Yeah, we can start with you guys. We're going to get started without All right. Good evening, everyone. It is 6 p.m. I'd like to call tonight's meeting to order. It's September 2nd, 2025, and this is our workshop meeting. Mayor Young, can I get roll call?
Mayor Young, here. Vice Mayor Story, here. Council member Braden. Council member Painter here. Council member French here. Thank you. Our first agenda item tonight is discussion on the mobility plan. Jay,
good evening. Council Jay Hoch, community development director. Uh here to introduce our consultants on our mobility plan. So, as you know, we kicked this off in uh January earlier this year. Um and we're kind of getting to the point where we're wrapping things up a little bit. The good news is um
there's really in our findings there's no real major issue in Toquesta in terms of mobility, right? Um so you're not going to see you know a big solution or some big idea here. You're going to see you know a lot of kind of smaller ideas, ways to make uh you know people move
more safely through the village. Um so I just want to point that out. Um why isn't mobility important? Um it it it's for safety, connecting the community, supporting growth, uh helping us with funding and quality of life. Um and it's
going to help us adapt to new technologies, which our consultants will get into. Um but kind of the big things are a mobility fee. So to fund mobility projects, a lot of cities are implementing a mobility fee. You can't do that without a mobility plan. Um,
also, um, having a mobility plan will help us get projects put into the, um, Palm Beach County TPA's, um, TPA, CIP, and TIP plans. So, that's that's kind of county county funding sources. So, having these projects that are kind of
designed and ready to be funded will help with inclusion in that plan. And the TPA is actually, as you know, partial funer of the study, right? We're paying 50,000, they're paying 50,000. So, they've got some skin in the game. they want to see us succeed well. We have some good relationships there and so we think that um we've got some kind
of shovel ready projects that we'll be able to get put into that county plan pretty quickly. Um also, as you you're probably aware, the county is working on a countywide transportation master plan. Um I think it'll also get us a seat at the table for that. So if we have
projects in a defined mobility plan, we'll be able to go to the county and say, "Hey, we have a lot of these good projects. Some of them are on county roads. Some of the projects you'll see tonight are actually mostly in the village, but you know, kind of go a little bit into the unincorporated areas. So, we we hope that we can get
the county to um include some of these projects and and also maybe um opt to fund some of our projects. Uh so, that said, I'm going to introduce Alex Reebach and JP Weezner. They're our consultants from KDson. And um I'll be I'll be able to answer any questions at the end of the
presentation as well. Thanks, J. Evening everybody. Uh Alex Strebck. I'm the project manager on this end with with JP Weezner as our project principal. Some of you may look familiar. He was able to stand in last time and present to you all while I was out. Um so just a quick refresher here
in the beginning and thanks Jay for some of those notes uh on why this is important. Uh so what a mobility plan is for uh it's that living document that kind of sets out to set a vision for uh multimmodal connections across the village. Um it helps improve traffic. It
focuses on safety. uh and it really helps integrate that mult multimodal aspect across the village. So the goal here is just really to provide that guidance uh and identify those opportunities across the village. So how we're going to use the plan uh it's really these six steps or six steps
these six uh things we've identified that really help uh set the plan aside right so it guides that development Jay talked a little bit about that identified in this plan are those priority projects that we showed previously and kind of how we've adapted them to to fit some of the feedback we heard from y'all uh supports those
funding strategies identifies different places where we can look to fund some of these projects across uh across the village and Jay pointed out with things like the mobility fee and through the CIP and other places helps shape policy across the village, builds off the comprehensive plan uh at the update and
and helps develop some standards uh that that we're starting to see across the region. Uh allows us to coordinate with partners and I think Jay touched on that, right? Working with the TPA that are supporting this project, but also identifying places where um y'all can work with FDOT or the county to identify some of these projects uh and allows us
to measure that progress. So a big piece of this at the end will be you know this implementation how these get built and and what the metrics are that we're looking at to track these different projects. Uh and then its goal is to be adopted over time. It's a living document that we hope evolves and grows and some of the tools we identified at
the end help identify some of those projects in the future in different places as we see new developments and and some of these things hopefully get built. So that process uh just a little touch from where we were and kind of where we are now. So, we previously came uh in the priority project section right in
the middle. Um but you know, we started off with goals and visions. We worked through the needs assessment. Uh identified the projects, kind of shared them with y'all, got some feedback. Uh worked through some potential policy updates. Uh and then we are here with that draft mobility plan that we're showing y'all.
Uh so, just briefly touching on again that is is it existing conditions and needs assessment. Uh right, just some of the general findings for for the village itself. um you know that population a little over 6,000 uh big piece of the existing conditions was looking at how folks are moving today uh and and where
they're going. So we see that figure on the right um we get an understanding of where the residents that live in the village are going to work uh and then conversely where the workers that work within the village where they live. So we see a pretty big spread across the region. Um and we see that typical work
time being 27 minutes. Um, some of the other pieces that we looked a little bit at, uh, include, you know, the turning movements. We looked at volumes, uh, historical volumes just to get an understanding of of what that traffic look like looks like today. Um, and that kind of led us to this synthesis map, an understanding of what
that data was. Um, and that we kind of helped uh, build the story that we were starting to see for mobility in the village. uh helped us identify locations for potential bike ped connections, places where there needs to be a sidewalk on the other side of the street. Um areas of interest that we had
heard through some of our initial feedback, places where folks are going today or businesses or restaurants that they're visiting that they'd like to walk to. Uh potentially dangerous intersections, looking at crashes where there's clusters of crashes across the village. And this helped us identify the vision and goals. So these these three
main goals that were established for the mobility plan um focusing on safety first um and developing new and safe connection and building off the existing connections that y'all have um and that feeds right into the second goal which is access just improving mobility and general mobility across the village. Um
not that there's a problem today but you know continuing to grow on what y'all have and and continuing to build out. Uh and then that placemaking element. There's some great places across the village. um some great parks, some great open space to connect to the beach as well. Um being able to to continue to
grow and and create new connections to those locations. Um a big piece of this was the public outreach. We heard a lot um I'll show in the next slide kind of how many folks we talked to across the entire the entirety of the project, but just some of that feedback that we heard um in our first
public engagement event. Um, you know, we got out and we heard a lot about where the sidewalks are or what types of bike lanes people want or the types of multimmoal vehicles we'd like to see. Uh, we heard a lot about how excited and proud people are to be residents within the village. um through our survey
process um and in in kind of tying into what that total is on the outreach, we spoke to about 300 interactions or we totaled in about 300 interactions. Uh with about 150 being in those online results, which the results to the right I'll touch on a little bit in a second. Uh and then 40 online mapping comments.
A big piece of this was understanding from folks if they could look at a map and tell us where there were issues today. Uh and then about 125 interactions between our two events um between the workshop and the first popup uh event. Uh a lot of this were were things that I think y'all you'all may uh
agree with or or uh certainly understand, right? So we heard a lot about cut through traffic, a lot about speeding through different areas across the village. Um we heard a lot about connecting east to west, being able to walk from park to park or from your house and kind of into the the center portions of the village. Um, we heard a
lot about folks using the different uh local roads as a side path to kind of get through when traffic is bad on Old Dixie or US1. Uh, and we we heard a lot about where the gaps were. That was a big part of this is we heard about where the gaps were. Um, and that kind of fed into our results. Um, which helped set
up the priority projects, which I'll touch on. Um, so this list of projects that we had developed previously. We looked at we expounded upon the first three goals to kind of build out different categories so that all the projects that we looked at we could bring together to start to build this prioritize process. And a big piece of
this was understanding what the primary benefit was and what the secondary benefit was. Just different kind of metrics that we could look at to score kind of develop out which one of these projects are are most critical for for the village and which we think will be the most successful um in the short and
long term. Uh so we presented this this oh sorry got ahead of myself. Uh so we did that through identifying through the synthesis map the public feedback field reviews and the cost feasibility. We came out with all these projects over 50 projects across the village. Um, from there we kind of took our metrics and we screened back and evaluated what we
could bring together, what would require different funding sources, what would require different coordination, and then we were able to begin prioritizing kind of selecting those sets of projects down to the the 10 that um are going to be leading or driving the mobility vision
forward. Uh, and then conceptualizing them into different project types. So, we'll have cut sheets for each one of these with some different renderings um to kind of share with that and then prioritizing them and recommending them forward. So, one of the big things we had previously heard from y'all is, you know, these seem like just kind of 10 projects all over the place, how we can
bring them together. And a big piece of this was um thinking about them as three larger kind of buckets of projects, which I'm going to touch on as we continue through. Um, but really being able to phase them out in a way that y'all can get built um in the near term, but also that give you the flexibility
to say, well, we want, you know, the side path here and we want to be able to improve the intersection here. And so we've kind of laid that out so that it can be phased out and developed uh in a way that's successful for the village. And so uh we presented all 50 of these projects kind of parsed back and and I'm
not going to go through all these. I'll jump into some but just how we kind of work through was understanding what the project was, its location, its name, uh the type that that we had laid out and then its improvement itself kind of what its benefit was to the village. Um and so as I said we had about 50 of these.
Originally we had parsed back to the 10 priority projects. Um and that's taken this this shape of these three larger buckets that the 10 projects fit into. So the first is this river to ocean trail project. Uh essentially an east west connection to the different parks
and open spaces and green spaces across the village. Um we had a lot of projects pop up that were kind of shared use path or elements for you know a larger multimmoal path for folks to walk or ride their bikes. Um, and so as we started to look at them laid out on the
map, we saw this really clear connection across. And so it allowed us to kind of break them up on the different corridors. And I'll touch on each one here in a second. Um, that next piece being the old Dixie linear park. That's the second big project. Um, it's the one we heard the most feedback on when it came to safety, connectivity,
walkability, a barrier within the village. Um, is how we can it would do something with the space kind of wedged between the tracks and Old Dixie. um and how that can be a really cool spine for the village in the future. And then the last piece is a little bit uh of a lump together of the safety and connectivity
improvements. There are several se sections across the village where with crash data, public feedback, we saw uh there was a huge need for just small interventions, whether it's adjustment of the curb radiuses or um uh bringing in medians. Um there's just some
opportunities to adjust those and a lot of those overlap with with the the greater plan here. Um, and so they lay out to kind of these three larger sets of projects, but 10 projects in total across the village. Um, and so I'm going to break these down one by one, starting
with the river to ocean trail. So, as I touched on, kind of this east west connection, um, kind of weaving across the village itself, um, in the county up to Martin County and then and down, uh, over to the Jupiter and the Nashville area as well. Uh, and so a part of this
is understanding how we can phase this together, how we can create this connection, and then as as Jay kind of touched on before, um, how we can collaborate with the county and with FDOT to get these projects in the long-term plans that will allow them to get built. So by creating the vision here, uh, you can kind of lead that that
effort with the county um, and then say this is an area that this can happen. This is we we've got an understanding. Um, and so that first segment is going to be Riverside Drive, um, which we're proposing or calling for an enhanced sidewalk or shared use path on the south
and west side. Um, there is, you know, uh, about a 24T rightway difference in several areas back over there. So, there's plenty of space to kind of squeeze in with some provial pavement. Uh, and then focusing on adding mobility hubs, kind of these centralized points at each of the parks or natural areas so
that folks can, you know, lock their bike up and run around in the grass or they can take sit in the shade or, you know, there's fix a flat station if you get a flat tire on your bike or just an area for kind of just general congregation, kind of a kicking off point. Uh, one of the things we're showing for several of these river to
ocean trail segments are a visualization of what it could look like. So, in this case, we're showing a small little uh midblock crossing that would connect across to the park uh and then to Remembrance Park kind of uh through the side section there uh which would just
be our RFB um and then allow for that traffic across and allow us to continue uh or east. The second segment uh is that Seabbrook Road piece. Um and this is again on the western side. So, tying in with the the park today. We actually drove out again
today and just took a look at how that um could incorporate well. So, right now we're just showing as kind of a straight line to show what would be needed to get it across, but tying into that design that's out there. The park is beautiful. Um tying in into that and finding a way to kind of match the way finding efforts
across uh and then sticking to the western side of the road. Um and just connecting down. A big comment that we had heard was a connection in this segment of Riverside Drive. um just you know the the midb block crossing that's a little further to the south has been great and a lot of the comments were about have seeing more of that across
the village. Um and so you know the idea that we we proposed here was having one straight just north of the entrance to the park. Now um oper offering that opportunity for folks that live on the east side or walking from over there to just connect easily a little more safely.
