[0:00] Yes, ma'am.
>> Thank you.
[0:02] » Yeah, I got it. I read it now. Like I
said, if you want to do on the
[0:04] resolution, I know there's
something
[0:09] ready, Miss
>> I am. You ready?
[0:12] » Yeah, sure. All right.
[0:17] All right. We will call this code review
and land use committee meeting to order.
[0:21] Today is September 1st, 2026. It is 5:00
p.m. Council Skongers, will you start us
[0:27] with the invocation? We'll follow a
pledge of allegiance. Yes.
[0:33] » Father, we thank you for this day, Lord.
We thank you for all your many
[0:36] blessings. We pray dear Lord that you
continue to watch over us and bless us,
[0:39] Lord. Grant us guidance and wisdom as we
uh make these important decisions
[0:43] tonight for the betterment of our
people, Lord. And that which is in your
[0:47] best will. We ask these things in Jesus
name. Amen.
[0:49] » Amen.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
[0:53] United States of America and to the
republic for which it stands, one nation
[0:58] under God, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all.
[1:03] » Amen.
[1:07] » All righty. [sighs]
[gasps] We will begin with
[1:11] number two, code review, subsection A,
chapter 23, which is the fats, oils, and
[1:17] grease. Mr. Holden, you want to take us
away on that?
[1:22] » Yes, sir, I can.
>> All right. I assume this thing's on.
[1:26] Yeah. Yeah. Okay.
Okay. So, uh, at the prior meeting, uh,
[1:32] code review meeting, we kind of went
through it and, uh, it was brought to us
[1:36] that we needed to put the dollar amounts
and, uh, fees into a resolution. Um, so
[1:42] we have done that. We've, uh, Mr. Tron
and uh the utility department's work
[1:47] gone through some of the numbers made
sure that they were correct as much as
[1:50] we could uh we could do. So in the
resolution which y'all are on the
[1:57] ordinance now. So the ordinance of
course kind of spells out everything
[2:00] gives it the authority and the body of
of what we look at plan on what we plan
[2:04] on doing um what would result in these
permit fees uh fines things of that
[2:12] nature. So it gives it the backbone for
the fees of the resolution. Um
[2:18] not not a whole lot has really changed.
One thing that was in the ordinance I
[2:22] think that did get added was um
backflow. Backflow is one of those
[2:26] sections that's under 23 also. Um and
the backflow requirements and the
[2:31] timelines and fees for those. Um,
so that was added because there were a
[2:37] few changes in the cross connection plan
that needed to be changed and updated as
[2:41] we were in the process of doing section
23.
[2:45] Um, resolution starts on, for those that
are interested, resolution starts on
[2:50] page 67.
It's way down there.
[3:00] » Sorry. Go ahead. I didn't mean to
interrupt.
[3:02] » No, it's okay. So, there were a few
slight changes. We did a review of it
[3:06] today to kind of go over everything with
Miss Lynn and the utility crew again.
[3:10] And there were a few slight changes um
that we are going to make in these is
[3:15] not made on this version. Um
uh let's see here. One of those
[3:24] one of those was just kind of an
alignment. We on page 27 there's an
[3:27] adjustment that was out of alignment.
One of the things that we did want to
[3:30] bring up again about the FOGR program
was the mobile food vendors. It's on
[3:35] page 27 or on mine is page 27. I believe
on Mr. Strong's it was page 28, but it's
[3:41] section M, the mobile food vendor and
commissionaries.
[3:44] » We kind of still need a directive on how
the city would like to kind of approach
[3:48] that when it comes to the legal side. Uh
hoping for any comments from uh Mr.
[3:53] Atkinson on those on how he believes we
should move forward with that. But of
[3:58] course, y'all know there's more and more
uh mobile trailers coming in without any
[4:02] kind of permanent grease interceptors or
means of uh disposing of the grease. Uh
[4:08] so we just kind of want to have that
brought up. Um another thing was the
[4:14] dumpster pads. Right now it's in this.
My recommendation is for us to rem
[4:19] basically remove these sections or
reward these sections for the dumpster
[4:22] pads. Um, right now I don't believe it's
in our best interest to have dumpster
[4:26] pads tied directly into the wastewater
system, right? That's going to cause us
[4:30] a lot of long-term problems. One of the
things that was brought up was um some
[4:35] um like uh overhangs or pole barns over
the dumpsters. I don't recommend that
[4:41] either just because it's it's more
access and then it's also most people
[4:45] don't have those at their businesses now
for dumpsters and stuff. So that was
[4:49] some of the things that we're
recommending just kind of getting some
[4:52] information on whether we do agree that
those need to be pulled out and not
[4:56] really so much worry about those as
there's ways that we can kind of
[5:00] eliminate those situations.
Um,
[5:05] another one was the dumpsters and the
waste containers. That was one of one of
[5:08] them that I highlighted that we were
talking about possibly removing out. Um
[5:13] there would still be that that authority
to where if there was leaks or holes in
[5:16] those dumpsters or those waste
receptacles to where they should be, you
[5:19] know, removed and replaced and I I would
think that we would work with waste
[5:24] management to have those receptacles
replaced at an E need basis when uh Miss
[5:29] Lynn or whoever we have at that time
does a fog inspection and things of that
[5:32] nature.
Um,
[5:36] other than that in the um,
ordinance, I don't think there's
[5:41] anything else that's really changed. We
just took all the fees out, like I said,
[5:43] and we put it into a resolution. Um,
and I don't know if there's really any
[5:49] specific questions to the resolution or
if it pretty much spells it out, but we
[5:52] got it broke down by your classes. Of
course, there's that annual fee that we
[5:57] had talked about last time. So, those
fees
[6:01] technically could be a one month or a
per month payment unless I guess the
[6:06] entity decides they want to pay a
one-year fee for the annual permit fee.
[6:10] Uh, it's in the class one and I don't
have page numbers in here, but it's the
[6:13] second page on my resolution sheet.
[snorts]
[6:20] » Also, as you requested this chapter now
to be enforced by the special mag.
[6:25] » Yeah. Fantastic. [snorts] Yep.
So, um,
[6:31] like I say, it's it's really we just
pulled everything out. And when I say
[6:33] we, really, it was Mr. Chris that did it
to help me out. But, uh, but it's all
[6:38] been pulled out and put into this
resolution so that it can be easily uh
[6:41] changed as time goes on and and, uh,
rules and regulations change. So,
[6:48] » so any uh questions about the
specifically I I'll ask for the DAS. He
[6:55] mentioned the dumpster pads and the
dumpster um the pad coverings. Do y'all
[7:00] have any comments on that? Are you all
in agreement with his suggestion to
[7:04] eliminate those and not have them tie
into sanitary sewer?
[7:07] » I would agree.
>> I agree. Um I got a question on that. Uh
[7:13] one of the properties that I managed
Thank you. One of the problems I
[7:16] managed, they got the dumpsters got
holes in them. And when they lift the
[7:20] dumpster up, it comes all the way back
to the drain, which goes all the way
[7:24] back down to the hole in bond.
>> So realistically, those shouldn't be
[7:30] doing that. If there's a hole in the in
the dumpster, they should not be
[7:32] allowing that. That should be hauled off
by the waste hauler. That would be
[7:36] essentially
>> waste
[7:38] » contamination that you're letting into
that wetland area. Um, that's why there
[7:42] should be that's why I say I don't want
to I didn't want to in this fog program
[7:48] allow them to tie into the septic sewage
system because if you allow that then
[7:52] all that trash and debris is going to go
in there or they're going to have a
[7:55] screen there that they never get they
never clean out and it's going to
[7:58] overflow anyway into the wetland area.
So all that sludge and everything should
[8:03] be hauled off by that waste hauler which
would be at waste management at this
[8:06] point. If there's any holes during the
fog inspection, that should be noted and
[8:10] sent to waste management for them to
come into compliance with city code that
[8:14] that receptacle needs to be changed
because there shouldn't be rust holes
[8:18] and things of that nature allowing that
kind of uh
[8:22] uh sludge to to gain access to the
ground or to a wetland area.
[8:28] [snorts]
>> Okay. Thank you.
[8:30] » All right. That that's how we looked at
it anyway. that should be policed and we
[8:33] would be able to do so by running the
fog program and giving us that authority
[8:37] to
make them come into compliance.
[8:42] » Any other questions or comments on
anything else he's covered so far?
[8:47] » No,
>> section section two of the um resolution
[8:52] section two of the resolution the the
program fees a classification. I'm
[8:56] assuming that that's what you're
referring to as the annual fee, right?
[8:59] to see it in the chart, but just making
sure. Okay.
[9:02] » Yeah. Section two would be the annual
fees. It's based off the class of the uh
[9:07] of the business.
>> Of course, it goes from class one to
[9:11] class five. Your class four and five
would be the same. Um but that would be
[9:15] an annual fee. It could be charged
monthly if if makes it easier to do so
[9:20] over time or it could be a one month or
you know onetime fee for the year.
[9:28] » And Mr. City Manager, you're good with
from a like a billing and backend
[9:32] perspective of being able to split that
up and
[9:35] » Yeah, they shouldn't have an issue with
the with the billing. Okay. We can treat
[9:39] it one. They can either we'll look at it
and say you could either put it on the
[9:42] the bill, the water bill for the month
is due or you could pay it individually
[9:46] like we do business tax receipts.
>> Okay.
[9:48] » We do one of those two. Um what about um
>> unlike
[9:53] » what about governments or school board?
Is there an exemption or do we do we do
[9:57] are those exempt in other cities or no?
>> Not that I'm aware of. They're not
[10:01] exempt. No, because they still produce
those fog
[10:04] » those fogs and stuff.
>> So I don't believe they're exempt. No.
[10:07] Not that I've seen.
>> So, does that call fall under class five
[10:10] institutional?
>> Yes.
[10:12] » Okay.
>> And um and the thing with the fees with
[10:18] the permit fees, of course, there'll be
those inspection fees and stuff like
[10:20] that. So, those initial inspection fees
that that
[10:24] um payment could be also added to at
that time if need be. So, it just I
[10:29] guess it all depends on how we want to
work it out, but there's multiple
[10:33] different ways that we can look at
getting those permits.
[10:36] Yeah, I think we'll eventually I mean as
a we probably need to pick one and do
[10:40] one. We either need to take payment
directly for that or just always stick
[10:45] it on the water bill.
>> We could get big confusion.
[10:48] » You may double charge somebody because
someone took it up front but then didn't
[10:51] tell utility billing assistant
supervisor to take it off the monthly.
[10:55] And I think that would help also just to
have it have it set in stone on how we
[10:58] want to proceed with that because if you
spike this $120 up on someone's bill,
[11:02] they're going to think they're getting
mischarge for water usage or sewer
[11:05] usage. So
[11:10] » So do so do we need still need to flush
that out from a policy perspective?
[11:14] » No, I mean I don't think um I mean we
could add that in there if we wanted to
[11:18] pick one. I mean, I think it probably
best if we while we're already here
[11:22] doing it. Probably wouldn't hurt to put
in resolution how to be administered. We
[11:25] can either come and pay it directly to
LE up front and they charge it to your
[11:29] account and you pay right there or, you
know, do we just stick it on the on
[11:34] their water bill on, you know, one water
bill per year for that um their annual
[11:40] fee. And then if they have any other of
this stuff that comes up for compliance
[11:44] issues or um you know citations,
obviously the easiest way to collect
[11:50] that citation is stick it on the the
monthly bill.
