[0:01] To the flag of the United States of

[0:03] America and to the republic for which it

[0:05] stands. One nation under God,

[0:09] indivisible, with liberty and justice

[0:11] for all.

[0:32] Thank you.

[0:34] Uh, roll call, please.

[0:36] » Council member Stevens,

[0:38] » Present.

[0:39] » Council member Kaine,

[0:40] » Present. Council member Coleman,

[0:42] » Present.

[0:43] » Vice Mayor Sud.

[0:45] » Mayor El Ramy,

[0:46] » Present.

[0:48] » Acting town manager Oaks,

[0:50] » Present.

[0:50] » Town attorney Good,

[0:52] » Present.

[0:53] » Public works director Lowour.

[0:55] Community Standards Director Gardner

[0:57] Young present.

[0:58] » And acting town clerk is present.

[1:01] » Thank you. Uh additions, deletions, and

[1:03] modifications.

[1:06] All good.

[1:08] And uh we'll open it up then to any

[1:11] public comments on non-aggenda items.

[1:14] » Yes, madame mayor. We have one comment

[1:16] card from Virginia Standish.

[1:19] » Thank you.

[1:31] While that's happening, can I get a

[1:32] motion to uh accept the

[1:34] » Make a motion to approve the agenda.

[1:35] » Thank you.

[1:36] » Second.

[1:37] » All right. All those in favor?

[1:38] » I

[1:39] » I opposed hearing none. Motion passes

[1:42] 40.

[1:46] » May I proceed?

[1:47] » Yes, please.

[1:48] » Good afternoon. Good evening. Virginia

[1:51] Standish Lockach.

[1:53] 11 months ago, I came before council and

[1:56] have continued to do so over various

[1:59] meetings to share my concern that the

[2:02] town's ULDC code involving tree

[2:04] mitigation is full of conflicts and

[2:07] places excessive financial hardship on

[2:10] land owners and should once again be

[2:12] reviewed by the ULDC committee and

[2:15] council as is being done with the RV

[2:19] ordinance.

[2:21] Yet, this has not happened. I will be

[2:23] making the same statement at your

[2:25] council meeting for the record.

[2:28] Additionally, on behalf of a landowner,

[2:30] I have requested via email that a

[2:32] property I represent be given the

[2:35] options for a new owner to purchase the

[2:38] property.

[2:39] Months have gone by without a final

[2:42] answer from this this landowner and

[2:45] their attorney have met with the town,

[2:48] called the town and have yet to receive

[2:51] an answer on what is supposed to be

[2:54] under your guidelines a casebycase

[2:57] review.

[2:58] And yet the answer is incomplete as

[3:02] compared to what your ULDC says.

[3:06] I've had to ask for this item to be

[3:09] placed on the town agenda for review by

[3:11] council. I did not wish to do that. I

[3:15] feel your staff could have handled this

[3:17] in-house. We still hope it can be

[3:19] handled in-house and frankly we are

[3:21] baffled that is it has been almost a

[3:24] year to get an answer with multiple

[3:28] options as outlined in your DC code for

[3:32] someone who has spent extensive funds

[3:35] and not cleared all the trees yet that

[3:38] they were going to clear.

[3:41] This is the perfect example of what

[3:44] should not happen. procedures should be

[3:46] in place for staff to do a case-bycase

[3:49] review and provide an answer within

[3:51] weeks, not a year. I know this council

[3:55] is revamping, refocused on getting

[3:57] things done efficiently, and this is one

[4:00] of many issues that needs to be

[4:02] addressed. In addition, for the record,

[4:04] I am telling you that today I submitted

[4:06] a public records request for the form

[4:11] for bonafide ad covenant and also how

[4:14] many of these covenants have been

[4:16] recorded by the town since 2019.

[4:19] Thank you.

[4:22] » Thank you, council. I know we've um

[4:25] we've had Miss Stish up here several

[4:28] times. Um, is this something I know that

[4:32] uh the manager had received the request

[4:34] to put this on as an agenda item and the

[4:37] conversation was it's allowed in the

[4:39] charter

[4:41] um but we really have no policy on how

[4:43] to bring that forward. Is that something

[4:45] that we want to

[4:47] allow the manager to determine

[4:50] documentation and timing or is that

[4:52] something that when a request comes

[4:54] forward, it is brought forward to us and

[4:56] we and we have a policy on when that

[4:59] comes forward depending on availability

[5:02] in the agenda.

[5:04] » When we talking about coming forward,

[5:05] we're talking about the ability for it

[5:06] to transfer over to a new owner.

[5:09] » No, the agenda item itself to have a

[5:11] policy. Yeah, she wants to create a

[5:14] policy

[5:15] » What's allowed in our charter,

[5:16] » Right?

[5:17] » So, do we want to develop a policy? Do

[5:20] we want to allow the manager to just

[5:22] place it on the agenda as available in

[5:24] timing and and it comes as it comes to

[5:27] us? Should it be a discussion item under

[5:29] the manager? How do we develop a policy

[5:32] for for these things coming forward

[5:35] um as agenda requests? I

[5:38] » I guess I'll rephrase my question.

[5:41] What

[5:42] A policy for what coming forward?

[5:44] » An requested agenda item by the public.

[5:48] » Oh, that that's what we're I mean

[5:51] » That's the general question in front of

[5:52] us right now.

[5:54] » I have my item.

[5:56] » Yeah, go ahead. I was going to say I

[6:00] think that

[6:02] since these types of items, as this one

[6:06] clearly is are an issue where there's a

[6:08] feeling that staff is not

[6:12] performing at a rate that this public

[6:15] would like them to. I I feel that it

[6:17] should be the manager's determination

[6:19] because I think the manager is the one

[6:21] who is qualified to make the

[6:23] determination. We are not we're not in

[6:26] here every day. We're not qualified to

[6:27] make the determination of whether all

[6:30] resources have been exhausted, whether

[6:32] it's in process, whether it's just that

[6:33] laboriously slow process. But I think

[6:35] the manager is the one who's uniquely

[6:37] qualified to make that determination and

[6:39] that she should then, as you said, put

[6:41] on the agenda as time fits.

[6:43] Unfortunately, for going into budgeting,

[6:45] I I don't see time fitting in the next

[6:49] near future. Um, and this seems to be a

[6:51] matter of some urgency, but that's my

[6:54] opinion.

[6:54] » Well, I would I would piggyback on that

[6:56] concept in that obviously some of the

[6:59] concern is that there's a staff

[7:01] performance question here. the managers

[7:03] in charge of staff. This is relatively

[7:06] new management overseeing staff. So,

[7:09] moving things along or having them come

[7:12] before council. I'm not sure the manager

[7:15] would always be the one necessarily to

[7:17] deem that that's something they want

[7:19] brought to the public view. So, perhaps

[7:21] there's two processes where maybe they

[7:23] can petition the manager or they can

[7:25] petition council and council can bring

[7:28] it up and under a simple majority vote

[7:29] it comes forward on the next agenda.

[7:31] Maybe we have both processes available.

[7:33] » Maybe maybe they petition the manager

[7:35] first and if they don't feel like they

[7:36] get satisfaction then then they petition

[7:38] council.

[7:39] » Yeah.

[7:40] » Yes.

[7:40] » So you know

[7:41] » Or they do it simultaneously. So

[7:43] » So they we create a policy to that.

[7:47] » Okay.

[7:47] » I don't think we need to get real crazy

[7:48] and create

[7:49] » I don't think we need to get crazy.

[7:50] Right.

[7:51] » As far as Yeah. All right.

[7:52] » Two two avenues makes it makes it easy.

[7:54] » Yeah. It's a little peck and balance.

[7:56] » Zachary a question. I'm sorry. I just

[7:58] want to make sure you know one of the um

[8:01] conundrums of the council manager style

[8:04] of government is that the um council

[8:08] can't interfere with the manager doing

[8:09] their job. Could this in any way be

[8:11] construed as interference

[8:14] » As long as you all have a policy that is

[8:17] set forth

[8:19] uh and it that a policy is adhered to. I

[8:21] think that what you're suggesting here

[8:24] as having a process for the manager to

[8:28] place items on the agenda and for the

[8:31] town council to place items on the

[8:33] agenda is reasonable. Um, and certainly

[8:38] it is the town council's agenda. So if

[8:40] you all want to discuss an item, you are

[8:43] within your rights and your powers to

[8:46] bring that forward.

[8:47] » It was a little further than that. It

[8:49] was it was somebody is somebody has some

[8:53] discontent with the way that the

[8:55] management with the staff is handling

[8:57] things which as Lisa pointed out in this

[9:00] case it rolls uphill right things go up

[9:03] to the manager ultimately it's the

[9:04] manager's responsibility

[9:08] » May I offer a suggestion

[9:10] » Certainly

[9:11] » Thank you so because one of my concerns

[9:14] is if a request comes forward it is in

[9:17] your charter and then It's kind of that

[9:19] that determination of you know is the

[9:22] manager handling it or not. So for

[9:24] example you know any manager in this

[9:26] seat could think that they may have

[9:27] handled the situation appropriately and

[9:30] you could have the resident that may

[9:31] think differently. What I would like to

[9:33] suggest um which was going to kind of be

[9:36] my intention was to place Miss

[9:38] Standish's item underneath the town

[9:40] manager's report and notify council that

[9:42] we received a request from a resident to

[9:46] place an item on the agenda. let you

[9:48] guys know what the agenda item is,

[9:50] provide you with a brief background, and

[9:53] then if you guys want to move forward

[9:55] with placing the item on the next agenda

[9:57] for further discussion, you can do so at

[9:59] that time by consensus. Or you could

[10:01] say, "Thank you for, you know, letting

[10:03] us know, please come back in 30 days and

[10:05] report back or what have you, you know,

[10:06] case by case." And so that way it's kind

[10:09] of one avenue. It's clean, it's clear,

[10:11] and it's also transparent and on the

[10:13] agenda. Yeah.

[10:14] » Right.

[10:15] » Right.

[10:15] » So that's a suggestion.

[10:16] » You did your job. right that also

[10:18] whoever the manager is

[10:19] » And also to make sure that the residents

[10:21] feel heard um and that we are kind of

[10:23] adhering to our charter um in a sense

[10:26] and just keeping things transparent and

[10:27] moving forward.

[10:28] » So to recap, so you're suggesting that

[10:31] the the first avenue is for them to to

[10:33] come to you and file an appeal whatever

[10:36] they want something on the agenda that

[10:38] you would then include that in the next

[10:39] meeting's manager's report at which time

[10:42] council would make a decision of whether

[10:44] it goes on the following agenda.

[10:46] » Right? And so and theoretically um you

[10:48] know I would have a conversation in this

[10:50] instance it would be Miss Standish to

[10:52] say hey you know is there any supporting

[10:53] documentation that you want to include

[10:56] uh do you want to add a memo to the file

[10:58] and that way we can include all of that

[11:00] as part of the agenda item under my

[11:02] report.

[11:02] » I think it would be interesting though

[11:03] to to provide a couple like Paul said a

[11:07] couple different avenues for for public

[11:09] discourse to be brought forward in a

[11:11] more formal way. So I I you know to your

[11:15] point Zach that this is you know

[11:17] something that as long as the council

[11:19] has a policy and they they invoke that

[11:21] policy and follow it. So

[11:23] » And I mean I'm happy to work with your

[11:26] manager in to develop that policy.

[11:30] » Yeah. Well let's see as it comes forward

[11:31] because I know um uh the manager had

[11:34] plan to to bring it forward.

[11:36] » Yeah. Yeah. In anticipation of this

[11:37] conversation we did reach out to several

[11:39] municipalities. A lot of them um do not

[11:42] have this in their charter. Uh the one

[11:44] that did have it in their charter uh who

[11:46] responded out of those that we uh

[11:48] emailed was Puna Gorta and when we said

[11:51] okay um we recognize that it's in your

[11:53] charter very similar language they don't

[11:55] have a detailed policy in terms of you

[11:58] know the resident can speak for five

[11:59] minutes and make a presentation you know

[12:00] it's you know because what we want to

[12:02] get away well we don't want staff to sit

[12:05] here and spend hours on an item that

[12:07] council may not deem as a priority or as

[12:11] Miss Standish said we're in the middle

[12:13] of a major transition and so we need to

[12:15] be very mindful of what our priorities

[12:17] are and what our focuses are and while

[12:18] that is a priority there are a lot of

[12:20] things that are going on right now and

[12:22] so we want to just make sure that

[12:23] everything is in line and that you know

[12:24] we're communicating those things

[12:25] effectively.

[12:26] » Okay. Well, I guess we'll see it at the

[12:28] September September. Awesome.

[12:31] » Any other public comments?

[12:33] » Yes, madame mayor. We have Cassie Suchi.

[12:45] Um

[12:47] I just want to bring back some some

[12:49] things just happened on North B Road uh

[12:53] with some of the grading that recently

[12:54] happened a couple days ago, say a week

[12:57] ago. I just took photographs. Apparently

[13:00] staff decided to grade the remaining

[13:02] portion of North B Road beyond its legal

[13:05] limit for width. And I know that for a

[13:07] fact because people in North Be sued the

[13:10] town because they illegally took their

[13:12] money, inverse condemnation. It was a

[13:14] big lawsuit and the town ended up

[13:17] spending what $350,000 to defend it.

[13:20] They wanted to maintain legal control of

[13:23] their land if it was ever um if the

[13:26] maintenance maps were ever filed and

[13:28] they would lose it. So that was done.

[13:30] And I want to take you back historically

[13:33] back in 2017.

[13:36] uh a guy named Frank Smith decided to

[13:40] when Underwood was in charge decided to

[13:42] do the same thing all over again and he

[13:45] got to a portion on B- Road and there

[13:47] were three trees that have been there

[13:48] for many many years and I stopped him,

[13:51] contacted Underwood. They called the

[13:52] police. They hadn't stopped. He came to

[13:55] the meeting and said he was told by a

[13:56] certain councilman who denied it, never

[13:59] got paid. And uh when you look at the

[14:03] maintenance maps, those trees show that

[14:05] they're part are the roadway, which

[14:07] they're not. So they he what he was

[14:09] doing was grading illegally to the

[14:11] maintenance. When I took pictures this

[14:14] last week, the grading is exactly

[14:17] matching almost exactly all the way

[14:20] down. Now, I don't know if this occurred

[14:22] because at the last council meeting, you

[14:24] guys talked about um finishing paving on

[14:28] roads, but you need to ask those people

[14:31] for the easements and there is a recent

[14:34] survey of those portions that was given

[14:36] to the road in the lawsuit, but this is

[14:40] keeps happening. It happens on other

[14:42] roads and it needs to stop. I don't know

[14:45] if there's a disconnect between staff

[14:48] comprehension and what council wants

[14:51] because I have not heard council once

[14:54] say go ahead and steal people's private

[14:56] land.

[14:58] So, I'm contacting the attorney that

[15:00] took the original lawsuit just to keep

[15:02] him on standby. But I would hope that

[15:04] this gets brought up maybe at the next

[15:06] meeting and council will make sure that

[15:08] staff corrects what they did on the

[15:11] roadway puts the people's property back

[15:13] and if they have to put ballards in

[15:15] because nobody can seem to understand

[15:17] where to grade maybe that's what it is.

[15:18] But I'm going to tell you Ballards on

[15:20] five or six properties is going to be a

[15:22] whole lot cheaper than the 350,000 which

[15:24] is going to cost for another inverse

[15:26] condemnation. So please, I urge you as

[15:28] council to make staff correct their

[15:30] mistake and make sure that this

[15:33] comprehension between what you guys

[15:35] want, which is our stewards and our

[15:37] representatives, is relayed to them and

[15:39] they they carry it out. Thanks.

[15:41] » Thank you.

[15:44] » Any other public comments? Okay.

[15:47] » So to that end, I'm sure public works

[15:49] will be on it so everyone's aware. So,

[15:54] uh, that brings us to agenda item one.

[15:57] And I believe our auditor is here

[16:00] virtually.

[16:12] » Andrew, I see you, but I There you are.

[16:15] » All right. Can you hear me now?

[16:17] » Yes. Thank you.

[16:18] » Okay, great. Well, thank you very much,

[16:20] um, honorable mayor, members of the

[16:22] council. Uh, for the record, my name is

[16:25] Andrew Fearman. I'm a partner with

[16:26] Fearman Accounts and Adviserss, and I am

[16:28] here to provide a brief presentation on

[16:31] your annual comprehensive financial

[16:33] report for the fiscal end of September

[16:34] 30th, 2025.

[16:37] The first thing I'd like to point out is

[16:38] just within the within the table of

[16:40] contents, um, what I could do as well,

[16:43] if it if it would be helpful, I could I

[16:45] could also share my screen and and point

[16:47] out on the screen what what I'm uh what

[16:50] I'm discussing. Um, if that would be

[16:52] helpful. Let me try to do that.

[16:53] Actually, that'll probably be good. Just

[16:55] one moment. Let me see if it lets me

[16:57] share.

[17:09] Okay. So, if everyone sees it, sees it

[17:11] up on the screen.

[17:13] » Yes, we can.

[17:14] » Okay, great. It'll make it easier

[17:17] everyone. All right. So, the first thing

[17:19] I'd like to point out is actually right

[17:21] in the table of contents. Um, your

[17:23] annual comprehensive financial report is

[17:25] broken up into into various sections.

[17:27] It's actually four specific sections. is

[17:29] the introductory section, the financial

[17:32] section, the statistical section, and

[17:34] the compliance section. I'm going to

[17:36] highlight a few things within each

[17:37] section and provide an explanation on

[17:39] each one. So, the introductory section

[17:41] um which is the very first section

[17:43] includes your letter of transmitt um

[17:46] some some information on the town such

[17:47] as the officials, the organizational

[17:49] chart. What I wanted to point out here

[17:51] is um on the last page here on on page

[17:56] Roman numeral 7 is that the town did

[17:57] receive the certificate of excellence um

[18:00] of achievement for financial reporting.

[18:02] Um this was provided for the uh fiscal

[18:05] year 2024 annual comprehensive financial

[18:07] report and as everyone knows it is a a

[18:09] prestigious award that's provided by the

[18:11] government finance office association

[18:12] and just it holds your financial

[18:14] statements and your financial reporting

[18:15] to a to a higher standard. There's

[18:17] certain sections that in addition that

[18:19] the town puts in um that are

[18:21] requirements just for this certificate

[18:23] program which is included within the

[18:24] introductory section which is the letter

[18:26] of transmitt and then the third section

[18:28] of the document which is statistical

[18:30] section. Um those are additional

[18:32] sections that are included for

[18:33] additional information for for the the

[18:35] readers of the financial statements that

[18:36] that are required to be able to um

[18:39] achieve this uh this award. So this has

[18:41] been awarded for the uh for the 2024 uh

[18:44] report and I believe that this this one

[18:46] is also going to be submitted as well

[18:47] for 2025.

[18:49] Um after the introductory section comes

[18:52] the financial section. The financial

[18:54] section the first item within there is

[18:56] the uh independent auditor's report. Um

[19:00] so obviously this is our report on the

[19:02] financial statements. Uh it is broken up

[19:04] into various sections. I'm going to

[19:06] point out a few of the sections and

[19:07] paraphrase a few items within there. So

[19:09] the first section is our opinion

[19:10] section. That's the most important

[19:12] section. It it describes what we've

[19:14] audited and it also tells you what our

[19:16] opinion is on the financial statements

[19:17] and that states that we have audited the

[19:19] accompanying financial statements of the

[19:21] town of Lockxahei Groves as of and for

[19:24] the fiscal September 3rd, 2025. In our

[19:26] opinion, the financials statements

[19:28] referred to above present fairly in all

[19:30] material respects the respective

[19:32] financial position of the government

[19:33] activities, business type activities,

[19:35] and each major fund of the town as of

[19:37] September 30th, 2025. Now, this is an

[19:40] unmodified or clean opinion, and that's

[19:41] of course the only opinion you want on

[19:43] your financial statements. The next

[19:45] section talks about under what standards

[19:46] we performed our audit and that states

[19:49] that we conducted our audit in

[19:50] accordance with the auditing standards

[19:52] generally accepted in the United States

[19:53] of America and government auditing

[19:55] standards.

[19:57] The next section talks about what

[19:58] management's responsibilities are for

[20:00] the financial statements and that states

[20:01] that management is responsible for the

[20:03] preparation and fair presentation of the

[20:05] financial statements. And the last

[20:07] section I'm going to point out here is

[20:08] right here on the first page, which is

[20:09] what our responsibilities are as

[20:11] auditors. And that states that our

[20:13] objectives are to obtain reasonable

[20:14] assurance about whether the financial

[20:16] statements as a whole are free from

[20:18] material misstatement, whether due to

[20:20] fraud or error, and to issue an

[20:21] auditor's report that includes our

[20:23] opinions.

[20:25] Now, after the uh after the auditor's

[20:27] report is the managed discussion

[20:30] analysis. The management's discussion

[20:32] analysis runs from pages three to page

[20:35] uh to page 15. So it's about it's about

[20:37] 12 pages. And if and you'll note that

[20:39] it's 12 pages in a in a document that's

[20:41] over 100 pages. If no one reads anything

[20:44] else in this document should read this

[20:46] because it talks about the year. It

[20:49] compares current year to prior year and

[20:51] provides explanations for those changes

[20:53] year-over-year. And it's written from

[20:54] management's perspective. So it's a it's

[20:56] similar to what's provided in public

[20:57] company financial statements. And it um

[21:00] it is an excellent executive summary of

[21:02] what's what's in the document, you know,

[21:04] of the financial statements and the

[21:05] notes and everything themselves. It

[21:06] gives you a very good overview of

[21:08] everything in that 12 pages. So that

[21:10] runs from pages three to page 15.

[21:15] Now when we get to page 16,

[21:19] this begins the financial statements.

[21:22] And we're still in the financial section

[21:23] of the of the document. Obviously, the

[21:25] financial state section is the largest

[21:26] section. Um, this section includes the

[21:29] governmentwide statement of net position

[21:31] and statement of activities as well as

[21:33] the fund financial statements for your

[21:35] governmental funds and your enterprise

[21:38] fund and your proprietary fund. Um, the

[21:40] main thing I want to point out here is

[21:42] going to be on page 18.

[21:46] So, page 18 is the balance sheet of your

[21:48] governmental funds. Um, and the first

[21:51] line the first column is the general

[21:53] fund which is the operating fund of the

[21:55] of the town. What I wanted to point out

[21:56] here is that September 30th, 2025, the

[21:59] town had unassigned uh fund balance of

[22:02] approximately 1,164,000

[22:05] um at year end.