The next segment uh is the Questa Drive section itself. Um so remaining on the west side and you'll see a lot of other uh things on this map. We're going to dive into those projects as well as we continue. Um this segment focuses the the path on the west side and then
crosses over um AC across Riverside and stays on the north side of Tqua and then uh continues in front uh just a couple hundred feet out from where we are today and works its way all the way down to Willow and then we cross back over uh and cross across the tracks. Um there's
a lot happening here. A lot of high visibility crosswalks. Um we have some areas with some side mobility hub pull outs. Um the north side works really well in this in this segment for the most part until you get closer to the tracks just with the rightway that's out there today in the space. There's also some really great um mature trees out
there that will provide shade for the path. So we've kind of worked our way of weaving around that to ensure that we can keep some of those. Uh but really creating that central spine right through the village. Um making it a really multimodal corridor. Um and then
the last segment uh that we focus on um is the beach road segment. Um there are two other segments in the center, right? Bridge Road is where we've chosen kind of to work down and talk about or to work across and I'll touch on that as we are in the connectivity and safety improvement section. Uh and then it
would run down uh US1 as well on the west side and cross at Beach Road at the intersection. Uh so for this the idea, you know, keeping the trail on the north side and then having a midblock connection uh directly to the inlet to the park uh to the natural area just allows um an easier connection. You
know, we heard a lot about folks parking on the other side and walking across and vice versa and that being an unsafe scenario. Um and then just continuing where we can. We do get a little constrained on the bridge with uh with sizing. Um so just you know formalizing the trail through wayfinding um all the
way out um onto through Beach Road. So we established uh planning level cost estimates for each one of these uh across the village and and you'll see for the 10 priority projects they're broken down in that phased approach. So with the idea being instead of coming out here and saying what's a $3 million
trail that connects from this to this and and not giving a real opportunity to see how this could be phased in, we broke it down by each piece and then also broke down essentially what's involved in each piece. So whether it's just the shared use path or whether it's the mobility hub elements or whether it's um you know the traffic homing for
the midblock crossings, each of those are an individual cost so that they can be pieced together uh and developed in a way that would work best for y'all. Um so our next key bucket project is this Old Dixie linear park. Um so for everyone north is to the left in this
case just so that we could we could grab it better. Um but Old Dixie um is was the most commented area that we saw in the village through our our feedback. Um statistically, interestingly enough, it's not as high as some other places in the village. So I think there's a little
bit of some perceived safety issues. There's definitely some challenges around um Questa Drive, especially with that turn towards Bridge Road. That's where we saw kind of the most um issues I will say. Um but the biggest comment that we had heard was, you know,
activating the space, really creating um a green space for folks to use that connected to places they felt were meaningful. Um and so a lot of our design is just improving what's out there today. uh formalizing that through landscaping, being able to improve the the path itself to be a little bit
larger, a little bit more comfortable. Um adding some amenities across as I touched on, places for shade and for seating um and small congregation. Um and kind of continuing across uh to the northern portion uh of the village and then up to Martin County as
well. Um just creating that connection. You'll see there's that area where the propane tank is. So, we have a small pinch point that will allow for that 8 ft uh path to continue. So, for today, it kind of just deadends out there into that little loop into the little circle.
Um we are able to squeeze it just in just enough um to make it work and and feel safe and protected and to continue up. Um and so this would be another one of those projects as we look at it. um you know there would be some collaboration with FDOT. There would be some opportunities to work with the
county um with Martin County to kind of establish that this is an opportunity to create this valuable connection to the village. Um and so moving to our last set of projects um is this village safety and connectivity improvement areas. Um, so these are really focused on corridors
and uh intersections where we can improve safety in particular, but also where we we received a lot of comments. Um, and where there's also been some plans before that we think that um we can build off of. So starting with this first one, uh, it's Bridge Road in Old Dixie. So this is an area where we see one of the
highest sets of crashes uh, especially on that left turn movement off Old Dixie onto Bridge and vice versa. This is where we see the most um the most interactions uh on the crash side. And so part of the plan here is just really formalizing that median in the center turn lane um to prohibit that left turn
movement just prohibits and and increases the safety uh along Old Dixie. Uh and then also off of Bridge Road prohibiting that left turn movement as well by formalizing that small pedestrian refuge island. It creates a a safe and then um comfortable connection. And then there are some future plans
hopefully for for Bridge Road as it develops out with with parking. And so part of that is including that shared use path and kind of setting that back far enough to kind of set it up to be built out. Um as we see development happen in this section. The next section uh is that village
boulevard in Old Dixie. Uh this is where previously had been proposed for that roundabout. And so you know we took a really long hard look at this um and started to understand what that looked like with the impacts of movement. what it looked like for the impact on volumes um with some of the resurfacing that's
already happened on US1 where some of the vehicles are going today. Um and the roundabout is a is a high cost solution. It will work great. I'm not saying one. And um but there's some opportunity here to do a more lowcost design by removing that right turn pocket and pulling the
curve radiuses up to the street. Um one makes it a safer crossing and multimodal connection. Uh, but two also brings the driver and the stop bar up closer to make that turn. So, it allows for more time. Uh, and then by adding the midblock crossing, you can also allow
for RFBs um to kind of just slow traffic as well uh across Old Dixie. So, our next two will be on Dober Road. Uh, and a lot of the comments that we heard here is how this could be the
front door um to to Constitution Park. how can we take a look at this area? Um, out of all the comments that we had heard, most of which were related to flooding and not being able to walk since there are some sparse sidewalks in this area to connect to the park. So, a lot of folks are walking in the street
or riding their bikes in the street. So, a big piece of this was how can we make this kind of feel like the front door to Constitution Park and really that that second extension where y'all are already doing some some programmed events and doing things like food trucks or you know just having an opportunity to formalize the parking a little bit more
especially on the south side. Um so we looked at making this more pedestrian oriented street whether it's through some sort of stamping um or raising the intersection uh within the the midblock to the the parking lot. Um but a big piece of this is the the rain garden element that we looked at. So, uh, if we
take a space and a half on that side, um, we're able to help kind of mitigate a little bit of the flooding that's there today, uh, there's some pretty heavy ponding, especially as we head further west. So, by adding in three to four small rain gardens kind of spared out. Um, it just allows for some more
free flow permeable surface to allow for some of that water to flush out. Right now, it just sits and sits and sits. Um, and we see that as we work our way west. Uh, another comment that we had heard had been at this uh, intersection as well. Um, just with folks having some
issues with some speeding and some bikes that are here today. Uh, so by including that small uh, raised midblock textured intersection just works as a traffic calming element to help slow uh, some of the traffic and then incorporating the rain garden piece into that to help with
some of the flooding along the road. Um we touched a little bit on Twa Drive in Sebrook but um this was the previous project that we had showed as an example. Um this is kind of one of the more flagships really establishes this is kind of the the key center portion of the village. Um it slows traffic east to
west and north to south by including this kind of raised stamp concrete intersection. Um we we move the turning radiuses out. Uh we also make a pretty drastic change to the parking situation and the entrance that's off Seabbrook in the in the top right. Um just by kind of
formalizing that and and flattening it allows for the intersection to feel a little bit more comfortable es especially for pedestrians um and allows us to kind of work with the turning radiuses a little bit better to fit in that shared use path for the crossing.
And our last one uh will be Willow Road. So, Willow Road is a really great example of things that can be done once this plan is adopted. Um, kind of first off, some of those really small changes that can make a a really big difference. And so, we'll start here at the southern
portion. We heard a lot of comments about the merge point here and also where the the how folks are taking this turn, especially going north and kind of cutting through on Willow. So, by tightening that curb radi, bringing it out a little bit further, uh, prohibits drivers from kind of whipping that right
turn uh, and pulling in. Um, and also filling the sidewalk gaps. Some some minor changes like that go a long way. Uh, and then the bigger piece of this is some of the spot areas that we can start to do some treatments in the roadway itself. Um, this is an area that the the village controls the the the right of
way here. Um, so there's an opportunity to be a little more uh uh creative with how we slow traffic. Heard a lot of comments about folks whipping around this this right turn or this turn to the left or the right turn to the south. Um, so by just involving small little
splitter islands, um, kind of taking into account for folks driveways, but also kind of how we can help slow traffic by just putting some things out there. Uh, and the same thing with we have some speed humps, uh, that we've proposed that are an opportunity here. Um, kind of set the stage and and really
give the village its own um, identity, really make it its own place. Um, and and this can be done, you know, as soon as the plan's adopted. This could be one of the first things we come out and do. A lot of these are pretty low cost um and they can be done in a way that um that really show the character for
y'all. And so similar to the others, right, we have the cost estimates for this as well, showing, you know, if they were all done together, we packaged them all together, they come out to 3 million. Um but if we work our way back and you see Willow Road is a great example, some of these can be pierced pieced together um
to allow us to do things more quickly and kind of phase out that that plan in the long run. So I'll very quickly cover the the program and policy recommendations just focusing on two major uh pieces. Um a lot of these we've touched on kind of in the beginning. Um but a big piece of
this is just on the the policy and recommendations what we can kind of give you the tools to continue these this effort and and make this a living document. So part of that is just you know over time as the comprehensive plan goes to be changed in in five years or updated just aligning some of the goals
of the mobility plan with that or um vice versa. kind of making sure that we're we're including that land use uh and and uh roadway planning kind of long range together. Uh working through the zoning and land development updates, just requiring new develop developments to have things like bike parking or or
uh added connectivity to help with multimotal elements. Um focusing on just parking minimal adjustments, just reevaluate some of that to allow for credits for for golf carts, which I'm actually and low speed vehicles, which I'm going to touch on in the next couple slides. uh the the Palm Beach County the
or Palm Beach County Palm Beach TPA uh you know recently published their their 2050 or 2025 uh vision zero action plan just continuing to adopt some of those policies to eliminate severe crashes uh and and improve conditions for all users on the road and then continuing to place
make and develop uh great streetscapes. Um there are some beautiful roadways out in the village. Um some beautiful very tree canopy lined. So just continuing to uh to build uh and encourage that type of development across the village. The
two pieces I want to focus the most on are the low speed vehicle initiatives uh and then the ebike and bike safety. Um, so a really big piece of this is just building off the 2019 case study that was done around golf carts in particular and just making sure that low speed
vehicles um if used just understanding the difference uh and and bringing in policies that are similar. Um, so a big part of this is just understanding what it's like for the roadway, right? So for low- speed vehicles, we are allowed to do that 25 mph max, but they are allowed
on 35 mph roads. So we see things like Tquesta and Riverside and Sebrook and County Line being included in in some of those areas that are identified. Um, offering the parking incentives, that was another big piece um as we look at this on just how we can continue to
adapt. Um, and then doing pilot projects. A big piece is what areas can we look at around some of the parks or um some of the main businesses that we can bring in low speed vehicle parking. Um just kind of include some of that to to start understanding how they will uh
work with traffic and with um multimotal users today. And then just continuing to support that sustainability uh and be flexible. Um this and we have a whole big section kind of highlighting different areas across the village where some of this will work. um just being able to kind of continue to free that
space up for uh some of the great parks that you all have today. And then our our last two on the program piece is uh ebike safety. So a really big piece across the state of Florida has been um ebike safety. Uh there have been a lot of stories about uh the challenges with
ebikes across especially South Florida. Um and so just continuing to focus all initiatives and enforcement towards um you know highlighting some of the challenges but also making sure that folks that are riding are doing it safely today. So that includes
installing clear uh signage, making sure that shared use paths are um either striped or shown in different zones so that folks know what side is correct to ride on so that we don't have anybody running anybody over. Um that can be done with striping the center line or including signage that just says where
rider should be. Um the big piece uh so we took a look at a lot of the uh municipalities and some of the other towns um throughout the county just started an understanding of how they have been dealing with ebikes and how they've been successful. Um and a couple of the the big main pieces that we we
heard about is just continuing to get it out there in the public through things like flyers and banners on helmets. Just being able to continue to say speed awareness and safety is is the big key. Um target schools. Um that's another big piece that we've heard. Work with local
resource officers and and um the police departments to just ensure that teenagers and and um folks who are using ebikes the most uh are are getting the right education on how to use them properly. Um host safety workshops. That's a big piece. The TPA has been do or the Palm Beach TPA has been doing a
great job at starting to do those across the county. Um and so there's an opportunity to collaborate with them in a place like Constitution Park just for safe writing. um just how to properly maintain an ebike or where you can park it or how it needs charged. Um using targeted force zones and that's another
one that I think we've we've heard just issuing warnings or citations for unsafe behavior where it's needed to continue to to kind of follow that fifth. Um and then planning community rights and safety audits trying to get as many people in the community involved as possible to help um you know take away
some of these unsafe behaviors and conditions you know where they stem. Sorry, we're almost there. I promise. Uh the biggest piece for us is the implementation plan. Uh this is you know we want to make sure that this is a living document for y'all but not something that just sits on a shelf. So
a lot of the things that are focused here towards the end uh in in the report itself or the plan itself are really focused on how you can take all these things that you know that we've looked at uh and you can start getting them built today or find funding sources and and work through that. So the the two biggest pieces of that
are going to be the the project identification matrix which is a screenshot here on the right uh and the tracking metrics matricying which will be the next slide. Um but being able to take projects that are similar or things that you're hearing from the community um and to be able to grade them and put
them into the mobility plan or into the project list for the mobility plan. So, we've developed this this spreadsheet to the right, this tool to the right that will allow for when you put certain things in, it allows everything to be weighed out and graded based on the similar standards that we used for the priority projects. Um, and we see things
like those different categories that we included, the the traffic improvement, safety improvements, access, um, the main goals and themes that we had for the other projects. Um, we talk about construction timelines, the the planning level cost, all that's kind of taken into account to continue to build off this by establishing new projects that
will will continue to go online across the village. The second piece of this is, you know, that gauging success. So, understanding in the long term, right? Uh, it would be great if all these projects once the the plan was done, they were immediately built. Um, but, you know, understanding with where we are uh and and how much it costs to do
things today, understanding what it looks like in the long term. So gauging that success based on a lot of the comments that we heard from folks across those different goals that we have. Looking at how many miles of sidewalk we have, continuing that by understanding how many people are using them, just you know what that poll is that offers us to
say how many people are walking or biking in the village. Taking a look at some of the statistics that are there like the number of crashes, um the number of citations, things like that. So we can understand if if these are being successful and where we can continue um or pivot if needed.