[11:58] » Yes. But I agree with Mr. Holden's
concern that you you kind of open
[12:05] yourself up to like, well, why is this
on my bill? Versus if you like force the
[12:09] collection, like whether it's these
inspections, the inspection fees or even
[12:14] the the penalties.
>> Like to me, that that needs to be
[12:18] collected at the time of the penalty or
at the time of requesting the inspection
[12:23] or whatever versus like letting it kind
of languish into the bill because then
[12:28] that opens up the the possibility of
confusion. And to your point a minute
[12:31] ago, did we collect it on the front end?
Did it, you know, did someone up front
[12:35] collect it versus stick it on the bill?
>> Like it's almost one of those things
[12:38] where
>> you you can offer to put it on the bill
[12:43] as a way to spread out the payment, but
to me that needs to be elective.
[12:46] » Oh, well, I'm not suggesting we spread
the payment out.
[12:49] » Okay.
>> I'm suggesting you take you put the
[12:50] whole dollar amount on it would be on
one monthly bill. So at the 12 months,
[12:54] your annual would only show up on your
December bill or on your June bill
[12:58] whenever your annual comes up because my
other thing to this is let's like for
[13:02] example the monetary penalty schedule
with violation enforcement citation. I'm
[13:08] assuming you would write the citation
Chris or Lynn.
[13:11] » Well, that's one of the things.
>> Okay. So assume you write citation.
[13:16] Well, you wrote me a citation. What are
you going to do about it? So the only
[13:20] way that is then are we going to send
those to collections for bad debt? Are
[13:23] we going to write them off? Are we then
going to stick it on the bill, you know,
[13:25] six months later to force them to pay it
through their actual monthly bill or
[13:28] their water gets cut?
>> So that's that's that's kind of what I'm
[13:31] getting at.
>> Okay. Okay.
[13:33] » But no, I wasn't I wasn't necessarily
suggesting you take the $120 annual fee
[13:37] and bust it up over Okay.
>> 10 over 12 months. No, no, no, no.
[13:41] » Gotcha.
>> Not that.
[13:42] » All right. because you could put you
could put on the bill another line just
[13:45] like we have with and say you know fog
annual fog permit or whatever it's
[13:49] calling whatever and it comes up to that
one time.
[13:52] » Okay.
Well, I guess
[13:55] » on the bill there's one special section.
So, we can put those special notes on
[13:58] there and we can put that, you know, in
the special sections of the utility
[14:02] billing mail out. We can put in that
section or comment sections that, you
[14:06] know, one time or annual fog
permit permitting fees or something like
[14:12] that in that and then charge it to the
on the bill. So, we can definitely noted
[14:16] out on the billing statement.
>> Yeah. Um, and maybe I'm overanalyzing
[14:22] this, but I'm just thinking you might
have some instances where people might
[14:26] view
their oil collection not necessarily as
[14:30] a utility expense, but as a, you know,
you know, cost of goods sold expense.
[14:36] And so they might want to categorize
that differently,
[14:38] » like a general charge for service.
>> Yeah. They'll they'll they'll need that
[14:42] separate so that they can split that out
on the back end versus it just being
[14:45] rolled into a generic charge. Does that
make sense? Am I making sense?
[14:49] » You are.
>> Okay.
[14:51] » I think trying to view it from my
family's perspective, I think that it
[14:56] would probably better if she when we
come out to do the inspection, if we at
[15:02] the end of the inspection, we had some
form that's carbon copied and said,
[15:05] "Here, here's what you owe." and hand it
off to them and then they either come up
[15:09] to city hall and pay it or go online or
however they do that would probably be
[15:14] perceived better for them because then
they're not mixing it up going, "Oh my
[15:17] lord, my water bill went up x amount of
dollars because irregardless that's what
[15:21] they're going to say in the end if if
they don't see it separate." Plus too,
[15:25] if if you've got violations or fines
that can be assessed at that time for
[15:30] different things too, check those boxes
and then here's the overall total yo and
[15:34] then we bring it back to city hall and
then they're enter it into the system or
[15:39] something.
>> Yeah. Well, we could do that. We could
[15:41] do a very similar again very similar to
the business tax receipt process. Come
[15:45] in, you know, you know, you got to do
your fog every year. You come in and pay
[15:47] that. You get that certificate or
whatever that you put in the business.
[15:51] What?
>> And they're associating it to that
[15:54] specific event that day when they're
doing that.
[15:57] » Mr. Sean, I see the wheels turning.
>> Wondering how, you know, [clears throat]
[16:01] if you call the Palmer out to your house
nowadays,
[16:05] you basically they have a machine where
you just swipe a credit card and so
[16:08] forth. I was just wondering, do we
actually have the capability here to do
[16:12] that when they actually did the
inspection? Here's your bill. You want
[16:15] to go pay now with a credit card or
check and they just swipe it.
[16:19] » I mean, we could. I mean it would be the
end of the world. You could but I mean
[16:22] now do do we not take business tax
receipts over the phone now?
[16:26] » No we do not only because if someone
wants to pay with a credit card we will
[16:30] make sure using the credit card. So we
don't do it over the phone. It has to be
[16:34] in person or a check mail to
>> hey if they're willing to give us money.
[16:37] I don't care.
>> Yeah. You don't do you don't use
[16:38] [laughter] the square yet? We don't
square yet.
[16:40] » I can see the credit card but the check
is a little bit riskier. So, I don't
[16:44] know if I'd want my inspector to
>> receive checks and collect checks and
[16:50] then have it in a city vehicle running
all over town.
[16:52] » Yeah, that's true.
>> So, I that to me is a little bit of a
[16:54] liability for an employee standpoint.
>> Yeah.
[16:57] » Now, if it has a credit card, then yeah,
it's fine. It's, you know, it's a data
[17:00] transfer basically or whatever. But
>> I can see that
[17:03] » there is a I mean, so again, very
similar to facility rentals, which I
[17:06] think is what we're getting to with
business tax eventually. Facility
[17:09] rentals now. We had it set up through
Square. They call, Miss Vaughn puts in
[17:13] everything they need and then it tells
them the total and they do it over the
[17:17] phone. She puts it in. It processes
square right there, sends them a receipt
[17:20] back and forth. Um, so you again, you
can do the very similar same thing. If
[17:23] we don't want to touch, you could do
that where someone calls up and says,
[17:25] "Hey, I need to pay my file permit."
They pull the account up, then ladies up
[17:30] front put it in just I'm sure they can
do it right now anyways, and then they
[17:33] just pay it as pay it over the phone uh
that way. Or again, they can come in
[17:38] just as I do with the business tax
receipt, but it keeps it separate from
[17:41] putting it on the water bill. I
>> I think I think Councilman Skier put it
[17:45] better than what I was trying to say. He
pretty much said the same thing, but it
[17:49] but he put it framed it in a better
perspective than what I was trying to
[17:52] say. So,
>> yeah.
[17:53] » Yeah.
>> You have anything, Mr. Green?
[17:56] » No, that's fine because y'all don't have
to hash it out with that. [laughter] So,
[18:00] that'll work.
>> Anything else on on any of this? So just
[18:05] some straight they're going to pay the
initial compliance inspection fee for
[18:09] sure and then they're going to pay
whatever class they fall in annually
[18:13] » for as a given. Okay.
>> Yes sir. And just so I'm standing on the
[18:17] record, the purpose of this program is
to um relinquish all of the the wear and
[18:22] tear on our wastewater system
>> that that goes on from restaurants and
[18:27] the grease build up and everything else
and and the after hours and the
[18:31] maintenance that our our crews have to
put into that to kind of reduce those
[18:35] costs. So with compliance comes the
reduced cost of maintenance and that's
[18:40] the importance of this program.
>> Correct.
[18:42] » So he brings up a good point.
Does the annual fee cover the annual
[18:47] inspection or there's an annual
inspection fee plus an annual program
[18:50] fee?
>> There's an initial compliance inspection
[18:52] and then there's an annual fee. So the
annual fee is to hold the permit itself
[18:57] and then there would be the additional
$50. That would be your your initial
[19:01] compliance fee. If you have your if you
pass your initial compliance section,
[19:05] you would owe the whatever your annual
would be plus that $50. But if you
[19:11] » But on year two or three, am I still
paying the $50 or No, I'm all I am
[19:15] paying
>> per year. Yep.
[19:17] » So that's that's that one time
inspection time for the employee to go
[19:21] out, inspect it, see if everything's
still in compliance, make sure
[19:24] everything's still good, and if it's
not, then you would have that.
[19:27] » That's this one here.
>> Right. So what I'm saying is I'm
[19:30] assuming
Tasty Freeze.
[19:33] » Okay, so Tasty Freeze would be let's
just assume it's going to be a class
[19:36] three. So they're going to pay $240 plus
every year they're going to pay $50. So
[19:40] they're really technically every year
paying $290, right? Correct. Okay. Okay.
[19:44] » And that's to cover the cost of the
inspector coming out plus the program
[19:48] costs for ensuring that everything's up
to date.
[19:52] » Yeah.
>> Why don't we just wrap it into one?
[19:54] » Well, that's why the section three is
the fog inspection, reinspection, and
[19:58] administrative fees. That's why it was
labeled that. So, it'll be that first
[20:01] initial inspection, your reinspections,
and then your admin administrative fees
[20:05] would be coming down the line.
>> Well, I guess I'm getting hung up on
[20:09] it's not really an it it is an initial
inspection the first year, but then
[20:12] there's an annual inspection. So, I'm
getting hung up on the word initial
[20:16] there on that very first one because
technically that's an annual fee as
[20:19] well.
>> Yeah. Annual compliance inspection.
[20:21] » Yeah. Yeah. But but I think the reason
why we did it that way was that let's
[20:28] say for some reason you failed the first
inspection, [clears throat]
[20:32] then you have to come back and pay $75
for your second one by keeping them
[20:36] separate
>> from your annual fee to your
[20:39] inspections.
>> Yeah. And and that that makes sense to
[20:43] me that that second and third makes
sense to me, but
[20:46] » I'm just getting hung up on the initial
because technically it's an annual
[20:50] inspection.
>> I don't know why we why we don't just
[20:52] wrap from from initial to initial
annual.
[20:56] » Yeah.
>> I'm saying why don't why don't we just
[20:58] get rid of it and your and your annual
permit fees should cover your you can't
[21:02] get the permit without having the
inspection. Correct.
[21:05] » So just take the $50 and add it to all
the class ones and then drop off the
[21:09] initial compliance inspection and just
let it roll in.
[21:12] » Start reinspection after
>> Yeah.
[21:15] » pull that out of that section
completely.
[21:16] » You got to get inspected to be able to
get the permit. So they're really one
[21:19] and the same.
>> Yeah. Well, I think just to maybe in the
[21:23] I'm gonna try to play clay for a second
here, but we probably I would assume
[21:29] we all know how that word works.
I assume that we probably need to put
[21:34] somewhere in the ordinance that there's
a compliance annual fee plus an
[21:40] inspection fee. That way later if we
want to go raising those rates, we have
[21:44] the basis for how we came to those those
two fees that we are now rolling into
[21:49] one.
>> Okay.
[21:51] » Again, let let Clay opine on that. He
may say no, just roll it all into one
[21:56] and call it a I don't know. But if we're
if we're going to roll it all into one,
[22:00] I would assume we need to say this fee
consists of an inspection fee plus an
[22:06] annual compliance fee. Just my two two
cents on that.
[22:11] » [snorts]
>> Everybody else good on on that?
[22:15] » Where did the how did you come up with
the fees man?
