, you
know, if for whatever reason something doesn't work out, then the next year things can be adjusted, right? >> Yeah. >> Right. >> I I like it that there might be some employees that might be get a pay raise in their paycheck if they go with the HBO because that's works for them. I
like that the village is getting a potential savings, too. And I like that everyone has options and and the fact that they can do the sick time for the HM into the high deductible plan >> health savings account is huge. >> Yeah. >> Right. And also with the fact of the
matter is that this HMO option is what they would call their richest package. So then depending on what happens with the property tax >> that's locked >> then there is movement that we can go to. Got it.
>> In terms of different plan options. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> I like that. >> Okay, Steph, you have the direction. And to everyone from the Karan Group, thank you so much for coming to visit us again and for all your hard work and finding some uh solutions for us that helps with
our goal of uh saving some money. >> Thank you. >> Appreciate it. >> Appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. >> All right. Agenda item three, Dquesta Park improvement updates. Doug Good evening, Doug Chambers, public works director. We have an update
tonight on Toquesta Park improvement projects. I'm joined by with Jonathan H from Kimley Horn. Jonathan has prepared a PowerPoint presentation with an update. Uh Jonathan is currently working on putting together the site plan application to submit to Martin County.
And then also in the update, Jonathan has give a snapshot into what it would look like building the project over several different phases with the focus on keeping the park open for the public as the project were to develop. So with that, Jonathan has a presentation
tonight and we can answer any questions you might have. >> Thank you. >> Hello. >> Hello. >> Hello. >> Uh hopefully this is a little more exciting than insurance and [laughter] health plan. It's a lot more fun
>> hopefully. Uh so this is our update for August 2026. Um this is the existing conditions. We've updated this aerial to show the uh after the invasive removal. So you can kind of see in the bottom right and left
lot more uh vegetation missing after the vegetation removal has happened and a little bit on the north of that little cleared area as well. So not to keep keep that in mind, but we are still avoiding the largely the scrub
areas. We have expanded a little bit into the um areas that have been cleared out to take advantage of some of those uh cleared out spaces. There it is. So as far as an update, the areas are highlighted in yellow kind of show the areas that have changed. One
thing that's happened is we've advanced the engineering on the project to show where our dry retention areas will be or detention areas. Uh those are going to be outside of the outfields of the ball fields on the north side of the park. Um we've also looked at updating the uh
pickle ball area a little bit more. It's hard to see in the this scale of the picture, but we're we're changing out and adding some shade structures on the right hand side of those that'll be a little bit nicer than the um shade sale feature that's out there today. Uh and
then we've actually added a little bit of parking to the right um and avoided taking out some trees in some other locations. So, we've we've kept some trees um and but added a little bit of parking on that right hand side of the uh traffic circle entering the park.
But largely the program is still the same. Everywhere else that doesn't have a yellow circle around it is exactly the same as the last time you saw it, which I think was a few months ago. Uh we still have the playground. Currently, we're still looking at the
features we showed you back uh back at this that that time. Um we're just using those as placeholders for right now. Those can be picked out and changed later if needed. But just wanted to remind you that are the items that we've been looking at. So, we have kind of a
big kit area, small kit area, and some smaller features kind of sprinkled in there, as well as some shade sails. Uh we have our the same kind of features we showed you last time for the splash pad. These are the really highly interactive um features that'll be out
there that have a lot of uh pushing and pulling that make the water do different things. Um we think this will be a pretty exciting for adults and kids to play together out there um on the splash pad.
Uh this is an update. This is our current site plan as it is. Uh we are ready to go to Martin County for a site plan approval and part of our ask tonight is to get the blessing to move forward to that step.
Um we also took a look at STA at phasing as well. Um this is really in no particular order. We looked at what made sense spatially on the plan. uh to us doing phase A first made sense because
it kind of takes care of some of that core in the middle of the park and allows the rest of the development to happen around the perimeter. Um that could change up if needed. Uh we certainly well open to the conversation to to look into some different alternatives
but breaking down the different phases. Uh phase A in this scenario would bring in the splash pad, the sand volleyball, the playground, the large group pavilion, a small pavilion, all the some site furnishings, fencing, fencing and
gates associated with those elements. Uh the park maintenance facility would get finished out. uh that that particular building is actually moving forward uh currently with Martin County and the Shell building itself will go in uh first, but everything around it, the
little fenced in area, the yard where that would be secured and some of the other elements [snorts] associated with that would go uh at that time. We would get a new restroom building, uh sidewalks, the internal park drive, uh lighting, utilities,
landscape and irrigation. with that cost. What we're showing is phase B um would be the large uh um multi-use field, the basketball courts, the dog park, and the pickle ball refurbishment
as well. Uh that would be looking at, you know, that some of those elements would be open while phase A would be open as well. Obviously, the big baseball field in the middle. You can see how it overlays with the uh design. That would be out of commission if phase
A started and then phase B started. But you can see where we may be able to keep the top two baseball fields >> open until phase C happens. There it goes. [laughter] Phase C where we put in the
new 300T field and 225T field. uh as well as finish out the parking where the former basketball uh was. Uh and then put in the uh um batting cages as well. And that would get along with the uh ball fields would be the new concession
restroom building up there. Uh and uh the unpaved trail around the perimeter as well, which would be improved with a kind of a graate aggregate surface. looking at the site plan process.