Um and the the action items in the implementation plan really focus on um how we can continue to integrate these ideas uh for the mobility plan across all of the different um the different projects but also the different goals um and some of the long-term plans that that y'all are continuing to work
through. Um and using the priority projects as that kind of starter piece uh to build future projects um and then maintaining them and updating in the long run. Uh and then really focusing on leveraging those funding strategies, understanding the different grants that are available through the TPA, working through the different um bike and ped
funding cycles that they offer, pursuing different grants through things like the Sun Trail program. Um and then just, you know, that main key of incorporating them in those long range plans like the CIP and others um that allow for these projects to be um kind of put on the books at the larger scale so that the momentum can keep going. Um so that's
where we work through kind of that funding to coordination and in the study. This is what we had shown previously to just show the kind of the life cycle of a project as we work through. Um and with that I uh I will take any questions. Great. Thank you Alex. Appreciate that
very thorough presentation. It helps. Council open up for discussion. No. Yeah. Thank you Alex. That was very very cool. Um a lot a lot to consider there. As is the case with most cool things. Um they're usually expensive.
So, we got to figure that part out. But, I think you have some really good ideas. I particularly love the river to ocean trail concept. I can I mean, I just think not just for kids, but adults alike. I could just see that being a really awesome um resource and just kind
of destination path for our our village. Um I think we all know that the old Dixie needs some love. Um we've been hearing about that for quite some time. So, all in all, I think everything you guys put together is is very um very
interesting and I think would be a huge asset to our village. So, thank you very much. Thanks for joining us tonight. I didn't realize be that long. Um that was a lot. I appreciate it. I was good. Yeah, I like thorough and like at least give it to us all at once and we can
jump through this. Um I did make some notes. So when you keep talking about cut through traffic, I mean that's one of my pet peeves when I watch our I mean I grew up around here in South Florida. When main roads don't function efficiently, that's when the biggest
part of cut through comes through. So just keep that in mind when we start thinking about cut through um doing too much to our main roads. You had a slide up there. It was up to Questa Drive, Willow, and Fiesta. And again, you were talking about cut through for like a
third time. There was also a crosswalk outside here, but if I remember correctly from the slide, it wasn't on an intersection. So that could possibly be an extra stop for vehicles. So my
concern is just be careful, and I tell this to my fellow council members, the more we add stops on a main road, the more cutth through there's going to be because people are going to get so annoyed. And I actually think it's more safety hazard because the one that we
have over the bridge on the west side, people have to hit a light. I still see to this day and it's been out there for a while, people don't always stop. So I just I I find hesit I'm hesitant when we add more and more and more like that. If it's not on um actual intersections cuz
it's just adding more and then for me it just trickles into more cut through and I'm a big advocate for neighborhood roads should be neighborhood roads. They shouldn't be cutthroughs. Unfortunately, I see it in our surrounding municipalities, those back roads are being taken more because why? Their main
roads are so jammed up. So, just when we look at these things, um, and we do finally get to these points, just making sure things flow well. It's bad enough where we have two lanes and everything's very difficult. Shared pathways, you mentioned that when you were talking about river to ocean. What is sharing
it? Yeah. Uh, shared use or multi-use, right? Uh so anything that's over 12 to 14 feet I think in total is considered shared. So it's typically bikes and pedestrians and um it is not intended to
be for golf carts or low-speed vehicles. Um there is a little bit of debate today uh with things like ebikes and scooters in particular and how those are played in. The way we've seen other places handling the same problem is that you
either put that traffic on the road or you just delineate more space on the shared use path. Um there's there's a really good study in Indianapolis that came out about the signing on the ground. Um and just some simple tricks with different colors of line work on the ground in Cheru's paths to say, "Oh,
well, yellow is for pedestrians and the blue area is for um bikers and the outside is for scooters." Um it's an interesting study just on how you navigate different colors with staying in different space. Um and it's just like they use simple little diagrams at the beginning. It doesn't go the whole
length of the trail. Uh but just at the beginning and then they enforce that through kind of way finding across uh the project or across the path. So second part question to that parts of that trail are in Tquasa, parts are in Jupiter. I think parts are in unincorporated.
The rideways are going to be all different. Have you guys looked at if that would even fit? Yes. Without taking into people's properties? Yes. So, the only place along um the river to ocean trail where we see a major constraint in the rightway space is towards Old Dixie and particularly
around the railroad track. That's where it really shrinks down that horse from Twista. Everything everything um that runs up uh on Riverside and in Seabbrook. Uh there is enough space there today. Uh the way that we set it also is we just looked at what the FDM
standard, the Florida design manual standard was for the space that's allowed between um a shared use path and whatever the roadway speed is for that area. Um so we're not encroaching on any properties in that section or in in those sections to answer that first question. Uh the second caveat piece of
that is the small cut across of the river to ocean trail um does fall on the the back property line uh to connect Riverside to Seabbrook um to the park. So that would be the only segment and it's actually the only place where we have a call out for any potential cost
um where there may be a um an easement required just to allow for that. Um those parcels to live with are vacant right now. So um you know there's an opportunity to work with the land owner um on the on the um riverside side but
for the most part or for the most part across the rest we did run a full 15% concept plan to take a look at where those entrances were in many places we're you know moving the path to accommodate native large native trees that are out there today where we have the extra space is when we'll cut things
down that are out there that are beautiful um and we accommodate the swale to at least that five foot minimum that's required um across the the swailes. We love swelles. Yeah. Um so cost, you had a slide above um multiple costs for different projects.
Is that would that be estimated cost for Tquesta or is that the whole project which could be shared cost because some of these projects tie into other areas? That's a great question. Uh so it is the total cost. Okay. Um we did call out where that um
collaboration would need to be uh required um for any that are within TWA itself right that cost would be for y'all and choose to to collaborate with others but for the A1A or for OIX in particular um that's the one where the cost we call out you know what is most
likely going to be needed to to um last thing because again I've experienced it myself that left turn coming out of Bridge Mhm. And then onto Dixie. I feel like that's gotten brought up many many years ago.
And it was it's such a delicate balance. That left turn is gold, but it's also very dangerous. So, and again, this is just a a draft design. When I see that you basically take it away and I just knowing our back roads, I don't know where the next back road would be when
someone goes, "Oops." And then my concern is, and I'm just trying to prep ourselves, like what will we do? Because if people go north and they need to go south, it's very possible they're not going to go back out east, they're going to try and do a U-turn, which doesn't fit. So, I just want to look at what's
the solution going to be. And you don't have an answer now, but that one I think we really need to think of a solution. If we take away that left turn, again, it's been we're cut through and we just talked about cut through traffic. So, I'd rather find a solution. Maybe there's a different structure that could
be finagled in there that allows a left turn, but in a safer manner. That also might have to be something that's on Old Dixie to kind of contribute to that. But I I know I've heard this before. When we take away that left turn completely, it's not there's nowhere else to go.
Yeah. And so we we looked at both the intersection on Old Dixie in a lot of depth um for for a lot of the same reasons. Um the left turn movement is the most dangerous movement you can make in a vehicle. Um it's where we see the highest um amount of crashes anywhere
across anywhere you drive that make a left turn. It's by far the most dangerous. Um part of the discussion that we had had with it is maybe it's a signing piece to kind of let people know that that traffic isn't there even at the beginning of bridge where you're saying you need to make that turn to Westonal up at the intersection on US1.
Um, we did run the turning movement for if you did a U-journ only phase. I heard you whisper that under your breath. Um, on at Buster Drive and and and Old Dixie, uh, if we stick with the design that we did where we moved the curb out at that intersection, um, it
fits, but not well. To your point, folks are it'll it just takes one person to take that turn wide and knock the curb. Um, so that's something we continue to to look at. Um, you know, where we had landed with it is some of the improvements on bridge to hope to uh
maybe make it a little more localized or neighborhood street by some by adding things like on street parking and others will kind of cut down on the the cut through traffic in that area and kind of force drivers to innately think, oh, I've got to go up to to Westa Drive if I'm going to make that left back onto um
Old Dixie. That was the the thought process behind it. Um, yeah, it's taking away a left turn can be very tricky. Um, it can be very rewarding. I don't know if you want to add on that. I know you've done some Only because it's also very short to when you turn right, there's not much
space to get to that red light and most people are going to most likely go left to go back home. And it's not a great intersection, but I mean, it's not the only intersection that's the first one to ever have this issue. I can't imagine there wasn't some creative solutions. I just know the past
this has come up with that left turn and again I go with flow and that just makes everything flow one way and it's not like it's huge above that. It just dumps right there and my concern is what are people's reactions going to be and then it's going to cause other issues traffic-wise
and it's it's just a little too close to that drive intersection to add another light which creates kind of No, I'm not saying that. No, that's the other step you would go right. Yeah, that's the other way. But I I the only thing I would add too is just south of that there is availability to
make a left turn into that business that's on the corner. So we wouldn't be taking away that left turn to the business itself and that actually wraps around. But when you're making a left turn into a driveway versus the the street, you have a different perception. So what's happening is it's the it's the
southbound left turn that's what that's the left turn problem. So people are merging over, speeding, and then cutting that because they're going fast in that turn. And vehicles traveling northbound might be building up speed. And so that's where you're not perceiving that.
And that's where you're getting those accidents. When you're turning in a driveway, you might actually wait a little bit more and then make that turn safer. So that's one one aspect of it. The other is there's two spots onto Qua to make a right turn and then come back. There's two act two roads there. One is
uh uh in right that splits I think uh Paradise Park with a little circle in it. And then there's another one a little bit further up I think. Uh yeah, but that's all east. I'm talking about people come out. They don't if they don't Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Getting off topic. You're saying when they want to go left
bound. So they would if they And then also too and I know I don't know which council members are up here at the time. It it was talked about at council. We try to avoid cutthroughs through businesses. I mean and again municipalities right next door they have a big issue with that because why their
main rooms are so congested. So just keeping in mind the flow and the connectivity and when you start hindering certain areas it's it just makes more of a nightmare. That's all. But thank you for all that and very thorough. I'll also touch real quick on that. One
of the reasons why we moved that crosswalk onto Qua from Willow is because that's right where the merge is happening westbound. there's a curve like a and then the road is curved. So, we want a driver to have a line of sight to somebody crossing. That's why we pulled it out of that intersection. Now, your
your point is valid though. Do we need to keep it further west? Is it making another stopping point? Do we need to think and the reason why the merge is there is because they don't want cars to back up on the train tracks? I would want to put the merge in the spot sooner so that it's already merged
before they get to the intersection or even match up with the driveway. I mean, a few however many feet over is our driver right out here. That's right. I just find when it's so randomly placed, one, it I find it safety because people have to hit that button and then again, you're creating more hiccups in the flow of traffic which
creates more cut through. So maybe it needs to move in a different space. It could be something we could look at a little bit more. Maybe there's some more attention that could be paid where that merging is happening. Looking at the volume paint's one thing. Painted crosswalks are one thing, but then if we're putting in those lights,
I mean, that obviously is more in depth than electronics. So, that's why I'm saying that now. So, this way we don't maybe in near future go oops. Yep. And make it right the first time. Totally agree. Thank you. Thank you. I think great solutions, guys. I think you raised the bar with this mobility
plan. I've seen a couple over the years, and I think he really took the time to understand the village and the flow. You're able to reference these streets like you live here, right? it can get confusing. Old Dixie, alternate A1A, all these things coming through, which is which and I think you did a great job um with the solutions and they were cost
effective solutions. I really enjoyed seeing a couple of those pieces. I want to build on Council Member Brandon's points on the cut through and it's more of a question. Do you use as we're getting more uh Uber robo taxi delivery services, do you use technology to point
these vehicles uh to stay on the main roads? Right? Cuz they're all using maps. Yeah, if the map tells them to stay there, they're staying there. Do you guys have something more advanced than we have just submitting to Google Maps to direct people to stay on the main roads?
I'll let you handle the the moving itself for for the AV technology piece. um in less urban areas, a big thing that we're seeing across different towns, uh villages and cities have been this focus
on a singular point. And so like the thing with Uber and Lift, it's a little tricky, right? especially if it has a driver like they're going to kind of go they might follow where you tell them but if you can if you can put that traffic in one place we find that it's been more successful um one to actually
get the ride but also two on the traffic piece itself um so a lot of places that we're looking at um across Florida really um have been focusing on where that one point can be um I'm not as familiar with with the technology for AV
um we do have a lot of folks who are specialized in that area. It's just it's not mine. Um I know that it's it's gone light years. I know that they try to avoid traffic the best they can, which is where you see a lot of those issues with with um cut through traffic in particular.