[22:18] » So the fees of course basis
>> the the fees come from basically a
[22:24] survey that Miss Lynn conducted. So she
went of course it you know majority or
[22:30] the the baseline of this plan was from
Panama City is where we pulled it from.
[22:34] So when she went and tried to find the,
you know, look up the fees and stuff and
[22:38] kind of see what was comparable, she
compared it to some of the systems that
[22:42] already have it cuz not all systems
have, you know, a fog program that's
[22:45] really in depth. So some of the places
that she went to was Panama City. She
[22:49] went to Pensacola, Fort Walton, Crest
View, and of course she kind of waited
[22:53] with some of the fees that we had
currently. So that's where she kind of
[22:56] had her average come up from, and that's
where these fees were basically set
[23:00] from. Um, but majority of the
information that's within these
[23:04] documents would be from Panama. And
that's due to the reasons that they
[23:08] priorly had an uh citation from D and it
was approved from D the way it was kind
[23:14] of written and and and uh produced.
>> Okay.
[23:19] » Does the ordinance um does the ordinance
define log low fog potential and
[23:24] moderate fog potential?
>> Does it define what those mean?
[23:35] It really needs to define all five
classifications. These have definition
[23:38] for all five, but the other three are
kind of relatively self-explanatory for
[23:42] the most part. But those first two
we if we don't have it in there telling
[23:47] us what they mean,
>> definitions of the class.
[23:49] » And how you going to chart 180 when
>> they are so page
[23:54] um 19
of ordinance. Okay.
[23:59] » Um, it goes over the classifications of
each one. Class one, what what every
[24:04] section falls under, such as for class
one, potential. It talks about ice cream
[24:10] shops, small coffee shops, donut shops,
retail bakeries,
[24:15] um, daycare facilities. It actually has
a whole list of what each category falls
[24:20] under.
>> Everything right there makes sense
[24:23] except for number two, a meat market.
That's
[24:27] » it's what I was given.
>> I I I understand. But to me to me a meat
[24:32] market would be a high potential for
fat, souls, and grease. If they're
[24:36] grinding up fat to make a burger or
whatever.
[24:40] » Well,
>> am I am I thinking that?
[24:42] » Well, no. They are grinding it up, but
they're not cooking it next to a sink
[24:46] that could tie directly into the
sanitary. So, you're technically cutting
[24:48] it off and throw it in the trash or bin
of some kind. So, it's not
[24:52] » a direct
>> or a floor drain. Floor drains would
[24:55] kind of be included, but like I say,
that's kind of one of those gray areas.
[24:58] Yeah, a floor drain would if you had
that fat, but you're going to have more
[25:01] of that moisture fat from your greasing
oils and stuff that's evaporating to a
[25:05] restaurant more than you would a butcher
shop.
[25:08] » Okay.
>> Because they're not cooking it. You
[25:09] don't have that
>> you don't have that grease splattering
[25:11] everywhere that you know,
>> and that's why it's kind of classified,
[25:15] I believe, in that lower class
>> liquid versus solid.
[25:18] » Yes.
>> Okay. Okay.
[25:19] » And that's the same thing with the
classified when you're asking about
[25:21] schools. It lists schools as the top
one. So it's it's
[25:30] anything else on this
>> maybe the fines portion
[25:35] » because I have I have one other thing
but go ahead.
[25:38] » Let me get back down there to it again.
I just want to be clear on it so they'll
[25:44] know.
[25:49] So the first side the going down to
fines and [clears throat] everything
[25:55] um
>> and the resolution or the ordinance
[25:57] » the resolution
>> section four.
[26:13] So if they hinder on page 70 which is
under section 4 um
[26:25] first monetary citation is $100 um for a
violation
[26:30] after required notice to process and I
think that we said that we're going to
[26:34] give them 30 days to come in compliance
in here. So if after that 30 days
[26:41] they still haven't completed it. I guess
just kind of clean that up for me
[26:45] because the days it gets into the daily
fines at at some point in there was what
[26:52] I was reading a minute ago.
>> Yeah. Continuing violations on the next
[26:54] page.
>> I just want to know where that where
[26:56] that's at. Are we assessing a fine? Hey,
I've come back in 30 days and you still
[27:00] haven't completed the required um
>> so
[27:05] » improvements to come into compliance. So
now I'm going to assess you that first
[27:09] fine and then at what point will that uh
daily fine come into play there?
[27:15] » So on section nine it goes into about
the daily fines that daily basically
[27:20] daily charge penalty service suspension
and so forth goes into that's what it
[27:24] talks about that section for you. on the
bottom you'll see that aster
[27:29] » I think the 30 days is the is the
backflow portion not the fog portion
[27:33] because we had discussed at the
beginning whenever we first rolled this
[27:35] out for the first year to be no
compliance violations or anything um
[27:40] just just to kind of get everybody
uh informed about the new ordinance and
[27:48] the resolution and that we needed to
start helping them come into compliance
[27:51] because that's a lot to get done in 30
days especially if they don't have it or
[27:55] they're not out to par.
>> I'm sorry. I did get I was reading
[27:59] through to backflow and not
>> I think backflow is the 30 days where
[28:02] this really hasn't had a set day time
frame um on when these would occur.
[28:09] » And we're actually in the process of
writing policy where you saw on on the
[28:13] section seven where it talks about 30
days to comply additional 15 days.
[28:17] » We're actually marking that marking that
out. So, it's not written in the
[28:21] resolution, but it'll be written in the
the policy for them to how they're going
[28:25] to proceed.
>> Enforce it. I got you.
[28:27] » Jesse, can you go to I think it's page
73.
[28:32] » Yeah. Right there.
>> Yep.
[28:35] » Okay. So, that's section seven is
backflow.
[28:39] » Yes.
>> So, what was the other that we were
[28:41] looking at a minute ago?
>> It was under four. Section four,
[28:47] » I think.
That's fog. So what's this right here?
[28:52] This is for fog penalty schedule.
Monetary penalty schedule.
[28:57] So this I think this is what you're
talking about, right?
[29:01] » And then the monetary citations.
[29:09] » Yeah, it's got the $50 per day
continuing violation.
[29:23] Are are you asking like how that how's
that
[29:25] » how it works?
>> So it's very sim I'm assuming very sim
[29:27] magistrate. So Chris Chris takes some
they go give them they give them
[29:31] citations and notices they don't comply
within the 30 days. You go through the
[29:35] full process and when you get to the
when you get to the point of per day
[29:38] fines because you've ignored it all the
way and then they just sit there and
[29:41] they acrew every day like like a lean
like a violation of a property. So
[29:45] that's for the magistrate to go ahead
and and a judge at that adjudicate at
[29:49] that point and then Okay, I'm good with
that. I I can understand it there.
[29:55] » I apologize. It was just fuzzing for me
for a minute.
[29:58] » You're good.
>> So let's go. Everybody good there?
[30:02] » Let's go to page six. Division two,
cross connection control and backflow
[30:06] prevention.
[30:11] » Well, it's it's marked page six. I'm not
sure what the PDF page is.
[30:14] » Uh I think it is six actually.
>> See, scroll up for me, Jesse. One more
[30:21] page.
>> Yes, six is 74.
[30:26] » Okay, go down.
Keep going.
[30:31] There we go. There we go. Right there.
Okay. So,
[30:37] this was one of the things that I
originally ran on was I had an issue
[30:42] with getting a backflow inspection to
open up and get my business license. And
[30:47] I' I've always had this question. I've
never been able to get true clarity on
[30:51] it.
This right here, this section right here
[30:55] basically says that we are going to
comply with
[30:59] uh Florida Administrative Code 62-5505
and 62-555.
[31:07] Um
what is it defined within the
[31:11] administrative code as far as the
frequency? I understand and don't debate
[31:17] the question around commercial that that
it's a requirement that commercials be
[31:22] commercial um properties be inspected
every year. But there was a brief period
[31:28] where I I guess for some reason was
required backtoback years to have my
[31:33] personal backflow pre inspected and then
later it finally got fixed and now I
[31:38] think I'm on like an every two-year
schedule. But what what is again I'm
[31:44] going back to the fact that I never was
able to kind of get clarity on this and
[31:48] it's I what I'm I guess I'm pointing at
and driving towards here is
[31:54] let's put something in our code that
says what we're doing and not
[31:59] necessarily referring and making the
public kind of jump through go here
[32:03] reference here reference here
>> type of thing. We can in the cross
[32:08] connection policy that we have, it
states that if you're a residential
[32:11] service, it's a every two-year cycle,
but if you're a business, it's a
[32:16] one-year cycle. Now, whether they got
confused at the time and thought you
[32:19] were that was your business,
>> right,
[32:21] » and you were operating a business out of
that residential home,
[32:24] » because that could be kind of the caveat
if you're going to claim your home as a
[32:27] residential business. Well, then to meet
those standards means that you are
[32:31] labeled in our system as commercial,
then you would have to meet that once a
[32:36] year criteria. I don't know if that'd be
the case or not, but it is in the
[32:40] policy. That's that. I believe that is a
a Florida administrative code timeline.
[32:47] » Um,
but we can clarify that. I mean, it's
[32:51] really it's really not that hard for us
to clarify that. But that's how it's
[32:54] clarified in our policy right now that
we have is that your residential would
[32:57] be on a two-year cycle and then your um
business would be on a one-year cycle
[33:03] and then you would have that 30 days to
come come in compliance. Lynn basically
[33:07] sends out a 15-day prior notice and then
you have that other 15 days after you go
[33:11] out of compliance to bring it back into
compliance and then at that time that's
[33:14] when we start the process of the
violations and the uh disconnection of
[33:19] water. if he just failed to to
completely uh acknowledge the letters
[33:23] and stuff like that. So
>> I got you.
[33:25] » And the reason why the Florida
administration code and the building
[33:30] codes even mention the section is so
that if a contractor someone comes in,
[33:35] well what standards are we using?
>> Sure.
[33:39] Code this is what you need to look at.
Here's the sections. This is what you
[33:42] need to go by.
>> Yes, absolutely. I'm
[33:45] » and that's the only reason why that
section mentioned in there.
[33:47] » Yes. I'm just trying to think how we can
how we can improve.
[33:51] » Um because again, having kind of walked
through that as a as a as a citizen, I
[33:58] was never able to truly get a lot of
clarity. It was just like, well, you
[34:01] just got to do it. And I'm like, huh?
What?
[34:04] » Yeah.
>> And and and I kept getting hit and I'm
[34:06] like, what's going on here? Um so just
wanting to kind of improve that. So, one
[34:12] thought would be I think it would be
very very helpful and I don't know if
[34:16] this is possible, but as someone that
has a business downtown, a house that
[34:23] has a backflow, and then as the
president of the nonprofit that has two
[34:26] black backflows, it would be
tremendously helpful for me because
[34:30] that's four to see on my water bill when
my in my inspection's due or when it's
[34:36] up. So if if it could be included on my
water bill, your inspection is due on
[34:42] July 5th of every year or because I
actually have them all spread out. The
[34:45] house is on a different cycle than the
store. Then the theater has two. The
[34:50] theater has the one that is covered by
the sprinkler system and then the
[34:54] theater has that secondary building
that's the rehearsal hall that has the
[34:57] backflow pre out back. So I have four
different cycles that I'm on when it
[35:02] comes to backflow. So, I'm always
wondering when my next backflow
[35:05] prevention letter is going to show up.
So, putting that on a water bill would
[35:09] be tremendously helpful as someone that
manages those
[35:16] » if it's possible.