Um we are we've had a pre-application meeting in mid June with the planning staff. Had a had a great meeting with them. Got a good understanding of what our process is. Uh we are doing getting an approval at the staff level. Doesn't have to go to commission which is nice.
uh as one other courtesy that they are are extending to us is what they do with other municipalities in Martin County is they don't they exempt the restrict the time restrictions on on a site plan approval. So they're going to extend that to us as well. So if we get the
site plan approved it it won't expire let's say in a year or two. Um also we can phase it during that time. So if we go in and just show them what we're going to do on on a phasing idea, uh if if needed, we can phase it in in in
stages as well. Uh so that I think that's a big advantage for us there. But I gave you a flowchart here to show you what we think the process is going to take. Uh we think it's going to still take a while. They get about 45 days in
between reviews. Uh we think it's going to take at least two hopefully not more than that reviews before we get the staff level approval. We have so far assembled everything on the right hand side which is our all the
elements we'll need to uh submit the site plan application location map. Uh we've looked at excavation fill and hauling. We've done a storm water report. Uh and we're pretty much ready to go. So once we get the blessing of this board, we can go ahead and submit
those plans and get the process started. Um, and to give you a little update, we are lagging a little bit behind what we thought where we thought we would be at this time, but we are ready in August of this month to submit the site plan
package. We think that we'll be going 3 to six months on the site plan review and approval process. probably trending towards the six month is my guess considering how long it took to get through uh the uh uh building the
maintenance building. But um you know I'm pretty confident we could probably get there by spring of next year. Uh then we would go into the final 60 90% plans production on either whichever phase we chose to move forward or the entire park.
And that is the end of the presentation I believe. Yep. >> Okay. Thanks, Jonathan. Council, I'll open it up for discussion. >> Um, thank you. Um, great job. Um, I agree with the phasing. Um, the groupings of the phasings. I think uh if
we were to move forward with a phasing approach, the splash pad and the phase a excuse me phase A would I think would the ones that would get the constant use daily >> 52 weeks a year they'll be busy you know
and like some of the sporting fields that may not be u used utilized all the time um you know we still come down to how do we fund in phases 14 million7 $700,000. Our budget doesn't have anything in there, but I think as long
as this site plan stays open, uh that's great. You know, um I've said all along, I don't know where the money is going to come from. Maybe we look at bonding at this point or u excuse me, some type of debt. Uh but I like what we're what I see here now and I would encourage us to move forward. Um especially if it
doesn't expire. But I have a huge concern about how any of this gets paid. Um so, but we've got a plan. I hope we can do something with it in the future. I hate having plans that never come off this that stay on the shelf. U but I like it and I but if we [clears throat]
did go into phases and we could find the money somewhere, I would agree with phase a again the accents that are in there. I think that's great. >> Remind me again, does the um fields and the baseball fields have lights? >> The new ones will have lights. Yes.
>> I'm ready to go. Thank you. >> Yeah, just a quick question. And I I do think the phasing is a great idea, but just general estimate uh what type of savings, if any, well, I think I know there'd be some, but what type of how much savings do you think we would experience if we just knocked it out,
you know, not having to mobilize, remobilize, demobilize? >> I think you're probably looking around 20%. >> Okay. >> Wow. So around if if this if we if adding it all up is 14 million probably you'd probably save around three million by not phasing it
>> just because [laughter] you're asking a contractor to >> mo demobilize and never we don't know how long it's going to take in between those phases >> costs go up they don't go down >> right >> yeah I mean I I I agree I think the
phasing except for that part >> that question feels really good um because you God forbid we get into phase A and we're like, "Okay, let's pump the brakes for a little while. Once if we go all in, we're we're going most likely, >> but man, $3 million, which I know is
just an estimate. That's that's a big deal." >> Yeah. Just wanted to point out also, as I'm sure you're aware, that each time you went out again for another phase, you're going to have to go out for bid again. >> Oh, yeah. >> Yeah. >> Which Yeah. Okay.
>> We got to find some money. $4 million is a substantial amount of money >> to not as these things develop. You've noticed the price has gone up obviously as these things develop and we've gotten more into the engineering side of things and understood more about you know the
utilities required to go to different areas and looked at you know things like you know what we're looking at for for the safety elements of this. I think we've added a security system to the park um as an idea as well. So, some of this stuff is just kind of evolving over
time. You know, we didn't know as much about what you wanted or needed when we first did our estimate. Now, we know a little more and we're getting more into engineering. So, I think we're getting closer >> because we've got a really good line drawing. We've got some engineering started. So, I think we're getting close to where that cost is getting settled
down. And then I I'm fairly certain I know the answer to this, but if if uh seeing that Martin County is open to the phasing that we could adjust the phasing plan at it or do we have to whatever we submit? We're not >> we're not submitting a plan showing phasing on it at all.