[22:11] Now, moving just past the the financial

[22:14] statement section,

[22:16] we get to the the notes of the financial

[22:19] statements. Now the notes to the

[22:21] financial statements are the required

[22:22] disclosures which provide additional

[22:24] information on the town as well as the

[22:26] numbers that are presented within the

[22:28] financial statements. So it tells the

[22:30] whole story. You know it's it's

[22:31] suggested and I I personally believe

[22:33] required that uh that you read the the

[22:36] notes in conjunction with the the

[22:38] financial statements in conjunction with

[22:39] the notes because it gives you

[22:40] additional narrative information on the

[22:42] numbers. It also give you gives you

[22:44] additional numerical detail. So it gets

[22:46] it gets more into detail within the

[22:47] numbers. Um as an example for your

[22:50] capital assets there will be uh you know

[22:53] one number on the note on the on the

[22:55] face of the financial statements but

[22:57] then in the notes of the financial

[22:58] statements you'll see that

[23:00] that the capital assets it gives you a

[23:03] beginning balance by type of asset. It

[23:06] tells you what tells you about the

[23:07] increases the decreases and it gives the

[23:09] ending balance. So it gives you you know

[23:11] the the full the full story of what

[23:12] occurred where we began and what

[23:14] happened during the year and then comes

[23:16] to those totals and that which you get

[23:18] that net amount which is what you which

[23:19] what you would see on the face of the

[23:20] financial statements. So again a very

[23:22] good lot of good information within the

[23:23] notes within the notes of the financial

[23:25] statements.

[23:27] Now beginning now beginning on page on

[23:30] page 44 going to move to page 44 now

[23:34] that begins the required supplementary

[23:36] information.

[23:38] So, the required supplementary

[23:40] information is information that the the

[23:42] Governmental Accounting Standards Board

[23:43] requires that you include within within

[23:45] your financial statements. It includes a

[23:47] budgetary comparison information as well

[23:49] as information on the Florida Retirement

[23:51] System and it gives you some some trend

[23:53] information as well. Um, what I'd like

[23:55] to point out here is you can see this.

[23:57] There's a lot of good information just

[23:59] on this one page because it it gives you

[24:01] your general fund budget, gives you the

[24:03] original adopted budget, final amended

[24:05] budget, and then your actual results and

[24:07] then comparing those actual results to

[24:10] the to the final amended budget showing

[24:12] what those what those budget variances

[24:13] are. Um, so once again, a lot of good

[24:16] information here. And you can see just

[24:18] as an example, you see total

[24:19] expenditures. The original budget was

[24:21] approximately 3,291,000.

[24:24] The final amended budget was

[24:25] approximately 3,522,000.

[24:28] The actual results were approximately

[24:30] 3,429,000.

[24:32] So you have a positive uh budget

[24:34] variance of approximately $93,000

[24:38] um within total expenditures. So again,

[24:40] this is a lot of good information just

[24:41] just on this one page. Um and um

[24:46] you will also see if we go to page

[24:55] We go to page 52,

[25:00] you can see there's also, and this is on

[25:03] all of the pages, you could see 10 years

[25:05] of information of contributions

[25:08] um related to the uh and also relates

[25:11] the net pension liability related to

[25:12] your Florida retirement system. So, it

[25:14] gives you that information from 2016 all

[25:15] the way to 2026. So you can kind of see

[25:17] where the where the plan has gone um

[25:20] over the last over the last 10 years.

[25:24] Now we're going to move into the third

[25:25] section. So we've looked at the

[25:26] introductory section. We've looked at

[25:27] the financial section. Now we're going

[25:28] to look at the statistical section. This

[25:30] was the other section that I mentioned

[25:32] that is that is included as a

[25:34] requirement for the GFO certificate

[25:36] program. This section includes uh trend

[25:40] information uh financial information or

[25:43] and generally over 10 years. So you'll

[25:45] have financial information. Um you see

[25:47] here you have the net position that's

[25:49] being shown over the last over the last

[25:52] uh over the last 10 years. Here you see

[25:54] 2016 to 2025. So there's also financial

[25:57] information. You also have information

[25:59] on operating information within within

[26:01] uh the statistical section. And this is

[26:03] a really important section. The town the

[26:05] town puts a lot of work into putting

[26:06] getting this information together. Um,

[26:09] and it's it's excellent for the readers

[26:11] to come in and be able to see, you know,

[26:13] where the where the where the town has

[26:14] been over the last over the last 10

[26:16] years. Um, as simple as, you know,

[26:19] looking at full-time uh equivalent town

[26:22] employees by function. So, basically

[26:24] showing that um and also talking about

[26:27] uh several different types of operating

[26:28] indicators that are required to be

[26:30] shown. Again, it's just something that

[26:31] that assists the town in um in seeing

[26:33] that history.

[26:36] Moving from there, we get into our

[26:37] compliance section, which is the fourth

[26:39] section. This section includes the

[26:41] reports that are required under uh

[26:43] generally accepted government auditing

[26:44] standards. Um and as well as the rules

[26:47] of the utter general of the state of

[26:48] Florida. So this within within within

[26:50] these reports here we did we did note

[26:53] that that we found um two significant

[26:56] deficiencies in internal control and

[26:58] three instances of non-compliance which

[27:00] we have reported within the document and

[27:02] management has provided responses and

[27:04] those are those are also included within

[27:06] the document.

[27:09] In addition to that you also received a

[27:15] communication to those charged with

[27:16] governance letter. Um so as your

[27:19] auditors and under a professional

[27:21] standards we are required to um go over

[27:24] certain matters with you and we always

[27:25] feels it's it's the best to put it with

[27:27] it within a letter to explain it. These

[27:29] are all uh standard communications. It

[27:31] talks about if there was any you know

[27:33] changes in accounting policies if

[27:35] there's any any particular uh notes to

[27:37] the financial statements that we that we

[27:39] point out that you may want to you may

[27:40] want to look at. Um those notes it

[27:42] doesn't mean that it's anything

[27:43] negative. It's just saying hey you know

[27:44] you might want to take a look at these.

[27:46] Um, also talks about if we had any any

[27:49] uh corrected or uncorrected

[27:51] misstatements. Um, they're noted there

[27:52] as well. Some some adjustments that that

[27:54] needed to be made to be made to the

[27:55] financial statements. It also talks

[27:57] about if we had any anything to report

[28:00] any any other um findings or issues

[28:03] which we also mentioned in there as well

[28:04] that we that we did identify those two

[28:06] significant deficiencies um in three

[28:08] instances of non-compliance which again

[28:10] are described in that schedule of

[28:11] findings and responses which management

[28:13] has provided uh responses to those as

[28:15] well. Um overall I just wanted to uh

[28:20] thank the town for the the opportunity

[28:21] to to to u be of service. Um, it is an

[28:25] honor and a privilege and it's it's a

[28:27] it's a uh it's a responsibility that we

[28:29] take that we take very seriously and we

[28:31] uh we we appreciate the um the town's

[28:34] hard work and the town's cooperation and

[28:36] assistance throughout the process to be

[28:37] able to have the opportunity to to

[28:39] present to you today. Um with that, I'll

[28:41] leave it there. I mean, I'll open it up

[28:43] to any questions that you have of me, of

[28:45] the manager, of the of the finance

[28:46] director at this time. Thanks again for

[28:48] the opportunity to uh to present to you

[28:50] this evening.

[28:52] » Thank you. Uh, Council Member Kaine has

[28:54] her question light on.

[28:56] » Right. Well, my first concern, well, I

[29:00] have a couple of concerns.

[29:02] My first concern is I didn't receive

[29:04] this document until 3:51 today. So, um,

[29:10] I haven't had a chance to really dig

[29:12] deep into it. Um,

[29:15] is there a and of course this doc this

[29:18] audit itself was due several months ago.

[29:21] Can you speak to why the audit is late?

[29:25] » Yeah, it's uh and I can actually uh if

[29:27] the if the manager would like to would

[29:29] like to respond. Um I know that

[29:31] everything is is reported within the

[29:32] document um as far as as far as what you

[29:35] know what we found and what the

[29:36] responses are of management related to

[29:38] related to uh the delay in in the

[29:42] completion of the audit and the fact

[29:44] that we're here today being able to uh

[29:45] present to you.

[29:48] » Okay. Uh the second thing is again I

[29:52] didn't receive this document till I was

[29:54] literally walking out to feed my horses.

[29:55] So I haven't been able to spend a whole

[29:57] lot of time with it but a brief perusal

[29:59] of this looks like a lot of the uh

[30:03] issues and that's really the section

[30:05] that I usually look at is uh your the

[30:10] you know where there were issues um were

[30:14] have to do with our financial reporting.

[30:17] Um, do you feel that the move, the shift

[30:22] that we've recently made to using a firm

[30:25] and then an in-house financial person

[30:28] will

[30:30] help to address these concerns so that

[30:33] they don't happen in the future?

[30:35] » Yes, I do. and I and in conversations

[30:37] with the with with with the manager as

[30:39] well as the as well as how management

[30:41] has responded to the uh to the to the

[30:44] concerns um the the change in the move

[30:47] should should should assist in that in

[30:49] that process going forward.

[30:51] » Thank you.

[30:53] » So just for the record um I did receive

[30:56] the draft ACFR

[30:59] uh from Andrew uh I believe it was at

[31:02] 316 is when I got it from you Andrew. Is

[31:05] that

[31:06] » Yeah.

[31:06] » Yeah. And I sent it out to council at

[31:08] 3:30. So, I mean, almost immediately

[31:11] after I received it, I sent it out. Um,

[31:13] and I think when he refers to

[31:15] management, we're spec we're specifying

[31:17] um really the financial consultants. Um,

[31:21] because naturally, they're the ones that

[31:22] have to put the information together and

[31:24] provide it to uh the auditors and a lot

[31:27] of the delays uh were with inconsistent

[31:30] information and having to go back and

[31:31] forth and correct that information.

[31:35] Uh may I add something to address what

[31:38] was said?

[31:38] » I see that you were there. Yes, please

[31:40] speak.

[31:41] » Okay. Thank you. Um just to note that

[31:44] the idea is obviously that the model

[31:47] that we've put in place now is going to

[31:48] solve these problems going forward. That

[31:51] said, some of these are um we're coming

[31:54] in in August of 2026 for a fiscal year

[31:58] that's ending in 30 days, which means

[32:01] that some of these issues that are noted

[32:03] in this audit, we can't fix what

[32:06] happened for the first 11 months of the

[32:08] year, we can only fix it going forward.

[32:12] So, um, depending on how an auditor is

[32:15] going to view that and and I can't

[32:16] predict how that's going to to come

[32:19] about, um, sometimes they'll clear the

[32:21] comments if it's cleared by the end of

[32:23] the fiscal year. Sometimes they say

[32:25] they'll include it. They'll lower it to

[32:28] a a lower a lesser type of finding, you

[32:32] know, going from a significant

[32:33] deficiency to an internal control

[32:35] deficiency. um and then comment that

[32:39] it's cleared going forward, but that

[32:42] during the year under audit, it wasn't

[32:44] addressed. I just wanted to be perfectly

[32:47] clear. It's not going to wave a magic

[32:49] wand and fiscal year 26 is going to be

[32:52] perfect because we're coming in too late

[32:55] in the end of fiscal 26 in order to get

[32:58] everything fixed in 30 days.

[33:02] » Thank you. And just for the record,

[33:04] could you please say your name since

[33:05] you're here virtually?

[33:06] » I'm sorry. Ivon Claybourne, CRI

[33:08] Advisors.

[33:10] » Thank you.

[33:12] » And and I concur with with Ivonne. And

[33:14] that's typically how it works. And then

[33:15] in in mentioning seeing that things are

[33:17] going to improve with is on a on a going

[33:19] forward basis. So um one of the first

[33:21] things that we do when we come back for

[33:22] the audit obviously is we go over we go

[33:24] over the prior year uh the prior year

[33:26] findings, discuss that and say, "Okay,

[33:28] what what what has been done um to

[33:30] correct these going forward?" And

[33:32] obviously if they were if they were an

[33:33] issue during the year typically they

[33:34] they they are they are repeated but

[33:37] there is but the response is that that

[33:39] has been that obviously has been

[33:41] corrected going forward. And it is and

[33:42] it and the the finding typically is

[33:44] adjusted to to note that we reviewed

[33:47] information subsequent to noting that um

[33:50] you know that the matter the matter

[33:52] appears to have been appears to have

[33:53] been resolved going forward even though

[33:55] the matter was um was an issue during

[33:57] the year. So um that's exactly right. So

[33:59] I I concur with what Ivonne said.

[34:02] And if you look at page 72, uh if you

[34:05] look at 202502 financial closed

[34:07] reporting, there's a statement in there

[34:09] uh under criteria where it states the

[34:11] town currently lacks personnel to allow

[34:13] for appropriate and adequate review of

[34:15] accounting data and financial

[34:17] information. Timely preparation and

[34:19] accurate accounting reconciliations are

[34:21] key to maintaining adequate internal

[34:22] control over financial reporting. And so

[34:25] when you look at the responses, the

[34:26] responses uh, you know, go back to, you

[34:30] know, this new hybrid model that we're

[34:32] looking to implement.

[34:34] Thank you.

[34:36] » Any other questions?

[34:40] Any questions from the public? Just

[34:42] wanted to say thank you.

[34:45] » We have a public

[34:47] » Tracy's whi whipping a card around back

[34:49] there.

[34:50] » Well, look out, Andrew. It's the chair

[34:52] of the finance committee wanting to come

[34:54] forward for questions. So,

[35:00] uh oh, she's got a file folder.

[35:01] » No, no. Unacceptable. Got right. We got

[35:03] right ahead.

[35:04] » See that?

[35:11] » Talk closer to your microphone. No.

[35:18] » It's hidden.

[35:23] I like a lot.

[35:26] » TMI.

[35:28] » Yeah, that's my favorite little TMI.

[35:30] » Hi, Andrew. Can you hear me?

[35:32] » Yes, can hear you.

[35:33] » Hi, this is Tracy Rafitz, 1261 FRO,

[35:36] chair of the fact committee. So, I have

[35:38] a couple questions since I got this at 4

[35:40] o'clock this afternoon as well. Um, the

[35:44] big one, if your audit had not been

[35:46] identified and corrected, not identified

[35:48] and corrected, the adjustments, would

[35:51] the town's financial statements have

[35:52] been materially materially misstated?

[35:56] » Yes. Yes. That's typically the the the

[35:59] material adjustments that we find. If

[36:01] they're not if they're not corrected,

[36:02] they would be materially misstated. Yes.

[36:04] » Okay. The town's initial working trial

[36:06] balance required 59 audit adjustments

[36:09] totaling approximately $10 million from

[36:12] for a municipality our size. Is that

[36:14] normal?

[36:16] » No. Typically when we get the working

[36:18] trial balance um there's not there's not

[36:20] that many adjustments that that are

[36:21] required um prior to getting it. Um so

[36:25] when there's that when there's that many

[36:26] adjustments that means that the that the

[36:28] working trial balance wasn't was not

[36:29] completely adjusted when we received it.

[36:31] Um and then I and then as the process

[36:33] went through as as as we asked questions

[36:35] there was there had been adjustments

[36:37] that were that had been that have been

[36:38] recorded um even internally subsequent

[36:41] to us receiving the working trial

[36:43] balance. So as as the manager stated

[36:45] that's exactly what happened. There was

[36:47] there was there was discrepancies and

[36:48] changes and there was there was a lot of

[36:50] back and forth in the process um to come

[36:52] to come to the point of having the uh

[36:54] the the the fully adjusted trial balance

[36:57] and obviously fully adjusted financial

[36:58] statements.

[36:59] So, of that $10 million, how much was

[37:02] routine reclassification and how much

[37:04] was represented as actual errors

[37:06] affecting our cash, revenues, expenses,

[37:08] receivables, payables, or fund balance?

[37:12] » So, that detail that detail we would we

[37:14] would have to get back to you. I can

[37:15] tell you though that there was there was

[37:16] several reclassifications.

[37:19] » So, those 59 adjustments were they

[37:21] identified by the town staff before the

[37:23] actual audit or were they primarily

[37:24] discovered by the auditors during the

[37:26] audit process?

[37:29] So I so I believe it's it's a

[37:30] combination of both. Um I think that

[37:33] when we received the the working trial

[37:34] balance there once we um identified that

[37:37] there was differences, it was it was

[37:39] explained that there was adjustments

[37:40] that had been have been recorded that

[37:42] had not been provided um that they had

[37:44] been recorded internally. Um we consider

[37:47] those audit adjustments because anything

[37:50] anything that gets adjusted based on one

[37:51] of our questions or based on something

[37:53] that we propose um they're considered

[37:55] audit adjustments. Um but they were

[37:57] several of them were explained as as

[37:59] adjustments that had been recorded but

[38:01] uh had not been provided to us. Um again

[38:04] going back to the to the point of the

[38:06] working trial balance initially that we

[38:08] received was not was not fully adjusted.

[38:12] » You classified the financial close and

[38:14] the reporting problems as a significant

[38:15] deficiency but not a material weakness.

[38:18] Can you explain why?

[38:22] So we consider we consider it a uh a

[38:24] significant deficiency uh in the in the

[38:26] in the respect that they um that this is

[38:29] the the first year once again of having

[38:31] this number one. Um number two the the

[38:35] adjustments that the adjustments that

[38:36] were that were provided um it's a it was

[38:40] how it was a combination of adjustments

[38:42] that they had not been fully adjusted

[38:43] and ones that we had proposed and that's

[38:45] the reason why we uh we classified as a

[38:47] significant deficiency as opposed to

[38:48] material weakness.

[38:51] uh the bank reconciliations, were you

[38:52] able to determine if the accounts

[38:54] actually had been reconciled or

[38:55] reviewed, but the signatures and dates

[38:57] were simply missing or could you not

[38:59] really establish that an independent

[39:01] review occurred at at all?

[39:05] » So we so yeah, this since the

[39:06] documentation wasn't there, it was

[39:08] explained to us that there was that

[39:09] there was an independent review. It just

[39:10] we we weren't able to um to identify and

[39:13] there was the proper audit trail for it

[39:14] wasn't there. Hence why we had the uh

[39:16] the uh the finding

[39:19] You tested 41 POS.

[39:22] 30 did not have corresponding purchase

[39:24] orders available. Were you able to

[39:26] verify through other documentation that

[39:28] those purchase orders were properly

[39:30] authorized before the money was spent?

[39:35] » Thanks.

[39:37] » So yeah, within within those se within

[39:39] those selections, the there was

[39:40] authorization whenever we looked at the

[39:42] expenditures, there was authorization

[39:43] for the uh for the payment. Were they

[39:46] signed?

[39:46] » It just was obvious obviously there

[39:47] wasn't there wasn't there was not there

[39:49] was not purchase orders.

[39:51] » Were they signed?

[39:53] » I'd have to see how I'd have to see how

[39:55] that how that would go through in the

[39:56] system. Uh I will confirm that.

[39:59] » During your audit, did you identify any

[40:01] transaction that appeared to be

[40:02] unauthorized, unsupported, duplicated,

[40:05] improperly paid, or otherwise

[40:07] questionable?

[40:08] » Can you repeat the question?

[40:11] » Do you need a minute?

[40:12] » No. I said, can you repeat the question?

[40:15] During your audit, did you identify any

[40:17] transaction that appeared to be

[40:19] unauthorized, unsupported, duplicated,

[40:22] improperly paid, or otherwise

[40:24] questionable?

[40:27] » Other than other than what we reported

[40:28] in the document, uh within our within

[40:30] our findings, no,

[40:33] » The audit was not completed within the

[40:34] nine months required by Florida law. In

[40:36] your opinion, was the primary cause the

[40:38] auditor's timetable or was it the time

[40:41] the town's inability to timely close,

[40:44] reconcile or provide accurate financial

[40:46] records?

[40:47] » Well, was yeah, it was as a result of

[40:49] the of the information of the uh

[40:51] information that was provided and the

[40:52] back and forth that was required based

[40:54] on the uh primarily due to the initial

[40:56] trial balance and the and the and the

[40:58] back and forth throughout the process of

[40:59] of the um multiple adjustments and and

[41:02] questions on the information that was

[41:03] provided. When you asked for

[41:05] information, how long did it take you to

[41:06] get

[41:11] » From the responses? Responses were

[41:14] pretty uh were pretty quick when we

[41:16] would receive responses and there was

[41:18] maybe some points where some time would

[41:19] go by where we where we wouldn't uh

[41:21] wouldn't receive responses. So, it was

[41:23] it was it was a little bit of both.

[41:25] Was it recently or the whole nine months

[41:28] that was it recently that you received

[41:30] better responses or was it the whole

[41:33] nine months of asking?

[41:37] » Uh I believe it was it was again it was

[41:40] it was a mix throughout the process. Um

[41:42] I can't really I can't really recall now

[41:44] the exact uh time frame of how long it

[41:46] took for responses throughout the

[41:48] process.

[41:49] And then lastly, based on everything you

[41:51] saw during this audit, are the

[41:53] corrective actions management

[41:55] is prop are the corrective actions

[41:58] management proposed sufficient? And what

[42:01] specifically should council require to

[42:03] see during fiscal year 26 to know these

[42:06] problems actually have been corrected

[42:08] rather than simply promised?

[42:11] » Yes, I believe so. Um, and it it's going

[42:14] to be it's going to be a direct result

[42:15] and we're we're going to know when it

[42:17] when it comes time when the the year end

[42:18] close um comes cuz as Ivon as Ivonne

[42:21] mentioned, you know, as it relates as it

[42:22] relates to the findings, if something

[42:23] was happening during the year and it

[42:25] comes up and we go back and check, it

[42:27] may be repeated, but that doesn't mean

[42:29] that um next year's audit process um

[42:32] will take will take as long. So the the

[42:35] process will be we'll meet uh we'll meet

[42:36] early on obviously that basically we're

[42:38] going to basically be rolling right into

[42:40] 2026 you know providing our requests

[42:43] we'll we'll speak with uh with

[42:44] management um come up with come up with

[42:47] an appropriate timeline working

[42:48] backwards from the deadline to see to

[42:51] explain exactly when we need the

[42:52] information to be able to uh be able to

[42:54] move forward. And I think the best way

[42:57] the best way for uh for council to know

[42:59] is obviously receiving um you know

[43:01] regular regular updates from uh from

[43:03] from town management as to as to how

[43:05] that process is going.

[43:07] » Just so council knows, I have 100% faith

[43:09] in Yavon and her people after speaking

[43:11] with her last night that it's going to

[43:14] be an incredible year because I think

[43:16] the staff now has has a way to speak

[43:20] with her openly and get documentation a

[43:24] lot better. So, I think our books are

[43:26] going to be really good for 26

[43:28] » Next year.