>> Yeah. And that's the thing. I don't know
[35:19] how I know we can add some of the
information into the billing statements.
[35:24] I just don't know how much of that we
would be able to put on there and then
[35:27] also keep up with it
on the commercial side, especially if
[35:31] one changes ownership and things like
that. We would have to probably manually
[35:36] go in and change every one of those. I
don't know if it would be on a rolling
[35:39] cycle because if your business went out
of
[35:42] » right,
>> you know, shut off for two years. Well,
[35:44] then that cycle essentially you wouldn't
have to have it done until the new
[35:47] property owner come back in and then
we'd have to restart it again. So,
[35:50] » and take that out the bill. So,
>> so that leads Yeah. and and I agree. But
[35:55] that leads me to my second point that
was the whole rub to begin with was my
[36:00] business license was being held up by an
issue that as a lease of the building
[36:06] originally, even though now I own the
building, originally I didn't own the
[36:09] building. I was just subleasasing or
leasing it from the owner. And the owner
[36:14] was arguing, "I just had it turned on. I
just had it inspected." And I'm like,
[36:18] "That's not my problem. They're telling
me I can't get my business license until
[36:21] you have it inspected again." and he's
like, "I just had it inspected." And I'm
[36:24] like, "Why am I in the middle of this? I
just want a business license."
[36:27] » Mhm.
>> So, I would like to see something in
[36:31] here to kind of address that scenario
because it's a real scenario that I that
[36:35] I went through and I think it probably
happens from time to time because you
[36:39] you will have properties in the city
guaranteed where someone's leasing the
[36:43] building, but the actual ownership of
the backflow is not that person that's
[36:48] leasing the building. It's the building
owner or the property owner. Mhm.
[36:51] » So, I would like to see something in
here that kind of separates those two
[36:56] because to me, we shouldn't necessarily
hold up a business license when we've
[37:00] got a dispute with the property owner on
on a backflow prevention status.
[37:07] » So, that that would be my request. And
again, I'm throwing that out there for
[37:10] discussion. If if y'all all say I'm
crazy, that's fine. I get overruled. But
[37:16] that that that would be my two requests
is let's let's end this. Let's separate
[37:20] those two out so that we don't that
doesn't happen. And then number two, if
[37:24] there's any I understand your point
about change of ownership, but to me it
[37:29] just simply sticking it in as a note.
Your your backflow is due July of every
[37:36] year.
>> Even if you were to just stick that in
[37:38] as a permanent note that shows up on my
bill, that would be tremendously
[37:41] helpful.
>> Okay.
[37:43] » Do we make a business have a backlo
check even if they're not
[37:49] in operation just because there's a
business there with a potential of
[37:54] operating
>> and see that's my point if it actually
[37:56] fall to the property owner not the not
the business
[37:59] » well I say but if it's the if the
property owner no matter what has to
[38:03] have backload test done no matter what
if you go rent the building at any time
[38:09] that means the backflow test should
already be
[38:12] » valid valid worry about it
>> and that was his argument that was his
[38:16] argument to me I'm like the city's
telling me I can't get it he's like I
[38:19] just had it turned on and had to have it
inspected. What do you mean I'm having
[38:21] to have it inspected again? So, I ended
up basically just saying, "You know
[38:24] what? I'll handle it. I'll get it done."
And the irony to all of it was it was
[38:29] behind two locked doors. So, who who
knew when it was actually inspected? You
[38:33] know what I mean? Like, I kept I was
told, "Oh, well, it's been it hasn't
[38:36] been inspected." I'm like, "Well, how do
you know it's behind two locked doors?"
[38:39] You know, you know what I mean? Like, it
was this this big confusion.
[38:43] » Yeah. The city the city has he has a
list of who's on the backflow
[38:49] inspection. Right.
>> Right.
[38:50] » So why couldn't that guy that did the
back folk call the city and say I've did
[38:55] the back for testing and it's it's good
to go. It has
[39:00] » so it's a requirement every year.
>> So that's some of the that's some of the
[39:04] dispute that we have now with some of
them which Miss Lynn Miss Lynn runs the
[39:08] the system pretty tight.
>> Yeah, she does. No, and it sounds like I
[39:11] think that time frame was kind of when
Miss Lynn was coming on. I don't really
[39:14] know. She may have been here. I don't
know.
[39:16] » That was seven or eight years ago.
>> You really shouldn't encounter that. So,
[39:20] Miss Lynn runs a a list. She knows, like
I said, she sends those letters out 15
[39:24] days prior. She knows when that backflow
for the residential customer and the the
[39:28] business owner is coming up and she
sends those out. Now there is some
[39:33] issues that we've had to where like with
the contractors that are doing the
[39:36] backflow testing for the uh leases or
the renters are not providing us that
[39:41] documentation. The property owner is the
solely person responsible for making
[39:45] sure that we have that so that we are
stay in compliance and we did put a
[39:49] little language in that because we
discussed that because that's something
[39:52] that was very important because as a
customer they thought they had had a
[39:55] contractor do it and they thought the
contractor was doing it. It's not the
[39:58] contractor's responsibility. it's the
property owners. It's your backflow. So,
[40:03] we kind of changed some of that language
in this uh in the cross connection
[40:06] portion of this ordinance to restate
that again that it's that property
[40:12] owner. So, I do I get where you're
coming from and I do understand it if if
[40:16] that program is not being ran like it
should be, but it should be to where
[40:20] Miss Lynn knows how many days out you're
going to be. We send out those those
[40:23] notifications. If you go past that, we
send that out. She even half the time
[40:28] Miss Lynn chases down the contractors.
Luckily, she has all their contacts and
[40:31] she chases them down so we can stay in
compliance. But there's some times to
[40:34] where it just takes an extremely long
time to be able to get them. Um, but I
[40:40] mean, there's always something that we
can do to to better perfect our craft on
[40:44] getting those and making it more, you
know, user friendly for y'all. One of
[40:47] them is going to be that the the that
fog BMP program that we have. It's also
[40:52] going to be on there. And if I'm not
mistaken, and I'll have to take check
[40:56] with Miss Lynn, I don't want to speak
for her or her tell you a lie, but I
[40:59] believe there's a way in that software
to where if you have those email
[41:02] addresses or things of that nature,
which is going to be a little different
[41:04] because you're le possibly and if you
move out, but it will send those email
[41:08] notifications with that information
also. So, it'll start rolling in to
[41:12] where we're going to have better means
of notification. that that's fant. Yeah,
[41:17] » but having that in writing is what is
really going to be where you true up
[41:22] those situations. So, I mean, it's
something that we can look at. We can
[41:25] take it back to uh my crew and kind of
discuss those if if that's what we need
[41:29] to do and see if we can streamline that
process.
[41:32] » And please, please everybody hear me
out. Like, I'm not throwing stones at
[41:35] anybody.
>> Oh, no. Yeah.
[41:36] » I you know, I think Miss Lynn does a
great job. I have had no problems with
[41:40] Miss Lynn ever since she took over the
program. I feel like it's it's run
[41:43] top-notch.
I'm I'm speaking from my previous
[41:47] experience and saying,
is there a way to notify people better?
[41:52] But number two, let's decouple
the business license portion from
[41:57] » the facility,
>> the the the physical property owner
[42:01] » and and like let's much like we did with
the building inspection stuff,
[42:05] [clears throat]
>> let's codify that so that it does in
[42:08] into this so that we don't have someone
say, "Nope, you can't get a business
[42:12] license because this hasn't been
completed over here." Like, I want to
[42:15] decouple that. And and again, if y'all
think I'm crazy, please tell me. I I'm
[42:20] I'm open to correction on this. Please,
please, please.
[42:23] » I I I uh I want to insert this.
Isn't there a way we can put language in
[42:28] there that uh we require the backflow
inspector to have license in the city?
[42:35] » Isn't any way we can put language in
there that he has a a duty to inform the
[42:39] city that this has passed and send a
note to him or whatever
[42:44] » because he getting paid.
I'm just saying if there's any way we
[42:49] can change the language that you know he
can identify.
[42:51] » I don't know if we could hold a
contractor because contractor would do
[42:54] work in here. We could possibly ban him
if he didn't give us those notifications
[42:57] out from doing work inside the city. But
Miss Lynn on that list is everybody that
[43:02] is state certified. They have to be
state certified to be able to to
[43:05] maintenance and repair backflows here
within the city. They also got to have a
[43:09] business license. So if one comes in,
let's say they want to be added to that
[43:12] list, she automatically gives that to
Miss Lisa and make sure that they get
[43:16] their their business license or you know
through the process code. But the it
[43:22] kind of is doing that, but it's it's a
process. Yeah.
[43:27] » See, my my issue wasn't with
the the backflow inspector not
[43:33] communicating with the city. My issue
was that the city apparently didn't have
[43:37] documentation but turned the water on.
>> Right. But I understand that. But what
[43:41] I'm seeing if that if he did
communicated with Lynn in the city then
[43:45] that wouldn't you wouldn't had that
problem. That would eliminate that
[43:48] problem there.
>> Yes.
[43:53] » Because it certif.
>> Yeah.
[43:56] » But would but if the Well, that's the
thing. That's where we're running into.
[43:59] That's why we'd much rather go straight
to the horse's mouth, for lack of better
[44:04] words, but go straight to the customer
and say, "Look, your backflow is out of
[44:07] compliance." Because if we go to your
contractor, you're you could have made
[44:10] your contractor mad and I ain't going to
tell them. So,
[44:14] take your money and run. That's kind of
why we go straight and we say solely the
[44:18] customer because the customer is the one
that we technically have any balance to
[44:22] shut their water service off. We can't
go shut the contractor off and if you
[44:26] make contractor, like I say, it's just a
whole deal there,
[44:28] » right? And in my current [clears throat]
situation, I'm one and the same, right?
[44:32] I'm the building owner and I'm the
customer. But in my previous situation,
[44:36] I wasn't the building owner.
>> Yeah.
[44:38] » I wasn't. And the water bill wasn't
technically in my name.
[44:41] » Now it all Now it all is and
everything's gravy. But back then it
[44:44] wasn't.
>> I actually had a lease with him that
[44:47] said he would pay the water and the
power and I had a flat fee for my lease.
[44:52] » So he was covering my power and my water
as part of my lease. So it was all
[44:57] technically under his name. It should
have been him do performing the work.
[45:02] » Yes, sir.
>> Questions. Chris, do is business does
[45:05] business actually even take into
consideration the back floor anymore?
[45:09] » Not that I know of. I thought we took
took that away from that section as in
[45:13] um we don't I don't think we check that
anymore.
[45:16] » So, I don't think they're connected
anymore at all. Um couple next question.
[45:20] Um maybe Mr. Randall, is there a fee
associated with the backflow
[45:25] or is it just they had to get inspected?
Did they give us they verified that it
[45:28] was it was ver was inspected and that's
it.
[45:31] » Is there an inspection fee?
>> Mhm.
[45:33] » You mean no there's no there's no
inspection fee that we do because the
[45:37] contractor is doing the inspection. It's
not us doing the inspection.
[45:40] » I know I'm saying we don't charge just
for example fog. We're charging a permit
[45:44] for someone to be able to cook so they
don't go in our system. This is not very
[45:48] much different. This is a backflow not
contaminate our water supply. So I'm
[45:51] asking so we don't charge anything
currently for anything to backflow.
[45:54] » Okay. No permitting fees or anything
backlo.