>> When when >> you get to the point where you want to do something um after this uh site plan gets approved, >> then you can go in and say, "Well, we want to build this section now." And I think it's that sounded as easy as
drawing a circle on the plan and saying, "Here's what we want to do now." Okay. >> And then preparing the building permit drawings for that area. >> Good. No, I'm I'm all in favor of moving forward. >> Yeah. [snorts]
>> Um on the site plan, the the former Kimley Horn site plan, I don't know if it's just my PDF with my agenda backup, but it's blurry when I zoom in. And I know we had a discussion [snorts] when did we see this last? In
April, I think um verse discussing artificial turf versus natural turf and my plan is too blurry to look at the legend and figure out what's being called out where. I don't because they're very similar those two legend
the keys and legend. So, can you can you um tell us where you landed on this plan? And if we submit with artificial turf and decide to change it to natural turf or vice versa, is that is that something that really even matters to be
clarifying that kind of detail on the site plan application? >> We're we're calling for natural turf at the time. The only thing that would change is if we switched to artificial turf. Uh the manage water management districts don't recognize it as a pvious surface. So it would change our storm
water design, >> but everything's natural turf right now. >> Everything is natural turf. The only >> Okay. >> pieces of artificial turf on this thing right now would could be the safety surfacing on the playground, which is a very popular um current popular uh way
to do safety surfacings. A lot of people are getting away from the the rubber or even the poured in place or mulch and going to the artificial turf. So, that's what we've got priced in there right now. >> Great. Okay. Um and uh I know I brought
this up last meeting. I don't think I didn't write down the answer, so I have to bring it up again. On the maintenance shed, uh we don't have a landscape plan. I mean, the landscape's kind of shown in here. Um, but you know, I I brought up
trying to hide that a little bit with landscaping if we can. And then I don't know if it's already ordered. I couldn't remember what we selected for the colors, but it'd be great if there's some synergies with the colors of that shed versus the colors of some of these pavilions and stuff. I just want to make sure there's some synergy there so it's
not totally standing out like a sore thumb. And I if if anything if we're already ordered it with the colors that were selected that we're you know trying to screen some of it with landscaping. >> Yeah. The the maintenance building is ordered with the colors that council
selected. You selected a beige for the main body and then for the roof line and the mains coat you picked a blue color coastal blue. >> Okay. >> So that's already on order. >> Okay. So, we could maybe try to mimic that for some of the pavilions or like I said, worst case just hide the
maintenance with some landscaping. How tall is that building? I can't remember. It's pretty tall, isn't it? Cuz there was a big overhead door fire >> Girl Scout building. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Okay. And on on the phasing, um it doesn't sound like there's a lot
of justification. is kind of just looking at it and what potentially makes sense um based on your presentation. So, I don't know that I'm sold on the phasing at this time. I know we can we don't have to make a decision on that
today. I think what I would like staff to maybe focus on as we consider potential phasing if we have to if we can't accomplish the whole project at one time is really focus on the highest and best use and also consider potential
revenue that any of the facilities would provide. Um you know like the field versus the playground. What's a projected population use of both of those? are more people going to be using the playground splash pad or higher
population be using the fields? Um, so I think all of those things should be considered as we're looking at the phases. Um, also just from just a logistic standpoint, if you do phase A first, you're you're knocking out the largest field that we have there right
now for who knows how long if the other two phases lag. So if phase A does happen first, I I just don't like getting rid of that. the largest field we have for um an uncertain amount of time. And then from a constructability
standpoint, if you do phase A and B, then the CR there's really no Oh, sorry, you don't have the map up there anymore, but I don't know where else because of all the natural vegetation. Where else are they going to access the phase C from? So, they're going to have to go
through completed phases to do phase C. So I think all those and you know I don't know if we get to that point can we hire um a GC for just precon services so we can walk through some of these things you know these are all future discussions but I just want to throw
that out there now so as staff's considering um I I think we just need to analyze it a little bit more. Yeah, one of the most important parts of the project too when you're phasing is get all your underground infrastructure in and like you said, mayor, so you're not back on top of a, you know, a phase
that you've already completed. [snorts] So, we've looked at that as well. And also, uh, Jonathan and I have talked about when we're keeping the park open, you know, which which amenities is everybody using on a daily basis? They're using the pickle ball courts. That's that's the big one, right? They're using the dog park every day,
right? Obviously, they're using the bathrooms and then like you mentioned the main field. So, you know, as you build it, you have to be really, you know, mindful of how we build it and how you phase it. >> Okay, that's all I have. Any other council comments or questions?
>> No, I have none. Thank you. Thank you. >> Any public comment? Yes, Julie, if you could come up to the podium and state your name and address for record. >> Julie Bowmont, 94 Fair View East. Um I don't know all the background of this and has there been anything on income
revenue coming from this and also um has there been any like analysis of like a labor cost for a year of taking care of it you know like labor maintenance insurance what we were just talking
about all of that how it breaks down for how much it's costing >> where the money comes from. >> Yep. That's a great question. I'll let staff answer. I don't know if they've considered the the maintenance co annual maintenance cost yet or um I mean we have our current fees that we charge for
the fields and just in our general polic wreck policy, don't we? >> Yes, we have our our fees set up for for leagues uh and what we would charge. Um we have our current maintenance costs. We have not um we have not done a full
analysis of of the current uh cost. I we generally know what it costs to to do a a splash pad, but we'll have to see when we get to this point. I know we had some decision points where were we going to use the water? Are we going to reclaim water and some of those cost? Um so, um
we have not done analysis for that at this point. >> Greg, there's some numbers out there. >> Yeah, we have some numbers. We've thrown numbers out with this particular plan. this this scenario we have not done that but we we have a general ballpark of what it's going to cost you know and
what additional staff we may need >> it's a good question in the interest it's more [laughter] >> yeah more than what we're spending now >> I think ultimately before we say all right let's do a phase >> that has to be the conversation to know that that has to be budget for as well
um and so whether that's you know a year from now or three years from now we'll have to have that discussion >> yeah I I I think there's a lot to analyze on the phasing if we're going to have to still. So, um it's a great suggestion, but I think there's just so uh so much more we have to consider
>> uh to come up with a final phasing plan should we decide to phase it and not do it all at once. So, >> great. Well, I think we're all on board with it as is to move forward. So, thank you for your hard work. We're very excited to see this continue to progress. >> Great.