So a lot of them and you touched on it so I know you probably deal with it before they have an algorithm that decides and each of the algorithms are are um proprietary and whatnot but generally if the algorithm is going to take them what they think is the fastest and when you get the cutthroughs are
often at peak traffic and peak traffic is going to peak and even best organized signals are going to there's still going to be traffic because we get we get an influx in the moment and we don't design the roadways for that peak. peak moment because that's about 15 or 20 minutes a
day versus the full day. So things like the traffic calming that we were showing on Willow or other streets or using some of those ideas as like a toolbox for other streets can actually offset where once those get in to that piece, they're going to say, "Well, if you go through here, there's a delay on this road
because of a traffic calming element or the speeds on that that they're measuring are always lower." So the speed on to Questa might be more matching that. So that's a faster way to go. So you can kind of play off some of those elements of the algorithm. But to your original question, the best thing
is is that if we see a lot of cut through and it looks like it's Uber or Lyft and it's and it's putting them through putting a note into Ways or into Google to to do that. A lot of communities have done that. But we can also but part of traffic calming can also help play off that algorithm a
little bit and kind of discourage it by saying this is going to be a low speed road anyway you shake it. So, you know, whether it's you're saving 3 seconds by doing a cut through, that goes away because you're going to have to go the speed of the road. Y Okay. Thank you guys. Great job. I look forward to some of those solutions um
actually being executed. Yes. Thank you very much for the work. Great job. Um you said that it's important to or Jay might have said it's important to have this mobility plan in order to collect mobility fees, right? Is that correct? Y. What is the status of the mobility fee
in Palm Beach County right now? Then was didn't Palm Beach Gardens just get they just overturned that ruling? So now is is mobility fees are being up in the air again? Great question. Um J, I don't know if you know more my manufacturing and working with Palm Beach TPA. Um some
have been uh repealed. There's several towns that have the past and they're still in place. Um, and there's uh talk about a countywide uh mobility uh fee that that could be uh in the next year or two. I think the bigger picture of
that is looking at the overall growth in Palm Beach County and that the money that's set aside right now for the roadways uh just isn't enough to cover the growth that's been happening. So, you know, it's a it ends up becoming a little bit of a of a of a pull, right? like yes the development community
doesn't like mobility fees because that's additional fees you know in in part of that at the same time um how do we pay for some of these uh pieces that new development and new people moving here are generating. So um it depends a
lot on the voting public as it goes out and and things like that and kind of getting a a pulse on that. But back to the mobility plan itself, to ask for the fee, to understand the need of the fee or what to ask for in that fee, you have to have a plan of the things that need to
happen. And that's kind of the chicken and the egg piece here. We need to know what are these things that can help mobility into Questa and offset that. And then this could be the cost. So Keith, feel free to jump in too, but I don't think there's been a definitive
ruling on the mobility fee question yet. So we're we're kind of in a wait and see approach. If if there wasn't that kind of uncertainty, we would have already probably started on getting the mobility fee study done. We were kind of planning to do that, have this done, and then start working on the mobility fee so
that it'd be ready to adopt right after the mobility plan. But we're we're in a little bit of a wait and see approach, kind of seeing how things shake out. And that's kind of where everybody is right now, too. And that mobility fee is on, excuse me, on new development only going forward. So, it's only collect mobility fee on
things going forward. Is that residential and commercial? Is it roads? Is it anything and everything or correct? It's residential and commercial. Um, but if you're if you're doing a tear down, you get you get a credit for for the building you're tearing down. So, it's it's typically just for new development, but the the project, you know, that's coming in with
the the that we just annexed, right? We get we get mobility fees for those other single family homes. Okay. Um, what is the the in your experience, KDson or Jay, what is your in your experience like what were the the total number of of our of our three
projects, if you will? Um what is what what have you seen in the past as far as TPA funding for any of that? 10% 20% 50%. Nothing. So the the TPA each year kind of has a call for projects or call for things that they can fund that's dependent on
the funding that they're getting the from the state from the feds and what's coming into the TPA and then based off that pot they get you know those uh uh uh percentage that are in there. That's a great question. I I might have to get back to you on that to understand that overall price part part number. I think
it varies from year to year. It also varies in terms of how many applicants they get. Um I will say that uh at least in the last year, the year before last, they only had like two applicants to that pool. So those two applicants got a little bit more than if they were say 10. Okay.
Um so again there's a varying amount there. I'm not sure what the percentage would be. Okay. In the last question in the vision zero um the last components uh adding art can you explain the art component to vision zero sorry uh they were two different bullets
I guess vision zero being its own piece and then kind of that last piece on policy is continuing placemaking in the village by keeping your character essentially right so um continuing to um to build good streets to develop good streetscapes that are out there today
it wasn't art as in like art in public places or anything like that when I saw the part. I was kind of just kind of wondering what that would be. I mean, so one example is like on to Questa, you might brand eventually the river to ocean with like a trailblazing thing there. Maybe it's it's signage or
not signage um or wayfinding signage, but like say you have banners on poles, things like that that start to to people can see that and they connect it with the quest and it's something that's very in line with the character. it's it's perpetuating that as a piece of these mobility things, you know, like there's
an opportunity to go above and beyond for some of those things. Uh if so, okay, that's it. Thank you. Great job. Appreciate it. Okay. Um couple questions and I guess early statements. Um I love the tools and the implementation plan. So, thank you for providing those. I think that'll, you know, really help us going
forward. Um, of course, council will have to formally um adopt this plan or decide not to adopt this plan, however that vote would go at, I'm assuming the next council meeting, but um from a staff perspective, I don't know. I don't think you're asking for anything else
from us tonight besides feedback. But if you need any more direction on the implementation plan, that'd be nice to know uh either leading up to us uh formally voting on it or if we have to workshop again. We just would like some direction there. Um, on the public outreach, did you know where the
residents lived or was it anonymous? Um, so this is a good question. Um, we added uh in the survey, um, we didn't ask for it in person. Oh, we did ask for it in person. I did, um, in the survey, we asked for
the zip code and then we basically, um, in the survey tool doesn't allow the same URL to submit over and over. So, we weren't getting responses from folks that were outside the village. So, we didn't inherently ask for their we it was an option. You could put your address in. I I don't think offh hand if
anybody did. Um the zip code was required. The zip code was required. Yeah. Okay. Um so, that doesn't really help us gauge where people live throughout the village. So, I just asked because it was um interesting to me that in um the existing walking and biking data, everything was on the eastern half,
eastern side of the river and all of the priority projects are on the eastern side of the river. And I don't know if that's because maybe there were some on the west side, but they just didn't shake out as a priority. But there might be a lost opportunity there with that uh river to ocean trail or just a shared
walkway to at least connect all the way down to Dequesta Drive because I know so many people that ride their bikes from the west side of the river to the parks or to the beach. So I don't see why we wouldn't want to have that connectivity cuz then you have a whole section west
of the river that doesn't have any new connectivity to the community as a whole. Yeah. And so there were there were a couple projects west of the river that were kind of like right on that lower north threshold like the 12 13 14 um
that we have identified in the projects and and they can you know be built out. They're in the same prioritized process. We're looking at all the same things um for the trail connection down um on Riverside. Right. We continued that path actually in the plan. So, it's kind of
in in um it's kind of uh like implied that it could continue all the way down south to Tquusta. It's actually also on Tqua. If you look at the larger map that we have out, you can see the the path on the north side. Um for the connections across though, a lot
of the comments that we heard were more about certain locations and more about traffic in general and less about connectivity. So, like one that strikes mind is up towards Fairway towards the north. Like there were some comments about the intersection that's up there off County Line Road and just the that's
not County Line Road, sorry. Um that's off of Country Club, sorry. Um just the the safety at the intersection up there. I think it only got like maybe one comment and I think there was only one recorded track or one recorded crash in the last five years. So some of those kind of floated down, but we had 50
projects that we identified and and just the feedback that we received really focused on those 10 in particular. Um I do think that in the the long run and part of this is how this plan continues to grow if adopted is you know that next step is the river to ocean trail could
connect that way and how do we what's the next set of projects even if before this one is finished is there a way to start branding and creating those connections to the the community west of the river. Yeah. If I recall, there were a couple of requests for like some small neighborhood roundabouts uh on the west
side around Golf View traffic coming on Golf View um some connections uh across the bridge. And so to Al's point, those are lower on the priorities. So they didn't make the top 10, you know, and I'll joke sort of joke, but let's say we build all the top 10 in the next 3
years, those can move up. new projects can also get sorted into that and then part of that implementation matrix and tool allows to decide how new projects or pre-existing ones can start to move up uh each year and have others that are implemented. That makes sense. And I did see like
that um that confusing intersection at Country Club and North Place was on there. But yeah, I think I think there is a I do in my opinion think um there's a missed opportunity for a priority project to extend that shared use lane west on Dequest to Drive. um until it
hits country club because I think you're just you're you're not allowing that western um portion of the river to have that same connectivity to everything else that could be implemented in the future. And one challenge in the country club too is that if you're going to do any
kind of shared use path, you're going to have to do it in somebody's front yard, right? Everyone thinks that that's part of their property. So a lot of the places we picked were in areas where where you're not really in somebody's front yard and taking that from them. So, I think I had originally pushed them to to kind of propose something all the
way through the country club, but then I think as we we talked and looked at it, I think it it almost works better is just having all the pedestrian and bike activity on the street and just keeping it calm and and not having to take that right away from people. Yeah. No, that'll be a big that'll be a
big conversation. I mean, stop it. Take it through the sheriff's through the Questa Drive West. Stop it at Country Club Drive. Don't go into the country club. and and the the one piece that we worked with Jay a lot on that we didn't have a slide for the map for is kind of that low speed vehicle and like how they play together. A lot of the comments
that we heard about some of the golf carts and low speed vehicles came from the country club area in particular. And so part of that is the overlay where we're looking at like the streets we identified that you know if moving forward where we would identified that location to be because that was a big
piece of the comments that we heard was like you know we would like to ride my golf cart all the way over that way or it would be nice to be able to have a connection and so he worked with with with Jay and um kind of identified that area. So, it's kind of not a mobility project, but I think it is an initiative that covers them a little bit in that
case. All right. And then um you know, Old Dixie does uh Council Member Painter, I think, brought this up with the Old Dixie and it continues to pop up in every plan and survey we do. I know historically we've been very timid because of the FEC lease, but I, you know, I really think we should start
moving forward with some old Dixie improvements. I know we're budging some for this year. So, I would just want uh I'm sure staff will make sure that any improvements we're going to do will kind of be phased and laid out in accordance to maybe future plans that are in this this plan.
And one one note on that. So, we've worked a lot with FC and Norfick Southern and some of the other railways. We the setback that we're requiring for all the improvements is what their maximum or maximum what their minimum would be for that section. So we did from like all their standards for where the setback would be from what they
allow to be close um it kept everything out of that space because um it's always can be a headache going back and forth. So your portion is out of that space. Um and I know page 64 discusses planning process and feasibility at a have these
been looked at at least a very high level for feasibility because I would hate to have like four of our top priorities not even be a possibility. Yes. So, um all 10 of the projects we did um 50% concept design um with contingencies in the cost estimates and
then we had them checked um just through our engineering staff just as a kind of that first look before it continued on as it moves to its next phase of development um with 15% design. The only caveat is it does include survey. So, we rely off of the county records for parcel lines and things like that. So,
um, we're pretty confident in some of our conversations, uh, about where where things are. Um, and so, you know, we made sure we weren't touching property or trying to stay within the public right away as much as possible. So, um, they are feasible to that 15% design. Okay. Thank you for doing that high
level high level check. Um, and then under the community micromobility and transit readiness, I was hoping for some suggestions in that category, especially in light of the countywide master transportation plan. I would have like known from the community, do they want any or do they not want any? You know,
what what does our community want? So, I don't know if there's still opportunity for feedback there or opinions, but I was hoping there would at least be again maybe some highle suggestions in that category. Um, and then just this is a little nitpicky element, but there are some discrepancies with the plans that
are in the priority project section versus the plans that are in the um appendix. So, like there's some rows that aren't labeled correctly. So, if we could just clean that up before we formally adopt the plan, that'd be great. Absolutely. Okay. Council, any other comments or questions? No, thank you. Thank you again.
All right. Any public comment cards? Thank you. I'm going to take public comment now. Marie Superior. Um Mary has some more comments. Okay. Mr. Bradford coming up. And then Marie, you're next.
Thomas Bradford 44 Chest and the Trail to Quest. I think I have four things. Number one, if my memory serves me correctly, in 2023, the village paid for and approved the master plan by the Treasure Coach
Regional Plan Council, and that has a roundabout at the intersection of Village Boulevard and Old Dixie. I'm wondering if the consultants uh were aware of that, if they gave it any consideration, and what why they didn't propose it. in this uh
uh document that they're we're working on. Number two, if you drive eastbound onto Questa Drive in morning rush hour, uh when also at the time when parents
are taking their kids to school, uh noon time, lunchtime traffic and then school pickup 3:00 time frame and then afternoon rush hour and you're driving eastbound onto Questa Drive and you come to Riverside
Good luck to you because backs up traffic very badly. Which makes me think at some point probably with turn lanes. As it stands right now, the only turn lane is if you are northbound
on Seabbrook Road at the end of Testa Drive right there by Perk, there's a turn lane. I don't regard to those two intersections, Riverside Drive and Sebrook, they do not
have, let's call it, the modern architecture for the traffic signals. So that means if you have a hurricane, you're going to have a spaghetti intersection with wires and no functional uh traffic lights. the the
steel arms that come across that you see is placed on that arm and all is inside of that arm. That's state-of-the-art. And those two intersections don't have that and they need to be upgraded to
meet like you have on old Dixie has the arms, US1 has the arms. They're not on those intersections. And what happens in a hurricane is that policemen or others have got to direct traffic at some point in time because it gets real scary when
people are just doing what they want to do when they want to do it. The last thing is uh Bridge Road intersection with O Dixie. I really think it needs to be eastbound one way only because it kills two birds with one stone. The
county's got a big problem. They already know that if you're on Old Dixie at the intersection with the Questa Drive and you want to turn westbound, there's not enough stacking capability in that turn lane. And so they need to extend that
turn lane further to the south, which is going to block the ability ultimately to turn left and go southbound on O Dicks. So that's my thinking. Thank you. Thank you. Um, real quick to address the
um, treasure regional planning council comment. I know in the report the consultants did say that they use that uh, did consult that plan and then also correct me if I'm wrong, you did state during your presentation that the roundabout is doable. You were just providing a more cost effective solution.