[45:57] » Okay. How many how many you think we got
>> back flows? I'd be lying to you if I
[46:02] said because you have most of all every
commercial account is supposed to have a
[46:06] backflow
>> and every you have your egg meters.
[46:09] » Okay.
>> Are those with exterior water sources?
[46:12] » I don't have an ameter, but I have a
backflow.
[46:14] » This is just a suggestion and I don't
know.
[46:16] » You have an exterior water source on the
property and then you're supposed to
[46:18] have a back float.
>> This is a suggestion. You know,
[46:21] obviously when you go to work on two
ways, but
[46:25] the whole point of this is me as again I
don't have one. I'm just saying you like
[46:29] you just said that to back foot on mean
nothing to me as property owner. It
[46:33] means something to the city because we
don't want to crosscontaminate. They
[46:35] won't we don't want to back into our
system. [clears throat]
[46:37] » So why put the responsibility of
property owner something they don't have
[46:40] a vested interest in. So why don't we as
a city
[46:45] get a backflow contractor under contract
and they perform them. We send them out.
[46:50] We give them a list. They go perform
those. They provide that verification
[46:53] back to us because we're the ones who
care about it.
[46:57] » Basically to a invite to or inspector.
>> Yeah. Why make property owner get one
[47:04] every year? Just like So then we're
talking about you got five of them. You
[47:07] wouldn't have to do that. It's a list.
>> Then you're talking about doing a an
[47:11] annual fee for for that service.
>> So if what you don't have to charge the
[47:15] same amount, I don't know what the cost,
but they're already paying what's what's
[47:18] it cost? to $75 each. Okay. Some of them
charge $100.
[47:21] » Okay. You bid it out.
>> They back and forth.
[47:25] » Well, on on the theater with that 6 in
tap for the sprinkler system, that's a
[47:30] whole separate backflow that's
completely different than the the
[47:35] regular backflow that's on the building
itself.
[47:37] » So, ju just be aware that you're going
to have
[47:40] » those backflows as well as the typical
backflow that you see,
[47:44] » your fire suppression back.
>> Yeah. So I guess what I'm getting at is
[47:48] um obviously we have to go through and
determine well we think the average cost
[47:52] is to have one of those conducted one of
those right but then at that point you
[47:55] don't have to worry about it anymore
right nobody's got to worry about if you
[47:58] got multiple of them because it's
already on the list that pointless L
[48:01] provide that list to our contractor they
go and perform that they give us
[48:03] verification we put that either we bill
you or we put on your water bill
[48:07] » right and on top of that when you bid it
out how many how many we got on the list
[48:12] probably how many people
>> 10 to 12 maybe
[48:14] » okay imagine 10 to 12 people bidding to
take the city's entire backlog.
[48:19] » Some of them have four.
>> No, no, no. I'm talking about the
[48:22] contractor.
>> Contractors have Okay. I'm sorry. I was
[48:25] talking about the back.
>> Yeah. No. So, on the on the list of
[48:28] approved backflow people that do, we got
about 10 or 12. Imagine 10 or 12 people
[48:31] bidding on the city's backflow accounts.
You're going to bring the cost per
[48:34] backflow inspection down.
>> So, it's going to cost property owners
[48:38] less than what it cost them now because
I don't know what the margin is on
[48:41] backflow checking, but you have to have
one. Again, I don't know how many there
[48:45] are in the city. So, right, you may have
to have four of them. May not be able to
[48:47] have one. Have to have four. Obviously,
we can guarantee a minimum amount per
[48:51] contractor,
>> right? Because you're not going to get
[48:55] any less than a certain number unless
you have a mass exodus.
[49:00] » Not a bad idea.
>> Kind of like the toe tow rotation list.
[49:03] Basically, it first runs up coming on.
>> You got three months. You don't
[49:08] guarantee the number. I mean, you could,
you know, let's say you got get four of
[49:12] them. 12 months. They get three months
out of the year. You rotate this month,
[49:17] you get this one. You rotate through it.
By the end of the year, all four of them
[49:20] get at least three months worth of
accounts of service. Hey, you you may
[49:22] get, you know, 200, the other person
might get 500. That's just the way it
[49:26] rolls in rotation.
>> Now, don't and this is looking on the
[49:32] contractor side of it, but not all
contractors have the fire suppression
[49:35] certification. That's a whole another
certification when it comes to the
[49:38] repair and everything.
>> So, you have a tester, you have a
[49:42] repair, and then you have fire
suppression. So
[49:45] that would be one of the things is that
if we do, I mean, we really need to look
[49:48] into it and separate it to where we
don't basically cut out all the local
[49:52] contractors we have right now that's on
that list that only have that
[49:55] certification to be able to test and
then some to repair.
[49:58] » Well, it's not I mean, I'm not I don't
want to cut anybody out either. However,
[50:02] if we're I mean, I'm just giving an
example. If you're going to do it, if we
[50:04] require you to have both,
>> then I assume you go get it if you want
[50:09] to bid on it.
>> Okay, but hold on. So, for example,
[50:13] cuz I've had I've had the one at my
house replaced and I've had the one at
[50:16] the store replaced and I went two
different directions with them. The one
[50:19] at the house, I bought what was told and
then they just came out and installed it
[50:24] and certified it.
>> And that was one price. When I did the
[50:27] one at the store, I just said just do it
for me. And that was a completely
[50:32] different and much more expensive price
that I will never do again. Okay,
[50:35] » I will I will buy it and provide it
>> because I was able to buy it a whole lot
[50:39] cheaper. So, is the city going to get
into the process of standardizing a
[50:43] backflow pre and saying you're going to
buy, you know, your your backflow pre
[50:47] failed, it could not be repaired cuz
like the one at the house, I bought the
[50:53] internals and repaired it and it worked
for a year and and passed inspection for
[50:56] a year and then finally it failed again
and they were like, "Hey, you got to you
[50:59] got to replace it."
>> Well, there's a distin
[51:01] » standardizing. I don't think so because
it all depends on what type of backflow
[51:05] and what area it is. So, you have
multiple different backflows. There's
[51:08] probably five to six different kinds.
You got your dual checks, your RPZs,
[51:12] right?
>> Air gap, uh, dual check, you know, dual
[51:14] checks. You got you got a couple
different backflows. So, to say that
[51:18] we're going to standardize, no, there's
really no way for us to standardize.
[51:21] » Well, I don't think we want to get into
the installation. So, there's there's
[51:23] the installation, there's the
inspection. I don't think we want to get
[51:26] into installation because then,
>> right, for water, for example, water
[51:30] meters and registers, we have soul
source vendors. We can buy that case,
[51:34] you're going to have to go out, we're
going to bid it out. We're going to be a
[51:36] process. So, I'd say you stay out of the
installation portion of it. If you got
[51:40] it installed or you're a new build, you
put your own in and after that, you no
[51:42] longer have to worry about it. He's
going to inspect it. We're going to send
[51:45] you the bill every year for that
inspection to be on your bill.
[51:47] » So, it's just a thought.
>> You say my foot right there because
[51:51] you're right on your guy wanted $500 for
$100 back floor. I say no. I went and
[51:58] got the back for install it. I asked him
to inspect it because he was too high
[52:03] » and and that was a robbery. I couldn't I
couldn't allow that to happen, but I
[52:07] know how to install them and everything
and I said I just didn't have the
[52:10] license to check it. But you can't stop
me from fixing my own backlog.
[52:13] » Mhm.
>> But long as it pass and expect. But I
[52:15] had a brand new one. But you have some
of them will rob you on that. Just like
[52:18] you say, it's very expensive. You'd be
surprised what some of them cost.
[52:22] » And it's the same thing, same name, same
size because you got different sizes
[52:26] that I hole.
>> So
[52:29] » So you're you're saying just the
inspection side, you would not get into
[52:32] the repair or the replacement side. No,
cuz I be honest with if you're going to
[52:36] get into the installation repair and
stuff, you might as well add a division
[52:39] within water, right? Hire the people to
do it and then we buy the back flows, we
[52:43] install them, just like you do a
capacity fee and tap the water line
[52:46] » training and service.
>> Go ahead and do the full service.
[52:48] Obviously, the flip side of that is
everyone here who does a business is
[52:51] gone because we now own we own I mean,
we own the water system. So, you know,
[52:56] they no longer service our water system.
So, there's back but I'd say if you're
[52:58] going to get into the installation
repair, you might as well put a whole
[53:00] new division in the utility department
and do it all ourselves. this case an
[53:04] inspection. You literally just got them
on contracts. You give them the list.
[53:07] They perform it. They give us back the
verification that occurred or it failed.
[53:10] You can notify on that point. Then you
it goes on your bill. Like they may be I
[53:15] mean I guess we can try to look to
standardize them as once per year. You
[53:18] may get four different ones throughout
the year, but at least you're going to
[53:20] see on there what it's for and it's
going to be on that specific account.
[53:27] I can I can see pros and cons to both
sides of it because like again having
[53:32] gone through many iterations with mine
like I went back and forth. Hey, let me
[53:36] let me do a rebuild kit this year and
see if that gets me by. And it did. And
[53:40] then a year or two later, hey, re
rebuild kit's failing. You you know,
[53:45] it's still not seating correctly. You're
going to have to buy a whole new one. In
[53:48] that case, they made a recommendation. I
ordered off Amazon
[53:53] and it was I think back then it was like
120 bucks
[53:56] » versus the one I did down at the store.
I just said
[53:59] » he said, "Hey, it's failing. It needs to
be replaced." I said, "Just replace it."
[54:02] That was $400. I was like,
>> "That's a hit."
[54:07] » Yeah.
>> That's a hit.
[54:08] » So,
I can I can see pros and cons to it. And
[54:13] and I guess what I'm thinking through is
[54:18] in an instance where a vendor goes out,
does inspection, now the city's telling
[54:24] me I failed. So now I got to get a hold
of a vendor and say, "Okay, was it
[54:28] failing and I need a rebuild kit or was
it failing and I just need a full
[54:31] replacement?" Like, what's the deal? Is
that am I allowed to contact the same
[54:35] person that came out and did it or do I
need to go get my own? I I could kind of
[54:39] see that opening up a whole lot of other
>> can of worms.
[54:43] » Oh well, why' they fail this thing? It's
working fine. Look, so they could
[54:47] replace
>> and that's our that's our situation is
[54:50] it has to be somebody licensed. That's
why I say Miss Lynn, make sure it is
[54:53] because otherwise you'll have that
scenario. Somebody can come out there
[54:56] and say they put a new gasket in there
and it really didn't do anything to it.
[54:59] It's still causing you issues.
>> Yeah. So, you definitely want somebody
[55:02] that knows what they're looking at
because
[55:05] » it's pretty intrinsically intrinsic
priority when it comes to the water
[55:09] system.
>> Sure.
[55:10] » Because anything can get pumped back in
there. Anybody spraying agricultural
[55:12] stuff or weed killer and stuff gets
sucked back into a a uh sprinkler head
[55:18] and it's contaminated everything. So,
definitely want to be cautious of
[55:23] how we want to go about that.
>> All right. [laughter] So, I don't I
[55:27] don't mean to belabor the point. Do we
have any more? We've spent almost an
[55:32] hour on chapter 23. Does anybody else
have anything? Obviously, it's going to
[55:36] get brought back.
>> Yeah.
[55:37] » Right.
>> I hope somebody took notes. [laughter]
[55:40] » I got video.
>> The bad thing is we could complicate
[55:44] that process three different ways or
three ways. The overall goal is it is it
[55:50] moving efficiently currently? Do we
>> would it be more efficient to do it the
[55:55] other way or are we over complicating
it? And
[55:58] » Right. So, I don't know.