>> Thank you, Doug. >> Thanks, Doug. >> Have a good one. Agenda item four, we're having a comprehensive review of village fees status update and discussion on land development fees as well. >> Jay, >> do you want to do any kickoff or you
want me to jump right into it? >> Um, I can do it. Um, you know, we we talked about previously the July 20th when we were doing budget workshop, we talked about, you know, fees and um, we talked about potentially updating our
impact fees. As part of that discussion, I know the mayor wanted us to bring back kind of a holistic view of all of our fees. Um, we, you know, recently updated our building permit fees. We also in the near future have to update our community
development land development fees uh due to House Bill 399. So I know Jay's going to touch on a couple of the community development fees, but also in your backup we have just some of our our fees that we've adopted or or do on an annual basis uh just to look at it holistically
and obviously we can answer any questions you guys have. But uh Jay's going to give a presentation a little bit on land development fees and what's what's in the works. Thank you, Jeremy. Uh, good evening. Uh, Jay Hops, community development director. So, I'm mostly going to be talking about impact fees. Um, but first, as he mentioned,
House Bill 399. Just want to touch on that. Uh, effective January 1, the state has basically said that uh for charging of planning and zoning fees, they the fee um may not be based on a percentage of construction costs, site costs, or project valuation. Um, so it's supposed
to be based on the amount of actual staff time and cost to the to the municipality for the plan review. Uh so community development currently charges fees for site plans, variances, and other types of development applications that are fairly low, about two to 5K per
fee. Um we've charged a 1% building permit fee, which goes to the building fund, and then a 1% fee for residential and commercial zoning review, which goes to the general fund. That 1% fee on the residential and commercial side really offsets the cost of staff review during the entire development review process.
Because remember, you know, we're having our fire department, our police department, engineering, a lot of different departments take a look at it. So, um, on a $5,000 development application fee for a complicated site plan, we're probably losing money on it, but we're we're probably recouping it
and and in some cases maybe, you know, netting a little bit from that 1% fee. That 1% fee is now going to go away. So, we have to really reook at how we're how we're charging things. Um, so we are currently evaluating options for how to amend the residential and commercial zoning review fee prior to January 1st.
We we will try to get this to to you in time so that it's not, you know, a rush thing. Um, you Jeremy and I have been kind of working some things out. So I think we have kind of some direction. Um, but the the most likely direction is kind of a structure where we bill on an hourly basis. Um, right now we do bill
on an hourly basis for consulting fees. So, we have uh we don't have an engineer, we don't have a landscape architect. We will typically bill those bills out to clients. Um we may bring a structure to you where we're actually billing in-house staff time hourly and
then um you know going to the applicant with that. Um and so that's something that we're we're currently working on. As it comes to impact fees, um uh I've got um good news, bad news. Um, good
news is we can probably make a little bit more money. Bad news is the state kind of limits us for what we can actually do as usual, right? Uh, so House Bill 399 has led us to evaluate all of our fees that are associated with development. And as part of that, we've really taken a deep look at impact fees.
Our impact fees have not been updated since 1977 using the consumer price index. Uh, the cost of a dollar in 1977 now cost 550 today. So, um, clearly our our impact fees are are very likely out
of out of touch with with inflation. Um, and naturally they're they're among the lowest in Palm Beach County. However, the state limits what we can im increase them to to 50% of what we currently charge or what we started charging in 1977. [snorts] So, what are impact fees? They're
onetime charges paid by new development to help fund public facilities needed because of growth. So, examples of things that you can fund are fire stations and fire trucks, police facilities, roads and intersections, parks and recreation facilities, libraries. Um, so again with with parks
and recreation, you could potentially fund um to quest the park. Um, but unfortunately what we're going to get from impact fees is going to be pretty minimal. Um, but we could potentially do some things in the mobility plan that are, you know, next to the parks. Uh, how do they work? So, when the new
building is constructed, they create demand for new public services. Um and then we collect the fee at that time. The money is kept in a separate account which is supposed to be used for the infrastructure for what it was collected for. So what can they pay for and what they cannot pay for? Um they can pay for
roads, fire stations, fire trucks, police um cars, um land acquisition. Um they cannot pay for salaries or just general uh expenses. An impact fee versus mobility fee. Impact fee are typically charged for for
very specific types. So, police, fire, parks, roads, libraries, and public buildings. And then some cities also charge a general government impact fee. Um, a mobility fee is is um really more specifically for for um transportation
related stuff and mobility uh projects. Um impact fees in the Questa. So, we currently charge impact fees for police, fire, and parks and recreation. Um, due to Senate Bill 180, we cannot charge uh or we cannot adopt any new fees until
October 1st, 2027. So, when we did our mobility plan, we had this idea that we do a mobility plan and we'd fund it with our mobility fee. We cannot adopt that until October 1st of 2027, [snorts] unfortunately. Um, but, uh, we can increase what we charge for our existing
impact fees. Uh, and as I said, our police, fire, and parks, and wreck impact fees have not been updated since 1977. And so I've got some good data to show you coming [snorts] up on on where our impact fees uh relate to other cities. Also, as it relates to Palm Beach
County, the county also charges impact fees. We collect those impact fees for the county at the time of building permit. Then we remit it to the county uh in toqua. So the county charges different impact fees for each municipality based on the services the municipality provides. We provide police
and fire. So, we do not pay police and fire impact fees. The county does charge for parks, libraries, public buildings, schools, and road impact fees. And [snorts] this is just kind of a general look at what the county's impact fees are. So, for for a two to three and
a half square uh uh 3.6k square foot house, it's about 15,000. Uh on a larger house, there's a slightly higher scale, so probably a little bit higher than that. Uh 20,000 square foot general office buildings pretty low. Well, those don't uh really have much um traffic
generated, but things like retail and fast food generate generate a lot of traffic. So, the road impact fees are pretty high in those. So, 50,000 for an eight 8k uh fast food and 45 for a 10k [snorts] retail operator.