Okay. Right. Raise Perry. I live in the country club. Um, there are definitely pieces of this plan I agree with. However, the mobility plan proposes relaxing parking requirements for development. Um, you should absolutely not do this and I recommend taking that those portions out
of the plan. Um, required parking is a vital code protection for Tquesta against overdevelopment and preventing overdevelopment is widely supported by residents. The key driver of congestion is density. Your focus should be on not increasing density and protecting the village from too much of it. That's how
you preserve the village as a small village. This is what residents have asked for over and over and over again. No one has asked for more density or bigger buildings with less parking. There should be no parking reductions or credits to developers either. Notice the push in the proposal to facilitate more
development even though this is the opposite of what residents have asked for and also opposed to the goals of less congestion and safer streets. The proposed plan observes, quote, "In the longer term, as travel demand grows, the village should collaborate with Palm Tran and explore the feasibility of
limited stop circulator service or flexible microtransit zones that can connect residents to regional transit hubs." End quote. Um, we believe that the assumption underlying this observation is misplaced and contrary to village priorities. There is no reason to assume that travel demand grows here.
To the contrary, we should prioritize creating an economically self-sufficient and healthy village so people can live in the village and so that the village is not simply a dormatory for another place. This is a key idea. Please do not support initiatives that are directed to more and bigger buildings and transport
infrastructure. Instead, prioritize preserving enhance and enhancing the vibrant daily life of Tqua and improving the quality of development here. Saying no to bigger development does not mean no development. We should be focused on better quality development and redevelopment. KGO's goals to preserve
the village should be one preserve the commercial zone as a commercial zone, require commercial use in the mix use zone, and three not increasing the density. Under no circumstances should density be increased or other constraints on overdevelopment be relaxed. The mobility plan also
observes, quote, "The village should continue to promote comp compact walkable development patterns that support local mobility, reduce autodependency and create inviting street frontages. The focus here on reducing automobiles is inappropriate. The focus here should rather be on
reducing car congestion by not increasing the density and preserving the code provisions that limit building size and density. Um notice in this plan and in the later issues that we'll see at this meeting, there is a push to relax parking limitations. You should absolutely preserve the parking limitations in the code as this is a
vital constraint against overdevelopment. Thank you. Thank you, Marie. Maryanne, another any other public comment, Miss Watkins? Good evening, everyone. Pat Watkins, 167 River Drive. My only comment here, I have not studied this thing and there's
a lot in here. I'm just concerned with the money and the time and the effort that's been spent over the last few years doing our sidewalks, planting trees, what's already there. Would hate to see you come behind that and rip that up, whatever the the plan is. And in
talking about old Dixie, the left turn lane coming west off of bridge has always been a nightmare. That's certainly something needs to happen here. But the lighting between Toquesta Drive and Village and on maybe up to County Line Road even, please consider that with
whatever's going on with uh Old Dixie. Thank you. Thank you. Any other public comment? All right. Any other council comment? No, thank you. Just one regarding the old Dixie area um in reference to the public comment made. I think when we do partnerships with county because that's a county road,
looking at the stacking of that turn lane because that is absolutely true. Um, and then that kind of causes that center lane to fill up and that's where some confusion comes through. So maybe they can help with figuring out how to create a more efficient turn lane as well. That's all.
All right, great. Thank you, Kilson and Jay. Appreciate it. All right, moving on. Agenda item two, discussion on FPL Solar Together program. Doug, good evening. It's just a quick introduction to FPNL's solar together program. Uh FPNL introduced us to this
program in 2021 uh that they were rolling the program out and we've been on waiting list since 2021. We now have an opportunity to participate in this potential savings. And basically what we're doing is an investment in FPL's uh solar program and
we would transfer about 45% of our electricity from the main grid to solar energy. And it's important that we don't um confuse the 45% savings, right? The savings is energy. Energy is transferred to solar power. It you do not get the
same savings in our pocket. So, initially there's this subscription fee to invest in this program. And the fee is a fixed rate of 106,000 I'm sorry, $106,673 per year. And in doing that, we received
bill credits. we receive back based on the energy that we're moving to the solar grid, we received back $11,955. So what our in the first couple years in the program, if we were get into the program, there's a there's a cost to be in the program. So when you look at the
subscription fee minus the credits, uh in year one, we have a $4,700 cost. Uh and then year two is 28 $2,600. Year three is a $600 $7300 cost. And then year four is $527 cost. In year five is
our break even where we're making money in the program. I'll let you know up front. It is extremely modest return on investment, right? We spend $600,000 a year on electricity with FPNL. Half of that is the water plant and the other
half of that is all the other departments. So when we look at um our return on investment for for a financial perspective, it's a small return, right? Um it basically grows. It continues to grow. The the the costs don't change. The subscription fee doesn't change. The
bill credits credits don't change. Our kilowatt rate doesn't change. So we look at over 10 years, we're putting back in our pocket, you know, a net of $11,450. That will continue to grow over time. And the hope would be that in the future
we're moving more of our electricity to the grid and that possibly the net savings and net cost will continue to increase uh over a period of time. But it is a long-term investment. You know, it's hard to see what's going to happen in 10 years. There is no um hard
obligation. There's no agreement that we have to sign with FPNL to to get into the program. We can drop out at any time. Um, however, on the flip side, FPL can change this program at any time as well. Right? The way I look at this, um, you know, initially there is a cost. Uh,
I'm hopeful that they're going to continue to build solar energy, maybe even mix in hydrogen. I know they're building a hydrogen plant, um, up north as well. And hopefully in the future, we'll be able to transfer more and more electricity to the grid, which in turn will turn into
savings for the village. Again, you know, you're looking at it financially, it's it's not a a huge savings at all in our pocket, but we have this opportunity now. Like I said, we've been waiting for 3 years. Don't know if we pass on this opportunity when it would come back to
us again. Um, so we just wanted to manager and I wanted to present this to you tonight, kind of get a feel for it and how you wanted to move forward. If you know now's the time, we have about 30 days to participate in this program. If we don't, they bypass us and they move along. This is also an opportunity that we can share with the residents and
the businesses inquest as well. They can participate in this program as well, but it'll be based on their cost and their savings will based on their actual annual usage for their home or for their business. So, I know people are participating in the program as well.
So, just wanted to get some feedback and and what y'all thought whether you thought it was a good u opportunity to jump on this program now or we wait a couple years and see if it comes back our way. Thank you, Doug. Council, looks beautiful. No, I guess. Yeah.
Oh, I'm just disappointed that's what the return is after 10 years. Pretty low. I mean, it's misleading when you look at all the literature in the brochure. So, when this program was first rolled out to me, that's part of the reason I pulled it last month. I was waiting for our FPL reps to call me back. You looked like
you had, you know, a substantial savings up front in the first couple of years. And then when we finally got the numbers back, no, it's 45% of your electricity usage going to the grid. not in your pocket. So, you're you're investing in their solar grid. You're helping them build this. Yeah. And I and I totally get that. Um
and obviously we hope it gets better and the return will probably increase over time, but I mean what we have in front of us right now are the facts. So, what we would be looking at and that's a long time to even make the money back. So, it's a long-term investment. I'm hesitant to do that right now.
Just a question. If you don't know the answer, totally fine. Just for my own edification mostly. But do we know of any other local municipalities who have taken advantage of this or are doing it? They gave me a list of about three or four lo that are in three or four municipalities. Okay.
Throughout the state. Yeah. There were there weren't a lot. But like I said, they're just rolling this now rolling this out now to the municipalities. Okay. Are there larger municipalities? It's more for sustainability. You know, we're protecting the environment. This is right now. This is more for sustainability that you know.
Yeah. as is the case a lot of you know like not to compare this to FPL undergrounding but it's almost one of those things if you wait it out with FPL it it seems to get better or free or however you want to look at that. So right now I don't my I'm not crazy about
it for the same reasons you are aren't. What you could see eventually you know when you get into years seven and eight and and so on every every three three to four years or 3 to 5 years FPL increases our rates and this could potentially offset those little increases that we
have every few years three years or so. That's that's another way you could look at it. Okay. Yeah, I'm know you jump in the program though, you know, you want to get your money back and you're you're in the program. Yeah, I'm a no on this program. I I do
like the idea, but as an investment, I don't think that we can consider it that. Um our assumed rate of return for our pension funds are 6 12%. And so unless something meets that, I don't think that is a wise idea to call an investment. If they want to discount their stock and sell to us, um then that
may be something we can consider for a marketing effort. I don't necessar I don't think it's necessary at this point. People do understand solar. My entire home and cars are powered by solar and I do enjoy some flexibility, but it's definitely not cost savings. Um, and just looking at the 10-year net
savings and trying to read their literature, I think they need to go back, unless they did it on purpose for their marketing efforts, cuz it's extremely confusing. Yeah. Uh, I do like the idea and I I appreciate you presenting it. Um, as as far as how was initially laid out, when you really dig into it, I don't think
that's a wise investment for us at this time. Yeah, I I echo what my colleagues have said, but I So, you said we pay about $600,000 a year in electricity plus So, we'll get we'll pay 600,000 plus an extra 10673.
So, we're out of cash. Well, you're not you're getting so out of the 106,000 subscription fee, you're getting back a bill credit of 101,000. So out of pocket, it's $4700 over the course of a year. Over the course of the year, but do we pay the subscription fee upfront, right?
So we pay 100. So we will be going. You're not actually paying money because you're getting the credit. So the only out of pocket is the 4718. It's the most confusing, misleading thing I've ever seen. I don't I don't for 27 years I did extremely I did I don't I think I did pretty well in high finance but um yeah I I I don't see the
benefit of this I'm still confused. I don't even know what we're doing. So no I don't know. Uh yeah I align with everyone else that just with the facts today and the the net return it just doesn't seem worth it. Like you say we don't know what the future holds and the return could get
better down the road or FPL could cancel the program down the road. So we don't know those. But uh but yeah, not not in favor of this time. Thank you. Comment cards. No. Any public comment? All right. Thank you, Doug.
Thank you, Doug. We appreciate you digging in on it, though. Thank you. Jenna, item three, uh, consideration of a ballot question for a general obligation bond for purchase of One Main Street. Jeremy, so this item council previously workshopped in August. As part of the
discussion, uh staff uh would further develop this plan and propose bond language. Um we have put together a description of the property, put together some conceptual ideas that some of you you guys have seen some of those. Um we also revised the 2015 plan that
kind of mirrors much of the comments that I've heard um recently. Um, and then leaving the August workshop, staff investigated the parking issue and continue to look at the parking issue and and it's very complicated and I've shared some of that with you guys. Um,
it is in the staff report, but you know, we met with the adjacent property owners of 250 Tquesta Drive, which is the Wells Fargo building and the one Main Street building, which is Topper Fitness and and Harvey School and and the lights at in that property. And um the owners did
provide some parking agreements that they had. Um the the Wells Fargo building, we knew of the 21 spaces that were going to be required. Um but we were not aware of uh was there was an agreement that was done for the one main
street parking. uh basically saying that you know the future owner of the property could not uh they need to keep that one main street building in compliance with parking code which you know creates a whole u a whole issue
future development or future use of that park. um as we've, you know, done some digging and it's it's still pretty preliminary, but you know, that parking or that one Main Street building needs somewhere in the ballpark and we're uh of 100 parking spaces and right now even
with the use of of Main Street and their parking, they have like 40. So, the future owner has to keep them in compliance with parking. It's not a definite number, but it's going to be somewhere close in that ballpark. And so, you know, one of those parcels right
now is keeping them in conformity um so the future owner can't take them out of conformity. And I know Jay has been working digging through every single document that we have. We've even called, you know, previous uh planners. And so, we're still looking at I know Keith hasn't really dug into too much of
it yet either, but we are sure that there we that those agreements are in place. We have passed that on to the appraiser. Um, as you guys know, coming out of that meeting, the developer had an appraisal done for that property at
$9.8 million. They said they would uh sell us to the village for $8.8 knowing this parking um these parking issues. We have shared that with the yet we are expecting to get that by the end of the week. Um, so the timing, uh,
you know, this conversation, um, you know, we can't we can't count on that appraisal what that will devalue those properties at, if anything. You know, that's up to the appraiser to decide, but we're pretty sure it will, uh, not come out of $9.8 million um, as as
previously appraised. Um, and then as we continue to have this discussion about the bond, um, you know, the kind of the keep this property until the village can put this out for a referendum. Um, and so part of the agreement was that we
would lease the property for one year. Um, originally we discussed 100,000 um, as we've started to negotiate. Now they want 125 for for the lease of the property for the year. Uh we we have not uh we I mean we started with an
agreement. Um we are still working on that with um with the developer to come up with the right language. Um and so moving forward, you know, just for council to give um we need description and the language
of the bond um direction uh working with C with legal uh for the lease agreement and then for to lease the property for one year and any other direction council on this item. With that, you have answer any questions
you may have. Jeremy council have a few comments. Uh I like the opportunity on the table. There is an opportunity on the table for a valuable piece of land into Questa. There's only really two left. Uh I think we're very far away from coming to any agreement.