>> Well, we can get well, I'll get in touch
[56:02] with my billing supervisor, see how
easily it would be for us to add that
[56:06] in. Um, of course, you know, some of the
things that we did change was kind of
[56:10] the outlook on how that billing
statement was and kind of standardizing
[56:14] standardizing the the billing uh uh slip
with what you get email-wise and things
[56:20] of that nature for those that have
emails and stuff. We're trying to make
[56:22] it look the same because reading too
many different documents that say the
[56:25] same thing but they're all in different
fonts will really confuse you.
[56:28] » Yeah.
>> So, uh so we can definitely do that. See
[56:31] see how far we can go with that and
>> it may be maybe a simple process. We
[56:35] just got to see.
>> So,
[56:36] » okay.
>> Anybody else have anything before we
[56:39] move on?
>> Unless you put a lot together. Thank
[56:41] you.
>> Yes. Thank you for all your hard work on
[56:43] this.
>> Yes, sir.
[56:44] » Mr. Shawn and Mr. Randall.
[56:49] » All right. We will move on to chapter
uh or 2B chapter 13. Um Mr. Atkinson
[56:58] unfortunately had a conflict with a
budget meeting in Freeport. So he's not
[57:02] here. So I'm going to [clears throat] do
my level best. He did submit to to us
[57:07] this afternoon kind of a combination of
these ordinances that are actually
[57:12] listed for the for the agenda items
here. So I think it's two ordinances
[57:16] that cover these these four original
chapters.
[57:27] » 13.
>> Okay. So yeah. So this one's
[57:33] » Yeah, cuz I think if if I based on my
conversation with him,
[57:38] I think 13
let's see 13 was it 13 and 20 are going
[57:43] to be combined. Let's see.
[58:00] Does anybody have any kind of
discussion? Have we had a chance to
[58:03] review this? I know it came out this
afternoon.
[58:22] No, I mean
he's
[58:27] pulled out everything we asked you to
from before. It looks like
[58:41] did he send because I I see here where
he sent chapter 21 [clears throat] and
[58:45] chapter 13. Did he send
uh chapter 15 and chapter 20?
[58:54] » Yes, sir. Okay. Oh, so that's in the
printed material. Yes.
[58:58] » Oh, okay. Cuz I Sorry. He only emailed
me two two out of the four.
[59:04] » 15.
>> Okay. I see him here.
[59:10] » I don't know if it's going to be on the
electronic version.
[59:14] » 15.
[59:17] » It'll be in the printed version.
[59:24] for this room.
[59:29] » No, no, no, no. You're you're good.
You're all good, Miss.
[59:34] So, right now, technically,
we're on chapter Hang on.
[59:44] We're on chapter 13.
[59:56] All right, everybody got 13 in front of
them.
[1:00:25] » [snorts]
[1:00:45] » kind of wish the chief was here.
>> I think these are the same.
[1:00:57] Yeah.
[1:01:21] » [snorts]
>> Mhm.
[1:01:40] They're not
[1:01:53] Serious.
[1:02:22] I can't this last page where it says
city attorney's sidebar notes.
[1:02:27] » I have that. Yes, ma'am. Do y'all have
that?
[1:02:31] » It'll be on
the packet [clears throat] for chapter
[1:02:34] 13. It'll be towards the back and say
drafter's notes.
[1:02:39] » Okay.
[1:02:44] » Yeah, I see it.
[1:02:51] » Yeah. Go one more page.
>> One more page. 11.
[1:02:55] » There we go.
>> So, I guess those were his sidebar notes
[1:03:00] for you all tonight regarding chapter
13. If that helps.
[1:03:07] » Yes. Thank you.
[1:04:12] Okay. Okay. So, it does say in his notes
here.
[1:04:20] Oh, I just lost it. Where' it go?
[1:04:50] Committee should decide whether to
conform
[1:04:53] to noncriminal treatment
adopted for parking section 133.
[1:05:01] Fines are moved to resolution per the
council's direction. The section retains
[1:05:07] its misdemeanor character for now. The
committee should decide whether to
[1:05:10] conform it to the noncriminal treatment
adopted for parking in section 133 C.
[1:05:17] Retaining the misdemeanor character
preserves maximum enforcement
[1:05:21] flexibility for repeated allterrain
vehicle operation on city streets.
[1:05:25] Conforming would treat the fine schedule
as an exclusive consequence.
[1:05:32] Anybody
[1:05:39] have any thoughts or comments on that?
[1:05:47] Not
at the moment.
[1:09:21] I'm good with this.
[1:09:30] 15.
>> So you're you're good with 13 as
[1:09:33] presented.
>> Mhm.
[1:09:34] » Yes, sir.
>> Okay.
[1:09:38] » I'm good to go.
>> You're good to go.
[1:09:41] » Jordan carriage.
>> Yes.
[1:09:45] All right. I do I do just want to kind
of call out a couple of his notes just
[1:09:48] to make sure we're all on the same page.
So he's talking about
[1:09:59] note so note three that uh okay I'm
sorry note two talks about
[1:10:08] [snorts] parking fines are not a crime
which matches the modern practice and
[1:10:13] proportionality.
So then when you go down to note four
[1:10:18] which pertains to section 7 section 13-7
fines are moved to resolution blah blah
[1:10:24] blah blah the section retains
misdemeanor character for now the
[1:10:28] committee should decide whether to
conform it to noncriminal treatment like
[1:10:32] a park like parking
or should we treat it as a misdemeanor
[1:10:37] retaining misdemeanor
character preserves maximum enforcement
[1:10:42] flexibility for repeated ATV operational
on city streets. So, do we want to keep
[1:10:50] it ATV operation on city streets as a
misdemeanor or do we want to treat it
[1:10:55] more like a parking offense?
[1:10:59] » What does state I can't remember what
state statute actually calls for in that
[1:11:04] instance. Let me find out real quick.
>> Okay. And while you're looking at that,
[1:11:10] just want to note metered parking
article which was adopted in 1956 and
[1:11:15] has to deal with penny nickel deposits
and the 25 cents violation
[1:11:19] » is repealed and then it basically that's
just reserved for a future paid parking
[1:11:23] program which is I think what we were
generally wanting.
[1:11:27] » Yeah.
>> Okay. Then note number six he's talking
[1:11:30] about
he there's two options here. He the way
[1:11:34] he has it written as presented,
it excludes
[1:11:40] pickup trucks, vans, and panel vans
>> so that they're not swept in because
[1:11:45] they can technically be like I like my
example that I gave last time. I think
[1:11:49] my truck technically is over 10,000
pounds. But he also calls out the fact
[1:11:54] that
it eliminates the ambiguity of having to
[1:11:58] weigh them because you can basically
just look at the sticker when when
[1:12:03] you're doing a stop because the sticker
that's on the vehicle
[1:12:08] » tells you the weights.
He's giving us an alternative
[1:12:13] which is the gross vehicle weighing over
26,01 pounds and three or more axles
[1:12:20] which tracks with
weight enforcement and commercial
[1:12:24] licenses and restricts only the heaviest
equipment. So, do we want to kind of go
[1:12:31] with the way he's presented it or do we
want to go with this 26,000 lb and three
[1:12:37] axles?
I'm kind of thinking we go with what
[1:12:40] he's presented.
>> I agree with that because it's already
[1:12:43] there. You got proof that
>> I agree.
[1:12:46] » Okay.
[1:13:11] All righty.
Were you able to find that? Councilman
[1:13:15] Skyers,
>> I found the statute. I'm looking for the
[1:13:18] penalty, the provision now.
>> Okay.
[1:14:42] Noncriminal [snorts] traffic infraction.
[1:14:53] So, I guess do we want to make it
criminal or just a civil infraction?
[1:15:00] » I see.
>> That's how we make it a misdemeanor.
[1:15:06] » That's what I was seeing. Mis
misdemeanor,
[1:15:09] » which is which is criminal.
>> Mhm. And that's the way it's written up
[1:15:12] currently, I believe.
[1:15:18] So, we'll just leave it as is.
>> Okay.
[1:15:21] » So, if y'all are good with it, do we
want to vote to advance this to the
[1:15:27] council or do we need an additional
review? Mr. Kobe,
[1:15:33] » we are good. We take it. We'll do like
we always do with all the other ones. We
[1:15:36] will take it to the council for a first
rendition, go over and then we'll bring
[1:15:40] it back for the first reading. So,
there'll be three times it'll come
[1:15:42] forth.
>> So, we need to do a motion.
[1:15:44] » Yes, sir. if you will.
>> So move motion to advance the chapter 13
[1:15:49] to the council.
>> Okay. Do I have a I have a motion? Do I
[1:15:52] have a second? I have a second.
>> I don't see anybody out in the public,
[1:15:56] but I do want to call for public
comment.
[1:15:59] » Seeing none, all those in favor of the
motion say I.
[1:16:03] » I. Eyes carry.
>> Unanimous.
[1:16:06] All right. We will move on to
>> 15.
[1:16:10] » Chapter 15.
[1:16:23] Jesse, he has the sidebar notes on this.
There it is. Thank you.
[1:18:00] » [snorts]
[1:18:41] » There's light.
[1:20:30] » [snorts]
[1:21:55] [snorts]
[1:22:42] » So I just I just caught the fact that
on section
[1:22:50] 15-126 property owners prohibited from
renting real property to certain sexual
[1:22:55] offenders and sexual predators
penalties. Yep. So, it is up to the
[1:23:01] landlord to basically run a
check to see if they're a
[1:23:07] predator or offender.
And then it basically falls on them if
[1:23:12] they are renting to one.
[1:23:23] Hello. Hello. Welcome.
>> There he is.
[1:23:33] » We are on chapter 15.
Okay,
[1:23:39] » we were just absorbing your notes and
reading through the
[1:23:42] » I tried to I I probably was a little
more verbose, but I figured it'd be
[1:23:45] easier if I didn't make it for y'all to
have some of those than not. Um,
[1:23:51] » so I what I did just so you understand
on all of these is I took the ordinances
[1:23:56] y'all talked about last time. I kind of
incorporated the notes and the
[1:24:00] commentary. I tried to merge those as
best as I could. I also did a complete
[1:24:06] top-down conflict check to try to clean
up a number of issues. Um so for
[1:24:13] instance um you have some very recent
Supreme Court decisions that become
[1:24:19] applicable
and that the attorney general of the
[1:24:22] state even though typically 166 governs
us not 125 the language of 1250231
[1:24:30] dealing with camping and parks and some
of those issues does actually
[1:24:36] exist for us the way the AG's worded it
unless you have specific regulations to
[1:24:41] the contrary.
So looking at the past decision and the
[1:24:45] way that's been applied, I felt like
some of the overnight camping
[1:24:48] regulations needed to be updated and had
to be considered um in this. So those
[1:24:54] are some things that just popped out
there. Um basically, you know, that
[1:25:00] statutory amendment that went into
effect in 24 post pass says local
[1:25:04] governments are not authorized to make
public camping or sleeping on public
[1:25:10] property
is not makes it illegal for you to do
[1:25:14] so. And that has been held to apply
downstream to cities
[1:25:19] um
despite the fact that we didn't
[1:25:22] initially think it was, but it seems
that that was a very broad um position
[1:25:29] the legislature took. Um and it actually
goes so far in 125. Um the language does
[1:25:38] discuss that um
in the penalty section adds the phrase
[1:25:44] municipality several times oddly enough.