So, in 2021, the state legislature uh adopted legislation that says that municipalities may not in impact increase impact fees by no more than 50% of what the current fee is. And then it also has to be phased in over time. So if you increase yours by 25% or below,
you phase it in over two years. If it's uh under 50,000, it has to be implemented over four different annual increments. So we would do uh what is it? 12 a.5%. So we do a 12 and a half% yearly update for four years until we get up to that 50% number. Um even after
that 50%, we would still be you know amongst the lowest in the region. But the good news is the next time we we get a chance to to to a bite at the apple maybe in another five years, you know, we slowly would would hopefully be able to catch up over time. So here's our fire fees. Uh the current
fee is 8674 for a single family home. The maximum on a new fee would be $130. Um Jupiter's fees, which just got updated, are $8.96. North Palms, which were adopted in August of 2024, right after the Senate Bill 180 restriction
got in place. So, they actually did, as far as I know, they're they're invalidated right now, but they did their study and they were these are the numbers that they came up with. Gardens is 763 and Stewart is 568. And I've got the multiples um later, which will show you how just the percentage difference
between us and and all the other cities. Police fee uh 94 for a single family home. So Jupiter's on this one is pretty low. It's from 1995. It's 68.93. U but North Palm's 488 and PBG is 563 and Stewart is 568. And those are more
recent uh fees. Parks and wreck fee we are at 413 on a single family home. Jupiter's which was done in 2006 is 1,200. North Palms is $1,100 and Palm Beach Gardens is $4,630. Uh, and Steuarts is is 182, which is is
on the low end. >> So, if you look at the multiples here, um, I [clears throat] mean, when when you add them up over the for a single family home, Jupiters are 5.1 times higher, Gardens is 14, North Palm's 51, and Stewart is three times
higher. So, just substantially lower than everybody else. This is what we collected. Um it's generally, you know, it's not it's not a ton of money. Um 2021 is probably the outlier and I think that's when we collected all of the reserves impact fees. I believe they uppaid all of them
up front. So even the unbuilt ones right now have already had their impact fees paid. Um so yeah, over over time it's been $58,000 um in that sixyear span. So, some potential future projects that that we could get impact fees on, the
County Line subdivision, which is in review right now, 24 single family homes, the Hawks Cove property we annex, which I think is 10 homes. Um, if Paradise Parks ever redeveloped, uh, the CEX redevelopment, which is in review, um, and then single family home tearowns
would would also pay um, impact fees. So, for an impact fee study, um, you typically have to do a a very thorough and professional impact fee study. It's it's extremely complex. Um, and they cost roughly 75 to about 100K. I had
some scoping calls with Kimley Horn, with Rafelis, who's done some of our other impact fees. They both said that it's really high and it's and Rafelis even said it's probably not even worth, you know, paying for it. Um, and so, you know, for instance, if that
50% increase fee had been in place in that that previous six-year period, we'd have only generated $29,000. So, um, it would take, you know, quite a bit of time to offset the, uh, the revenue or offset the cost of that with this new revenue. So, the solution is to do an an
in-house study. It's going as what I'm proposing and what Jeremy is proposing is an abbreviated impact fee study. Um, as I said, they're really complex um and time inensive to to really find the exact number of what it costs to provide
services for each new house, you know, for for parks, for fire and police. Um, but because we're so off with inflation, uh, we we are going to do what we're what we're calling a demonstrated need study, which basically just says that
we're so out of line with inflation that bringing us up to 50% will clearly um is a clearly justifiable thing that we can do. Um, and we'll also be clear to state in there that that's not that this new number that we're going to charge is not the actual cost for for these services.
so that in the future if there were changes we're not handcuffing oursel that we can we could increase and do a proper study in the future if we ever wanted to. So yeah, like I said, it'll primary primarily focus on purchasing power and inflation since uh 1977.
So staff's recommendation is to complete an in-house demonstrated need study which would increase the police, fire, and parks impact fees to the maximum amount permitted by law. We would avoid the expense of a consultant study that cannot be fully implemented because the statutory limitations anyways. Uh and we
would return to council with a proposed fee update for your consideration in an ordinance format. >> Happy to answer any questions. >> Yeah. >> Thank you, Jay. Council, >> great job. Um I'm 100% supportive to with your recommendation.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. Was it your idea to do the in-house impact fee? We should do all all studies should be in house. [laughter] >> No, I think it's I think it's great. Uh whoever whoever's idea that was great idea. >> So I think you know just answer that. I
know Mr. Stone asked that question. You know there if we were doing a full-blown out study like we'd probably need to because I know there's talk about I mean uh traffic patterns capital. I mean like it would be possible we probably need to cuz just the time that it would take you
know some of the things that Jay has you know highlighted to me you know we don't have that that staff in house but because we're doing this version of it like this this needs study I think we we can do it inhouse so >> let's do it >> I love it >> yeah definitely not in favor of paying
that consultant fee because it's not gonna pay off at all >> [clears throat] >> um who who does it get submitted does need study get submitted to the state or who I guess ultimately who >> it does not get submitted to the state it could be challenged so if a developer
thought that the numbers weren't accurate they could challenge that >> but uh like I said we're going to try and make it as as bulletproof as possible legally and um if someone wants to challenge it then then they're welcome to challenge it but I think I
think it's given the inflationary situation I think it's pretty defensible >> I could stand in front of a judge right now and and and argue it without even having the numbers. So, I'm good with it. >> Was there a reason that the uh 250 300 beach aren't on there? Is it just so far
ahead in the future for that? >> Because it's a tear down. I I I'm not 100% sure if if we will charge for it or not yet. >> Okay. >> So, I I just I don't I don't want to commit to that one yet, but it's possible that that we will be charging those, but I'm not positive yet.