[43:28] » All right.

[43:29] » Coming year.

[43:31] » Any other questions, comments? Thank

[43:33] you. Thank you.

[43:34] » I think that sounds like Tracy looks

[43:35] forward to fing up until like 28 208.

[43:39] » Thanks.

[43:40] » Very excited about it. She's going to

[43:41] chair

[43:42] » Andrew. Thank you. Thank you for all

[43:43] your hard work. I It was a long time

[43:45] coming. So, and hopefully the changes

[43:48] will make your job next year easier. So,

[43:52] » Thank you.

[43:53] » All right.

[43:54] That will bring us to uh agenda item

[43:57] two. I know that we all have some notes

[44:01] on this one.

[44:06] » Got somebody fast on her button over

[44:08] here. So

[44:09] » First, but she's okay.

[44:13] Council member Kaine.

[44:15] » Thank you.

[44:16] » So,

[44:18] well, we were at the league conference

[44:20] this weekend. uh the mayor, the vice

[44:23] mayor, and myself. At one point, I had a

[44:26] little break for something and I said,

[44:28] "I'm going to go to my room and figure

[44:29] out this RV problem." Well, I didn't. Um

[44:34] here's what

[44:35] » That was very antilimactic.

[44:37] » That's pretty ambitious of me. But

[44:39] here's what I did figure out. Here's a

[44:42] couple of things I did figure out. I

[44:44] figured out that

[44:47] as I don't know who said it. I think

[44:49] Miss Standish said it before. There

[44:50] appears to be some kind of a disconnect

[44:53] because

[44:55] we have repeatedly I I know because I'm

[44:57] one of the ones who said it have said

[44:59] that we are looking to simplify this RV

[45:02] program. We are looking to not have it

[45:06] be this laborintensive

[45:10] thing for staff because we quite frankly

[45:13] don't have the staff for it. Um, and we

[45:15] are looking for it to be user friendly,

[45:19] easy for people to comply with so that

[45:21] they will actually comply. And I read

[45:25] none of that in here. I mean, I read

[45:28] additional

[45:31] problems. You've got to now you got to

[45:33] go to the health department too and get

[45:34] a permit from them besides getting a

[45:36] health permit from us. I mean, the whole

[45:37] thing just smacks a bureaucracy and red

[45:40] tape. And the bottom line at the end of

[45:44] the day when I was done digesting all of

[45:47] this, the bottom line I came to is the

[45:50] people who are going to follow the rules

[45:52] and who are going to do this the right

[45:54] way are going to do it whether they have

[45:56] a permit or not. And the people who

[45:59] aren't going to follow the rules, let's

[46:01] talk about Dro. What just happened three

[46:04] days ago? We had an RV catch on fire and

[46:08] on the news they reported that the main

[46:10] residence that was an RV next to the

[46:12] main residence. But here's the clicker

[46:14] folks. There is no main residence on

[46:16] that property. So I'm not sure whether

[46:18] the main residence was a lean to or a

[46:20] bigger RV. I mean I'm not sure what they

[46:23] I'm not sure what main residence they

[46:25] were referring to. So, the fact that

[46:28] there is an RV complex, one of which was

[46:30] so whatever the electric wasn't right,

[46:33] well, for whatever reason, caught on

[46:34] fire and jeopardized the entire

[46:36] neighborhood. Um, that's not somebody

[46:39] who's going to come in for an RV permit.

[46:41] All right? They're already what they're

[46:42] doing is illegal. I'm not sure what the

[46:45] solution is, but I know what the problem

[46:47] is. And it's not the people who rent out

[46:50] one or two RVs on their property for

[46:52] circuit who maybe have their son-in-law

[46:56] living there because he's fallen on hard

[46:58] times or whatever for a little while.

[47:00] And the the people who store their own

[47:02] personal RVs, they are not the problem,

[47:04] right? They're not the problem. The

[47:07] problem is the people that have four and

[47:09] five and 10 RVs buried in the woods out

[47:11] here that are nowhere close to roadw

[47:14] worthy that people are living in year

[47:16] round and that are creating situations

[47:18] like this. And I don't see anything in

[47:20] here. Requiring the people that are

[47:22] following the rules to jump through a

[47:25] set of circus hoops is not going to

[47:27] solve our RV problem. That's my soap box

[47:30] and I'm done.

[47:32] » Okay, Council Member Coleman. Yeah, I I

[47:36] agree with you, but I mean the the the

[47:40] reason for the health department is

[47:41] because you have a lot of um in my

[47:44] opinion, you have a lot of it's no

[47:46] different than you put in putting a

[47:48] mother-in-law's quarters on your

[47:50] property and you have to add a secondary

[47:52] septic or your septic doesn't or or your

[47:55] septic doesn't come in line. So, but you

[47:57] but you throw that you threw that in

[47:59] with the bureaucracy of it all. And the

[48:01] whole idea is I and I get what you're

[48:04] saying. I'm with you. the people that

[48:05] are going to comply are going to comply

[48:07] and they're going to do the proper

[48:08] thing. Um, but I think it's still that

[48:11] kind of stuff still needs to be there

[48:13] because um the minute you don't have it

[48:15] there and then somebody goes, "What do

[48:17] you mean I can't put a 55gallon drum in

[48:18] the ground with rocks in it and call it

[48:20] a day?

[48:21] » Just dump it on

[48:22] » Or just dump it on the ground."

[48:24] » And that's, you know, it doesn't say

[48:25] there that I have to have signed off by

[48:26] the health department. I mean, if your

[48:29] current septic tank will support it,

[48:33] they'll make that determination. You

[48:35] know, you don't necessarily have to add

[48:36] a septic depending on where what you're

[48:38] doing. But, I mean, something like that,

[48:40] I think, but I'm with you. It needs to

[48:41] be We've been saying since we've been in

[48:43] this around, I don't think we want to

[48:44] keep beating around annually either,

[48:47] right? But we've been saying since we

[48:48] started this, we're trying to make it

[48:49] simpler, right? And I think that's the,

[48:51] you know,

[48:52] » I don't see this as simpler. And again,

[48:54] I don't see it as a solution. As Mr.

[48:57] Austin keeps pointing out, we have an RV

[48:59] problem. This is not a solution to the

[49:02] RV problem.

[49:04] » It wasn't intended to be a solution to

[49:06] the RV problem. I think we've all felt

[49:07] that code enforcement is the solution to

[49:10] the problem properties. So, do you want

[49:13] to start on the first page of the

[49:15] exhibit A section 92 010?

[49:20] um because we need to get through this

[49:21] and and direct staff so I can come back

[49:23] for first reading.

[49:24] » So you're on page three of eight.

[49:27] » Article 92.

[49:30] » On page four. Okay.

[49:33] » I I don't know which page because I'm

[49:35] going off my I'm going off my old notes.

[49:37] » It says four of eight.

[49:38] » So let me let me get to your page as

[49:40] well. Uh

[49:41] » Oh. He's going to get his glasses.

[49:44] » Uh you're on page four of eight. Okay.

[49:47] » Yeah.

[49:47] » Four of eight.

[49:48] » Article 92.

[49:49] eight.

[49:51] Uh,2

[49:55] that's

[49:58] that's the old ordinance 2407. I'm

[50:01] talking about article 92.

[50:02] » I'm talking about the new one. Go to

[50:04] page 14 of the current agenda.

[50:06] » But isn't the underlying stuff in this?

[50:08] » Go to go to page 14 of the current

[50:10] agenda. This is the proposed.

[50:12] » This is the new article 92.

[50:14] » Yeah,

[50:14] » That's what I thought. But just making

[50:16] sure.

[50:17] » Yeah.

[50:18] So, we should be on page 14 of the

[50:20] current agenda. I believe that's 14.

[50:22] Yes.

[50:22] » Ah, doesn't look like a copy. Look at

[50:25] that bon color.

[50:27] » So, uh

[50:30] the first section where it says as used

[50:32] in this article, bonafideed feed, uh

[50:35] agricultural use classification shall

[50:36] mean such classification signed by the

[50:38] Palm Beach County Property Appraiser. Uh

[50:41] I know council member Coleman, you've

[50:43] had issue with this. Um, so

[50:48] obviously we want if we're going to

[50:50] allow the caretaker one RV

[50:54] 80% of the property has to be a use ad

[50:56] classified. How does that get determined

[50:59] Paul if you feel that that's not

[51:01] » I I think it's it's along the same lines

[51:03] of what you have to provide to the

[51:04] property appraiser because again keep

[51:07] hating to harp on this but you don't

[51:09] have to file with the property

[51:11] appraiser. So what do you want? So you

[51:13] want them to submit to staff because

[51:15] this is the one that's going to have the

[51:16] most regulation agriculture use.

[51:19] » I would say it will

[51:21] » Whoever's writing this needs to refer to

[51:23] the state a law and make sure that we're

[51:25] compliant with that number one because I

[51:28] we have a lot of passionate people that

[51:30] that deal with this in our neighborhood

[51:31] in our town and they're going to be

[51:33] throwing it in our face every time we

[51:34] get a chance, right? So we need to make

[51:36] sure that it complies. But I would I

[51:37] would think property appraiser is one

[51:39] outlet, but I think there needs to be

[51:41] like the list of different things that

[51:43] we'll accept.

[51:44] » You can demonstrate

[51:45] » Schedule F for the IRS. You know, a copy

[51:48] of your sun biz, you know, multiple

[51:50] documents. Same things that you would

[51:51] supply to, you know, the property

[51:55] appraiser, you can supply to us in lie

[51:57] of the property

[51:57] » Appraiser. Would you agree that this is

[51:59] the one use that's going to have the

[52:01] most input from that? Absolutely.

[52:03] Because it's going to have to have a

[52:04] permitted septic. It's going to have to

[52:06] have permitted electric.

[52:07] » Yeah.

[52:07] » Right. And it has to be 80% of the

[52:09] property to allow it.

[52:11] » Uh I think that one of my notes on that

[52:13] require was requiring tie-downs, but

[52:15] let's stay on this page. Um other notes

[52:18] on this page from me was the time the

[52:20] vehicle was going to be allowed on the

[52:21] property was proposed by the uldc. We're

[52:24] on page 14

[52:26] » 14 of the jobs.

[52:29] » So

[52:29] » No, that's is the old one off the chain.

[52:31] Uh, do we want to uh place a limit from

[52:35] November 1st to April 30?

[52:37] » It says that during November of the in

[52:39] the recommendation. Yeah. Oh, I'm sorry.

[52:42] » I'm asking do we want to keep it?

[52:44] » Well, I mean, not to be Yeah, but don't

[52:47] polo start doesn't polo start showing up

[52:49] like October 15th.

[52:50] » They're back.

[52:51] » They're back now. It's really depending

[52:53] on and I'm not trying to make it bigger,

[52:57] please.

[52:58] » This was not us. This is I'm just saying

[53:00] but you know and there's a lot of horse

[53:02] folks on the uldc but my I guess my

[53:04] point is

[53:05] » Our horse season isn't necessarily just

[53:08] » Correct

[53:08] » Hunter jumpers or dr there's other folks

[53:11] » We want to keep this you want to strike

[53:13] it

[53:13] » Also have a a growing season right

[53:16] that's a different season that you might

[53:17] want to bring in if you're a bonafide

[53:19] egg and it's growing peppers right and

[53:21] you might want to bring in people to

[53:23] stay to pick the peppers um I'm not sure

[53:26] I don't

[53:32] But

[53:33] » I'm not sure

[53:36] » What their growing season is. However,

[53:39] we don't necessarily know that it is. So

[53:41] maybe we just want to say to a time

[53:43] period like six months

[53:46] » And I think it does say that it it's

[53:48] just uldc had recommended a specific

[53:50] six-month window.

[53:51] » And I get where they're coming from, but

[53:53] I just think that we

[53:54] » So we want to take that out. Strike it.

[53:56] » Discriminatory.

[53:56] » Yeah, I think so. It could be like six

[53:58] months within a within a 12-month period

[54:00] or something like that. Well, because

[54:02] calendar year is going to bridge, right?

[54:03] So, yeah,

[54:04] » We're good with striking that. So,

[54:06] strike

[54:07] » Strike.

[54:09] All right, next page.

[54:13] So, yeah, here's where

[54:17] my my one note on this one was, do we

[54:20] want to require it to be secured down

[54:22] since it's going to be a a year round in

[54:26] essence resident for the caretaker? So,

[54:29] I don't think that's actually on here

[54:31] though. So, it's going to need to be

[54:34] secured

[54:35] somehow that so that needs to be added.

[54:38] There is a securing thing later on,

[54:40] Lisa, but because I had that, but I also

[54:43] had the the question. So, are we under

[54:45] E, which I presume is what you're

[54:47] looking at.

[54:48] » Um, under E. So, are we saying that

[54:51] somebody has a a caretaker's quarters

[54:55] » Um that they must install a septic or

[54:58] hook up to a septic or why can't they

[55:00] have it pumped? because we're trying to

[55:02] discourage people from just parking RVs

[55:05] and staying on the property without

[55:08] » In essence there's there's a little more

[55:09] buy in, right? If you're you're not

[55:11] just,

[55:12] » You know,

[55:13] » I know I know currently if you're if

[55:14] you're building a house outside of here,

[55:16] if you're building a house, um you they

[55:18] they still have that caveat that you

[55:20] could place a mobile home on the

[55:22] property for the term of building the

[55:25] house

[55:25] » Be your mobile home.

[55:27] » Well, that's I'm getting at.

[55:28] This is just one of and they you don't

[55:31] have to have the septic set up ahead of

[55:33] time that's going to be for the house.

[55:35] You have a temporary septic which is a

[55:37] basically a big black tub that gets

[55:39] pumped out. Um, and in thinking of that

[55:42] maybe and hearing you guys talk, you

[55:45] know, this provision

[55:48] as far as I understand it, um, and you

[55:53] know, having the caretaker's quarters

[55:55] for a nursery is not set up when you're

[55:57] talking about tying down, it's not set

[55:59] up for an RV. That that's was more to a

[56:02] mobile home. um you know for for years

[56:05] you go by you go by a nursery and there

[56:07] would be a mobile home there and it's

[56:08] it's anchored it's secured it's sitting

[56:10] at the proper elevation it's got a

[56:12] septic of a kind right everything is

[56:16] permitted etc and inspected with an RV

[56:20] there's no per there's no building

[56:21] permit there's nothing and secure and

[56:23] it's you know it's sitting on tires it's

[56:25] not so I don't know how you go about you

[56:28] know maybe you'll find some engineer to

[56:29] design something for you but I don't

[56:31] know how you go about securing it

[56:32] » Secure the evac evacuated.

[56:33] » Correct.

[56:35] » But then again, if it's an RV, it's only

[56:37] supposed to be here 6 months though.

[56:40] » Not under on the A. That was what that

[56:42] discussion was about allowing it. Is

[56:45] that not something we want to allow

[56:46] then?

[56:46] » That's that's I was kind of having I

[56:48] know we talked about it before and just

[56:50] didn't dawn me, but that's what I'm kind

[56:51] of thinking about. If that's your where

[56:54] you're wanting to go, I think it needs

[56:55] to be a permitted mobile home as

[57:01] » We can do that under state law for act,

[57:03] but I used to

[57:06] » Yeah.

[57:07] » Can we require them to have a mobile

[57:08] home or could they have their caretaker

[57:10] in an RV?

[57:13] » Um,

[57:14] » Something you might have to look into.

[57:15] » Yeah, I'm probably don't know that one

[57:17] off the top of your head.

[57:18] » Have to look into that a little bit. Um,

[57:20] and there's as bonafide a you do receive

[57:24] a large amount of permit exemptions.

[57:27] » Correct.

[57:28] » Um, but I'll have to look into whether

[57:31] or not we can require a mobile home

[57:33] versus an RV as workers.

[57:36] » No, dwelling spaces aren't one of them.

[57:38] » Yeah, the dwelling that's the, you know,

[57:41] the whole caveat. That's how people are

[57:43] able to build these big palatial barns

[57:44] without permits. As long as there's no

[57:46] dwelling, no sleeping space, right?

[57:48] because you only need the 4hour firewall

[57:50] this other stuff that's required. So I

[57:52] think we need to revisit that part.

[57:54] » This was also partly for let's say an

[57:57] equestrian use that does not have a home

[58:00] right that is a a

[58:02] » That wants to leave somebody on property

[58:04] » That wants wants somebody there. Uh it

[58:07] would fall under the sixmonth limit and

[58:10] not under this. Is that what we're

[58:12] saying?

[58:12] » That's what I'm saying. Okay. Because if

[58:14] you're if you have a year round

[58:16] equestrian facility,

[58:18] you know, temporary RV is not conducive

[58:22] to it's not a dwelling.

[58:25] » You know what I'm saying?

[58:27] » No, I understand.

[58:29] » So, we'll wait and hear back on whether

[58:31] that's even allowed as or we're required

[58:34] to allow it as versus a mobile home. So,

[58:38] that one is a question coming back. I

[58:40] know uh Karen we asked previously under

[58:43] our allowance for disabled folks uh

[58:47] there's been zero applications under

[58:49] that and then would the federal

[58:52] government override us anyway I think

[58:54] was my question at the time if you were

[58:56] able to find that

[58:58] » I have a question on H on that page are

[59:00] you are you

[59:00] » Not there yet okay sorry

[59:03] » Parking of the recreational vehicle uh

[59:06] specified in a lease agreement is this

[59:08] something we want to get involved in

[59:09] staff staffwise.

[59:11] » I I don't think we need to be seeing

[59:12] lease agreements.

[59:14] » So, I think we take that language out.

[59:17] » Um

[59:19] cuz we're not going to be reviewing

[59:21] that. I don't know how one removes that,

[59:23] but remove and you had something on H.

[59:26] » I do because it says no recreational

[59:28] vehicle may be used for the storage of

[59:30] goods, material, or equipment. But this

[59:33] strikes me again as an enormous

[59:37] enforcement issue. How the heck do you

[59:39] know what's going on inside an RV? I

[59:41] mean, that one over there at Sea Road to

[59:43] Collective was clearly being used for

[59:44] storage. It was storing hay because it

[59:46] set on fire, right? But nobody knew that

[59:49] because who knows what's inside of the

[59:51] RV. So, I I just think, you know, it's

[59:56] like

[59:57] telling your kids you're not going to do

[59:59] this for a month, right? And then the

[1:00:01] problem is you're actually punishing

[1:00:03] yourself because for a month you have to

[1:00:05] enforce that. This is not something

[1:00:06] that's enforceable for us. We can't

[1:00:08] had code staff to go around and open the

[1:00:10] door of every RV and see what

[1:00:12] » To you to your point though it there was

[1:00:14] a fire so they got busted right there

[1:00:16] was there was evidence this is going to

[1:00:19] be complaint driven so if you've got

[1:00:20] somebody that complains hey you know

[1:00:22] they're using that as their

[1:00:24] » Back room right and then that gives

[1:00:28] staff the opportunity to go in and

[1:00:30] enforce something if it's not on the

[1:00:32] rules it's uninforceable right

[1:00:34] » But again yeah this says the

[1:00:36] recreational vehicle has to be able to

[1:00:37] be amused immediately. Certainly, it

[1:00:39] can't be as if it's strapped down, even

[1:00:41] if it's a year round. So, I think maybe

[1:00:42] we need a different ordinance for

[1:00:44] caretakers, but anyhow, go ahead. I

[1:00:45] think

[1:00:46] » That's possible, too. Um, and when what

[1:00:48] is the definition of roadworthiness,

[1:00:51] right? And I know that there's some

[1:00:52] question if it's

[1:00:54] » I think it has to be tagged like

[1:00:56] » Well, if it's something you own, right?

[1:00:58] If I want to let my own RV tag expire

[1:01:01] because I don't have any plans of taking

[1:01:02] it anywhere, I think there has to be

[1:01:06] some clarity here.

[1:01:08] » I think it said it has to be tagged

[1:01:10] whether it's your own or not.

[1:01:11] » I I don't think you can force somebody

[1:01:13] to tag their their vehicle, their RV

[1:01:15] that's they're storing on their own

[1:01:16] property.

[1:01:17] » Well, I mean, they force you to tag a

[1:01:18] vehicle vehicle, right? So, I mean,

[1:01:21] there's out out in the ether. I'm not

[1:01:23] sure about here, but out, you know,

[1:01:24] everywhere, you know, there's ordinances

[1:01:26] in towns and stuff that, you know, code

[1:01:29] enforcement drives by the house and

[1:01:30] there's a car without a tag.

[1:01:32] » They'll violate you. Yeah. Even if it's

[1:01:34] a

[1:01:35] » Do we require that now on all vehicles.

[1:01:41] The audience seems to have an opinion.

[1:01:43] Um,

[1:01:46] » There's there's a lot of stuff that

[1:01:47] there's a lot of stuff that's that's in

[1:01:49] there that you know that's why I've

[1:01:51] always said he's

[1:01:54] » Because it's defined as a motor vehicle

[1:01:58] you're supposed to have.

[1:01:58] » That wasn't my my question was do we

[1:02:00] require autos to have tags current tags

[1:02:03] under our current code? So this would

[1:02:06] just be an expansion of existing

[1:02:08] language

[1:02:10] » Existing harbs. No existing code period.

[1:02:14] » Somebody's got a car repair place that

[1:02:16] they

[1:02:16] » I got a classic car that's I sit in my

[1:02:18] garage.

[1:02:19] » Does it have to be tagged? I know it

[1:02:21] does under cab under state.

[1:02:24] » Under state. Perfect. That's what we

[1:02:26] were looking for.

[1:02:27] » Sorry.

[1:02:27] » So, so you're telling me if I have a

[1:02:29] 1965 Ford Mustang and it's sitting in my

[1:02:32] front yard, right? It's roadw worthy,

[1:02:35] but it doesn't have a tag on. I'm in

[1:02:36] violation of state statute because it's

[1:02:38] not registered even though I just bought

[1:02:39] it last week and it just got shipped

[1:02:41] here.

[1:02:42] » That's different.

[1:02:43] » And state

[1:02:44] » I'm gonna wait. We got a lawyer jump.

[1:02:48] » So just doing a quick search of your

[1:02:50] code does not appear that you have a

[1:02:52] local requirement related to abandoned

[1:02:55] vehicles, you know, or defining an

[1:02:58] abandoned vehicle as

[1:03:00] » Even in our nuisance abatement. You

[1:03:01] would think it would be there. the state

[1:03:04] statute

[1:03:06] which right the sheriff or state police

[1:03:08] would be enforcing

[1:03:11] is usually for a vehicle that is on the

[1:03:14] road.