Uh not only on price, but some of the the language as well. And so I'd like to continue the conversations with the owners. Uh, I think they're a good group to have those conversations and negotiate with. As I mentioned in the f meeting
previously, I mean, I think the 9 million or the 8.8, we're far away just on price and then the the details on it as well. Now, we far away knowing about the parking. Um, so if that comes down in value or other logistics that I don't
know, but I would like to continue the conversation in its current form. I'm not in favor of this deal as it sits and not even going through the bond language, just the deal itself. But I would like to continue that uh conversation, see what the owner
give us, see what the appraiser says. Um, the secondary obviously the timing that it's not here tonight. um to continue that conversation would be my main priority. Yeah. Can I have one comment real quick
just to help wrap mine up? Um we don't have to make it obviously we don't have to make a decision tonight, but November 13th would be our November council meeting. That's when the deadline is to have the bond have the bond language 75
words over because it does need to be in by the first week of December. So that's our deadline that we're working with. Um yeah, no, I I'll say unfortunately I do I do echo uh Council Member French's
sentiments. I mean I I really loved this when it first came out. I thought it was a awesome opportunity. Um really love that it we were putting um the decision essentially into the hands of our residents and us included
and for such a significant well pieces of property significant parcels but as of last week hearing the news with the parking and essentially getting two parcels, not really getting three cuz we're giving up almost if not an entire
parcel for parking. um unless the price were to just significantly decrease and even then I think we'd have to see how it would work. I just think we got to we got to wait first of all see what the appraisal comes and even if that comes in low you know that takes a seller
who's willing to meet us somewhere in a reasonable place. Um, I think the language, if we did go to the bond referendum, I think the language is there, maybe with a few tweaks, but I think all in all, it's um,
I think it's pretty good, but I mean, I can't stress enough how much I wanted this to work. And I'm not saying it won't. Um, but right now, I just I don't I don't feel super comfortable with it. But not to say that couldn't change if you know a few facts and circumstances
change over up until November. But right now um just just not loving the overall deal for our village. I have a question. It's kind of a legal question regarding the parking and it's a total hypothetical question so I can
have a very well-rounded futuresque decision when we go down this path. Hypothetically, if another developer comes in and buys the three parcels plus the building that's technically on the fourth parcel and maybe another one,
does that because it's one owner, does that completely remove the parking shared parking agreement, not the Wells Fargo building? No. The the parking agreements are are in effect to to anyone that owns those properties. So even if all four were
completely demolished and started over fresh, if so the 21 spaces would would be in effect the for the Wells Fargo building if all four were demolished. If all four were demolished, the ones that are
required to be provided for the Italiano Harvey School would go away. Okay. Okay. And then again, hypothetical, Wells Fargo gets purchased out as well as the Toppers Fitness building and the other three parcels. Does that completely wipe away the parking agreement? If they started fresh
over, demolished everything because it might change the use of the property, if I'm understanding you correctly, is the question. So, you have a parking agreement. you an agreement requires two parties to so
your your hypothetical question is that if somebody comes in and buys the whole thing whole thing so then the agreement would be with themsel right so is that yes if the same person owned everything
but the parking agreements then it it there's there's no no longer a purpose for it because only one person owns it you don't have an agreement with that if I'm understanding your your question correct? Okay, that is correct. I have cuz I want to clarify cuz I had the same question.
But say um say someone were to buy just the the current one means rebuilding where Toppo fitness and everything is and that and they don't purchase the um vacant parcels and that building is demolished and rebuilt. Would would the
shared parking agreement go away then? Then there's you still still 21 for Wells Fargo. have that but it would reduce I mean the bulk of the shared parking with that the one main that's the 21 spaces that would that would remain
the 21 is the Wells Fargo the 40 sorry if that building were to get redeveloped would that share parking agreement go away then would it still convey well let me let me just say this to help Keith while he's thinking you know the
first part of this legal thing is is those agreements has never been filed with one of the agreements has never been filed with a court or for the with a county and so you know we're still exploring that the legal part of that too. So might mind you that now you can answer the question some time.
That's that's a question of I I enter into an agreement and I don't and the intent is to have that run with the land be it be a condition. You got to put the rest of the world on notice. And if they didn't do that then
there would be a legal issue between any subsequent buyer because they could say well I never knew about that. You never told me about that. I did my due diligence. it wasn't recorded in the public records. How am I supposed to know? So, I'm, you know, but so then they fight about that forever.
Um I I will say though that there we do have some stuff in our in our files showing that some of the spaces from the heart that building um were used uh the spaces offsite were used for that building to to provide the required
parking. Okay. So, does that make sense? So there was some actual notice. Yeah. Regardless of Yeah. Whether or not there was a recorded covenant, there was some site plan activity that that essentially showed that those spaces were being
allocated from village parking requirements to meet the the minimum parking requirements for that building. That makes it a little more complicated. Exactly. But I mean essentially the the as long as there are two parties,
okay, then the agreement stays in place. Whether it's valid and whether there's defenses against enforcing it, put that aside. But as long as there's two different owners, an owner on one side of the agreement and an owner on
the other side, then it would stay in place. Okay. Um, last thing, I've gotten feedback since our last meeting. Um, there was some feedback I got that was interesting and I, you know, I think it's fair
and as I consider it, I kind of I don't want us to go down a rabbit hole tonight cuz big part of this for me is missing is that appraisal cuz every time I try to think of my decision, it always comes down to, but what is it going to cost us? And honestly, I'm really just stuck
until I get that appraisal so we can compare it to the sellers and then maybe further those conversations with the seller and see where that gets us. And I feel like that is going to give me a more educated, well-rounded, even response of where we're at. I would
actually like to ask for when we do get the appraisal if we were to do a special meeting just for this topic and then that cuz we've done that before. Um, and then that way as soon as we get it, we can set up the meeting. We can knock this out and really maybe come to a consensus with all the information and
facts at hand. Just for me, that appraisal missing is a big puzzle piece. Yeah. Can I ask one quick question? We do have the sellers appraisal. They provided that. Does it take into account any of the parking like ours will on Friday? No.
No. Okay. Thank you. Again, I think that's going to complicate a conversation back and forth. Yeah. with both appraisals not really being equal. So, I I kind of really need that piece. I agree. And I mean, I'm sorry to jump back in here, but the uh
I just want to say I I understand the risk of this. You know, this this could ultimately, you know, the hypothetical you're talking about could happen. Somebody could buy the whole thing. We still do have Main Street running right down the middle, right? So the whole point of this, you know, the
reason for the excitement, at least from my standpoint, was to give the village control, not control, that's not the right word, to well, yeah, control the destiny of these parcels for our village. And there are risks with uh us not owning this.
You know, a smart enough developer could figure out some stuff to do on this property that we certain these properties that we would not like. But I agree with what you said. I think I just don't think right now the information is there and even once we have the appraisal, you know, takes two people to agree upon
it that they don't have to agree to. We may think it's worth X and they may disagree and that's but right now I just can't get behind paying the price, you know, for three parcels, but we're really only getting the value of two essentially. And that does, you
know, we're going to you got all this off-site parking that we need to accommodate. And then there's going to be a bunch of parking that we we're going to need for the properties as well. So, I just think you're right. I think it's there's just more information. And I am 100% in favor of special meeting if that'll get us prepared for the next
council meeting in November. I just this is an important decision. So, I think we need to have as much time to talk about it as we can. So, I'm 100% in favor of that. Sorry, I'm done. Yeah. Um yeah, when this came up, I too was extremely
excited to in order to we had the ability to put Paradise Park, you know, under the village um control. Um I thought it'd be a great use of the potential bond that we talked about about 3 years ago. And that unfortunately that that bond issue for a number of different reasons didn't
didn't pass, but that thought been a great opportunity at less than half the price of what it might be selling for today. Um, as much as I like to make it a a park, uh, making that happen and making that a reality is going to be tough. We've talked about the, you know,
the discounted value based on the parking. Uh, I in communications with some residents that was under the impression it could be as high as 72. So, for that, I apologize, but looking at what we have here in our staff report, it could be as high as 61. have also heard that the unrecorded
um parking agreement um was based on the occupancy at that time and if that were to change it could go up or go down. Um so that's another thing that is yet to be determined. That's why it could go as high as 72. That's my understanding. Um,
I've also had conversations with one of the building owners and who said that with village sponsored, not village properties, not village events, but village sponsored properties um that they aren't that excited about just
jumping back in and giving the parking lot um one of the three lots for parking for that. Um, so if we do have anything, if we were able to work out something for the two grass parcels and or it would have to be a totally passive park with no parking because my understanding
what police wanted the owners, they wouldn't be they wouldn't even consider allowing us to use the parking lot. They want to take whatever spots are theirs to be theirs 24/7, 365 days a year. Um, if we take it back, we take $65,000 in
tax revenue off the rolls. Uh, we need to consider that. Uh if it were to be developed, and I'm not advocating to develop this property, but if we were were to be developed, it obviously would be more than $65,000 a year. Uh we take it for us to do, we will be getting two parcels roughly uh for the price of
three or three price partial two parcels for the price of three, giving up that tax role. And don't forget, while the one penny sales tax has nothing to do with adorum, um there'll be things that we will need to pay for that has perhaps did come out of that 301 fund. If I'm
not mistaken, it's a 301 fund, but you know, $500,000 a year is going to go away. Other than this subject parcel, there's only one more of substance in the village off County Line Road. Um and we want to keep our police and our fire
independent. There's talk of um real estate taxes going away or some form or fashion they go away and sales tax goes up, whatever that will be. Um and you if we if we did acquire all three, um this
parking lot is probably the worst looking parking lot I've ever seen. And you know, we need to do something with it. I mean, it's not striped. There's potholes. There's It need I would imagine on the site plan when it was originally submitted was to be a little bit nicer looking than that. I think we owe it to the property owners
to to do that. So, you know, right now, um, as much as I want to make this Paradise Park, the villages, I for all the reasons I just talked about and other things, um, will anybody that's in the back, we have a whole map tonight of the back of the country club, which does
not include mobility to the west side of the bridge. Um, was anybody that's in the back of the country club going to walk, ride a bike, do something where if there's no parking to come this side to Weston to do it? I think you have a big voting block in the back of this where they might say no. It's up to the
village. It's up to the residents and the voters to say whether or not they want to. We're asking them do they want to buy it? Yes or no. We're not making that decision. We're giving them the opportunity to make that decision. Um, and I've not had a conversation with anybody in the country club. I've had
two and they were not in favor of this. Don't think it's necessary, much less the distance with no potential parking to get there once to get there without really adequate mobility yet within the village. Um, so, you know, I'm struggling with this, but right now I got to tell you, I'm not in favor of
this. I'm not advocating building on it, but in its current stage, I think to take this over, um, we're just putting in oursel to limit some type of potential revenue in the future from a tax perspective. Um, and we've got to be good neighbors. I think the people that
have that that have these parking agreements have played very nice in the sandbox and it sounds like now they're just a little bit tired of that and we could potentially have two grass slots with nothing that we can park on and I have a concern with that. So, right now I got to tell you I'm not leaning forward. It would be interesting to find
out what the appraisal is and I would be willing to have a special meeting to give some finality to this, but we are under a time crunch to get about language ready, prepared and everything by November 13th. So, I just don't see how we can do this. And so, right now, I got to tell you, I'm not in favor of it.
Thank you, Vice Mayor. Um, I first of all, I want to say I'm not okay with the annual lease cost being increased by another 25,000. I don't know why um they felt the need to do that since it was presented to us at 100,000 at the last
meeting. Um I do know the appraisal's pending, but um you know, maybe it comes in less, but that gives us some negotiating power, but I I mean I I would be shocked if the current property owner is going to come down that drastically. like maybe they they will
have there'll be some wiggle room depending on what artist comes in, but I I can't imagine like millions and millions will be shaved off. Um I had a real hard time say say staff finishes their um research on the share parking
matters um and if we do have to provide up to 61 spots I think it's very unjust to use taxpayer dollars for a whole parcel that is benefiting only the adjacent private property owners and not the taxpayers. Like that is a very hard
line for me. I just I don't think that's wise for us to put that out there knowing that potentially a whole parcel our taxpayers aren't going to be able to benefit um or use. So that's a big one. We'll see, you know, any more research you guys do on the shared parking, but I
kind of align with Vice Mayor that it's just not It sounded great in the beginning, but with the more this information coming out, it just does not seem justifiable um at this point to to do that. Uh I still have the question on if you know
if we were to move forward with this you know we need to maybe prioritize some of our other park project you know like we potentially are moving forward with a local bill for Dquesta Park if that were to move forward to be successful like do you know does
investing money in that property versus potentially investing money in Paradise Park like we would really need to um kind of prioritize those especially Dquesta Park is a um you know pretty hefty dollar bill for the improvements that our community told us that they wanted there. I still I had the same
question at the last workshop. The park purchase policy is attached again. Are we complying do we need to comply with that? I I don't know I wouldn't cuz a waste of putting a policy together. But there's a section for specific property
characteristics. An analysis of the unique park purposes possible for potential acquisition is made by assessing cultural, ecological, and recreation attributes of each parcel. I don't know if that's been completed. Does that need to be completed? And if so, at what phase would that be done?