>> Okay. Um, and I appreciate the outline of all the fees because that was one of my concerns. I kind of want it to have it all in place because we're considering multiple fees right now. And um,
politics are at play and you know, the state continues to put preeemptions on us every year as we've seen with the building permit fees and now the land development fees. So, um, you don't want to be part of the problem and the timing of raising all these fees and and
potentially creating new fees, um, isn't great. So, I think we have to prove that's really warranted. Um, with the impact fees, I, you know, I can see that it is warranted since we haven't updated it in so long. Um, one of the things I did ask for, which I was hoping you can
pull up again because you blew through that presentation. We did not get to see this beforehand, was the impact fee versus mobility fee. I did want to make sure because those are both restricted funds, right? I wanted to make sure there wasn't any overlap between the two. And it doesn't look like there is
except maybe roads. >> There's a there's a little bit of um of overlap. So, parks and wreck is um is one of them. We could potentially use parks and wreck fees for for mobility like bike ped stuff. So like in our
mobility plan, we have um uh remembrance park phase 2 with a cut with a bike cut through through there to um to remeance park phase one to connect Riverside or or even things like doing a a raised median on Seabbrook um to to make it
more pedestrian friendly in front of Constitution or in front of Remembrance Park. um those things could could probably be there, but that's that's probably the only real overlap there. >> Okay. >> We don't charge a road impact fee. So, if if we if we had charged a road impact fee, we we could use the road impact fee
for mobility type of uses, too. Um but but we don't have that in place. >> The county gets all of the road, even our portion of the roads that we own. I don't >> that's that's so that's part of the whole debate with with that with the
mobility fee situation, right? Is that the counties charging the the road fee and all the municipalities wanted to adopt a mobility fee which they could use to fund >> a myriad of of transportation things. It could be roads, it could be bike ped um
it could be anything. It could be um public transit, anything like that. >> Right. That's why that whole >> So that's where that whole thing >> legislative um what was that two years ago? three years ago. That was a big thing in Tallahassee. Um yeah, I just like for future like I just want to be
sensitive with overlap and make sure we're being reasonable and not and not overcharging. I I think part of it you could look at this is kind of replacing um the infrastructure sir tax funds that were lost. I think there's some similar
um items that we were able to spend those funds on that I see here that we can spend that on. So, there's a little bit of offset there, which I think is more a justification. Um, but again, I just want to be careful, you know, as we discuss continuing to raise all kinds of
different fees or potentially implement new ones. Um, that's justified and it's not um overreaching because I think that's part of the issue that we, you know, um work with with Tallahassee every single session.
>> Yeah, agreed. >> Okay. Any other council comments or questions? >> I like I like that the fees are collected [snorts] and then used for that purpose. >> Yeah, they're restricted. That's why >> me I think that's really really important. And with the state now putting handcuffs and being very
restricted on things. It's forcing us to be looking at everything now. >> And so we have to get everything I think right in the right spot. And this is just one that step to to do that which will only take 12 years to do. >> Yeah. And I don't disagree, but I said like let's just let's have the data.
Let's justify it. Let's make sure if there is overlap that, like I said, if we do move forward with a mobility fee in the future that, you know, any overlap we do consider so we're not overcharging. >> Um when I mean so long as I guess there's no um storms within our radius,
knock on wood, I don't want it just jinx us. When is SP 180 when is that restriction lifted? It's sometime next year, right? >> October 1st of 2027. >> Yeah. So we have over over a year. The one issue too is that Keith is appind that we cannot start a study until it it
lapses as well. So I don't believe we can we can't even have a like a a new fee on that queued up to be adopted on October 2nd. We have to wait until after October 1st to even start the study. >> Yeah. And what is there Well, maybe this would be for you. I know there was
lawsuits on that. Are they all dead in the water or are they still with the courts? >> You can get back to us too if you don't know. I I'm not aware of of where the SP 180 lawsuits are at presently. >> That'd be great to have an update. >> Yeah, >> happy to put that on your next agenda if you'd like one.
>> Thank you. >> Yeah, maybe Keith. Who's at our next council meeting? You >> I think it'll be Keith. >> Yeah. So, maybe just during his update if you want to loop him in. Okay. Any other council comments or questions? >> I have none. >> Any public comment? All right. Thank you, Jay.
>> Thanks, Jay. One more. >> And Jay, you're still on deck. actually item five, discuss chronic nuisance property code. >> Okay. Uh last one of the night guys. Uh Jay Hop, community development director uh with the chronic nuisance property
code. So at the uh meeting where we adopted the reasonable accommodations um which was a state requirement to to be able to allow sober homes to be uh have a path for sober homes to be approved in the village. Um there's some talk about
creating some tools to um to have code enforcement or or police enforcement on properties that generate repeated criminal activity, nuisance uh conditions or excessive public safety responses. So uh in response to that, we are um creating a chronic nuisance
property code uh in response to that. So um we've really modeled this based on on other cities. West Palm Beach uh initially adopted one in 2011. It's been kind of a big template and model for a lot of places. Um North Palm Beach adopted a similar code in 2020. I was
there when it was adopted and we actually used it um to help uh we had a hotel that was somewhat of of a brothel and we used it to get them to voluntarily demolish their building and close their operations. Wow. um still
waiting for redevelopment there, but uh that was a big blight on that community and so having this and some other tools in the toolkit kind of helped helped that. So um the question then is what what is a qualifying nuisance activity? When is a property generating nuisance
activity? It's a pretty wide ranging. So alcoholic beverages, noise control, dangerous dogs, um prostitution, criminal mischief, theft, dealing in stolen property. So, if you had uh for instance, if you had a Airbnb that had chronic noise control problems and we
were getting repeated police calls on it, they would be able to document that as a chronic nuisance property and we' be able to walk them through a process to to help resolve that, which I'll get to later in the presentation. >> [snorts] >> uh additional qualifying nuisance uh nuisance activities,
cruelty to animals, resisting arrest, disorderly intoxication, open house parties, criminal gang enforcement. Um and then at the end um a call for [snorts] service to a property u for someone who's who's overdosed. um which you know
we're very fortunate that we don't have sober homes and we don't have to deal with things like like [snorts] places like maybe a Delray Beach does but uh the economy is great right still pretty good now we don't have these issues you never know when things could could turn back to how they were in 2010 and maybe
you start dealing with some things like this so it's good to just be able to have it on the books to play defense if we ever need to um we don't there's really not too much that we need to play offense with for but may maybe a few things that I think the police department maybe has in mind.