[1:03:15] » Correct.

[1:03:16] » Right. It's just in your yard

[1:03:20] at least not yet. The

[1:03:20] » Gest that's along the lines of what I

[1:03:23] was thinking I I guess my point is I

[1:03:25] wouldn't say also you know that having a

[1:03:29] tag doesn't deem it roadw worthy, right?

[1:03:31] I I can I can have a 1985 uh Wnebago and

[1:03:35] I go down to and I take all the title

[1:03:39] information and everything. I go down to

[1:03:41] the tag office and I get a tag issued.

[1:03:43] They're not looking to see the

[1:03:44] Winnebago. They're going to issue my

[1:03:46] tag. I got a signed title with my name

[1:03:48] on it. They're going to issue my tag. Da

[1:03:50] da da da. I'm going to slap a tag on it.

[1:03:52] You come to my yard and the thing's half

[1:03:54] fallen apart.

[1:03:55] » Right.

[1:03:55] » Right. So, I think roadw worthy is, you

[1:03:58] know, it's it's got tires on it. It's

[1:04:00] not lack of tires, right? That and I

[1:04:02] think we do and again not trying to make

[1:04:05] things more difficult, but I think some

[1:04:06] of these things need to be defined. Yes.

[1:04:08] » You know, roadw worthy needs to be

[1:04:09] defined. There is a tongue on the

[1:04:11] trailer. It's not,

[1:04:12] » You know, a mobile home doesn't have the

[1:04:14] apparatus to tow. Correct. It's got

[1:04:16] tires on it. It's got, you know, lights

[1:04:19] on it. I mean,

[1:04:20] » Yeah.

[1:04:21] » Yeah. I don't think

[1:04:21] » I think that needs a little more

[1:04:22] defining as well. So, uh, ownership of

[1:04:26] the vehicle, the vehicle park must be

[1:04:27] owned or leased by the property's owner

[1:04:29] or tenant. This this it goes back into

[1:04:31] that lease agreement. Um,

[1:04:35] how do we want to define that? I mean,

[1:04:37] the vehicle parked. This goes back to

[1:04:40] » Yeah. being able people obviously can't

[1:04:43] park other people's RVs,

[1:04:46] » But that goes to outdoor storage and we

[1:04:47] do have an outdoor storage, right? So,

[1:04:50] you know, I

[1:04:51] » I think if it goes back to being

[1:04:53] complaint driven and if somebody's like,

[1:04:55] you know, they've got eight RVs parked

[1:04:56] over there on the side of their

[1:04:58] property, you show up and they're

[1:05:00] charging people to park them there.

[1:05:02] » So,

[1:05:03] » Yeah,

[1:05:03] » And I think we've seen those around

[1:05:05] town. Uh, no major repairs, no problem

[1:05:08] with that. Let's see next page.

[1:05:12] Okay. Yeah, this is where it gets really

[1:05:14] wild. All right. Uh so permit required

[1:05:19] uh if the recreational vehicle is being

[1:05:22] stored on the property and then I have

[1:05:25] owned question mark. So

[1:05:28] again, I think it's important to the to

[1:05:30] the words matter in these things that we

[1:05:33] are not

[1:05:36] we are not regulating people's

[1:05:39] private

[1:05:42] things, boats,

[1:05:44] you know, car toy hauler, you know, RVs,

[1:05:48] horse trailers, right? So I think that

[1:05:52] » This just may need some clarification

[1:05:54] that way.

[1:05:55] Um,

[1:05:57] » Yep.

[1:05:58] » In that same page on A, it says a town

[1:06:01] building permit is only required for an

[1:06:03] operational recreational vehicle if the

[1:06:06] recreational vehicle is occupied.

[1:06:09] » Yeah, I think we need to get away from

[1:06:10] this permit language because, you know,

[1:06:12] this again, maybe permit is the right

[1:06:14] language. I'll leave it up to the legal

[1:06:16] on that, but you know, this is more of a

[1:06:19] registration program. Uh and then going

[1:06:23] into that. So well that's I now I

[1:06:26] understand why you have stored as versus

[1:06:29] occupied. So

[1:06:32] and then my comment here is how is this

[1:06:34] simplifying all of these steps that have

[1:06:36] to be gone through and I also want to

[1:06:38] make another appeal here. I know I made

[1:06:41] it before for the people that have

[1:06:43] already gone through this process and

[1:06:45] allowed their property to be inspected

[1:06:47] last year and paid the fees that they

[1:06:50] should somehow be grandfathered in for

[1:06:52] however many years they were promised.

[1:06:54] They were promised a year or five years

[1:06:56] or whatever they were promised they

[1:06:57] should be that we should stick to that.

[1:06:59] We we we asked them to have the

[1:07:01] inspection. I think there were what

[1:07:02] 40ome people that that complied with

[1:07:04] that. I think those 41 people get a buy

[1:07:07] on this and for whatever period of time

[1:07:10] we said on

[1:07:10] » I disagree. We've got we've got vacant

[1:07:13] properties with four RVs on them. We're

[1:07:15] going to give them a campground for 5

[1:07:16] years.

[1:07:17] » No, I'm saying the 41 people that went

[1:07:19] through the process or they're and that

[1:07:21] are on record as going through the

[1:07:23] inspection and being inspected.

[1:07:24] » I know the one I'm talking about had

[1:07:26] gone through it. So, they get four years

[1:07:29] of getting four more years of having

[1:07:31] four RVs on vacant land. We complain

[1:07:33] about that person or there but that that

[1:07:36] caut

[1:07:40] the new the new requirements

[1:07:42] » Within the new requirements that have

[1:07:44] already had the inspection should get a

[1:07:45] buy because they've already paid the

[1:07:46] inspection fee and the but those people

[1:07:51] » On vacant land are not in the rules of

[1:07:53] the new compliance. So therefore they

[1:07:55] get from because they don't have the

[1:07:58] homestead. I think legal can guide us on

[1:08:00] amortizing that or not am advertising

[1:08:02] that right so

[1:08:04] » Yeah I if you would like to provide for

[1:08:06] grandfathering we can do that and that's

[1:08:09] easy to do

[1:08:10] » Grandfathering those who still

[1:08:12] » Would qualify

[1:08:13] » Qualify under the new thing for

[1:08:15] » But I don't think you get five years for

[1:08:16] your $100 when it's going to be $50 for

[1:08:18] everybody else every other year.

[1:08:21] » Well I was given five years for $100

[1:08:22] because it's my personal RV and it's

[1:08:24] still sitting there. I paid for a stored

[1:08:25] RV. I mean because that's what I was

[1:08:27] » Well, then maybe you should get your

[1:08:28] money back. I said, well, we still

[1:08:30] aren't anymore.

[1:08:31] » So,

[1:08:31] » Right. I think

[1:08:33] » I think what but I think what you're

[1:08:35] » Did that. Okay. Yeah. You know, so

[1:08:37] » I think the only route you're going is

[1:08:38] that you don't think since you got a

[1:08:40] permit last year and it's good for five

[1:08:42] years, you should not have to go get

[1:08:43] another permit this year regardless if

[1:08:45] it's $50 or $500. Yeah. No, I'm just

[1:08:49] using you as an example because, you

[1:08:51] know, I think that's what she's saying

[1:08:52] is I shouldn't have to go apply again

[1:08:54] this year.

[1:08:56] If if somebody who applied and has their

[1:08:58] thing is not compliant with the new

[1:08:59] ordinance,

[1:09:00] » Tough nookies, you know.

[1:09:01] » But I'm just saying that $100 bought you

[1:09:03] five years under the old one. It doesn't

[1:09:05] buy you five years under the new one.

[1:09:06] That goes

[1:09:07] » I I get it. Well, you know, good for

[1:09:10] » It's her owned own RV, though.

[1:09:12] » You shouldn't have to do it all under

[1:09:14] Exactly.

[1:09:14] » You get a refund.

[1:09:16] » Um, so I think I think the form

[1:09:19] basically I don't have a problem with

[1:09:20] the form until it gets to dates the

[1:09:22] recreational vehicle will be on site.

[1:09:24] I'm I'm not sure

[1:09:29] right because if we're not going to

[1:09:30] limit that is that

[1:09:32] » Versus on-site versus occupied is what I

[1:09:34] have dates the RV would be occupied

[1:09:38] » Maybe that's a better language there if

[1:09:40] we're going to ask that question at all

[1:09:42] maybe it gets asked I don't I in our

[1:09:45] conversations in the workshop we talked

[1:09:47] about them signing under penalty of

[1:09:50] perjury that they attest that they have

[1:09:53] a permanent electric a permitted um

[1:09:56] septic or they pump it out, right? And

[1:10:00] then again, if it's complaint driven,

[1:10:02] somebody says, you know, they're just

[1:10:04] pulling their cord out there. So, um you

[1:10:07] get in and that's when they get really

[1:10:09] tagged. Uh D.

[1:10:12] » Should we add something about the

[1:10:14] continued use of generator or something

[1:10:16] like that for power? So, they don't

[1:10:18] think that's a loophole.

[1:10:19] » Well, it says electric permit, but I I

[1:10:22] take your point. Yes. You know what I'm

[1:10:23] saying?

[1:10:24] » They cannot They cannot utilize um

[1:10:26] generator.

[1:10:28] » Yeah, you're not at a roping. You cannot

[1:10:31] stand.

[1:10:33] » It's not post Hurricane Francis. You

[1:10:35] can't go three weeks without power and

[1:10:36] still use your generator because FPL

[1:10:38] doesn't know how to fuse. Oh, sorry.

[1:10:41] » Um so,

[1:10:43] » And then Karen Karen on item K, my

[1:10:46] question was,

[1:10:48] do we want in an ordinance to set the

[1:10:51] fee? My concern is then we have to

[1:10:54] change the fee by ordinance. It just

[1:10:55] could it just be set by council by via

[1:10:58] resolution? Can we leave that language a

[1:11:00] little more open-ended so that the point

[1:11:02] is starting the program encouraging

[1:11:05] compliance getting people used to

[1:11:07] complying and then if the cost of it we

[1:11:09] see is still higher then obviously

[1:11:12] adjusting the fee to to continue to

[1:11:15] allow it to be. I I just was concerned

[1:11:17] that this if this language is in the

[1:11:19] ordinance then it would be hard to

[1:11:21] change in the future because it would

[1:11:22] require another ordinance. So

[1:11:24] » Typically these schedules are done with

[1:11:26] resolution.

[1:11:27] » Okay. So

[1:11:28] » Digressing about the the six month

[1:11:30] change.

[1:11:31] » You're changing your mind. Well, I just

[1:11:33] thought about that as we're talk as

[1:11:34] we're talking and

[1:11:37] um you know the the

[1:11:40] purpose of this is not so we can have

[1:11:42] you know

[1:11:45] open-ended year round use right it it

[1:11:48] it's meant to be during the horse season

[1:11:50] of really kind of or

[1:11:52] » Six months is what we said

[1:11:53] » Six months period

[1:11:54] » Six months but it was for agricultural

[1:11:56] uses again you could have the pickers

[1:11:58] I'm trying not to be I'm a horse

[1:12:00] person's trying I'm trying Not to be

[1:12:03] » Well he says polo's already here just

[1:12:05] for

[1:12:06] » Now they usually come Octoberish

[1:12:09] somebody else here

[1:12:10] » Support all agriculture not just

[1:12:12] » I'm with you I'm just you know again I'm

[1:12:14] I'm actually a person that always says

[1:12:16] you can't build it for the one person

[1:12:18] that's going to violate you got to build

[1:12:20] it for you know um but what about the

[1:12:23] what about the person that says well I

[1:12:25] got you know four RVs on my property all

[1:12:27] year round and I'm going to Airbnb these

[1:12:28] things.

[1:12:29] » No that's already not allowed. Okay,

[1:12:32] that's

[1:12:33] » It says in here don't make it an Airbnb.

[1:12:36] » No, but th that number of RVs offers

[1:12:40] » I'm within my numbers,

[1:12:43] » Right? See, I got two

[1:12:45] » And I'm going to Airbnb them.

[1:12:49] » We can't stop people from Airbnb as long

[1:12:51] as we don't do it for more than six

[1:12:52] months.

[1:12:54] » So, how they how they come about being

[1:12:57] rented, I don't think we want to

[1:12:59] regulate that.

[1:13:00] » I don't think we can. So I can't either.

[1:13:02] » So um and then the the final one L that

[1:13:07] was um recommended by uldc with

[1:13:10] verifying occupant identification.

[1:13:13] Again I I say that that's just

[1:13:17] » Prohibitive.

[1:13:19] So do we want to remove that?

[1:13:23] » I don't think so.

[1:13:25] » I just I mean how are we how will we do

[1:13:27] that? We're looking I mean we're looking

[1:13:29] at a process that's gonna just meet

[1:13:30] staff might as well work weekends are

[1:13:32] free to do that.

[1:13:33] » Well I mean

[1:13:34] » It goes back to what I said which is

[1:13:35] again the people who like Lena who are

[1:13:38] ready

[1:13:40] out

[1:13:41] » They are not going to want a sex

[1:13:43] offender or a murderer in their RV and

[1:13:45] they're going to do their due diligence

[1:13:46] to take it. So the people that are

[1:13:48] following the rules are going to follow

[1:13:50] the rules and be responsible about it.

[1:13:51] What we have to

[1:13:53] » Especially homesteaded their homestead

[1:13:55] where they're living. I mean, she's not

[1:13:57] going to want to have a pedophile living

[1:13:58] next door to her grandchild, you know?

[1:13:59] So, I'm pretty sure she's not l

[1:14:02] » Don't get me wrong. I I'm with you. I I

[1:14:04] I would love that though to know. I

[1:14:06] mean, I lived it for three and a half

[1:14:07] years and then watching SWAT teams every

[1:14:10] three or four months go over there and

[1:14:11] then put somebody in handcuffs and march

[1:14:13] them off the property.

[1:14:14] » It's the offenders. They're they're not

[1:14:15] going to follow these any matter what we

[1:14:18] have on here. They're not going to do

[1:14:19] it.

[1:14:19] » We got I mean, that's like another issue

[1:14:22] that we to address.

[1:14:24] » Uh inspections. This is may maybe you

[1:14:27] want one by request. Um but certainly

[1:14:30] complaint driven, right? If you get a

[1:14:31] complaint about someone, right? Even if

[1:14:33] they filled out this lovely little form,

[1:14:35] you get a complaint, an inspection is

[1:14:37] happening, but it's not going to be a

[1:14:38] requirement.

[1:14:39] » Well,

[1:14:40] » Because we're trying to cut down cost

[1:14:42] and staff time.

[1:14:42] » Yeah, it's happening as long as I let

[1:14:44] you in at my gate.

[1:14:46] That's what this is about. Well,

[1:14:49] » I I I I'm assuming that's what this

[1:14:52] » You can put that you agree by signing

[1:14:54] this this form, you're agreeing that

[1:14:57] under complaint, you're going to allow

[1:14:59] access.

[1:15:01] » Yeah. Yeah. I

[1:15:03] » I mean, again, this goes back to if

[1:15:04] you're going to be compliant, this is to

[1:15:06] help people absolutely gain compliance.

[1:15:09] » Again, I'm not picking on Lena, but

[1:15:10] she's not going to dump poop out on her

[1:15:11] ground, you know, like she's going to

[1:15:14] something there for her. cleanest place

[1:15:16] ever.

[1:15:18] » Yeah.

[1:15:18] » So,

[1:15:19] » I I get what you're saying, but you

[1:15:22] know, not for nothing, if if you know,

[1:15:25] you come to my gate and I don't want to

[1:15:26] let you in. I don't have to let you in.

[1:15:28] » But offender, like particularly the one

[1:15:30] actually

[1:15:32] who's being talked about here on the

[1:15:34] day, that's somebody who never has

[1:15:35] allowed anybody onto their property,

[1:15:37] stood at their gate,

[1:15:38] » Was clearly visible,

[1:15:39] » Even though the smoke was clearly

[1:15:41] visible, even though the neighbors

[1:15:42] complained. That's a it's a different

[1:15:44] issue. It's a it's a it's a different

[1:15:46] issue,

[1:15:46] » But that's a different code enforcement

[1:15:48] process then, right? That escalates to a

[1:15:50] different level and that that should be

[1:15:52] something we provide for already

[1:15:56] » Through our processes. Right.

[1:15:57] » Right.

[1:15:57] » Okay.

[1:15:58] » Um so some of the language in D will

[1:16:01] have to be adjusted requiring

[1:16:02] inspection. Requiring inspection

[1:16:05] um the water hookup uh use of extension

[1:16:09] cords. Uh I think that's where some of

[1:16:11] these fires start is the use of

[1:16:12] extension cords. So um again, how do we

[1:16:16] regulate that? Um

[1:16:18] » 100%.

[1:16:19] » I I can just say, you know, use of

[1:16:21] extensions cards are discouraged and in

[1:16:24] the event of a

[1:16:26] outbreak of fire, your your permit is

[1:16:29] now invalid. Your registration's

[1:16:31] invalid. I mean, no, no one wants to

[1:16:33] start a fire, but they won't let us stop

[1:16:35] fireworks either. So it's a whole

[1:16:37] different problem. uh septic hookup. Um

[1:16:41] again, you're attesting that your septic

[1:16:43] is permitted. So, that I think is okay

[1:16:47] to be in there, that your statement of

[1:16:50] your septic permit is it was through the

[1:16:52] health department and maybe some

[1:16:54] language thereof. Solid waste. Um

[1:17:00] I mean, is that language? I mean, it

[1:17:02] seems pretty innocuous to me. So

[1:17:07] uh and then lastly bunk houses

[1:17:12] you know we don't this is not to allow

[1:17:15] you know bunk houses you know this is

[1:17:18] for what would you call it recreational

[1:17:21] » Right we have to again

[1:17:22] » Recreational

[1:17:25] there's a use con consumer use versus

[1:17:29] what are basically

[1:17:32] uh emergency housing for first

[1:17:35] responders,

[1:17:36] right? So, I don't know how you guys

[1:17:39] weave that, you know, that's threading

[1:17:42] the needle, but I I see some of our

[1:17:45] larger a uses wanting to roll in a

[1:17:49] couple bunk houses and a couple shower

[1:17:51] bathroom houses on wheels and say,

[1:17:54] "Well, it's allowed under your RV

[1:17:55] permit." So, and I think that may be

[1:17:58] something in here that your RV cannot

[1:18:00] exceed its stated capacity and that or

[1:18:03] may that may already be in here and I

[1:18:05] apologize if it is, but the RV cannot be

[1:18:08] used for any use outside of its doesn't

[1:18:12] it have like a little panel on it that

[1:18:14] says, you know, how many people or

[1:18:15] something?

[1:18:16] » It does. They do.

[1:18:18] » There you go. That's the word.

[1:18:19] Manufacturer couldn't think of it.

[1:18:21] » So, all right. I think we beat that up

[1:18:22] pretty well. Any other questions?

[1:18:24] » I'm happy. She's happy.

[1:18:26] » What do we have a section in here that

[1:18:29] dedicated to definitions?

[1:18:32] Because we can clearly define in

[1:18:34] definitions what an RV is. And we can we

[1:18:37] I'm assume and we could also there we

[1:18:39] could mention that an RV is not of this

[1:18:42] capacity. We consider an RV to be under

[1:18:45] this many feet and D. You know, we could

[1:18:47] give or something.

[1:18:49] » Well, no, it's a lot of codes are

[1:18:51] written with definitions. I know this

[1:18:52] isn't a code, but a lot of codes are

[1:18:54] written with definitions. You have a

[1:18:55] whole section that's definitions over

[1:18:57] here and then you have all these codes

[1:18:59] that come after it and they'll refer to

[1:19:01] those definition. You know the words

[1:19:03] they use are in the definitions. So if

[1:19:05] we define an RV as being

[1:19:08] » This big this you know whatever and you

[1:19:11] know I don't know kind you get what I'm

[1:19:14] saying right? You kind of play with that

[1:19:16] and

[1:19:16] » You jump in there if you don't mind.

[1:19:18] Yeah, we're happy to to add a definition

[1:19:22] either as part of this section or in

[1:19:24] another section of your code.

[1:19:25] » Yeah, that's I'm saying somewhere we

[1:19:28] » Agree that it should be clean.

[1:19:29] » Right. And I think that'll take care of

[1:19:32] the confusion as to does a bunk house

[1:19:35] comply. No, this is RV code. This is as

[1:19:38] as per

[1:19:38] » Definition. They're technically RVs,

[1:19:40] those bunk houses.

[1:19:41] » I know, but we're we're defining as RV

[1:19:43] as this big by this big and not more

[1:19:45] than this many. And

[1:19:47] » Yeah, but what if you got one of those

[1:19:48] gigantic Post

[1:19:51] buses with like six pop outs and

[1:19:54] » Well, those generally only sleep about

[1:19:55] four or five people. So,

[1:19:56] » Yes, that's true.

[1:19:57] » I'm I'm just saying.

[1:19:58] » But you said this size by this size

[1:20:00] » In the definition, we could stipulate

[1:20:02] that

[1:20:05] » Yeah. Pass or RV or whatever. They can

[1:20:07] play with the definition as to where And

[1:20:09] I think um I'm sorry,

[1:20:10] » Not pigeons.

[1:20:11] » I'm bad with names.

[1:20:12] » Zack.

[1:20:13] » Zack. I think Zach's kind of getting

[1:20:14] what we're, you know, smelling what

[1:20:16] we're stepping in. So, you know, we're

[1:20:18] not taking a 40 unit, you know, 40 bunk

[1:20:22] » 18-wheeler and parking it somewhere.

[1:20:25] » Yeah.

[1:20:26] » Okay.

[1:20:26] » Yeah. We could do you have the

[1:20:28] definition of that. Have the definition

[1:20:30] of a exempt, right? We talked about the

[1:20:32] different options. Roadworthy was

[1:20:34] another definition to put in. So, as

[1:20:36] Zach and I go through, we can figure out

[1:20:38] what might be, you know, unclear and

[1:20:41] we'll try to use.

[1:20:42] » Awesome. And I know we're trying to

[1:20:43] bring this back soon because of season

[1:20:45] coming up and

[1:20:47] » Getting people people rolled in. Yes.

[1:20:50] Public comments.

[1:20:51] » So, thank you Karen.

[1:20:54] » Yes, madam mayor. The first part we have

[1:20:56] is Tracy Raflowitz.

[1:21:00] » Not Tracy.