So, we're complying with our policy. Um, I think, you know, I I if this were not to pan out, I want to just remind everyone that we spent a lot of time and money on these quarter master plans for including this quarter beach
road, our parks master plan, and we got tons of public input on how they want to see the village grow. So, I think we have very great plans in place, which we'll be talking about a little bit on the next uh agenda item because SB 180, but we have these really good plans in
place to show us to guide us on how future development should look like and how that should go in the village and um the fact that the public was a huge part of putting that together. Um, I think we need to remember those tools are in place. And I just I I hope this doesn't
become um we want to buy this parcel just to stop development because we have plans to grow in a smart way that really maintains the fabric and character of our community. Otherwise, why do we waste all the money on putting those plans together? So, I just want to keep
that in mind. should this not pan out, like we really should stick to the plans that we already have in place. That, you know, had a ton of public input on the bond language. Um the
one question I had there it says to acquire and develop and maybe it's to be determined but would we would we ask for a bond for the land amount or would we add more money to that to cover future development?
So that wasn't contemplated when when we put this together for the $9 million. It was based on the 8 million $8.8 million sale price when we got it. So, we threw in the $9 million to cover bond cost and, you know, any other costs that we may have associated, you know, soft
cost, but not development. So, I would, you know, maybe it says acquire, develop, and improve. So, it maybe should just say acquire. I guess to be determined if if it moves forward and um we'd want to add more money to that, but I don't know if it's smart to
just add more money on top of um land value if we don't really have a plan and numbers together for what would actually be developed there. And then the only other thing, maybe this is more of a Keith question. It says including an theater pavilion. I wonder if we should
say such as instead of including these. So we might want to say such as. So it's are what potentially could go there. That was my only input on I think I did get a similar comment from Yeah. You're pointing at yourself and
Mr. Mayor attorney asked me to change that language and I said it was something we could consider. So okay, that's all I have. Any other comment? Oh, I'm sorry. I do have one. I don't I don't know that
they don't need a vote until November. So, we could talk about it at aly not in October, September 29th. September 29th. So, we could just talk about it again then and then see where we're at and then um let's do that. Vote in October. And that's still a
month ahead of schedule. Good plan. Yeah. Perfect. Okay. Any comment cards? Mara Perry. Marissa Perry. I live in the country club. I am in favor of acquiring this land and putting it to use as a park. I
am however extremely doubtful of the sincerity of the owner's intentions after having reviewed the parking situation. And I would like them to explain how they proposed to fix it before a sale because it's their job and not ours. And if they don't have a plan to fix it, then I think their proposal
is disingenuous. Here are my recommendations. uh for one main street. The cause of the problem for one main street as I understand it from the backup and also for the Tquesta corporate center is that these properties are short of park parking spaces and not in compliance with code requirements. It appears that appears to
have been by design in the case of one main street. The building there appears to have something like 24 parking spaces and it seems doubtful that it was in compliance even when it was built in 2001. To remedy the lack of parking for one main street, its owner entered into a private agreement with the owners of Paradise Park when it was sold for a
private part for for a private shared parking agreement. This agreement is not binding on future buyers of Paradise Park. If the current owners want to sell to the village, they will have to enter into an agreement with the one main street owner to nullify it before that agreement before the village purchases the park. Under no circumstance should
this be the responsibility of village taxpayers. and under no circumstance should the village release any of the property owners from their obligations and parking requirements under the code. A necessary precondition of the village purchase must be that the seller has contracted with one main street to resolve the parking and sell paradise
park without any parking for one main street. Moreover, this situation should serve as an additional lesson not to allow shared parking agreements going forward. The parking requirement is a critical constraint on overdevelopment to Questa corporate center. It is not clear from the memo whether the parking
easement for 21 spaces is a binding agreement that runs with the land. If it is, there should be a condition of sale that the own current owners buy out the TCC's right to this easement prior to the village's purchase and the village's purchase price should reflect that. If
the TCC refuses um the village would have recourse to the eminent domain for legitimate legitimate public use to remove the easement. eminent domain would give the TCC owner um market value via the legal system. So, it's in the TCC's best interest all around to agree
to the buyout from the current owners in this situation. Furthermore, it's not clear from the memo whether the TCC is out of compliance with Village Park Code parking requirements or when this easement was entered into. It is important for this discussion to ascertain when this easement was executed and what the purpose was for
it. It is not clear that this easement brings the TCC into compliance with the parking requirements. Anyhow, but even if it did, it should never be the case that two private parties can contract away a code requirement that applies to one of them without the villages agreement, which should not be given
because it creates this type of mess. The code requirements protect public values and this is illustrated starkly here. Thank you. Any other cards, Marian? No other cards. No. Any other public comment? Mrs. Watkins?
I just wanted to thank you all for taking a breath here. This this is a complicated property both from a developer standpoint and the village standpoint. It's not a clear-cut issue. The parking cross parking agreements seem to be cloudy at best to straighten
out. Um the appraisal is absolutely a must to have because when you have a property like that that doesn't have clear issues going on to straighten out the value certainly doesn't hold constant and uh
anyone who wanted to even buy that property at this point is going to be under the same constraints the current developer is. the village itself will have issues with it. If the appraisal comes in or or the council decides to go forward in in any form, even if it's a a much lower
amount, I would really beg you to please somehow get word out to the residents exactly what's going on here. that property, whatever its issues are, clearly spelled out, the cross parking, what whatever needs to be explained to
them fully. And hopefully they come. I I'm amazed with the council even considering language for a $9 million bond. We don't have anybody here. I'm shouldn't be surprised. This is how it goes. We can't force them to read or to
participate, but it's a very big issue. So any information that go could go out written internet whatever um to try to encourage them to understand exactly what you're looking at should you go forward in any way with this possibility. We all would love to see
that parcel in the village, but not at this current price obviously and uh with clear definitions of what not only what you're buying, but what your future plans are, what you might do with it should you have it. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you. Any other public comment? All right, moving on. Agenda item four, discussion on Senate Bill 180. Jay or Keith. Good evening. Jay Han director got a fun
one for you here. Senate Bill 180 explained. [Music] That's my presentation. Okay. So, uh, Senate Bill 180 was signed into law on
June 26, 2025, and it places significant limitations on the ability of local governments to adopt or enforce regulations. Um, under Senate Bill 180, any municipality located in the county with a federal disaster declaration for these hurricanes is subject. because we
were in the disaster area for Milton the uh provisions apply to Milton Quest. So summary restrictions it impact it prohibits impacted local governments from imposing any moratorium on um development. Um what really impacts us
is number two um municipalities and counties are not allowed to adopt any more restrictive or burdensome amendment to its comp plan or land development regulations um or adopt any more burdensome procedure relating development.
Um the best part of it is that they applied it back to August 1st of 2024 retroactively and it remains in effect through October 2027. Uh the law explicitly states that any such moratorum um shall be null and void abinitio. Is
that correct? Is that the right pronunciation? Okay. Um the Latin term for that means from the beginning. So that indicates that the affected ordinances are treated as if they were never even adopted. Um staff's analysis.
can't wait to see our annoyance council. So, the impacted ordinances for us are um we've adopted quite a few ordinances in the past, you know, since August 1st, 2024. The main ones, of course, are going to be the zoning overlays, the zoning map changes, which adopted the
overlays, our living shorelines and Seaworld code, and our multif family parking and loading. Um so those four definitely apply. Um Keith and I and and Jeremy have looked at these and we think that the live local and construction hour
ordinance and vacation rentals ordinance would not be null and void. So those will remain in effect. Um but the other four are are impacted. So the next steps are to repeal the four impacted ordinances. Um we can readopt any versions of the ordinances that are not
more restrictive than previously existing regulations. Um, in the case of zoning overlays, it's it's a pretty pretty limited number of things that that could be readopted. Um, and so what staff's proposing is that we could um
repeal the four ordinances and then and then if if council wanted to, we could bring back any of the things that that aren't impacted by this ordinance into this master code update that we're doing. We've got we've got quite a few other code updates we have to make just related to legislation from the past session. We had a few glitched things
that we brought to council um earlier this year. So, we could roll it into another code um which will take us a few months. Um we could also, you know, wait a few months to repeal those ordinances. I know right now, and Keith could probably talk about this more, there are some cities trying to um considering
challenging this and then I think the League of Cities is likely going to take it up. So, we could kind of take a little bit of a wait and see approach and kind of see what shakes out over the next few months. and and and um I think Jeremy mentioned some indications that that um the legislature might take it up
at the next session and and you know repeal parts of it. So we could kind of take a little bit of a wait and see approach and see what happens. That's it. Keith, do you have anything to add? I'm not sure I can shake my head better than
those guys. Um, this is terrible. I mean, Jay's analysis in terms of Senate Bill 180's direct effect on the work this council and staff have done in the last year or so is accurate.
Um, in terms of going forward, there there is um a there are plans by a law firm out of Miami Dade to file
a lawsuit challenging the legality of Senate Bill 180. They're looking for local governments to sign on. Um the cost I think is and you know I feel
like I'm in a poker tournament but it's like a $10,000 buy in and then additional $5,000 payments depending on where the case might go. If it was appealed to the district court of
appeal, I think there would be additional cost. If it was appealed all the way to the Florida Supreme Court, there would be additional cost. Um, you all remember the substantively this has nothing to do with it, but you remember the form one,
form six. All right, that that's been in litigation for over a year and it's really gotten nowhere yet. It's still sitting out there. So, and the only reason I remind you of that is that litigation not only will cost money, it
will take a long time to weave itself through the court system. It's just the nature of the beast. So, so I I don't know. I know the lawsuit has not been filed as we sit here tonight. I don't know how many cities have passed
resolutions deciding to join if it gets or when it gets filed. Um, so that's one path that is being contemplated this afternoon.
I also received correspondence from the Florida League of Cities. I think this went to the municipal attorneys association membership, but the league has already begun drafting proposed revisionary legislation
to work towards uh some meaningful amendments to the Senate Bill 180 legislation. Um, just looking over them briefly this afternoon before I was able to before I had to leave and come here.
The proposed amendment text does things like um the entire state of Florida is affected by Senate Bill 180. The way it's written, it was, you know, written under the guise of emergency management and well, it's only if you were in a declared emergency zone. Well, the way
they wrote it, it's every county in the state. Make no mistake. There's no there's nobody that's not touched by the way it was written. So, one of the proposed amendments that the was drafted in this early version of of an amendment
changes it to within a 100 miles of the core of the storm, whatever the terminology is, but it really drills it down to truly properties that were impacted by by storm damage. I mean, the whole point of this theoretically was
that if you were if you were in a hurricane situation and your property was damaged, the state didn't want the local government to be able to come in after the fact, change the development regulations to make it a lot more expensive for you to rebuild your property uh and not be able to get
insurance covered. That that was sort of the cell, but that's not what ended up on the books as we all know. So that's one of the amendments that the league is going to try to propose. Another one would be to get rid of the uh well that
would be to define um burdensome and and um what's the other term Jay that it uses uh burdensome or restrictive actually define that? There's no definition for those in the current legislation.
Um but it would uh under the under the amendment uh well it would um like I said I wish I had a chance to really digest this a lot more more than
I did. Um Uh it it does propose to take out the burden either define it or take out the burdensome and um restrictive language. It it um
compresses time frames from a one-year time frame to a six-month time frame. Um in terms of um the moratoriums and the more restrictive or burdensome amendments
um it proposes to take out the attorney's fee provision. Um, it changes the idea that the ordinances that were adopted would be void from the beginning and it
restructures the prohibition to an enforcement issue um from an enforcement standpoint. So the the net result there is you wouldn't have to repeal anything. you just maybe wouldn't be able to enforce certain more burdensome or
restrictive uh regulations against actual properties that were that touched by that that more uh well-defined and tightened up core area that's within 100 miles of where the you know core of the storm actually went through. So, it it
it the I not my best description ever of of uh of uh what's what the league is trying to do. Like I said, I just got it this afternoon. I can get you a a much better description uh this week. So,
that is another path. There's a there league is already working on this. So in addition to the litigation path, there is a legislative path that is already being worked on which would you know presumably be heavily lobbyed and and
and pushed try to get pushed through the legislature in this upcoming session. You all are very aware of the legislative process that takes some time as well. Probably not as much time as litigation.
Um I I am so two other issues that um in terms of should should would be better to litigate would be better to legislate would be better to
not do anything uh and take a wait and see approach. So on the litigation issue and I I'll I'll refer back to the form six lawsuit as well. You'll all recall there are a handful
of named plaintiffs in that lawsuit. However, the temporary injunction that the court granted, the court exercised its discretion and applied that to everybody in the state, whether you're a party to the lawsuit or not.