Um, a property becomes a nuisance when it has responded to three or more nuisance activities at a property within 30 days, seven or more activities within 6 months or um three within 30 days or seven within six months for an overdose.
Uh and then a pattern of nuisance activity uh is does not include something where it doesn't arise from the conduct of the property owner. So if you get your bikes stolen four times in 30 days or you know something of that nature, you're not going to be you know
considered a nuisance. Um if there's a complaint that's not an actual violation doesn't count. And then uh the last ones are, you know, things like a domestic violence call or a Baker Act call. You don't want to deter people from from making a domestic violence call or a baker call because they're afraid of
becoming a nuisance, right? These are things that just have to be done. [snorts] So, um those would not be considered uh a nuisance. So, if if [clears throat] the pattern of nuisance activity exists, um the village manager um is the one who actually makes the declaration that the property is a
chronic nuisance. Um however, the police department, community development, building, code enforcement, we'd be the ones building the case. we'd present it to to the village manager and then he would ultimately appine as to whether or not it's determined to be a [snorts] chronic nuisance. Um once that happens,
we then send a certified notice that they are a chronic nuisance and then we also create our own nuisance abatement agreement which outlines the corrective action they need to take to no longer be considered a nuisance. And then they have 15 days to enter into an agreement
with that. Um and if they don't then we can prosecute them in front of a special magistrate. So this is kind of the process flow goes. Um the patterns documented then the village manager makes his declaration. Then uh owner notice is
sent, create an abatement agreement, and then there's a one-year monitoring uh process which I'll get into a little bit later. And then um it goes to the special magistrate if it's unresolved. So, examples of possible corrective action, there's 12 here. There there can [snorts] be other things that the police
department or fire department or village staff um think are appropriate to correct a chronic nuisance. Um but it could be things like hiring of a private security if it was a commercial property. Um frequency of site visits and inspections. Um creating better SEP
headed measures. Um commencement of eviction action to remove the individuals engaged in nuisance activity. Um, if it was an Airbnb, um, I don't know what specific steps we could take, but I I think there's probably a lot of of different things that we could kind of create. So, we would tailor it
to each specific situation, but, um, there's a a wide range of things that we can do in here and probably some things we can think of that aren't in here. So, then the village monitor if once it's designated as one, the village will um, monitor the property for a year um, following execution of that nuisance
abatement agreement. If the village determines during that monitor monitoring period that corrective action plan is not adequate, we can actually require them to revise and update it and and even strengthen the the plan. And then uh if the property owner
complies with the agreement um then the declaration will be rescended. So if there's a pattern of them resolving everything, it can be rescended. However, if they fall back and slide backwards and start doing the same things again, we we just create a new
nuisance abatement agreement. And then um when a property owner refuses to enter into the nuisance abatement agreement or violates it, we can then prosecute it uh at a hearing before the special magistrate. After the hearing and testimony, the special
magistrate can either uphold uh the staff's um opinion or and um considered a chronic nuisance or um you know deny staff's requests. And then if it's found to be in violation, the special magistrate may off uh authorize the
village to provide chronic nuisance services to the property um to bill the cost of any chronic nuisance services to the owner of the property. So if there were repeated please calls, we'd be able to get them to pay for for the cost to provide those services and can also
require the owner of the property to implement reasonable and specific measures to c curtail or eliminate the recurrence of the nuisance activities. Um both the owner of the property and the village can appeal the special magistrate's decision decision to
circuit court. So the magistrate is not the final decision. Uh the chronic nuisance order shall be terminated by order of special magistrate when the nuisance activities have been abated for a period of one year. And then also um I think there are times where property owners will try and get around this by
transferring property to a different entity, LLC, your family member or friend. U transfer of ownership does not cease this. Um the new owners have 45 days to provide and implement an action plan and and we can continue the this process.
So, with that, uh, that's the end of my presentation. Um, we're just requesting, um, direction from council to, u move forward with this. And if you do, we'll take the proposed ordinance to the PZB. I think I'll be able to get it there this month and then we we'd have it back
to council in September. And that's my presentation. >> Hey, thank you, Jay. Council will open it up for discussion. >> Um, great work. Very thoughtful on how it was crafted and I'm in support of us. Thank you. >> Do we currently have any properties that
qualify as nuisance? >> Because the police department hasn't been accurately or hasn't been monitoring it for this process. I I'm not sure if we do. I know that they do have a a specific [snorts] property that may be in in violation of it. So, I
don't want to say that that there is one for sure, but there is one that they've been working with. It's a it's a commercial property. Um but but yeah, we don't like I said in the presentation, you know, we're fortunate that we don't have a lot of issues that other cities have. Um but
there is there is that one. >> Okay. Yeah. My concern is overstepping our boundaries and creating a nuisance that one that's not. So as long as the magistrate can roll it and circuit court can come in as well. So I'm fine.