[1:21:03] » At least she didn't bring her folder

[1:21:04] this time.

[1:21:10] » We're talking.

[1:21:11] » We are. Yes.

[1:21:13] » What is the state statute for an RV? The

[1:21:16] vehicle.

[1:21:19] » Um, can't we make this simple,

[1:21:21] necessary, make the ribbon? We've been

[1:21:23] talking about RVs for so darn long. I

[1:21:25] mean, it's been many years. I'm

[1:21:28] concerned that the RV

[1:21:31] items move that it makes the town

[1:21:33] proactive enforcement instead of solving

[1:21:35] the resident complaint. Um, the RV rules

[1:21:39] need to be simple. When rules become too

[1:21:41] complicated, people either do not

[1:21:42] understand them or don't follow them.

[1:21:45] The town should create a clear seasonal

[1:21:47] argued rule that supports the question

[1:21:49] without turning it into a paperwork

[1:21:51] track. And you know, I thought about

[1:21:53] this too is I just thinking about the

[1:21:56] questioning. There's other people in the

[1:21:58] town

[1:21:59] » That would like to use an RV or have

[1:22:00] parents come down for the summer season

[1:22:03] or the winter season to get them out of

[1:22:04] up north in the in the snow.

[1:22:07] Why are we making it six months? You

[1:22:10] guys are making this so difficult. And I

[1:22:12] I watch these meeting and it keeps

[1:22:14] coming back. You guys say don't do this

[1:22:16] and somebody brings it to the ULDC or

[1:22:18] the PNZ and then they go back through it

[1:22:20] and then it comes back to you guys.

[1:22:21] Let's just we just make it simple so

[1:22:24] everybody in this town can have an RV if

[1:22:26] they want an RV. I know doesn't want an

[1:22:28] RV, but I think it's necessary for a

[1:22:31] rural community. keep it like if if

[1:22:34] there's a problem, let it be complaint

[1:22:36] driven. Is this happening? How many

[1:22:38] complaints have been done this year

[1:22:40] versus just going out and giving a code

[1:22:42] to somebody that has that would be a

[1:22:44] really good information for us to know

[1:22:46] whether it's complaint driven, go get

[1:22:49] them. Stop worrying about people that

[1:22:51] are doing things right.

[1:22:53] » Thank you, Council Member Coleman. You

[1:22:55] had your

[1:22:56] » Yeah. Our intention is for it to be

[1:22:59] complaint driven. Um, you know, that's

[1:23:01] and we our intention is to make it

[1:23:03] simple, but unfortunately you have to

[1:23:05] give stipulations. You know, I mean, I

[1:23:07] can appreciate what you're saying, but I

[1:23:08] you can't give a five item list of rules

[1:23:12] and call it a day. You have you have to

[1:23:15] stipulate because with that five item

[1:23:17] list of rules, yes, all the people that

[1:23:19] are willing to comply are going to

[1:23:20] comply, right? But you're going to have

[1:23:22] the other 90% of people, they're going

[1:23:24] to, you know, they're going to find a

[1:23:26] way. So, we have to stipulate as much,

[1:23:28] but it sounds a little more complex than

[1:23:30] it is. We're actually restricting the

[1:23:31] number of uh more restrictive as to the

[1:23:34] number of RVs total. Um, you can have an

[1:23:37] R your own RV. Your your in-laws can

[1:23:40] come down and stay in the winter time in

[1:23:42] your RV. Um, if you're so set up for

[1:23:45] that, whatever. And you you know, that's

[1:23:47] not this is forprofit to subsidize

[1:23:51] RV program to, you know, this is what

[1:23:54] this is talking about. It's not saying

[1:23:56] that you can't have a a boat with a

[1:23:58] living quarters on it, a a horse trailer

[1:24:00] with living quarters on it, an RV,

[1:24:03] » Toy hauler,

[1:24:03] » A toy hauler, and a a a conversion van

[1:24:07] that you, you know, Mercedes transit van

[1:24:09] that you've converted to an RV. It's not

[1:24:10] saying you can't have all that in your

[1:24:12] yard. What it's just kind of given some

[1:24:14] guidelines. And I think with guidelines,

[1:24:15] you have to be a little specific about

[1:24:17] things. And I think

[1:24:18] » Another public comment.

[1:24:19] » Yes, madame mayor. Cassie Suchi.

[1:24:31] I thought this was advertised at the

[1:24:32] workshop.

[1:24:35] Three minutes.

[1:24:37] » You're not getting three minutes. We're

[1:24:38] not setting the clock.

[1:24:39] » Okay. So, now I want to talk about bunk

[1:24:40] house. So the key to uh bunk house RV is

[1:24:45] basically what I think they're designing

[1:24:48] separate bunker rooms or secondary rooms

[1:24:51] separate each separate that that is what

[1:24:54] I picture as a bunker what they use at

[1:24:56] the fairs. So I think the key to

[1:24:58] defining that is that regulated activity

[1:25:01] has to be done very carefully so that we

[1:25:04] could talk about basically the the town

[1:25:06] recognizes that certain recreation

[1:25:08] vehicles are manufactured with separated

[1:25:10] load bunk rooms or secondary sleeping

[1:25:13] rooms. For the purposes of this section,

[1:25:15] we would say a bunk house RV use means

[1:25:18] the use of a recreational vehicle

[1:25:20] containing a separate enclosed bunk room

[1:25:23] or secondary sleeping room when that

[1:25:25] room or recreational vehicle as a whole

[1:25:27] is routinely used for by independent or

[1:25:30] long-term sleeping accommodations for

[1:25:32] employees, workers, tenants, paying

[1:25:33] occupants of persons residing on the

[1:25:35] property separate from the occupants

[1:25:37] principal residence. That's just an ID.

[1:25:40] um it it then would a recreational

[1:25:43] vehicle then was normally not considered

[1:25:45] a bunk house. So I would take in the

[1:25:47] separate living room if you're talking

[1:25:48] about it instead of because I know there

[1:25:51] are bunk beds.

[1:25:53] » Miss Succi, excuse me for interrupting

[1:25:55] you but for the record. Um Mr. uh Vice

[1:25:57] Mayor Sud is on the Zoom so I just

[1:25:59] wanted to note that for the record.

[1:26:02] » All right. Thank you.

[1:26:03] » I apologize.

[1:26:05] » Go ahead. So basically, I was just

[1:26:07] trying to say just kind of maybe that

[1:26:09] might help.

[1:26:10] » I I think though I think some of these I

[1:26:12] think some of these bunk houses are not

[1:26:14] separate rooms. I think they're just

[1:26:16] bunks along the wall and an air

[1:26:18] conditioning unit

[1:26:20] comes into play.

[1:26:22] » We ask it's like

[1:26:24] » No they each have separate doors. I

[1:26:26] understand. But there are bunk bunk

[1:26:28] trailers that come in and they'll sleep

[1:26:30] 42 people. They're not separate rooms.

[1:26:32] They're all hanging out in bunks.

[1:26:36] Like you could it could be secondary

[1:26:38] sleeping rooms and you just add in what

[1:26:40] the use was for or something. I'm just

[1:26:41] trying to think it's very difficult

[1:26:43] because it doesn't state it doesn't

[1:26:46] state statute when it talks about RVs

[1:26:47] doesn't distinguate between

[1:26:49] » Correct

[1:26:49] » RVs and these functions. It's all

[1:26:51] considered one.

[1:26:52] » So it just makes it a very difficult

[1:26:54] concept.

[1:26:54] » Yeah.

[1:26:55] » Um

[1:26:56] » As far as I think you guys talked about

[1:26:59] the registration.

[1:27:03] Yes. You're glad you're going to into

[1:27:05] that or whatever. Um, but uh I think the

[1:27:08] Florida law is very clear that a motor

[1:27:10] vehicle that's not operated on the roads

[1:27:12] of this state during a registration

[1:27:14] period is not required to be registered.

[1:27:16] Um, I know for one, my RV horse trailer

[1:27:20] sat idle for four years because my

[1:27:22] daughter decided to do each vol and I

[1:27:24] couldn't afford two. I mean, she had a

[1:27:28] big one. So now mom's getting back into

[1:27:32] registry, but I wasn't going to

[1:27:34] continually pay it. It was insured

[1:27:36] as through insurance for damage, but it

[1:27:39] was not registered as it was operating

[1:27:41] on roads. So, that's something that

[1:27:44] might need to be addressed. Um, because

[1:27:46] I feel that that, you know, people might

[1:27:49] have a collect.

[1:27:50] » Can I ask a question? How would you de

[1:27:52] we say that it has to be road road? How

[1:27:54] would you demonstrate roadworthiness if

[1:27:56] it if it's not

[1:27:58] » Has tires? It's it has four tires. It

[1:28:00] has, you know, it can go. You can hook

[1:28:03] it up to a car and go. I just

[1:28:04] » But you can't you can't go if it doesn't

[1:28:06] have a tag.

[1:28:07] » Get a tag.

[1:28:08] » You can do whatever you want.

[1:28:10] » You can drive it down the road today.

[1:28:12] » Yes. But you get hopefully get a tag.

[1:28:13] » Well, yeah. Hopefully hopefully you know

[1:28:16] those guys in green and white ain't

[1:28:17] right behind you.

[1:28:19] » Yeah.

[1:28:21] » It's just again loopholes that people

[1:28:24] are going to try to use.

[1:28:26] » Car insuranceire

[1:28:28] to have car insurance.

[1:28:29] » If the car not driving the car. Yeah.

[1:28:31] Exactly.

[1:28:32] just uh figuring out.

[1:28:34] » Okay, awesome.

[1:28:36] » And the final card, I believe her name

[1:28:39] is Lena.

[1:28:41] » Not going to even try that.

[1:28:42] » Sorry, Lena. I wasn't picking on you. I

[1:28:44] just saw your

[1:28:45] » Yes, she was. I think she was.

[1:28:52] » So, raise that microphone and you'll

[1:28:53] have to talk really close to it. So

[1:28:58] » Entry enter the properties that cannot

[1:29:01] be the liability when we have forces on

[1:29:04] the property and people come in as they

[1:29:08] wish cannot be done. I have from the

[1:29:11] sheriff I have registered with the

[1:29:14] sheriff's no trespasses on my property.

[1:29:17] I have nothing to hide. If somebody

[1:29:18] wants to come in they can come in but

[1:29:20] they cannot come in without a think that

[1:29:24] For you to say that they're going to be

[1:29:27] we have to sign off for them to come in

[1:29:28] at any time. That is absolutely insane.

[1:29:32] » I don't think we I don't think we were

[1:29:33] saying they could come in on any time

[1:29:34] that that you will you will agree to an

[1:29:37] inspection

[1:29:40] to agree to an inspection.

[1:29:43] » Absolutely. I don't think anybody's

[1:29:44] coming in to just run over your fence.

[1:29:47] So

[1:29:52] » Inspected last year. There was never any

[1:29:55] paperwork sent out. That's something

[1:29:57] that won't be sent out if we have proof

[1:30:00] that it was actually inspected.

[1:30:03] » We're not going to be requiring

[1:30:04] inspections. You're just going to file

[1:30:06] the registration form and and it

[1:30:10] site insp

[1:30:12] that's what council member Kaine was

[1:30:14] talking about. You know that

[1:30:17] We didn't receive any paperwork that

[1:30:19] showed

[1:30:20] » We just received you're okay. That's

[1:30:24] the sense that we did it. And I'll be

[1:30:25] honest, the the invoice that was sent

[1:30:29] out, I never paid it. I went into the

[1:30:32] office the second I got it because it

[1:30:34] says miscellaneous it on the invoice.

[1:30:38] And I was like, there's no way. My my

[1:30:40] accountant would never allow that not to

[1:30:42] be specified. It was supposed to be sent

[1:30:45] out a new invoice was never sent.

[1:30:48] So that's the town that wants to do all

[1:30:51] these things and then it never gets done

[1:30:54] all the way. Correct. It just starts it

[1:30:56] out. But I had it surveyed. They came to

[1:31:00] check all my artists. We spend a good

[1:31:02] amount of money to set the artist up so

[1:31:05] it looks nice.

[1:31:06] » So I hope that they don't keep changing.

[1:31:09] Every year it seems like, oh, we're

[1:31:10] going to do this and If you keep

[1:31:14] spending money setting it up two

[1:31:18] and then all of a sudden there's

[1:31:19] something else that happens.

[1:31:22] » We're trying. Yeah, we're trying and and

[1:31:24] we're trying to also be aware of the

[1:31:27] folks that did comply and you know

[1:31:32] » I I have the same people coming back

[1:31:33] every

[1:31:34] » Right

[1:31:35] » I would never have somebody come in my

[1:31:37] property that I cannot trust. I mean,

[1:31:40] sure. I mean,

[1:31:42] » There's properties that are

[1:31:44] » Have disgusting people in it, but

[1:31:46] » 100%

[1:31:47] » Don't go after us who trying to do what

[1:31:50] we supposed to do.

[1:31:51] » Well, I think the idea with that with

[1:31:52] the um you had to have a homesteaded

[1:31:54] property, right? Because then you have

[1:31:56] people that are invested in the

[1:31:57] community. It's not just people that are

[1:32:00] buying to rent, maximizing their rental

[1:32:03] dollars,

[1:32:04] » On a vacant property, and that

[1:32:07] » We're we're trying to curtail that and

[1:32:09] and and give staff, you know, guidance

[1:32:12] to again encourage compliance, but give

[1:32:14] them the tools they still need to go out

[1:32:16] and and get the offenders that are

[1:32:18] really causing the problems.

[1:32:20] And just a note, it it does say here,

[1:32:23] item L, it says access to the property

[1:32:26] upon request. Yeah, buzzwords happen and

[1:32:30] everybody stops and goes, "Oh, we're not

[1:32:32] getting on my prop." But the whole thing

[1:32:34] says upon request. I just wanted to

[1:32:35] clear that up for you, so yeah.

[1:32:39] » Yeah. I don't think we want to send

[1:32:40] anybody straight to your house. Yeah.

[1:32:42] Yeah. Yeah.

[1:32:43] » All right. So, if I have campaignations

[1:32:47] and I have her notes on nuisance

[1:32:48] abatement, so

[1:32:51] So,

[1:32:52] » So I mean I get to go take her chair

[1:32:53] again.

[1:32:54] » You can seriously. Oh my gosh.

[1:32:57] » No, I'm not. I'll stay right here.

[1:33:00] » That's right.

[1:33:02] » Talking the mic. Okay, so that uh that

[1:33:05] was the last public comment, correct?

[1:33:06] Awesome. Thank you. Uh nuisance

[1:33:08] abatement. I think that's you, Mr.

[1:33:10] Lowour.

[1:33:11] » Yes, ma'am.

[1:33:13] We brought the news abatement up as for

[1:33:16] majority of all the overgrowing trees

[1:33:20] that's enroaching all

[1:33:21] » Microphone. Correct. Your microphone.

[1:33:23] » I'm sorry.

[1:33:27] » You're on the right page. Okay.

[1:33:29] » Yes.

[1:33:30] » Is it working?

[1:33:30] » It's working.

[1:33:32] » All right. So, the news is abatement.

[1:33:33] This letter was coming forward as to all

[1:33:36] the overgrowth trees that are all

[1:33:38] through the whole town. Um in the past

[1:33:40] the the town staff has pract their

[1:33:43] practice was is staff went out and we

[1:33:46] cut all the trees back and this was

[1:33:48] private properties owners trees

[1:33:50] enroaching the roadway enroaching

[1:33:52] rightaways.

[1:33:54] Now that is our taxpayers monies of

[1:33:58] staff going out to maintain private

[1:34:01] properties over both trees approaching

[1:34:03] the roadway.

[1:34:06] If we approach this with code

[1:34:07] enforcement,

[1:34:09] we will come down to what we've seen

[1:34:12] some you will have some residents that

[1:34:14] will come in compliance and then we have

[1:34:16] what we know with our normal code. Some

[1:34:18] of our residents will not come in

[1:34:19] compliance. Then it will come down to a

[1:34:21] life safety issue. Then I would have to

[1:34:23] ask the town manager, can I go out and

[1:34:26] go out and cut it at the town's, you

[1:34:28] know, cost. At this right here, we're

[1:34:31] looking at with the nuent abatement.

[1:34:33] We're going to give the the property

[1:34:34] owners a courtesy notice. Hey, put them

[1:34:38] on point. Hey, you have trees in

[1:34:40] approaching the roadway. It's it's

[1:34:42] blocking the travel path. It's blocking

[1:34:43] the rightway that we cannot maintain the

[1:34:45] rightaways.

[1:34:47] Um and then after that, if it's not

[1:34:49] comes into comp after the 30-day notice,

[1:34:52] we will issue the nuisance abatement.

[1:34:55] And then within the town's code, the

[1:34:57] nuisance abatement has a 20-day period

[1:34:59] on it.

[1:35:01] um if they don't come in compliance

[1:35:02] after the 28-day period, we will with

[1:35:06] your guys' recommendation, either the

[1:35:07] staff does it or we're recommending that

[1:35:09] we have a contractor come out, remove

[1:35:12] cuts the trees back to the rightway,

[1:35:14] back to the edge of road, and they give

[1:35:17] us the bill and we assess the property

[1:35:19] owners accessibly

[1:35:21] as we would.

[1:35:24] » See, I have I have an issue though.

[1:35:26] » Go ahead.

[1:35:27] » Sorry for open discussion, whatever.

[1:35:31] My my issue is and I've been asking to

[1:35:34] see this whatever you know a few years

[1:35:36] ago the maps were redone. There's a lot

[1:35:40] of contention with the redone maps,

[1:35:43] » Right? Some roads had shifted a little.

[1:35:45] Some roads had done this, you know?

[1:35:47] » Mhm.

[1:35:48] » Got this easement, got that ement. We

[1:35:49] talk about trails. And I go, "Well, who

[1:35:51] has the list of easements that we have

[1:35:54] now for trails?" Because, and they're

[1:35:56] like, "Oh, we have the list. We have we

[1:35:58] have the map with the" And I'm like,

[1:35:59] "Well, was it was it the new map they

[1:36:01] did that was wrong, or is it the old map

[1:36:03] or is it, you know, I I think I get what

[1:36:06] you're saying. I see the pictures. Um I

[1:36:09] I know there's a lot of of stuff, you

[1:36:11] know, personally, you know, I have more

[1:36:13] issues with the grater taking too much

[1:36:15] of my

[1:36:16] » Yard when he goes by. Um that's a whole

[1:36:18] different thing. But, you know, and I I

[1:36:21] you know, myself on my road, there's not

[1:36:23] a real problem. Um you know, yeah, my

[1:36:26] neighbor's trees a little fat, whatever.

[1:36:29] You know, I know what it is. I drive

[1:36:30] down there. I I really don't care. But

[1:36:32] that's just me. And it's a side road.

[1:36:34] It's a dead end road. It's, you know,

[1:36:36] but some of these main roads you have

[1:36:38] trees that are growing, you know, they

[1:36:40] could be canopy over, but they're trees

[1:36:42] that are growing over. We do have a a

[1:36:43] position.

[1:36:45] My thing is is

[1:36:47] I think we need to we need to be very

[1:36:51] vigilant to those maps and make sure

[1:36:54] that before we cut a single send a

[1:36:56] single person to whatever that that's

[1:36:59] actually our easement and not something

[1:37:02] that's been you know um addressed

[1:37:05] previously by a previous town engineer

[1:37:09] or whatever you know saying nope you're

[1:37:11] absolutely right nope that is still your

[1:37:13] your your spot That's not our easement.

[1:37:15] That's not our rightway. Um, you know,

[1:37:19] it's a sticky wicket and you going to,

[1:37:21] you know, we're going to hit hit folks

[1:37:23] with NOVs

[1:37:25] for nuisance abatement. You know, I

[1:37:28] mean, yeah. Do I think that we need to

[1:37:31] start drawing a line in the sand and

[1:37:33] tell folks, listen, you need to cut your

[1:37:35] trees back? Absolutely. Um, you know,

[1:37:38] how what the mechanism for that is, not

[1:37:40] exactly sure. you know, we we both live

[1:37:43] on side roads, right? We don't live on

[1:37:45] main drags, you know, um you know, I I

[1:37:48] can tell you the mayor's trees don't

[1:37:50] hang over the road, but I mean,

[1:37:52] » You know, um so I it's, you know, we we

[1:37:57] definitely are in a more populated time

[1:38:00] than we were back at one point in time

[1:38:02] when it really didn't matter. It was

[1:38:03] just, you know, beat up old trucks going

[1:38:05] down dirt roads, right? Things have

[1:38:08] progressed and changed a little bit. Um,

[1:38:10] and I think that, you know, that again I

[1:38:14] it's a message that needs to be and a

[1:38:16] conversation needs to be had. I don't

[1:38:17] know that we necessar And of course

[1:38:19] we're getting into hurricane season,

[1:38:20] too. So, it's it's kind of a sticky

[1:38:22] thing. You know, I you know, I but

[1:38:26] again, I ask I would like to see and

[1:38:28] maybe it's going to take a visit. I come

[1:38:30] by and visit or whatever. I'd like to

[1:38:31] see these maps and see, you know,

[1:38:34] what we have, what we own, what we don't

[1:38:36] own. And before we go cutting somebody's

[1:38:38] stuff because we think we own it, we

[1:38:40] need to verify. You know, I think that

[1:38:42] needs to be a step. So that's my two

[1:38:45] cents for right now. I'm sure it's going

[1:38:47] to expand, go to four or five cents,

[1:38:49] four to six cents.

[1:38:50] » Council member Stevens and

[1:38:51] » Where did the 20 days come from? I just

[1:38:54] » That's what's in our code.

[1:38:55] » It is. Okay.

[1:38:56] » That is directly out of the code.

[1:38:58] » Okay. I just I just think if it was me

[1:39:00] and you said, "Hey, you got you have 20

[1:39:02] days." And I'm looking at my schedule.

[1:39:04] I'm like, well, I appreciate that, but

[1:39:06] man, if I could have a

[1:39:07] » Well, that's why we had suggested the 30

[1:39:09] days before.

[1:39:11] » There's a there'd be a courtesy letter

[1:39:12] 30 days before and then there would be a

[1:39:14] 20 on top.

[1:39:15] » Fair enough. I disagree.

[1:39:16] » Okay.