>> So um that's what the AG has extended
[1:25:50] and I I do think we have to consider
that. So um that's one of the biggest
[1:25:55] changes you see from something we have
not talked about whatsoever in 15 was
[1:25:59] this public parking issue. Um,
the whereas clauses, I'll tell you, and
[1:26:05] I don't expect anybody to go through the
full adoption of these tonight and we
[1:26:09] could talk about them, but the whereas
clauses are a little more detailed than
[1:26:15] I would normally like in these. Um, and
oftentimes we skip through them because
[1:26:19] they're really proforma and that's
normal. But specifically in this 15, for
[1:26:24] instance, I provided some very detailed
language as the whereas to what we're
[1:26:29] updating. So we have some obsolete and
superseded laws. Um the powerwork
[1:26:35] section which is now under state law um
is governed. The pool room section from
[1:26:39] 1932 has been rendered obsolete by new
state law. Um we then had the um
[1:26:46] language related to loudspeaker that was
from 1950. We've talked about sound
[1:26:50] ordinances and noise ordinances quite a
bit. And then the 1974 flashing light
[1:26:56] section um we adopted that in 74. So, I
went back and I spent a lot of time
[1:27:01] looking at this. Um, the reality is we
did adopt that.
[1:27:07] Um, we probably should not have adopted
in 74.
[1:27:12] » Um, because we adopt it under authority
that would have existed preome rule and
[1:27:17] 73, of course, is in the legislature.
Fully codified home rule authority in
[1:27:22] 166's inclusionary language would not
have made it work. Um, so I referenced
[1:27:28] the 2024 statute in the next whereas
that's the one that says that we may not
[1:27:33] authorize or otherwise allow any person
to really engage in public camping
[1:27:38] details that um then you have the city
of Grants pass case that I referenced
[1:27:44] there. Um that the enforcement of a
generally applicable regulation of
[1:27:49] public camping is not a violation of the
eth amendment. Um, I pulled all of fair
[1:27:55] housing out of this. It's not an
offense. It's a civil remedy. It is now
[1:27:59] your new chapter 19.
Um, which, um, doing the opposite of
[1:28:05] what I've tried to do, which is
consolidate. 19 is reserved. It doesn't
[1:28:09] exist. So, it's just a new one. Um, I
look very hard at putting in land
[1:28:13] development code. There's some case law
elsewhere that indicates that that is
[1:28:18] inconsistent
um, with federal law. So that's why we
[1:28:23] did not do that. Um but we are doing a
very intentional
[1:28:29] simultaneous repeal and relocate so that
we are never in violation of federal law
[1:28:34] is the reason we've referenced it. Um
so some of the changes you know I
[1:28:41] incorporated most of the changes there
posted time set by the city council
[1:28:45] that'll be done by resolution. We
dropped the mayor um and let the manager
[1:28:51] have the authority there. Um
I did delete the word telegraph replace
[1:28:57] utility. I thought that was reasonable.
I think that's consistent with your
[1:29:00] comments. Um I updated the camping on
public property just to comply with the
[1:29:05] Florida law um because I thought that
section there reads more consistently
[1:29:10] with it. Um I wildly amended 1512 just
so you know. I mean, I think when you
[1:29:17] some of this stuff should be
self-explanatory, even though I didn't
[1:29:19] give you a full red line because I do
have a redline version of this that I
[1:29:23] spared Councilman Beerbomb, Kov, and
Sumi. Um, because when I pulled those up
[1:29:27] in Word and Redline, the length is three
times as long per document. I didn't
[1:29:32] think anybody wanted to print those. So,
I figured I would just give it this
[1:29:35] version. So, for instance, under section
1512 abandoned property, Florida law
[1:29:41] chapter 705 has been amended multiple
times. We used to reference just 70516
[1:29:47] as that. We're just going to reference
chapter 705 in its entirety because it
[1:29:51] now has actually built that out much
more and that is the better use of 1512.
[1:29:58] Um we do need abandoned property law so
that Mr. W so that um Mr. Strong has the
[1:30:04] ability to address this. I was called
Mr. Wallace. He throws something at me.
[1:30:08] But um so that Mr. Strong here can
enforce it.
[1:30:10] » He wishes he had those tattoos.
>> [laughter]
[1:30:15] » I didn't say it. Throw it at him. Um
your What I will say is you look at your
[1:30:21] 19 language. [clears throat]
We probably could do this as a separate
[1:30:24] ordinance. I think it's fine to make it
here. Um and we've done that. Um
[1:30:31] everything else is just um conformity
issues. Um amendments
[1:30:37] throughout there. Um I'm trying to see
if any of my notes
[1:30:45] Yeah, I talked a lot about I I did a lot
more about camping than I ever thought I
[1:30:49] would on this one. So, I apologize if
that feels like it dominated it, but
[1:30:53] when I got into that grants pass case
and looking at that 24 amendment, I knew
[1:30:57] it was going to be a big I knew it was
going to be something to deal with. I
[1:30:59] didn't think it would be as big as I
expected. Um, I also noted we cleaned up
[1:31:03] some 07 errors that had existed going
back almost 20 years now. So, this
[1:31:09] incorporates all your changes. The
biggest thing I took um creative license
[1:31:14] on was the camping to keep us lawful and
constitutional.
[1:31:20] » Y'all want to take a look at that and
maybe um decide if there's anything we
[1:31:24] need to come back let Chief Hurley weigh
in or does this feel consistent with
[1:31:28] what y'all talked about at the last
meeting?
[1:31:31] » I think it's consistent from what I've
seen.
[1:31:34] » I Clay, I just wanted to kind of
reiterate um Oh, shoot. I had it.
[1:31:39] Where'd it go?
[1:31:46] This the section dealing was this the
section dealing with uh
[1:31:53] landlords renting to
>> sex offenders.
[1:31:55] » Sex offenders.
>> It was the last one
[1:31:58] » before scr.
>> So has that always been the case?
[1:32:04] » Pull that back up here. So you're
talking about down on page 13. No, hold
[1:32:10] on.
>> I think it's right here.
[1:32:14] » 15 15126
15126
[1:32:19] » section.
>> Yeah. So, um that is how it has always
[1:32:23] been in our code.
>> Okay.
[1:32:25] » It's amended to read um
125 and then you're looking at B. Um
[1:32:32] it's just clean up of those two
chapters.
[1:32:36] » Okay. So literally the highlights and
strike through there or and for whatever
[1:32:40] reason didn't come through in color I
guess when I sent it but
[1:32:44] if y'all are didn't print in color. So
either way um those would be your
[1:32:47] changes there is um it's scrier's error
correction is that subsection A had read
[1:32:53] pursuant to a specific section of the
code um with the section number missing
[1:32:58] um the reference has to apply to 15125
when I go back and read the old code.
[1:33:05] So, we cleaned that up. Um, and then
subsection B referred to chapter 30 for
[1:33:11] code enforcement, but 11 is our code
enforcement.
[1:33:16] » And I have no idea why it said 30. It
never has been 30. It was never the
[1:33:20] county's 30. It's not free's 30.
>> Um, I have no idea where 30 was. Um,
[1:33:29] I was involved back then. I don't I was
the one who solely wrote it. I can tell
[1:33:33] you we did get this from the League of
Cities when it was promulgated and we
[1:33:36] had this is one of those examples where
a council member brought it to the dis
[1:33:39] and we passed and tried to conform it as
quick as we could and that's probably
[1:33:43] why we had a few section numbers left
out but that language has been in there
[1:33:46] since 07
and it is a um and I would tell you I
[1:33:52] think Chief Hurley and other law
enforcement officers would tell you um
[1:33:57] » believe it
>> that it [clears throat] is one of those
[1:33:59] things that Um,
the reality of that provision
[1:34:08] is that that gives us much more
protection,
[1:34:12] not because of the ability to penalize
someone, but because it allows
[1:34:18] law enforcement when they come do their
sex offender checks to really point that
[1:34:22] out to a landlord and let them know,
well, that is something you could be in
[1:34:25] trouble for.
because we're greater than 2,000 ft. A
[1:34:30] lot of them don't. A lot of them would
take federal assistance and think it's
[1:34:33] just the 10,00 state statue to work
twice as much. They don't realize it.
[1:34:37] You tell them that. They're very quick
to take care of that for them, which
[1:34:41] gets those people out of those parts of
the community.
[1:34:43] » Gotcha. And so every time we've looked
at that it has been and we actually
[1:34:48] debated this and the reason I'm you know
able to call off the top of is because
[1:34:52] our river7 guys because we adopted for
the first time this same ordinance in
[1:34:56] Pakistan and that was a very big
discussion. So I in several well if I
[1:35:00] get how do I know he said well the law
doesn't say this has nothing to do it is
[1:35:06] with the knowledge that it will be used
as a permanent residence by any person
[1:35:09] prohibited from establishing permanent
residence
[1:35:12] that language when we created it was
made very clear we are not actually
[1:35:17] going to stop somebody from letting it
be a short-term rental we're not
[1:35:21] actually going to stop somebody from
doing it as a temporary run because you
[1:35:24] can't do that you can't target temporary
housing needs to completely exclude from
[1:35:29] your community. But if they know that
that person intends for that to be their
[1:35:33] permanent residence, that's going to be
the issue. How do they know is the
[1:35:36] question. Well, the moment sex offender
check comes around and says, "Hey, so
[1:35:40] and so lives here. Do you know this is
where they report their permanent
[1:35:43] residence?" To the sheriff's office,
FDLE, etc.,
[1:35:48] now they know. And lo and behold, it
solves a lot of problems. Mhm.
[1:35:52] » Especially
[1:35:56] because of the declarations they have to
make under the Adam of Walsh Act, which
[1:35:59] is the federal regulations on this. Um
there are some very stringent Walsh Act
[1:36:05] provisions related to people receiving
federal assistance for housing.
[1:36:10] And that doesn't just mean people going
through the local county HUD, but there
[1:36:13] are other grants agreements and other
federal assistance programs that they
[1:36:17] have to be mindful of. So that's why
it's always been there. Okay.
[1:36:22] What's the what's the feeling of the
committee? Do we want to move this
[1:36:28] forward to the council? Do we want to
let the chiefly weigh in on it?
[1:36:34] » I'm I mean, I'm good with it. The way
that it's written,
[1:36:37] » this did incorporate Hurley's comments.
>> Yeah. I mean I I I folded in everything
[1:36:44] you gave me to the ex I will tell you
there I think across
[1:36:48] 13 15 and 20 there were about four or
five instances where I had a conflicting
[1:36:54] comment and I just tried to read it to
create something that worked for both
[1:36:58] rather than picking one or the other
move forward.
[1:37:02] » All right second. I have a motion and a
second. I don't see anybody in the in
[1:37:07] the uh audience for public comment but I
will call for public comment.
[1:37:12] Seeing none, all those in favor say I.
I.
[1:37:16] » Eyes carry unanimously. We will move
that to the city council. Thank you. And
[1:37:21] now we will move on to chapter 20, the
police department.
[1:37:26] » So once again, I'll tell you the wherees
here um
[1:37:31] are fairly effective. Um but I tried to
give some language in this um
[1:37:38] just to kind of explain what we're
doing. So your second whereas talks
[1:37:43] about the fact that we have provisions
from 1970 and 1981 that were used to
[1:37:47] create the chief law enforcement
official um and that that kind of
[1:37:52] mutually works alongside the city
marshall. This now brings us consistent
[1:37:55] with our charter is what we're doing. Um
section 20-3 deal police hiring
[1:38:01] procedures that reference entities and
standards that simply do not exist and
[1:38:05] frankly have not existed since 1981.