Yeah, I'm in favor moving forward with it. [snorts] >> Um, you spoke about how transfer of ownership wouldn't necessarily affect the abatement plan that was put in place. I had that same question, but
along the lines of um determining if it was a nuisance property because you have outlined three criteria of what would determine a property a nuisance. So, what if there's a tenant or landowner change
properties that are maybe in the process of potentially becoming a nuisance, but aren't yet? Would that time frame in regards to how many times we've responded, would would that start over if there was a change in ownership? And if so, I think that needs to be clarified in here.
>> That might be a question for Mr. Brandenburgg. >> I think it depends where you were at in the process, right? So, if if you had already sent a a notice, a violation notice out and and the property happened to change hands as that was happening in the same month, it would probably be a case that you'd uh just for due process
purposes, you want to resend out the notice to ensure that the new owner um had that. >> Um >> my question was in regards to the pattern of nuisance activity. So what determines it's the it's the process and it it talks about the number
of calls within a certain number of days that is going to determine a nuisance property. If there's a change of ownership, whether it's a tenant or an actual property owner during that time frame, would the that clock clock start over or go away?
>> I think it Yeah, I would think it wouldn't. >> No. >> Okay. >> It's to the property, right? >> Yeah. >> Not the owner. Unless you wanted to amend that portion in some way. >> And we can clarify that if if you wanted to be explicit, we could we could add some language to to make >> the transfer of ownership.
Why would they be >> Well, I I think it's that situation where they're doing it to get around it. >> Yeah. >> So they >> Well, okay. But there could not I mean there could be a situation where a property sold or a new tenant comes in because a lease is up and then >> there I don't know. I just feel like the
clock should potentially start over on something like that. If >> I >> I will say that uh they do have the opportunity for a hearing. So, if that was the case, new ownership, maybe the use stops at the location, it's changing to a different kind of use. There's always that option for the respondent to, you know, come in, make that case,
say, look, I just showed up. I'm not doing what was happening at the location previously. Uh and then that's the reason you can adjudicate that in front of a third party. But if we do want to amend this in some way to clarify that um we're adding that we don't want you
know that applying to a a change in ownership or that that clock [snorts] resets we could certainly do that. >> Yeah. What does council think on that because I don't >> I think it's more important to have it associated with the location, not necessarily the owners of the property. And so if someone comes in and buys that
property, they would know why they're buying it and the current issues of that property. >> Yeah. My uh counterpoint to that would be that if if there was a property that let's say it had two nuisance violations and then a new person buys it and
immediately creates another nuisance violation, there might be an issue with a property that's leading to those nuisance violations that we need to work with our police department to create maybe better SEPTAD principles or some some sort of thing to to abate it. Um so
that would be my counterpoint. Okay, I'm a little torn on that one. Um, the nuisance nuisance abatement agreement, some of those measures uh have fiscal implications and what if you know someone can't afford to
to hire private security or I think wasn't like installing security cameras. I mean, >> is that something special magistrate would have to work on with them or how like how >> how are the things especially if they have a fiscal impact to a property owner determined?
>> What if they can't afford it? So that'd be that'd be at the discretion of the the special magistrate and and the the property [snorts] owner would have to make that case, the magistrate, and and say, you know, they come and plead their case and say, you know, we agree with that there need to be things that to
curb here, but we can't we can't afford a um private security guard. That would typically be on a commercial property, right? So it' be someone that say, "Hey, I'm I'm barely making by with my business as is. I can't afford a private security guard, but in lie of that, I'll I'll do this." the magistrate could
could rule favorably for them. Um, same thing with a camera. They could say, you know, I can't afford a ring a Ring camera on my on my vacation rental. I'm barely making do. Um, how about I do this instead? And the magistrate would have that discretion. >> Okay. And I mean, historically, do most
people show up for their special magistrate hearing or do people not come because they're not aware of what that implication implication really means for them or what what is our >> they they generally come and and you know if if it's a non-homesteaded property, we can put a lean on it and um
that kind of typically you know prods the person into coming to special magistrate or even lawyering up to come to special magistrate. Okay. And you said lean, which is literally my final question. There's an assessment of lean, but if I'm reading
it correctly, it's up to village council to determine if they're going to lean the property. Am I reading that correctly? >> I think Dylan wrote that part. The intent would not be for this to go to council. I don't I'll check out the >> unless payment is made, the village
council may at a hearing. So my question was, is that align with I mean I haven't seen a lean come across our DIS one since I've been up here. So does that align with um other sections of our code where >> typo
>> there is an ability to lean and should that be the magistrate or the manager or someone else other than council? >> I think the intent of this code is for it to uh any imposition to go to the magistrate. I'll take a look. I'll read through that again and make sure that uh if that
>> okay so it's section two two-217C is where it says it's village council discretion >> I would yeah I'd prefer to stay out of that >> agree >> okay that was it
any other comments or questions >> Jay you mentioned that uh homestead of property can we not put a lean on a homestead of property >> you Yeah. [snorts] Well, you can lean it. Okay. You can lean it. You can't foreclose on it. >> Got it. Okay.
>> Any other questions? >> Any public comment? >> All right. Thank you, Jay. >> Thank you. Thanks, Jay. >> All right. With that, can we get a motion to adjurnn? >> So move. >> Second. >> All in favor? I. >> All right.
My gosh, my mouse wasn't working the entire meeting and now it's working. Restart. >> Oh, like the pathing. >> Mine's dying. They saw you.