[1:39:17] » And if I may jump in, you know, this is

[1:39:19] why we are bringing this forward to

[1:39:21] council. Yes, it's in the code. It's

[1:39:23] something that at some point a council

[1:39:25] approved, naturally adopted. Um and so

[1:39:29] we have clearly a situation

[1:39:33] um that public works is trying to work

[1:39:34] through and naturally we can enforce um

[1:39:38] this code but we also understand as you

[1:39:40] said it's kind of a sticky situation and

[1:39:43] so that's why we are bringing it to

[1:39:45] council to have this discussion um and

[1:39:47] naturally have residents um come up and

[1:39:50] kind of you know comment on the issue to

[1:39:54] find a solution that you know public

[1:39:56] works can get out there safely do their

[1:39:58] job um

[1:40:01] or if we need to address, you know, the

[1:40:02] code that's currently in place.

[1:40:09] » Vice Mayor Sud, do you have anything

[1:40:10] you'd like to add?

[1:40:16] » Hi there. Hello. Yeah. Um I think um I

[1:40:20] think it's this safety issue. I

[1:40:22] experience it on the roads every day.

[1:40:25] Some of these pictures are um are I

[1:40:30] think examples of um the safety issue

[1:40:34] for the everyday people who use those

[1:40:36] roads and also public work. So I think

[1:40:39] having a strong notification process uh

[1:40:44] where they know this is a serious

[1:40:46] situation and they pay attention. It's

[1:40:48] not one of those males that gets thrown

[1:40:51] out and and then if that action doesn't

[1:40:54] occur then town has to absolutely um

[1:40:59] remove that and then I agree that in

[1:41:02] that case

[1:41:04] uh the bill has to be sent to the

[1:41:06] property owners if in spite of the

[1:41:08] notices if somebody does not care does

[1:41:11] not have I would use the word pride or

[1:41:14] common sense then I guess that can't be

[1:41:18] a nuisance to other neighbors and other

[1:41:20] people using the public road. So I agree

[1:41:24] we we have to have a strong process with

[1:41:26] I think the key word I would use is

[1:41:28] transparency.

[1:41:30] All those people whose notices are gone

[1:41:32] and and then we are ready to take

[1:41:34] action. We should put that list publicly

[1:41:36] on the website that this is our vendor

[1:41:39] is coming to remove these and this is

[1:41:42] the list guys. you still have time and

[1:41:45] if they don't do it then I think we have

[1:41:48] to do it and and then cost has to be uh

[1:41:53] incurred by the respective owners

[1:41:56] whoever is responsible in spite of all

[1:41:59] these notices they haven't taken action

[1:42:01] so I guess they need to pay the bill

[1:42:03] then in that instance

[1:42:05] thank you

[1:42:07] » Okay I I think for me it it comes down

[1:42:10] to and this was my concern when this

[1:42:12] nuisance abatement was originally

[1:42:14] brought forward many many moons ago that

[1:42:17] it's it's a little too subjective,

[1:42:20] right? Uh so what's overgrowth? What's

[1:42:25] um what's a a nuisance, right? What my

[1:42:28] favorite is it attracts vermin. I said

[1:42:30] out here we call them wildlife, right?

[1:42:32] As I watch the I evicted some raccoons

[1:42:35] out of a hole in my property and they

[1:42:36] keep crossing my property. Uh so

[1:42:40] the po I think the point for me is

[1:42:42] unless this is obstructive in some way

[1:42:45] and I think what you're bringing here

[1:42:46] tonight is you know it's obstructing

[1:42:48] right whether it's a trail roadway right

[1:42:53] » Historically for me

[1:42:56] we've had public works go in and they

[1:42:59] cut back reach over people's fences and

[1:43:02] grind it down to me you own to the

[1:43:05] vertical plane correct right you do not

[1:43:07] get to go past that.

[1:43:08] » Yes, ma'am.

[1:43:09] » So, frankly, I understand your your

[1:43:12] comment of about the cost of maintaining

[1:43:14] it, but that's the cost of maintaining

[1:43:16] any right of way, right?

[1:43:18] » So, my concern becomes more that one,

[1:43:21] it's not subjective. Um, we're not an

[1:43:24] HOA. We're not looking to determine, you

[1:43:27] know, what materials are considered

[1:43:31] a, you know, as as far as undesirable, I

[1:43:34] guess, is probably a good word. Um, so,

[1:43:39] uh, to mention Council Member Kane's

[1:43:41] comment, it is on page 21.

[1:43:45] Her comment was the keeping of fill in

[1:43:48] an unsafe and unsanitary manner. And

[1:43:51] this goes back to my subjective comment,

[1:43:52] as determined by whom, right? Unless

[1:43:55] it's interfering with a drain pipe or a

[1:43:57] roadway. To me, this is where this

[1:44:00] language and I know that that's not the

[1:44:02] point of bringing this forward tonight,

[1:44:04] » But there's a lot about this nuisance

[1:44:06] abatement that I think as we go forward

[1:44:08] in our strategic plan and we define what

[1:44:11] rural is, it'll give us some structure

[1:44:14] to come back to to recreate language in

[1:44:16] these ordinances that aligns more

[1:44:18] closely with the town. Um,

[1:44:22] my question is is if it unless it was

[1:44:26] illegally dumped or it's it's

[1:44:29] intentional like you can't help that

[1:44:32] your tree grows a big old branch. Right.

[1:44:34] » Right.

[1:44:35] » So to me it's up to us to maintain our

[1:44:37] right of way, not not the property

[1:44:38] owner. Right. To the vertical plane. So

[1:44:43] now I would not want you coming by and

[1:44:45] hacking off my tree branch with a giant

[1:44:48] mower arm. Right.

[1:44:49] » Yeah. You know,

[1:44:50] » I'm going to come in with my arborist

[1:44:51] and I'm going to say, "You need to take

[1:44:52] this branch down and everything else."

[1:44:54] » Who's your tree trimmer guy?

[1:44:55] » He would be the arborist.

[1:44:56] » Well, I know yours would be, but

[1:44:58] » Me. I got

[1:44:59] » The dude with the chainsaw and that

[1:45:01] thingy that goes up and down, right? I

[1:45:03] wish I wish I owned one of those.

[1:45:05] » Is that the tentacle ter?

[1:45:06] » Yes, it is. It is. So

[1:45:08] » Yes,

[1:45:09] » I guess for me it comes down to are we

[1:45:12] are we being responsible for our own

[1:45:14] right of way and then we just incur the

[1:45:16] cost of that

[1:45:18] » Or do we we burden the land owner

[1:45:22] because some of these are corporate

[1:45:24] absentee

[1:45:26] stuff's falling out of

[1:45:27] » I think some of the stuff though as well

[1:45:29] to your point though some of the stuff

[1:45:30] is is you know I think I I would say

[1:45:34] maybe some places there hasn't been some

[1:45:36] respect to to the right of way and

[1:45:38] things have been planted and they've

[1:45:40] grown and whatever. Um there's some of

[1:45:42] those issues, but again it's our it's

[1:45:44] our and I don't mean to derail you. I'm

[1:45:46] sorry.

[1:45:47] » But those you know those sable palms,

[1:45:48] they're very disrespectful where they

[1:45:50] grow, right?

[1:45:51] » They just grow anyway.

[1:45:52] » I wasn't trying to call you. I said I

[1:45:53] said you maintain your line there. Okay.

[1:45:55] Um

[1:45:57] » Isn't some of this town created though?

[1:45:59] I mean when we I mean you guys talked

[1:46:01] about it at the workshop when I was

[1:46:02] sitting back there in the cheap seats

[1:46:04] talking about stand

[1:46:09] » Guys

[1:46:12] standing ovation

[1:46:14] » Get many of those around here.

[1:46:16] » Yes. I mean thank you.

[1:46:17] » But I mean sitting back there months and

[1:46:18] months and months ago long before this

[1:46:20] doing this was on my mind I don't

[1:46:22] remember who brought it up at the table.

[1:46:23] I'm like that's a great point actually.

[1:46:25] you know, I mean,

[1:46:26] » There a lot of it has been created. But

[1:46:28] if you think about it though, um, and

[1:46:30] I'm not trying to pick on anybody else

[1:46:32] specific, so I'm not going to call out

[1:46:34] any addresses. I'm not going to call out

[1:46:36] it, but there's there's roads that used

[1:46:37] to be dirt that are now paved. And when

[1:46:39] they were dirt, the wind row went right

[1:46:42] along their property line. And if you

[1:46:45] had an oncoming vehicle, you had to pull

[1:46:47] over in their driveway, right? Hopefully

[1:46:50] they had a safe sight driveway or

[1:46:51] whatever, decent size driveway or you

[1:46:53] had to wait back here and there's a lot

[1:46:56] of things. So when we went through and

[1:46:57] paved the roads, it's a little more in

[1:47:00] your face I guess because you know even

[1:47:04] though

[1:47:05] whatever I'm going to say it even though

[1:47:07] the roads were paved improperly in my

[1:47:08] opinion um

[1:47:10] » You know not to start that whole thing

[1:47:11] up it's a paved road now, right? It's

[1:47:14] black tops. So, there's this this um

[1:47:18] concept of what it should look like. But

[1:47:20] to Lisa's point earlier, and you beat me

[1:47:21] to it, I turned my light on again. You

[1:47:23] know, we're not an HOA.

[1:47:25] » Yeah.

[1:47:25] » You know, that's every time code

[1:47:27] enforcement comes up in here, I I get

[1:47:29] those calls. Even before I was sitting

[1:47:31] here, um, you know, we got a new code

[1:47:33] enforcement company and they got they

[1:47:35] went by and and cited my my buddy for

[1:47:38] his grass was too tall and he I got a

[1:47:41] very largely filled expletative text

[1:47:43] going, "Can you believe this?" You know,

[1:47:47] um, we're not an HOA. Um, I I I I'm not

[1:47:51] going to sit up here and and support

[1:47:53] anything that's going to make us more of

[1:47:54] an HOA. I And I'm not I'm not in support

[1:47:58] of calling anybody out on the on the

[1:48:01] website saying, um, you know, this

[1:48:03] property, you know, Joe Stevens property

[1:48:06] on High Park Road and and Craig, you

[1:48:08] know, Craig's property, Cassy's

[1:48:10] property, Karen's property, Trey's

[1:48:11] property, Paul's property, Lee's

[1:48:12] property, we're going to go, we're going

[1:48:14] to trim those on the 15th of March,

[1:48:16] whether you like it or not. That's

[1:48:18] that's a little above and beyond. I I

[1:48:20] don't you know um thank you but that's

[1:48:23] not necessary. Um you know listen we we

[1:48:27] everybody knows to drive by it. We know

[1:48:28] we know who the who the you know and I

[1:48:30] think what we need to visit the whole

[1:48:33] nuisance ordinance because like you said

[1:48:35] there's a lot of stuff in there that

[1:48:36] probably and I keep saying you know we

[1:48:38] we challenge these or we task these

[1:48:41] committees with stuff. You know, I think

[1:48:44] our whole ULDC code needs to be kind of

[1:48:46] gone through.

[1:48:47] » Oh, yeah. Absolutely.

[1:48:48] » You know, so and and maybe this starting

[1:48:51] point,

[1:48:52] » You know, maybe that's and put task it

[1:48:54] with them. Give let them give options

[1:48:56] and give suggestions to see where that's

[1:48:58] at. Um, you know, we got some smart

[1:49:00] folks on there and I think, you know, we

[1:49:02] could start with that, but I mean, yeah.

[1:49:04] So, who's who's to decide whether Phil

[1:49:06] is sanitary or not? I mean,

[1:49:07] » Well, that's it. So, but they need

[1:49:09] direction tonight. That's what they're

[1:49:10] looking for. So

[1:49:12] » What we're looking for is direction on

[1:49:13] would you want us to push with code,

[1:49:16] push with the news of pavement or you

[1:49:18] would like staff to go out and to clear

[1:49:22] the trees. I mean there's a lot of trees

[1:49:24] that are approaching rightways there.

[1:49:26] some parts of the roads are starting to

[1:49:28] be impassable.

[1:49:29] That

[1:49:30] » I think if it can be objectively

[1:49:32] determined

[1:49:33] » That that is the case because

[1:49:36] objectively in the past um certain trees

[1:49:40] were accused of tearing up the road and

[1:49:43] they were not. So it's been used to take

[1:49:46] out certain what we would call historic

[1:49:49] trees right in the town. So

[1:49:52] » Uh yeah

[1:49:52] » I know. Yeah. So I I do think that it

[1:49:56] again has to be an objective

[1:49:59] an objective way because you have to

[1:50:02] justify it, right? You have to justify

[1:50:03] it to the land owner. You have to

[1:50:04] justify it to those of us that have to

[1:50:06] sit there and answer to that land owner,

[1:50:08] right? When their tree gets yanked out

[1:50:09] or or destroyed, which we've seen.

[1:50:12] » So um there are some public comments

[1:50:14] with some waving hands back there that

[1:50:16] would love to get up here. So we'll let

[1:50:17] them come up here and and talk. So and

[1:50:20] and then we'll we'll try to give you

[1:50:22] guidance.

[1:50:24] I'm kidding. No kidding.

[1:50:26] » She's joking. Who's first?

[1:50:29] » Tracy.

[1:50:32] » Wow.

[1:50:33] » She started putting all her cards in one

[1:50:35] time.

[1:50:37] » I know. It's It's a hybrid.

[1:50:39] » By the way, great meeting you guys had

[1:50:41] last night.

[1:50:43] » Yeah, you I think you have a really

[1:50:44] really good vice chair. I'm just

[1:50:46] throwing that out there.

[1:50:46] » Oh, wow.

[1:50:48] » There you go, Jenny.

[1:50:50] » Little nepotism.

[1:50:53] It's because you sleep with her.

[1:50:56] » Thanks.

[1:50:57] » Or tmi.

[1:50:59] » Nuisance abatement. Tracy Rwood 1261 up

[1:51:02] road. I want to clarify what we're

[1:51:03] actually discussing with the nuisance

[1:51:05] abatement program because I keep hearing

[1:51:07] it described as though it's simply about

[1:51:09] maintaining public roads in right away.

[1:51:11] That is not what I'm reading in this

[1:51:13] packet. The proposed courtesy notice

[1:51:16] specifically includes accumulation of

[1:51:17] trash, junk, debris, living and

[1:51:20] non-living plant material upon private

[1:51:22] property. It also includes excessive

[1:51:24] growth of grass, weeds, brush, branches,

[1:51:26] and other overgrowth as well as fill

[1:51:29] maintain and what the town determines to

[1:51:32] be unsafe or unsanitary manner.

[1:51:35] Then separately, the notice addresses

[1:51:37] vegetation over roadways and trails and

[1:51:40] obstructions and encroachments into the

[1:51:41] rightway. Those are two really different

[1:51:44] things. Protecting a public roadway,

[1:51:47] drainage system, trail, or right away

[1:51:49] from an actual obstruction is one thing.

[1:51:52] Giving the town authority to determine

[1:51:54] whether someone's grass, grass, brush,

[1:51:57] debris, landscaping, or other conditions

[1:52:00] on their property constitutes a nuisance

[1:52:02] is something much broader. We are a

[1:52:05] rural agricultural community. We are not

[1:52:09] an HOA. There's a difference between an

[1:52:12] actual public health or safety hazard

[1:52:14] and somebody's property is simply not

[1:52:16] looking the way someone else thinks it

[1:52:18] should. Before council approves this, I

[1:52:21] think we need a clear answer. What

[1:52:23] problems are we actually trying to

[1:52:24] solve?

[1:52:26] How many nuisance complaints has the

[1:52:27] town actually received? How many of

[1:52:30] those complaints could not be resolved

[1:52:32] simply by contacting the property owner

[1:52:34] and working with them? You know, help

[1:52:35] thy neighbor. How many involved on act

[1:52:38] how many involved on actual public

[1:52:40] health or safety hazards? What authority

[1:52:43] does the town currently lack under the

[1:52:45] existing code that requires the

[1:52:47] additional program? Is this intended to

[1:52:49] be complaint driven or is it code

[1:52:51] enforcement going proactively inspect

[1:52:53] properties looking for new nuance

[1:52:55] violations?

[1:52:57] If it's a complaint driven, then I want

[1:52:59] to understand why we need a new program

[1:53:00] at all. If it's going to be proactive,

[1:53:03] then council needs to understand that we

[1:53:05] are making a much larger policy decision

[1:53:07] than simply keeping our roads and right

[1:53:09] ofway clear. The proposed process does

[1:53:12] not stop with a courtesy letter.

[1:53:15] Following a notice of violation, the

[1:53:17] property owner is given 20 days. After

[1:53:19] that, the town may perform the work

[1:53:21] except it itself and accept and assess

[1:53:25] the cleanup and administrative costs

[1:53:26] against the property with those costs

[1:53:29] potentially continuing to acrue interest

[1:53:31] until they are paid. That's significant.

[1:53:33] That is a significant authority over

[1:53:36] property that is privately owned. If

[1:53:39] council's intent is truly only to

[1:53:41] protect public roads, trails, drainage

[1:53:43] systems, rights away, and town

[1:53:44] infrastructure, then I believe the

[1:53:46] language should say that exactly, that

[1:53:49] it should be expressly limited to those

[1:53:52] circumstances only. I do not want us

[1:53:54] approving something tonight believing

[1:53:55] that we're authorizing the rightway

[1:53:57] maintenance only to find out later that

[1:53:59] we have also authorized the town to

[1:54:00] determine whether someone's grass,

[1:54:02] brush, trees, debris, or other

[1:54:04] conditions on private property continue

[1:54:06] to be a nuisance. My preference is

[1:54:09] simple. If there's an actual complaint,

[1:54:12] it legitimate health safety issue,

[1:54:15] contact the property owner. Work with

[1:54:17] them to resolve it. If someone refuses

[1:54:19] to correct a genuine public safety

[1:54:21] problem, then use the enforcement tools

[1:54:23] we already have. But I do not support

[1:54:26] creating another proactive enforcement

[1:54:28] program that encourages staff to go

[1:54:29] looking for violations on private

[1:54:31] property. Show us the problem first.

[1:54:34] Show us the complaint. show us the

[1:54:36] existing code that it cannot be

[1:54:38] addressed.

[1:54:39] Then we can decide whether another

[1:54:41] enforcement program is actually

[1:54:42] necessary. I was watching Magistrate one

[1:54:44] day and they're going after somebody for

[1:54:46] having mold on their house. I mean, come

[1:54:47] on. That's ridiculous. I go down all

[1:54:49] these roads. What people do on their

[1:54:51] private property is their private

[1:54:52] property unless it's causing me harm to

[1:54:55] myself or safety in the public. But

[1:54:57] don't go after people on their private

[1:54:58] property. Thanks.

[1:55:00] » Thank you.

[1:55:01] » Really? It's Florida. Everybody's got

[1:55:02] mold on their house.

[1:55:03] » Yeah. in their house, on their house,

[1:55:05] around their house.

[1:55:07] » Get that exploding mulch next to you.

[1:55:09] » Raking hay today. Sneezing my head.

[1:55:13] » The next car we have,

[1:55:22] » Thank you for your comments, Cassie.

[1:55:23] Have a good night.

[1:55:24] » Thanks for sparing us.

[1:55:26] » Get the horns, babe.

[1:55:29] » I thought with all that clapping, she

[1:55:31] wasn't going to.

[1:55:31] » Do we want to know about history first?

[1:55:33] because everyone up there signed the

[1:55:35] petition to repeal the nuisance

[1:55:37] abatement ordinance.

[1:55:38] » I didn't

[1:55:38] » In its current written form. The

[1:55:41] continued erosion of residents property

[1:55:43] rights by town staff needs to end. It's

[1:55:46] continued. The people have had enough.

[1:55:48] They spoke in March. I hope that this

[1:55:50] council listened. I think they did

[1:55:52] because I've been very happy with the

[1:55:53] with the decisions. But

[1:55:56] they need to control staff because

[1:55:58] they're doing their own thing. Staff has

[1:55:59] no idea.

[1:56:01] Town government exists to serve its

[1:56:03] residents, not to target them,

[1:56:04] intimidate them, or use enforcement

[1:56:06] powers of the government against them.

[1:56:08] Gosh, I don't know. I've experienced all

[1:56:10] of that. Thank you very much. Locket

[1:56:12] Groves. When staff members engage in

[1:56:14] that conduct, it must be corrected and

[1:56:16] when appropriate, there must be

[1:56:17] accountability. Never had any

[1:56:19] accountability so far. Because accusing

[1:56:21] a resident of a violation or placing

[1:56:23] their property on a nuisance abatement

[1:56:25] list, staff should conduct complete and

[1:56:28] competent investigations, and I phrase

[1:56:30] the word confident. Government should

[1:56:32] never start with assumptions that the

[1:56:34] residence is wrong and then look for a

[1:56:36] way to justify the enforcement

[1:56:38] afterward. My property is a perfect

[1:56:40] example. My property was identified as

[1:56:43] having an abatement issue because I

[1:56:45] planted a tree on my property. Yet

[1:56:47] apparently nobody took the time to do

[1:56:50] the actual history.

[1:56:52] In 2016, the water district acknowledged

[1:56:55] that they illegally stole my link and

[1:56:58] corrected

[1:57:00] and said they will correct the maps.

[1:57:04] Maps haven't been corrected. Multiple

[1:57:05] emails went out saying, "You correcting

[1:57:07] the maps?" "No, Steve, you always said,

[1:57:09] "Here's the letter." I said, "Good. I

[1:57:10] want the letter because the maps haven't

[1:57:12] been correct."

[1:57:14] The water district recognized that and

[1:57:16] they fixed it. That history should have

[1:57:18] been investigated before photos were

[1:57:20] taken. Every one of those photos, I see

[1:57:23] no blockage of anything. I see a town

[1:57:25] that has a rural character. When I drive

[1:57:28] through Beer Run and Fox Run, I like to

[1:57:30] have trees. I'm regulated to drive on

[1:57:33] those interstate highways with my horse

[1:57:35] and carriage because I can't drive on

[1:57:37] the easements or I can't drive on the um

[1:57:40] canals because they're too thin anyways.

[1:57:42] So, I'm I'm regulated on that hot

[1:57:45] and people speeding by and

[1:57:47] praying I don't get hit by a drunk

[1:57:48] driver. But it is nice to come with a

[1:57:50] tree and shave me for maybe a few

[1:57:53] minutes. That's nice. But we want to

[1:57:55] take the vertical plane and just make

[1:57:57] straight highways. If we did, we might

[1:57:59] as well put up I95 signs. Let the let

[1:58:02] everybody come through from Westwood

[1:58:03] because then we lose the rural

[1:58:05] character. Stripping the canal banks of

[1:58:08] natural vegetation that is grown there.

[1:58:10] That doesn't in that doesn't stop any of

[1:58:13] the water blow because I've had

[1:58:14] discussions with each one. Those give

[1:58:17] character to our found.