Um and the hiring certifications now
[1:38:11] governed by state law. That changed. So
that the hiring certification goes back
[1:38:15] to 1970 which is prehome.
>> So that's why that is a cleanup. Um
[1:38:24] I believe article 2 of chapter 20
has been superseded by 705. Um which is
[1:38:32] the again why I changed that other
section about abandoned property.
[1:38:36] » Um
I will be candid. I don't believe and
[1:38:41] James and I have talked about this. I
don't think that's what article 2
[1:38:43] chapter 20 was ever meant to address.
[1:38:48] But that's what it does [laughter]
address. So, um, unless he wants to come
[1:38:52] in and talk about what to do to get rid
of evidence and things like that, I
[1:38:55] think there's no reason to have it. Um,
I did not touch the impact fee
[1:39:00] ordinance. I want to comment on that
because it's not in here at all. So, I
[1:39:04] just want to comment on why
I've identified between seven and
[1:39:09] probably nine because two of them
repaint looking at my notes here. Things
[1:39:13] that definitively need to be updated in
that impact field.
[1:39:18] The blunt problem we got is we haven't
updated that study in so long, guys,
[1:39:22] that if I try to make substantive
material changes to that ordinance at
[1:39:27] this point in time, we risk invalidating
the whole thing on its face,
[1:39:30] » assuming it still is. So, we need to get
that cleaned up. This is not the
[1:39:34] document to do it in. going top down
20-1. I mirrored all of the striketh
[1:39:40] through and replaced verbatim
um what else was there um showing the
[1:39:47] change to old ordinance 404. Um we
repealed 20-2 and 20-3.
[1:39:54] Um at the end of the day that is covered
under 20-
[1:40:01] one subd he shall hire competent and
qualified police officers as may be
[1:40:06] provided for in the city budget. I don't
know how we can be any more generous to
[1:40:11] him than that. And then in E suspend and
dismiss employees of the office of city
[1:40:15] marshall for insubordination,
disobedience or misconduct or failure to
[1:40:19] carry out assigned duties. I don't see
how we can be any more fair to the
[1:40:25] marshall than giving him those
authorities.
[1:40:28] Um,
[1:40:32] we repealed the sections dealing with
disposition of unclaimed property. Um,
[1:40:37] but I adopted the state law provision
directly. um and specifically included
[1:40:42] 705103 and 105 as the unclaimed evidence
because those would be the only two
[1:40:47] things that he might have a separate
clause with than what was up in that
[1:40:50] section above. So I built that out in
case he comes back and says, "Well, wait
[1:40:56] a minute. What about lost and found?
What about unclaimed evidence?" Well,
[1:41:01] chief, I built that in. Statute already
covers those as well. Um nothing in
[1:41:06] article three changed. Um, and then I
continued reserving 20-51 through 102,
[1:41:13] but I think this matches up to
everything he did without any real
[1:41:17] change or problem. So,
>> not to uh I know we're all ready to go
[1:41:21] home, but I did want to just ask much
like we did in the charter where we
[1:41:26] strengthened and said that for the city
marshall he has to have standards.
[1:41:31] Does the word hire, competent, and
qualified kind of mirror that same
[1:41:36] thought process and in language? In
other words, I'd hate for him for
[1:41:40] someone
well after James is not here and we're
[1:41:44] all gone to say, "Well, in my book,
qualified is, you know, they held a
[1:41:49] certificate in Bangladesh."
You know what I mean? Like,
[1:41:54] » I'll let the chief speak to that. Every
time I've asked him about it, I think
[1:41:57] the issue there was that the um
that the issue is that there was nothing
[1:42:03] that required the city marshall to hold
an FDLE certification at all. So, we
[1:42:08] added that language in. I've left hire
competent and qualified consistent with
[1:42:13] his notes. I think his position would be
if I'm hiring an unsworn law enforcement
[1:42:17] officer, that's a problem.
But at the end of the day, if he hires
[1:42:23] somebody who's about to get standards or
transferring standards,
[1:42:27] » he may want that opportunity.
So, what I would say is that's probably
[1:42:31] a good thing for him to weigh in on um
if he still feels that way, but that was
[1:42:36] his conversation with me after the last.
>> Okay.
[1:42:39] » That this is not a situation where he
wants to be told what specific standard
[1:42:43] he has to have somebody to have. I mean,
DLE's got to tell you, you got I mean,
[1:42:47] you're not going to have a guy out there
operating a patrol carrying a badge and
[1:42:51] a gun if they don't meet standards. So,
that is qualified by definition.
[1:42:55] » Okay. We didn't have any of that for
student Marshall, though.
[1:42:58] » It was just a big open gap,
>> right?
[1:43:01] » Everybody good?
>> All right. What's the will of the the
[1:43:05] committee?
>> Motion to advance.
[1:43:08] » Second.
>> All right. Have a motion. Second. Again,
[1:43:10] no one's in the public to call for
public comment, but I will call it out
[1:43:14] anyway. Any public comment?
>> Seeing Seeing the chief's not here, can
[1:43:19] I add some things in?
>> Yes, sir.
[1:43:21] » I'm just kidding. [laughter]
>> I would have had a few things.
[1:43:24] » If you have sent them to me, Co. Yes, we
could have snuck them in.
[1:43:28] » I I hear the sirens now.
>> Yeah. Yeah, he's coming. [laughter] He's
[1:43:31] watching. He's on there watching.
>> All right. I have a motion, a second.
[1:43:35] All those in favor say I. I. Eyes carry
unanimously. All right. That moves to
[1:43:40] the council.
>> 21. Super easy, guys. um to make it
[1:43:45] quick.
>> I was about to say, where did it go?
[1:43:47] » It's [laughter] just gone. Um so, in
looking at what I could find, um I got
[1:43:53] sidetracked. Um
>> did I
[1:43:57] » I I was pretty confidently Exactly.
Thank you. Somebody picked up on that.
[1:44:01] [laughter] You know, I was waiting for
that. I was I wonder how far down the
[1:44:05] line I was get hobo jokes before
somebody picked up on [laughter] what I
[1:44:08] was going with. So, we've known that we
had the Interstate Commerce Commission
[1:44:13] Termination Act of 95 that basically
created the Surface Transportation Board
[1:44:18] and preempt local regulation. We kept
this into effect because we didn't ever
[1:44:23] say we were regulating rail carriers.
Um,
[1:44:27] but there have been some decisions in
the last four or five years, notably out
[1:44:31] of Ohio and Indiana, that were appealed
under to federal courts that determined
[1:44:37] that the Federal Railroad Safety Act
read in conjunction with that created a
[1:44:43] situation where local statutes and
ordinances talking about the amount of
[1:44:47] time a train may occupy their crossings
or otherwise standing or staging of that
[1:44:53] were preempted under federal law.
Florida has never ruled on this. There
[1:44:58] is not a case in the state of Florida
that's ruled on this. However, I would
[1:45:02] tell you given the overwhelming federal
authority here, I tend to believe that
[1:45:07] it would be appropriate for the council
to find them to be uninforceable as a
[1:45:09] matter of federal preeemption and that
the continued codification of
[1:45:13] uninforceable provisions is not in the
public interest. Therefore, repeal it
[1:45:17] all and let the federal law govern it
and we'll call in complaints as we can.
[1:45:22] Okay.
>> By the way, nothing stops us from having
[1:45:27] James go out there and say there's a
public safety hazard and try to get them
[1:45:30] to move.
>> That's your better option. Honestly,
[1:45:34] » they're going to do what they want to do
either way it goes when it comes to them
[1:45:37] from what I've experienced.
>> Yeah. And in fact, in fact, the Indiana
[1:45:40] law, say Indiana, it's late. It may have
been I'm pretty sure it's the Indiana
[1:45:45] one. literally vested the authority of
the local sheriff [clears throat]
[1:45:49] » and they found that was unconstitutional
and took it all the way to the circuit,
[1:45:53] the federal circuit on the US Supreme
Court. So to me, I was like, you know
[1:45:58] what? I was going to try to clean this
up, but let's repeal it.
[1:46:01] » So if y'all vote to pass it on, I'd like
it.
[1:46:03] » Motion
second.
[1:46:06] » Motion and second. There's no one in the
audience for public comment. All those
[1:46:09] in favor say I.
>> I. Eyes carry unanimously. And I and
[1:46:13] I'll let you go home, but I will say
this. This is what I appreciate the
[1:46:17] committee for because that's a section
of the code that I think I actually told
[1:46:21] you when we started this. We're going to
have to do something with,
[1:46:25] but
the council's never asked me to. So,
[1:46:29] it's not we're not enforcing it. We're
not applying it. So, we're not violating
[1:46:33] federal law.
>> But leaving it on the books
[1:46:36] » creates a chance to do in future. Well,
I can't tell you to take it off the
[1:46:39] books if you're not enforcing it.
>> Yeah. So this is a good this was good
[1:46:44] governance at work.
So we made some substantial work.
[1:46:49] » Yes. Thank you very much. All right.
>> So we just take it and ask to be
[1:46:53] repealed and bring back ordinances for
that.
[1:46:54] » We have all the all all the
>> I'm just talking about that particular
[1:46:57] one though. I never we never been. We
repealed one. So it's process to repeal
[1:47:01] one.
>> That's Yeah. You adopt that ordinance
[1:47:03] that you adopt an ordinance repealing
the ordinance.
[1:47:06] » We actually repeal a lot of ordinances.
It's just in the title.
[1:47:09] » Yeah. I repeal a lot of things.
Completely inconsistent.
[1:47:12] » I see now. [laughter]
>> Yep.
[1:47:15] » You can only repeal an ordinance through
an ordinance.
[1:47:19] » More paperwork.
>> So, we're at N. What number are we at,
[1:47:21] Kobe? 993. Where are we at? 993 994.
>> Um, it should be I think 997, 998, 999
[1:47:31] » probably. So, you got to start thinking
about what ordinance 1000's going to be.
[1:47:34] » Oh, man. Oh, man. No, [clears throat] I
don't know that we're that high up
[1:47:37] because master services ordinance was
993.
[1:47:40] » Yeah, master service.
>> I don't know that we've done three since
[1:47:42] then.
>> We'll figure it out.
[1:47:44] » Wallace has Wallace just put two or
three.
[1:47:46] » That's right. Sec.
>> Oh, yeah.
[1:47:48] » Okay. I forget about those. I don't
qualify those. We
[1:47:51] » I won't name the former council
[clears throat] member who's well before
[1:47:53] all your time. There's former council
members like we better not let one of
[1:47:57] these land use zoning map changes be
ordinance. I forget it was always like
[1:48:03] 750 or I was like don't let the good
numbers go to those [laughter]
[1:48:09] and [snorts] I've always thought about
that. So 10,000's a big number. So we
[1:48:12] need to be clear on where we are.
[laughter]
[1:48:14] » Yeah.
>> But literally that is or that will be
[1:48:17] this committee will likely pass
ordinance 1000
[1:48:20] » of the city of Func Springs.
>> Wow.
[1:48:21] » Wow.
>> All right. Does anybody have anything on
[1:48:27] agenda item 3A, the priority list or the
tracking sheet?
[1:48:33] We'll go rapid fire hearing none. Again,
call for citizens comments, but there is
[1:48:38] nobody in the audience. So, with that,
we will call this meeting adjourned.
[1:48:42] Thank you everyone.
[1:48:46] You're ruining
>> the dough.