[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.

Code Review and Land Use Regular Meeting 9/1/26

Transcript