[1:58:21] Let's talk about a little history. The

[1:58:24] additional language including adjacent

[1:58:27] and private property was included when

[1:58:29] they were legally widening the roads

[1:58:32] beyond their legal limit, stopping

[1:58:34] people from putting up a fence to stop

[1:58:36] the illegal widening and taking of lane.

[1:58:39] One guy on B Road that was in the

[1:58:41] lawsuit got cited, got scared, and

[1:58:43] pulled out of the lawsuit because he put

[1:58:45] up a fence. He put up a fence four feet

[1:58:48] inside his property. He gave the town

[1:58:50] four more feet because the town widened

[1:58:53] the canal beyond where it should have

[1:58:55] been

[1:58:55] » Road.

[1:58:56] » The no the canal which made then their

[1:58:59] 60oot easement less. So they wanted a

[1:59:01] 20ft road. He gave them a 20ft road, an

[1:59:04] 18 18t road. He gave him four additional

[1:59:06] feet and put his fence up and they

[1:59:09] cighted him and he got scared and pulled

[1:59:11] the fence out. So when I see those

[1:59:13] pictures with bushes and that that's on

[1:59:16] people's private lane that is health and

[1:59:19] safety don't go there. Show me a health

[1:59:22] and safety that a tree branch or a

[1:59:25] little bush not a don't mean show me a

[1:59:28] health and safety but some of those

[1:59:29] little wispy trees or a nice canopy

[1:59:31] that's what 20 ft in the air cost.

[1:59:36] Don't go back to health and safety

[1:59:38] because that's the catchall phrase.

[1:59:42] This nuisance abatement is full of a

[1:59:44] bunch of crap and that's what I'm going

[1:59:46] to say. It needs to be repeated. There's

[1:59:49] a petition and over 100 signatures right

[1:59:52] now to feel it and I've asked the town

[1:59:54] council multiple times to address it and

[1:59:56] look into it. I don't think there should

[1:59:58] be any enforcement on this entire

[1:59:59] ordinance till it's overhauled

[2:00:02] completely removed language where they

[2:00:04] they add it in to go after people so

[2:00:07] they could illegally widen their roads,

[2:00:10] adjacent property, private property,

[2:00:12] things like that. that needs to be taken

[2:00:14] out of meeting and show me where a palm

[2:00:18] frron interferes with somebody riding a

[2:00:20] horse

[2:00:22] really.

[2:00:24] So ask yourself what kind of town we

[2:00:26] are, what kind of town we want to be and

[2:00:28] what we want to reflect because our

[2:00:30] roadways with the striping which you

[2:00:32] guys are taking care of, thank you did

[2:00:34] not reflect what we are.

[2:00:37] So please don't do any enforcement on

[2:00:39] this ordinance. Review it. If not, that

[2:00:42] the residents are going to have to

[2:00:43] repeal it. Then it's going to cost us

[2:00:45] money in a referendum. So, please do

[2:00:47] what we've asked you to do in the past,

[2:00:49] what the residents don't want. Thank

[2:00:51] you.

[2:00:52] » Thank you.

[2:00:54] » I I do have issue with some of the the

[2:00:56] higher branch tree trimming cuz, you

[2:00:59] know, there's a semi coming through

[2:01:00] here, then they can just go around it,

[2:01:02] right? So, and most of those trucks

[2:01:04] knock off those branches and they they

[2:01:06] don't really grow. Uh, another public

[2:01:09] comment.

[2:01:10] » Yes, ma'am. Mayor Susan Collins.

[2:01:13] » She's over there champing at the bit.

[2:01:22] » Good evening, Susan Collins Boulevard.

[2:01:25] Um, I don't think anybody has issues

[2:01:28] with like the safety concerns, right?

[2:01:30] Like I know we have line of sight on the

[2:01:31] agenda tonight. That seems common sense

[2:01:34] to me.

[2:01:36] I would suggest that as we head down the

[2:01:39] road of being whatever the governmental

[2:01:42] alternative to an HOA is

[2:01:46] um I don't know a little bit of a glass.

[2:01:50] You want to talk about piles of debris

[2:01:53] and I think Burman also wildlife but but

[2:01:56] vermin and such.

[2:01:59] You have only to drive down the road

[2:02:01] right here to see the piles that were

[2:02:03] created

[2:02:05] by that activity that had been there for

[2:02:07] more than a year.

[2:02:10] » They some of those at least on the

[2:02:12] corner of of Ephrod and Collecting now

[2:02:14] did for a long time present uh sight

[2:02:18] line issues and safety issues and I

[2:02:21] can't as far as I can tell nothing is

[2:02:23] about any of that. there doesn't seem to

[2:02:25] be any plan to do. But when you speak to

[2:02:27] the issues of private property,

[2:02:31] I can tell you that just on my own

[2:02:33] property, I have 4 acres

[2:02:37] that the amount of damage that's been

[2:02:39] done by folks working for the town has

[2:02:42] been non-trivial.

[2:02:44] Like I get that you want to put up a

[2:02:46] sign saying, "Hey, road mark ahead."

[2:02:48] Nobody said to me, "Hey, is it okay if

[2:02:49] we put that sign on your property?

[2:02:54] No, they they just put it there. They

[2:02:55] tore up my grass. That is remediated

[2:02:58] that it's hard to remediate because I

[2:03:00] got no water out on water halfway up.

[2:03:03] That's as good as it gets. So, it's

[2:03:05] really hard to fix. All the trucks that

[2:03:08] used the side of my property for

[2:03:10] skating, which went on for months and

[2:03:13] months, have torn up the edge of the

[2:03:15] asphalt. It would the quote I got was

[2:03:18] $7700

[2:03:20] to remediate that to make it look like

[2:03:22] it did before all of that work happened.

[2:03:24] And then just the other day they they

[2:03:27] tore out Marsala Boulevard and put in

[2:03:29] some more drainage and did the same

[2:03:31] thing. And now I have, you know, a big

[2:03:35] chunk at the side of the street, but we

[2:03:38] try to keep looking by it. And I I did

[2:03:41] go out and it's like, you know, like I

[2:03:43] have to mow this

[2:03:45] old and not that stable. Like don't make

[2:03:47] it impossible for me to like use the the

[2:03:50] lawn mower without falling into the

[2:03:52] drainage ditch. And they kind of rolled

[2:03:54] their eyes and went.

[2:03:56] They took out landscaping material that

[2:03:59] we had put there to try to fill in one

[2:04:00] of the ditches so I didn't have to go

[2:04:02] there with my mower. And then they they

[2:04:04] left the nuts

[2:04:06] with piles of dirt debris

[2:04:10] and the road, you know, is now just

[2:04:12] almost as bad as the intersection here,

[2:04:14] which, you know, back potholes and you

[2:04:18] got to weave your way in and out so as

[2:04:21] not to fall into the ditch there, too.

[2:04:23] And despite asking multiple times, no

[2:04:26] one seems to be able to tell you when

[2:04:27] that's going to be finished and and

[2:04:30] looked at properly. So maybe before you

[2:04:32] worry about what's on people's, you

[2:04:33] know, people's backyards, we could

[2:04:35] address some of that.

[2:04:37] » Yeah. I think we all want to know when

[2:04:38] that's going to get done.

[2:04:40] » Yeah. I I don't think we're addressing

[2:04:41] what's in people's backyards, though.

[2:04:42] We're addressing what's hanging into the

[2:04:44] roadway. So, we're not even we're not

[2:04:46] even saying address the couple pictures

[2:04:48] that are possibly on the canal side that

[2:04:51] are easement wise. I mean, some of them

[2:04:53] are. Yeah, there's a couple that are

[2:04:55] kind of, you know, I mean, but and

[2:04:58] there's a couple that it's clearly

[2:05:00] you're not you're not getting. I'm not

[2:05:03] talking about yours. I specifically

[2:05:04] didn't specify your property. Yours

[2:05:07] yours are a whole different case because

[2:05:09] you have a letter saying that's your

[2:05:10] rightway. So,

[2:05:12] » I'm sorry. I'm I'm

[2:05:14] » Is it possible

[2:05:16] is it possible to create actual

[2:05:20] measurable limits like like to the

[2:05:23] vertical plane? You know, if it's

[2:05:24] hanging over more than 18 inches, it can

[2:05:27] be cut back to the vertical plane, but

[2:05:28] not higher than a certain height.

[2:05:30] » There is a height at 14 ft.

[2:05:32] » 14 ft. Correct.

[2:05:32] » 14. That's not bad. That's That's

[2:05:34] » That's the height in the code is 14 ft.

[2:05:36] » That's a That's a L trailer with AC on

[2:05:39] top. That's 14 foot. The reason it's 14

[2:05:41] ft cuz the height of a horse trailer or

[2:05:43] a top of a semi is 135.

[2:05:45] » Mhm.

[2:05:46] » So

[2:05:47] » Yeah,

[2:05:48] » Uh I would say that if if it's some if

[2:05:50] it's something that's measurable, you

[2:05:52] know, that and we stick within that

[2:05:54] measurement then and it's in the right

[2:05:57] of way.

[2:05:58] » Yeah. because I mean I I I see people,

[2:06:01] you know, there's yes, there are lines

[2:06:04] on the road and we we're addressing the

[2:06:06] lines on the road and, you know, one of

[2:06:08] these is clearly the the whole thing's

[2:06:10] grown out into the road. Um, but there's

[2:06:12] there's people that that will challenge

[2:06:14] you.

[2:06:15] » I don't care how big you are and if you

[2:06:17] thought you had the right, they're still

[2:06:18] going to challenge you. And there's, you

[2:06:19] know, there's going to be some, you

[2:06:21] know, at some point where do we become

[2:06:22] liable, we're not liable, whatever, you

[2:06:24] know, and I'm not saying clearcut it to

[2:06:26] the sky. Nobody's saying that. I mean,

[2:06:28] there's clear canopy. I mean, some of

[2:06:30] these in these pictured in these

[2:06:32] pictures are invasive species plants

[2:06:34] anyway, up against a brand new fence,

[2:06:36] which probably should have been

[2:06:37] addressed, but that's all, you know, I

[2:06:40] mean, that's I mean, yeah, granted, you

[2:06:42] know, Cassie, you have a different

[2:06:43] scenario, right? I'm not I'm not just I

[2:06:47] it's but but I think that the what we're

[2:06:49] not getting is Lisa said it, I said it.

[2:06:53] You know, we're looking at this as a

[2:06:54] whole. We're looking at at the nuisance

[2:06:58] abatement as a whole and reworking as a

[2:07:02] whole. I said that I think Lisa agreed

[2:07:04] with me. I might be correct me if I'm

[2:07:06] wrong, but we say, you know, Anita

[2:07:08] mentioned it in her comments. There's

[2:07:09] there's definitely some pieces in there

[2:07:12] that need to go. It can't happen

[2:07:14] immediately. Remember, we a bureaucracy.

[2:07:17] It's it takes time. You know, it can't

[2:07:19] happen immediately. But yeah, there's

[2:07:21] some things in there that need to be

[2:07:22] addressed. You know, we're talking about

[2:07:24] trimming for safety. And then in another

[2:07:27] paragraph, it talks about your grass

[2:07:29] height, right? And we already talked

[2:07:31] about

[2:07:31] » We need to get on to line jump in. I

[2:07:34] have some comments.

[2:07:36] » Hold on a moment. Hold on one second.

[2:07:40] » I think there's more public comments as

[2:07:42] well. Oh, sorry. Sorry. Manish, go

[2:07:46] ahead.

[2:07:47] » Okay. Hi. Thank you. I think uh I agree

[2:07:49] with uh Paul's and others

[2:07:53] specific wording and scope of this

[2:07:56] discussion is uh correcting genuine

[2:07:59] public health and safety hazards not

[2:08:02] aesthetics not somebody not someone who

[2:08:06] chooses to maintain their uh private

[2:08:09] property that's not the subject here I

[2:08:11] think the focus of the from my point of

[2:08:15] view the direction is let's narrow it

[2:08:17] down to the road public safety and

[2:08:20] health and safety and I think very

[2:08:24] specific steps identify the hazard

[2:08:27] whether it is tree or a shrub or

[2:08:29] whatever that overgrowth is determine

[2:08:31] the impact so you have a basically a

[2:08:34] very scientific objective report and

[2:08:37] then notify the property owner and then

[2:08:40] you know give them a reasonable

[2:08:42] opportunity to correct the hazard or

[2:08:43] inform if they say wow guys this is my

[2:08:46] land or whatever that issue is let them

[2:08:49] share that information with the town and

[2:08:52] then finally I think in good faith

[2:08:55] everybody will want to address this

[2:08:58] hazard because other people are

[2:09:00] suffering I know I drive on E-O and it

[2:09:04] is always a problem on E-O if you uh you

[2:09:08] know make a turn on Okie Chobi and you

[2:09:10] will notice that you have to actually

[2:09:13] avoid hitting those shrubs and trees and

[2:09:16] other guy on the canal side has to

[2:09:19] probably stop or they'll you know go in

[2:09:21] the canal. So it's a big hazard. It's a

[2:09:24] hazard liability for the town. So then

[2:09:27] verify the hazard is corrected and then

[2:09:29] take appropriate action when necessary.

[2:09:32] If the if let's say the owner is missing

[2:09:35] an action or it's an abandoned property

[2:09:37] or whatever that is then let's we have

[2:09:40] to do it for them and and and and in my

[2:09:44] humble view then in that case that

[2:09:47] landowner is responsible for that uh

[2:09:50] elimination of that hazard. So again

[2:09:53] once again I'm only focused my direction

[2:09:56] is only focus on road safety and and or

[2:10:02] uh right ofway safety issues only not

[2:10:05] what's happening inside the property

[2:10:07] that's not the subject of this at least

[2:10:10] my direction is so thank you

[2:10:14] » Okay Miss Stish you're gonna speak Yep.

[2:10:19] Sorry, I I sorry

[2:10:22] » That was my my fault. Virginia, I

[2:10:24] apologize.

[2:10:31] » Virginia Standish. H boy, this a loaded

[2:10:35] topic. Where could we go living 40 years

[2:10:37] in this community? But anyway, let's get

[2:10:40] » To the present. Um some good points made

[2:10:43] by council and the public. One council,

[2:10:46] the fact that yes,

[2:10:48] many years of paying for maps over and

[2:10:50] over. Wouldn't it be nice to have maps

[2:10:53] of our actual easements that are public

[2:10:55] record and showing those portions that a

[2:10:59] public a new public works employee might

[2:11:02] think is right of way but may actually

[2:11:04] be private property. It places a burden

[2:11:06] on employees when they don't know what

[2:11:09] is private property and what is a right

[2:11:11] of way. two, the news abatement, another

[2:11:15] ordinance that needs to be reviewed by

[2:11:17] council staff and committees. Um, but

[2:11:20] this information presented in this

[2:11:23] upcoming agenda

[2:11:26] is very broad and vague and it's my

[2:11:29] understanding you're trying to stick to

[2:11:31] right ofway topic only. That's what this

[2:11:36] should have been addressed as right of

[2:11:38] way only instead of throwing in the

[2:11:40] kitchen sink and everyone's property.

[2:11:42] Words and language matter. So I don't

[2:11:46] think this should be presented this way

[2:11:48] in the agenda if that was not your

[2:11:50] intent. Your focus is right of way. So

[2:11:53] why are we reading about everything else

[2:11:55] in this ordinance that needs to be

[2:11:57] redone? This nuisance abatement. That is

[2:11:59] your biggest problem. Um,

[2:12:03] and that's the crux of it. Everything

[2:12:05] else is private property, you know,

[2:12:07] living, vegetation, non-living. Okay.

[2:12:10] Yes. And like everyone said, we're an

[2:12:12] egg community. So, what does this have

[2:12:14] to do with our right of way? If you

[2:12:17] stick to right of way, you get your

[2:12:19] easement maps.

[2:12:21] You seem to be focused on the issue, not

[2:12:23] all this language you threw in there.

[2:12:25] Thank you.

[2:12:27] » Thank you. So, did we have another one?

[2:12:32] » Yes. I think um Miss Suchi would like to

[2:12:35] speak again.

[2:12:39] » Are you really going to talk again?

[2:12:42] Okay. Karen, are you going to get up and

[2:12:44] talk? Okay, we'll let Karen talk first.

[2:12:47] You could you could

[2:12:50] we could just pass it around.

[2:12:56] Okay.

[2:12:58] I just want to get to this next one,

[2:12:59] too. I don't want this one to go by.

[2:13:03] » Worried about health and safety when

[2:13:06] collecting canal road is a huge safety

[2:13:09] problem. And that's been like that for

[2:13:11] how long now? Um, but when it's private

[2:13:14] residents, then you're going to jump on

[2:13:16] them. I have no problem with the town

[2:13:18] trimming branches on my property that

[2:13:21] come out as my property actually goes to

[2:13:24] the burm of the canal. Um, even though

[2:13:27] they kept whittling away like everybody

[2:13:29] says with their um, greater and taking

[2:13:33] my property, taking my property until

[2:13:35] they made it big enough to where they

[2:13:36] could put a road in. Um, yeah. So, yeah,

[2:13:40] my tree do go over, but years ago I was

[2:13:43] approved by the border district son told

[2:13:46] us where we could put our arthas, where

[2:13:49] we could put our trees. He approved it

[2:13:51] and said that was far enough away from

[2:13:53] that road. Little did we know was that

[2:13:56] was going to be grading to our property.

[2:13:58] They took out my poles. They took out my

[2:14:01] fence. They did whatever they could to

[2:14:02] take over that land. And now they want

[2:14:05] to charge me for trimming or they trim

[2:14:08] over my fence. Any one of you, I am

[2:14:11] welcoming you to come out to my property

[2:14:12] and look where they have trim branches

[2:14:15] on the other side of my fence. And I

[2:14:18] don't think that's correct. I don't mind

[2:14:20] the greater coming along and along the

[2:14:22] white line of the road. you want to

[2:14:24] trim, trim away. But when you start

[2:14:26] bringing that thing in and trimming

[2:14:28] against my fence or down, I I think it's

[2:14:31] wrong. Um, and the other thing is I feel

[2:14:34] harassed. All these pictures, 12 12

[2:14:38] photos. How is it that there's 12 photos

[2:14:41] here with only

[2:14:44] I I'm trying to see there's no addresses

[2:14:47] on any of any of them. And tell me if

[2:14:49] this doesn't feel harassed. My address

[2:14:51] is on three of them. Three of them out

[2:14:55] of 12.

[2:14:57] I believe Cassy's address is on one. I

[2:15:00] feel very harassed. Um I did have an

[2:15:04] incident was a town employee who was

[2:15:05] trimming on the other side of my fence.

[2:15:08] I asked him to stop. He refused. And

[2:15:11] when I stood by him and asked him to

[2:15:14] stop, he look went alongside of me when

[2:15:18] I was standing looking at my bushes. He

[2:15:20] trimmed on top and one of the big

[2:15:22] branches hit me in the head really hard

[2:15:25] and he said he was going to call the

[2:15:26] police on me. Instead of calling the

[2:15:27] police, he called Craig and then I was

[2:15:30] harassed by Craig. I don't mind them

[2:15:32] trimming bushes that are over on their

[2:15:34] side, but they were trimming bushes on

[2:15:37] my my side, my side of the fence. And

[2:15:40] then I was harassed and I had somebody

[2:15:42] listening on the conversation so they

[2:15:44] can say that they'll tell you this is

[2:15:45] true that I was told that every time

[2:15:48] they do these things with the road in

[2:15:50] front of Canad

[2:15:53] took out my survey stake so I couldn't

[2:15:55] prove how far my property was. And then

[2:15:57] I was told by a friend that he could see

[2:16:00] it on the um Palm Beach uh

[2:16:05] uh papa site that he knows where the

[2:16:07] line is. I said, "You need to get a

[2:16:09] survey because they keep doing this to

[2:16:11] me and taking my survey and moving the

[2:16:13] line." And he says, "If we have to get a

[2:16:15] survey, I know your fence is over it,

[2:16:17] and we're going to make you take it

[2:16:18] out." that him and his person, I think

[2:16:22] his name was Tim Wood, two very rude

[2:16:24] employees to a resident when I'm just

[2:16:27] trying to protect our tree canopy and

[2:16:30] make it green and keep my house private

[2:16:32] from outsiders because of all the

[2:16:34] traffic and drinkers and fishers that

[2:16:37] come along on that corner and bombard us

[2:16:40] with garbage that they throw over my

[2:16:42] fence and into the bushes. And it's very

[2:16:46] uh disturbing when you get treated like

[2:16:48] this by employees. And by the way, I

[2:16:50] have not received anything from anybody

[2:16:51] in town saying how this was um taken

[2:16:54] care of. Um no apology by anybody or

[2:16:57] anything. But I am in uh disbelief. I

[2:17:01] don't understand. We pay taxes. I don't

[2:17:03] see what the big deal is. There's many

[2:17:05] properties worse than mine. And yet out

[2:17:08] of all these 12, three are mine. And I

[2:17:11] can tell you I've hit branches. I've hit

[2:17:13] trees. I've had to go around many

[2:17:16] properties. I don't mind. I do it. I

[2:17:19] move over when a car is coming. Um I

[2:17:21] don't know what the big deal is. If the

[2:17:22] town's they they have the time, we pay

[2:17:25] our taxes. Why can't they trim it just

[2:17:28] like they've done all these years? I

[2:17:30] don't understand what the big deal is.

[2:17:31] You took our property. You're enjoying

[2:17:33] it for your road. And yet you want us to

[2:17:36] be responsible for things that we

[2:17:37] planted 20 something years ago. Approved

[2:17:40] by the water district by police son.

[2:17:44] the I'm very dissatisfied with what's

[2:17:48] going on with this and um

[2:17:53] you get the message. This is horrific

[2:17:55] though. I don't like it. It's not nice.

[2:18:01] » Thank you.