So on that issue for this Senate Bill 180 litigation, so there will be jurisdictions that sign on and there will be jurisdictions that don't. So then the question comes, well, will it only apply to the people who signed up or are named parties in the lawsuit or
will it apply statewide under the current law in the state of Florida? Again, that will be a decision that the judge would make just like it was in the form one form six lawsuit. I can't think of a reasonable purpose for a court to not apply
whatever decision it makes statewide. I don't know why a court wouldn't do that. Now, I'm not a judge and I'm not sitting on the bench hearing this case, but it just seems to me the way the law is written, it it applies, as I said, it it applies to every county
in the state the way it's written. So, why would you not apply your ruling AC statewide as well? If I was a betting man, I I would um I would believe that a a reasonable court would do that whether you so
whether you sign on to the litigation or not and I think you will probably benefit or suffer from the decision that the court makes and it'll be applied statewide. Um, so you know
which path th those are what I how I'm aware of the two roads going forward as we sit here tonight. Um, you could, if you decide you want to join the lawsuit, I will prepare the appropriate resolution and bring it back to you to adopt and that would
memorialize your decision, memorialize your agreement to make those fee payments and you would be a named party in whatever lawsuit gets filed. um if you decide you don't want to uh and you know I I
believe very strongly that if you decided not to join the lawsuit right now and wanted to see how the legislative process played out and then you got a bad feeling about how that's going later in the session and decided
you wanted to jump into the lawsuit, I I would be very surprised uh if they did not take late comers to to that uh to that lawsuit and and accept you know more named plans amend amend the uh pleadings to reflect that
and and allow us to to pay it uh at a later time be shocked if that was not the case. So that's what I know uh in addition as far as the legal roads forward for you. All right, thank you for that additional insight. Council, we'll open up for
discussion. A few comments, question of I support waiting for this March 2026 session to see how it plays out um instead of joining on the lawsuit itself, especially if we can get in early. And do you know what committee the Florida
League cities um is coming up is going to be under? What was the email I got this morning? I do not. Uh, so what I got was from Rebecca O'Hara, who's uh, deputy general counsel at the Florida League. Um, and it's probably in the redevelopment committee, wouldn't you think? What
redevelopment and planning? It's a one-on-one probably. I think that that would seem like that would make the most sense, but she didn't indicate in the email that I got uh this morning or this afternoon from her. Uh it just says that uh the lead will be providing
suggested modifications uh to sections 18 and 28 of Senate Bill 180 in the 2026 session. She attached draft proposal edits for review and comment. Uh that that's what I have right now. Thank you.
So the two I I feel like it maybe could be on two. I don't know if anyone is on any of these committees, so maybe you could ask your point person, but it it could likely be in development, code compliance, redevelopment. Is that the one you're on? There's also intergovernmental relations, mobility, and emergency management. And this is an
emergency bill. So, is anyone on that policy committee that find out? Well, we can find out so we know what avenue potential for that. Uh, and then I support what you mentioned earlier, Jay, on the read of any ordinances that are not more
restrictive. Makes sense. I have no comments. Yeah, I mean I I think we should wait. Doesn't sound like there's any like we we could jump in on this if we decide we need or want to. Um and correct me if I'm wrong. We don't have the list of who
has joined yet or we we do not I do not. Yeah, I think we should see that list. Um the only thing I can tell you I believe we got some recon from the city of Stewart. I think they passed the resolution. Really? I think Delray is also on that as well, but those are the two that I
saw know I reached out to both of those managers. Um, but I I was able to get the steward information. Kind of makes sense. Yeah. I mean, obviously the risk here is we decided not to join and they, you know, as Keith said, the the judge ultimately has discretion as to how it's
applied, but if you look at how they applied it to form six, it was uniform. Um, no one has a crystal ball, but you would think that's the way they would uh apply it here as well. But you would, like I said, the way the legislation
actually ended up being written, it applies statewide. Yeah. It's not like there's targeted areas that truly uh got damaged, and that's where it applies. It applies everywhere. So, yeah. I don't know. I I I don't think we need to
jump into it. But I think let's do some more research and see uh see if we think it's the best move for our village. Yeah, I I agree. I like to wait and see how the session goes. I don't think I don't I wouldn't like to see us unless it's absolutely necessary repeal the
four that that are impacted. I'd like to wait and see. Um and if something if an application does come in where that would get applied, I think that we just have to make the determination at that time and just explain to the applicant what would possibly need to happen. Um, and I don't know I'm I'm not a lawyer.
I've never worked for a law firm, but it's the pay-to-play concept of joining in. I mean, I look at a class action. Well, this is not a class action. Class action, the costs are all borne by the by the plaintiff's council. I don't understand why we want to just pay somebody $20,000 to include
it. Is that common, Keith? I mean, that's kind of more it's not really here there. I don't support is the right word. I mean, they're obviously trying to get as many you know, they're not willing to do this work pro bono. So, and I'm sure they
don't have one regular client that they service who's willing to foot the whole bill. So they obviously not get as much uh you know from a from a
image standpoint the more jurisdictions that sign on that that says something to someone um as opposed to just you know one or two cities. Um but you know then the the practical economic reality is litigation
is um painfully expensive. So well like I said I don't support paying to join in the litigation at this point especially as nothing's been filed. Um and I don't really want to see us repeal anything at this point. I think we should just
address it if that's logistically possible and procedurally possible. Yeah, we can what we can do is actually put a list of everything that's that um we should not be enforcing during this period and then we could even post it on our website and just say, you know,
these things are on our and our in our code currently in an immunity code, but we will not be enforcing them until Senate Bill 180 is resolved. If that's if that's proper, that's I'd like to see us do that then repeal something. Yeah, let us vet that. But that could be an option, but let's let us vet that
first. Okay. Thank you. I had the same thought as vice mayor. I mean because my biggest question was restrictive and burdensome is not defined. So who defines that? And who's to say truly that our codes are more
restrictive or burdensome? So part of me is like I agree. Do we not repeal them and just see what happens? I would never want to open us up to litigation, but the like the reverse of what you said with the joining the lawsuit um against
it, it's years and years and years. What is the likelihood or what would it look like if like if someone were to be like, well, I I believe this is more restrictive, so I'm going to sue you. I mean, it seems to me that under the current text of the statute, it would be
we have our code that was written after August 1st of 2024. A developer came in and we apply that code to their application. They would say, "Dear Village at Questa, we believe that this violates
state law because this provision is more burdensome and restrictive than the law was before August 1st, 2024, and we think you're in violation of that law." We would respectfully disagree. They would file suit. They would have the burden to establish that and and the
lawsuit as the plaintiff. They would not be for us to prove it's not. It would be for them to prove it is right. So they would have to come up with all the data and costs whatever the case may be to prove that it actually is. I mean you know certain things probably
are more intuitive than others. And uh you know if you you're increasing setbacks in decreasing developable space there's well we we now we have less square footage to sell or we have to have a we
now we have to uh have civic space that we didn't have to have before. So that's dedicated to to something that we we that's costing us some some you know there's a cost to
that and then then is that overly burdensome or restrictive? it really would become a factf finding um exercise for the court for the factf finder and uh well because for the overlay districts I if I remember correctly I thought we were very purposeful in making sure we
didn't open ourselves up to litigation that we weren't taking away like buildable script we it was kind of shifting things on parcels not taking away we were very mindful of that and I think we we really worked hard so again is that really more restrictive then if we didn't take away the
buildable square footage. That would be the that would be the factual question that that the court or if it's a jury, the jury at the end of the day would have to make a decision based on whatever evidence is presented.
Years and a lot of money is to get to that point. Those are really those are really good points and I'd be comfortable leaving our codes in play to see where that leads us. The Paradise Park does concern me as we start to talk about that um because it's active, but I feel
comfortable leaving those in play. Right. And like the living shoreline, I thought there was documentation when we were reviewing that that in a long term it actually saves a homeowner money because it protects the wall. So like to me that's opposite of being
more restrictive. You're actually protecting the wall and increasing longevity of the wall. So I don't know. I feel like, you know, play devil's advocate. I'm kind of like, well, really, can it be proved? And, you know, we've worked so hard in a lot of these. And, you know, it's interesting to me
the state is all all about DOE right now, but yet they're not taking account alone spent well above six figures with plans, studies, everything we put in these ordinances. Combine that with the whole state of what other cities probably. Talk about a waste of taxpayer
dollars. It's It's just ironic to me. And and not to be tongue and cheek, but I mean the the little memes that Jay put up, I mean, you know, everyone is sitting there scratching their heads and rolling their eyes trying to trying to navigate through this. There are truly
more questions than answers at this point. All of those are good questions and there aren't any good answers yet and none that are no guidance from any court yet. There's, you know, all we have is the legislation that was passed, right? and everybody asking those kind of questions
and I mean hopefully there's some advocacy efforts that help this session but you know we're obviously at risk every year for hurricanes like I'm concerned is this going to like indefinitely keep getting extended and if it doesn't ch you know change I know even that 100 mile radius there was
there was a lot was it two sessions ago I don't and maybe it ended up getting removed but they were doing a 100 mile radius um similar kind of legislation and we fell in the 100 mile radius of Nicole and we had no damage here. So
even a 100 mile radius can not bode well. Um so yeah, I I don't know. I'm kind of in favor of of leaving things where they are right now. This I usually want to always comply with the state, but this one I feel like like digging my heels a little bit and challenging because I do
think you know who's to say that these codes are more restrictive or burdensome. I mean, if if the village attorney is okay with it, I mean, that's my preferred option because then we don't have to come back in and read everything in two years, right? There's a chance that you you all may not be
sitting on this board or some of you may not and we've got to go completely rego through that whole process again. M so if there is a path forward where we can keep them in place that's well as as the mayor has so eloquently
articulated there are arguments you you know we did in my opinion work very hard to and we're very mindful of that give and take when we were doing the overlay codes and when we were doing the design
guideline stuff and and all of that that that those those we had a lot of discussions about that. So I think there are arguments to be made and therefore an argument uh that you shouldn't just fall on the sword and and
say you know there's no reason to to just to just concede. And one option would be if if a development application came in and let's say that there were three things in question, right? They said the these three things we think are more burdensome.
Keith and I could sit down and vet those three things and and troubleshoot it and and maybe maybe there is one that we you know kind of back off of. But maybe we so we could we could kind of make that determination on a case by case basis with an application.
I'm good with that. Great. Mhm. I'm tired tired of the state eroding our home rule every opportunity they get. Yeah. It's getting worse and worse every every session. It feels like Mary live in the country club. Um the mayor
is absolutely right. The ordinances that were on that list were designed not to be more restrictive or burdensome. They were designed to benefit all the properties. Um, so the the idea that this fit they even fit into this um extreme encroachment on local um local
decision-m is not not credible. Um I did want to say the and I'm glad that you're going in the direction of not repealing that. Absolutely. Repeal of our code is absolutely the wrong thing to do in the face of SB80 which is an outrageous encouragement on local government um and
absolutely the village to do nothing to accommodate it at all. Um, the village code is legitimate and the village should incur no cost whatsoever to accommodate the SB80, including by, for example, paying for hours of legal work to repeal lawfully enacted code provisions that enact legitimate village
interests. Um, to the contrary, all of your effort as members of the council and staff should be directed to your duty to defend the interests of the village, including the villages legitimately act enacted code in the face of what is illegitimate encroachment by the state of Florida on municipal governance. um that should be
the priority um of the legal advocacy for the village. Um in addition, I urge every member of the council and I know you have um to express to the state lawmakers our extreme disapproval of SB180, pointing out that it is completely incompatible with fundamental concepts of democracy in America. This
dis disapproval is bipartisan and this encroachment by state lawmakers on the legitimate interests of communities in the state of Florida is exactly analogous to the attempted destruction of Florida state parks um that happened last year. It should be easy for state lawmakers to support repealing SB80 in
its entirety. Um and we should we understand that there are efforts in this direction underway. Um this is an additional reason why the village should not attempt to accommodate the the bill. Um it would be most regretable if we were to repeal and then SP 180 was repealed in turn or cut back such that
we wouldn't need to do it. Um think about the waste of money that we would have incurred. Um SP 180 stands as yet an additional reason for the council not to relax any village code parking requirement or any other provision that serves to prevent overdevelopment too because we never know what the state
would do. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Maryanne. Any other comment cards other any other public comment? Um, and just I I actually want to be clear. Um, I am in favor of the other portions of SB80 and I think we should comply as it relates
to emergency true emergency management. Um, I'm specifically just talking about the um restrictions on uh land use. Agreed. Sorry. Okay. Want to make sure we on the same page. We're in favor of the other portions of the bill. Okay. Moving on.
Agenda item five. Discuss community outreach strategy by the Florida League of Cities on property tax reform. Jeremy, so this item outlines proposed outreach initiative leveraging the Florida League of Cities formula toolkit. Uh I know that uh you guys went to the Florida
League of Cities annual conference. I know well three of you guys did. I think all three of you guys referenced this to me. Um, we also had a Florida or Palm Beach County um, League of Cities meeting at the Country Club where Casey Cook brought um, some of these tools up.
And so what you have in your packet, there's also a short video educational explaining the Save Our Homes provision, housing affordability. This this item, which I should have probably led with, has to deal with property taxes. And so this toolkit will help educate residents
property tax about the property tax system. uh dispel common misconceptions and reinforce the value of local services funded through the advant revenues. We we were able to work with Florida League of Cities. We provide some data. They provide us a data packet
that we can share. Um I know the mayor has reached out or has conversations with legislators from time to time. I know other council members do. So this packet and this whole pack this whole uh our data packet and the Florida League of Cities can be used for uh just
information just to to get information out to our residents and uh local officials or or I guess our state officials on how this is going to affect Questa and and our region. So, wanted to share make sure everybody's on the same
page um before we just started using this information blasting out and so any discussion um or questions I can answer those. Thank you. Council, any comments, questions? None for me. None for me. Nope.
Okay. So, does this allow us I mean, do we have to formally vote piece or does consensus allow us to like I know staff can do messaging, but as we have individual conversations, we can use it um as well. Do you need a formal vote on that or is consensus good?
Well, we can't vote tonight. So, I think if there's council consensus to that, I would be fine with that. Just want to make sure. Okay. Any comment cards? Comments? No. Any public comment? All right. And with that, we are done.
Can I get a motion to adjourn? Second. Favor. Great job, Mayor. We finished earlier than I thought. Didn't get that busy workshop right there.