[2:18:02] Yeah, I think again the history of the

[2:18:06] widening of the roads and then causing

[2:18:09] not only vegetation to be closer to the

[2:18:13] to the right of way and and to the

[2:18:14] traffic, it it now we're going to go

[2:18:17] into the sighteline. So the sighteline

[2:18:19] now becomes an issue when the road that

[2:18:22] used to be six feet from the where you

[2:18:24] stopped and looked out of your property,

[2:18:26] now it's literally your bumper and you

[2:18:29] can't see either way around. And some of

[2:18:32] the suggestions on here to set your

[2:18:34] fence back 10 ft. It's just a continuous

[2:18:38] enforcement

[2:18:39] of properties that happen to be located

[2:18:42] in strategic locations having to give up

[2:18:45] more and more while other properties

[2:18:48] that will remain unnamed um on other

[2:18:52] sides don't give up anything. Right? So,

[2:18:55] this is a continuing issue and um even

[2:19:00] some of the the language outside of a

[2:19:03] townowned intersection, which arguably a

[2:19:06] town-owned intersection would be one

[2:19:08] where the town has the authority to make

[2:19:09] sure the safety's there and has a

[2:19:10] liability. The trails I don't believe

[2:19:13] they do, and I certainly don't think

[2:19:14] that you could tell private people to do

[2:19:17] exceptionally

[2:19:19] true when they are an a property. So the

[2:19:22] the state preempts some of what you can

[2:19:24] and can te tell people to do when they

[2:19:26] have agricultural use there. So if

[2:19:29] that's my productive corn field and you

[2:19:31] want me to hack off a corn on my corn

[2:19:32] field, will you just cost me money? So

[2:19:35] that that I don't see as being part of

[2:19:37] this. So sorry to jump in on that, but

[2:19:40] » No. Is it possible we could ask the we

[2:19:42] can get these removed off the site just

[2:19:45] out of respect for the neighbors?

[2:19:47] » Um I are they on the p on the website

[2:19:50] » Supplemental. supplemental. Yeah.

[2:19:52] » Can we

[2:19:53] » Yeah. Can we take those off? Is that

[2:19:55] possible?

[2:19:56] » If there's a consensus because it it is

[2:19:58] there's a policy. So, as long as you

[2:20:00] guys give us consensus to do that, we we

[2:20:02] can remove it.

[2:20:03] » Yeah.

[2:20:03] » I mean, I do know some of the properties

[2:20:05] along like Collecting Canal that have

[2:20:07] some heavy Kucia hedges and stuff,

[2:20:09] pulling out of those is a little

[2:20:11] treacherous.

[2:20:12] But I think we should allow those

[2:20:13] driveways to have um without a rightaway

[2:20:16] permit, put one of the uh convex um

[2:20:20] mirrors in the in the canal bank so that

[2:20:23] they can get out safely. I don't think

[2:20:24] they should be told to cut down their

[2:20:25] bushes.

[2:20:27] » So, I just think dignity is the key word

[2:20:29] of the day. And if we can pick a

[2:20:30] consensus to take these photos off,

[2:20:32] that'd be great.

[2:20:32] » Three, three can give a consensus,

[2:20:33] right? Manisha is there. So, yeah, I I

[2:20:36] Yeah, let's

[2:20:38] » Let me interject here. I I first of all

[2:20:41] I'm surprised how uh these two residents

[2:20:44] um pictures end up in the sampling. I

[2:20:47] mean that's a just mathematically I I'm

[2:20:51] not I I don't know how why they were

[2:20:54] picked uh for this but unfortunately

[2:20:57] they were and uh I I agree fully with

[2:21:00] Joseph. Um we should remove those. But I

[2:21:03] think the point I'm going to make is we

[2:21:06] are strictly talking about road health

[2:21:09] and safety roads. Let's pick one. Right

[2:21:12] now we have certain roads where uh the

[2:21:16] » Vice may we've moved on to the

[2:21:18] sighteline.

[2:21:19] » Yeah. No, I'm talking about this issue.

[2:21:22] We haven't moved to the sighteline. We

[2:21:23] are saying remove these pictures and I'm

[2:21:25] » Yes, we have we have moved to the

[2:21:27] sighteline issue. We we provided we

[2:21:30] provided that you know if you're in the

[2:21:32] right of way they're gonna they're still

[2:21:34] going to trim the right of way per the

[2:21:36] objective measurements they have

[2:21:37] available but we've moved on to the

[2:21:38] sighteline agenda item.

[2:21:40] » Okay good. So my point is I agree remove

[2:21:43] the pictures and let's be careful next

[2:21:46] time selecting residents in this

[2:21:48] fashion. Thank you.

[2:21:50] » So to clarify Thank you. To clarify I

[2:21:53] don't think we should send out a

[2:21:54] courtesy notice. I think we should

[2:21:56] maintain our own right ofway. I don't

[2:21:58] think that just because your bushes grew

[2:21:59] bigger, right?

[2:22:01] » We shouldn't cross.

[2:22:02] » But I do I do firmly disagree that you

[2:22:05] cut back any further than the vertical

[2:22:07] plane of what is legally in that that

[2:22:10] space, you know, and that's been a a pet

[2:22:13] peeve of mine when Jamie Tickhome was

[2:22:15] here.

[2:22:15] » And I don't I necessarily don't think

[2:22:17] that we need to just blanket say the

[2:22:19] Motrim is what's doing the trimming

[2:22:21] either. I mean, I hate to say that

[2:22:22] because I know it's a lot more work, but

[2:22:24] » My staff is out there hands handed on

[2:22:27] » Chains on.

[2:22:27] » Well, I was speaking from the past. I

[2:22:29] know speaking of Jamie, you're speaking

[2:22:30] of old days back and cleier and all

[2:22:33] these, you know, it was the mot kind of

[2:22:35] like when they go down Okachobee with

[2:22:37] that big knife.

[2:22:39] » Except it was a Motrim and they just,

[2:22:41] you know, bush hoging trees, you know,

[2:22:44] and some of these trees are not, you

[2:22:45] know, holly and whatever. I do think the

[2:22:48] residents should be notified that it's

[2:22:50] going to happen and they can be given

[2:22:51] the option, right? So that it's not

[2:22:55] » Something really awful.

[2:22:56] » You said set a

[2:22:57] » But but it can't go over the vertical

[2:23:01] plane,

[2:23:02] » Right? It it has to stay in our our

[2:23:05] legal footprint.

[2:23:07] » And so

[2:23:08] » Can you bring us a can you bring us a

[2:23:09] schedule by September for our September

[2:23:12] meeting? Can you bring us a schedule

[2:23:13] » Like where you're planning on doing

[2:23:15] trimming?

[2:23:15] » Like like make a schedule like we're

[2:23:17] going to start on this road and then

[2:23:19] we're going to go to this road and you

[2:23:21] know or

[2:23:21] » It would just be added to the MO

[2:23:23] schedule that's already in place.

[2:23:25] » So the MO the banking schedule and the

[2:23:28] » And the vertical

[2:23:29] » Trimming schedule are the same schedule.

[2:23:31] » No, because normally we would go in and

[2:23:33] we would do most of the tree trimming in

[2:23:35] the off season,

[2:23:36] » Right,

[2:23:36] » Of out of out of the rainy season, but

[2:23:39] it is right now we didn't push it this

[2:23:41] year. So, we're getting so much

[2:23:43] overgrowth and complaints of cars

[2:23:45] hitting

[2:23:45] » Right

[2:23:46] » Overgrowth in the roadways.

[2:23:48] So,

[2:23:49] » Okay,

[2:23:49] » We are where we are right now.

[2:23:51] » Um, if you're giving us permission to

[2:23:53] say, "Hey, we can go out. We'll notify

[2:23:55] the residents. You know, your tree is

[2:23:57] approaching the rideway, the roadway.

[2:24:00] You know, I this this was the whole

[2:24:02] point of the discussion and direction

[2:24:04] for you guys. Give us direction of

[2:24:06] » What would you like us to do?"

[2:24:07] » Give them what? 10day notice that that

[2:24:09] you're planning on you've identified

[2:24:11] that they've got some some vegetation in

[2:24:13] the right of way and you're going to be

[2:24:15] trimming it if they would prefer that

[2:24:17] they do it themselves that

[2:24:20] » You know to contact you and tell you

[2:24:21] when they're going to do it.

[2:24:23] » Yeah.

[2:24:23] » So

[2:24:24] » If they contact said listen I can't get

[2:24:25] it done in 10 days I can get it done in

[2:24:26] 15 or 20

[2:24:28] » Contact

[2:24:28] » Then they contact you and just push your

[2:24:30] » We just could we send like a mass letter

[2:24:33] just notifying hey you know

[2:24:35] » Do they identified properties? Well, no,

[2:24:37] not to identify properties, but to, you

[2:24:39] know, bring to attention to residents.

[2:24:41] Hey, there is

[2:24:42] » I honestly I honestly think that's going

[2:24:44] to cause a lot more.

[2:24:44] » It's going to create too much confusion.

[2:24:46] You need to be property specific

[2:24:49] » Cost and stuff.

[2:24:51] » And that way, and I'm not I'm not trying

[2:24:53] to pick on Cassie, but because we

[2:24:54] already know she has a letter, but so

[2:24:57] you send a you send a letter to Cassie

[2:24:58] saying, "Hey, listen. Your trees in our

[2:25:00] rightway." And she goes, "Wait a minute.

[2:25:02] » You know, Mr. Low, Craig, buddy, listen.

[2:25:05] And I got this letter from Yoi, Steve

[2:25:08] Yoi back in 20 whatever that says that's

[2:25:11] not the case because who knows how Steve

[2:25:14] filed that letter, right? It might not

[2:25:15] be easily.

[2:25:17] » Yeah. Go to public works and see how our

[2:25:19] records are are maintained. It

[2:25:23] » Defense of you, Cass. So, all right. So,

[2:25:26] that way she can go, "Hey, listen,

[2:25:27] Craig. I got this letter. I don't know

[2:25:29] if you're aware of it because you know

[2:25:30] you're that was like four managers ago,

[2:25:32] but I have this letter. I know that this

[2:25:34] crap down there for the for this filing,

[2:25:37] but this is my letter. And you go,

[2:25:38] "Okay, Cassie, I'm going to look into

[2:25:39] it." Or, "Okay, Muchi, I'm going to look

[2:25:41] into this." And you look into it and you

[2:25:42] go, "Hey, listen. Okay, that's your

[2:25:44] tree. That's your right away. Thank you.

[2:25:46] We're not going to touch it."

[2:25:48] » Right? Or you come back and say, "I

[2:25:49] don't know what you're talking about."

[2:25:51] You know what I'm saying? This isn't,

[2:25:52] you know, I don't know. You there's some

[2:25:55] there's some communication there. You

[2:25:57] know what I'm saying?

[2:25:58] » More of a partnership rather than it's

[2:26:00] just, you know, the town kind of

[2:26:02] imposing. We we I think we we got the

[2:26:04] the the picture. So, one other thing

[2:26:06] that I do want to touch on um because of

[2:26:09] so much conversation with regards to the

[2:26:11] entire nuisance abatement ordinance. Do

[2:26:15] you guys want to bring that back in

[2:26:18] Septe Well, I wouldn't say at the

[2:26:20] September workshop because that's kind

[2:26:22] of our second public hearing for the

[2:26:23] budget and that's going to be a heavy

[2:26:24] meeting. Do you want us to bring this

[2:26:26] back in October for you guys to have a

[2:26:28] discussion on? Do you want to kind of

[2:26:30] put this

[2:26:30] » Myself? I'm not speaking for the other

[2:26:32] four, but myself, I'm in favor of it

[2:26:35] just going to ulc with a direction. Hey,

[2:26:38] » Review this and let's, you know, give

[2:26:41] give us some suggestions as to where we

[2:26:43] can we can cut the fat, whatever, where

[2:26:45] we can make it more blocks of Hatchy

[2:26:47] Citric.

[2:26:48] » Okay.

[2:26:48] » Can I if I could

[2:26:49] » So, Mayor, I was asking a question as to

[2:26:52] um

[2:26:53] » There was a lot of conversation about

[2:26:54] this ordinance in particular. Yeah. and

[2:26:56] council member Coleman suggested sending

[2:26:58] it back to ULDC for them to review it.

[2:27:02] So I just want to get a consensus if

[2:27:03] that's what the council direct. I think

[2:27:05] the the before Paul made his his ask it

[2:27:09] was also about as we get into the

[2:27:11] strategic plan and we define rural and

[2:27:14] you know what what holds the standard

[2:27:17] what sets the standard right so that I

[2:27:20] think it's important that the town have

[2:27:21] some authority to deal with issues that

[2:27:24] we've seen in the past right like

[2:27:26] illegal dumping and things like that but

[2:27:28] again some of the language in here it's

[2:27:30] it's a little too vague it's a little

[2:27:32] too subjective I mean if wants to tackle

[2:27:35] it. They they certainly, you know, with

[2:27:37] that directive being fairly clear that

[2:27:40] this gets tailored down and and it and

[2:27:42] it's tied to certain objective,

[2:27:45] measurable

[2:27:47] um metrics, then then it would be

[2:27:50] something that it's not just left up to,

[2:27:53] you know, employee X said, "Oh, you

[2:27:57] know, you're in trouble, right?" kind of

[2:27:59] thing. So, okay. So, what we'll do is

[2:28:01] we'll plan on placing this on for ULDC.

[2:28:04] We will give them a copy of the minutes

[2:28:05] from this meeting so they can kind of

[2:28:06] see the dialogue of council and and and

[2:28:08] the residents and the concerns and we'll

[2:28:11] also provide them with copies of other

[2:28:13] municipalities and you know their

[2:28:15] ordinances so they have something to

[2:28:16] kind of look at.

[2:28:17] » Make one where we went off the rails

[2:28:18] before but okay. Uh Vice Mayor Sud any

[2:28:21] comment on that?

[2:28:22] » Yeah I think we are back to discussing

[2:28:24] this u uh abatement issue and right away

[2:28:28] issue. I think I would like my direction

[2:28:30] is this is me alone that the I'm talking

[2:28:34] about paved roads. I'm talking about

[2:28:38] health and safety that are obstructing

[2:28:40] the paved roads at least have the

[2:28:43] directive to take care of that issue. to

[2:28:45] inform the owners as I said those

[2:28:48] stepwide stepwise fashion what is the

[2:28:51] hazard this is the impact etc etc let

[2:28:54] them engage and then take care of the

[2:28:56] issue if they can't we will do it but

[2:29:00] that issue is right and here and today

[2:29:02] we this policy improvement this and that

[2:29:05] can happen of course uh send it to DC

[2:29:09] but something that is here and now we

[2:29:12] need to address it second I think I

[2:29:14] don't want to underestimate the issue of

[2:29:17] customer service. I spoke with Miss Oaks

[2:29:20] and Craig in the past. If there is a

[2:29:23] situation where town staff is cutting

[2:29:25] down some branches and stuff and owner

[2:29:27] comes out and start arguing, disengage.

[2:29:31] In other words, tell them, "Okay, let us

[2:29:33] have my supervisor come and talk to you.

[2:29:36] Do not argue. Do not there. This is not

[2:29:39] uh I don't want any resident to feel

[2:29:42] disrespected and and and and customer

[2:29:45] service we are in the business of

[2:29:46] customer service. So uh I think Craig

[2:29:49] and team agreed that they have to train

[2:29:51] their people and what happened with uh

[2:29:54] Karen was unfortunate and it shouldn't

[2:29:57] repeat itself again. Thank you.

[2:30:00] » Okay. And and yes, you're in agreement

[2:30:02] that it goes back to uldc for some

[2:30:05] tailoring.

[2:30:06] » Yes, for some. But in the meantime, take

[2:30:08] action on health.

[2:30:09] » Yes, I'm I'm aware. Yes, in the

[2:30:11] meantime. Yes.

[2:30:12] » So, yeah. Okay. So, uh site triangles,

[2:30:16] any other input on site triangles?

[2:30:21] » I'm with you. I I do and I'm sorry I did

[2:30:24] not because I'm really tired hearing

[2:30:26] about site triangles to be honest with

[2:30:28] you. Um, do we go and look how it

[2:30:33] melds with the a community and with

[2:30:37] requirements? I mean, because we don't

[2:30:39] own

[2:30:42] farm A has one ent or two entrances

[2:30:46] right on

[2:30:49] D road,

[2:30:51] right? This equestrian facility has two

[2:30:53] entrances on D- road. This is just

[2:30:55] everything is made up here.

[2:30:56] » Hypothetical. Everything is made up and

[2:30:58] hypothetical, right? So the town doesn't

[2:31:02] own

[2:31:04] that corner. Like if you go, you know,

[2:31:06] we we like to, you know, and I I do it

[2:31:08] too. We we're this rule, we are rural

[2:31:10] community, but you know, we're not as

[2:31:12] rural as some others. And if you go out

[2:31:13] to farmland, right, and you go to where

[2:31:16] they're growing corn, go out just just

[2:31:17] west of here, it's Belgrade. Um, and as

[2:31:21] as as the the farm road comes up to the

[2:31:24] main road, there's shoulders, right? And

[2:31:27] there's easements for that road and the

[2:31:30] farm doesn't encroach past the ditch or

[2:31:33] whatever. And I think, you know, like

[2:31:36] when you're going down 80s, the the

[2:31:38] municipality, the county owns that part

[2:31:39] of the road. So, they farm right up to

[2:31:43] where they can farm, right? So without

[2:31:46] us owning that corner, I don't know how

[2:31:49] we dictate, you know, to set a horse

[2:31:52] farm on D- road. You can't plant Kousa

[2:31:55] hedges there that grow 10 ft tall and

[2:31:59] let them get that high. I don't I don't

[2:32:00] see how we can do that. I mean, I

[2:32:02] understand there's a safety aspect to

[2:32:04] it. Like like Lisa said, maybe we need

[2:32:06] to, you know, invest in some some of

[2:32:09] those convex or convex Yeah. convex

[2:32:13] mirrors because I mean and maybe this is

[2:32:16] something we look to the future like if

[2:32:18] you you develop your property do a

[2:32:20] substantial development or something

[2:32:21] like that then in that instance we're

[2:32:24] going to you know or you're you know you

[2:32:26] buy a vacant property and you're going

[2:32:28] to

[2:32:28] » Go through and tell people that have

[2:32:30] been had this gate here for 30 years and

[2:32:33] » That and the road being widened and x

[2:32:35] and y and z and everything else. So

[2:32:38] » I think all that has to go into

[2:32:39] » Yeah. into the

[2:32:40] » This for me needs to be seriously

[2:32:42] curtailed and especially where it

[2:32:44] regards the the trail heads as well.

[2:32:46] This is not just the roadways. I

[2:32:48] » Mean I do appreciate the kind of

[2:32:50] defining where things start and stop

[2:32:51] because the other one the one previous

[2:32:53] to this it was kind of ambiguous to

[2:32:55] where that dimension starts like where

[2:32:57] am I measuring from right you know. So

[2:33:00] » Yeah so and that was the old council

[2:33:02] direction. This is the new council. So,

[2:33:05] Vice Mayor Sue, do you have anything to

[2:33:06] add?

[2:33:07] » Yes. Yes. I I would say focus on the

[2:33:10] main roads. Uh, leave the private

[2:33:13] driveways alone. Leave the smaller um,

[2:33:17] you know, intersections alone. Focus on

[2:33:19] what we have consensus. Consensus is

[2:33:22] main roads is a health and safety issue.

[2:33:24] Let's take care of that as we discussed

[2:33:27] and that's the priority. rest can I I

[2:33:31] don't I'm not in the favor of telling

[2:33:33] people how to maintain their sight of

[2:33:35] triangle and their private driveways. I

[2:33:37] I don't think that's in our community

[2:33:40] that's applicable. And also for the

[2:33:43] small side streets coming into the

[2:33:46] letter roads and stuff. I don't think

[2:33:48] that is the priority either. Let's have

[2:33:50] a mirror or something along those lines.

[2:33:53] Let's let's agree to focus on the main

[2:33:55] roads for now. Thank you. Well, to be

[2:33:57] devil's advocate, some of the main

[2:33:59] roads, I'm assuming you're talking about

[2:34:01] any lettered road or level one service

[2:34:03] road that intersects.

[2:34:05] » No, I'm talking about Okichchobee or or

[2:34:07] main those kind of highways intersect

[2:34:10] Okchobee or southern intersecting with

[2:34:13] the letter roads, those corners that

[2:34:16] » I don't think there's any sight triangle

[2:34:17] issue on any one of those. So,

[2:34:19] » Okay. Well, that's a good news.

[2:34:21] » So, then this is this is a a non-issue

[2:34:23] for the town and we should get rid of

[2:34:24] the sight triangle. No, maybe it may be

[2:34:28] then it may be in my view unless unless

[2:34:31] you tell me it's a really health and

[2:34:32] safety issue I think the private

[2:34:35] driveways and all that other stuff in my

[2:34:37] humble view this is not this is a rural

[2:34:40] town we should not be putting those

[2:34:42] things

[2:34:43] » And that that goes back to city people

[2:34:45] coming out here and driving and saying

[2:34:47] it's not safe well nobody out here is

[2:34:49] trying to keep you safe it's there's a

[2:34:50] ditch over there don't drive in it right

[2:34:52] so

[2:34:53] » And you should look both ways There you

[2:34:55] go. So, um I I know we haven't got a

[2:34:59] bunch of public comment on this and and

[2:35:00] we've got Karen at the microphone.

[2:35:02] » That's it.

[2:35:03] » Yeah.

[2:35:05] » Similar to the conversation we had on

[2:35:07] the news, right? Whereas there's

[2:35:09] existing language, we have been

[2:35:11] instructed not to enforce the line of

[2:35:14] the line of sight.

[2:35:17] Um so I guess from from staff's

[2:35:20] perspective, we looking for some

[2:35:22] guidance. Is it as the mayor has said,

[2:35:24] are we looking to remove the language,

[2:35:27] which was my concern and the attorney,

[2:35:30] I'm sure, can take it up more than I

[2:35:31] can, having language in our code and not

[2:35:33] in the boards can, which I'm okay with.

[2:35:36] I'm not saying I'm not. Um, so I just

[2:35:39] want to make sure because we already

[2:35:41] brought it to the

[2:35:43] we gave you their language

[2:35:45] » Based on the direction that you gave

[2:35:47] them from a previous council. But

[2:35:52] » They're very boisterous.

[2:35:54] » I have direction because I want I want

[2:35:56] to address what your concerns are. Is it

[2:35:58] to go back to the ULDC based upon

[2:36:00] discussion in this meeting? Is it to

[2:36:03] remove it and then adopt something

[2:36:05] later, which is what you obviously can

[2:36:07] do. I I

[2:36:10] » I think item one is um we there is

[2:36:14] plenty of language in our code that we

[2:36:17] don't actively enforce. Um we've talked

[2:36:21] about some of it tonight, i.e. how tall

[2:36:24] my grass is, right? That's been in the

[2:36:26] code

[2:36:27] » Or your unsanitary fill

[2:36:28] » Or my unsanitary fill, which I still

[2:36:30] that maybe that's the stuff that comes

[2:36:32] out of the treatment center down in Del

[2:36:34] Re.

[2:36:35] But so I there's plenty of stuff we

[2:36:38] we've taken a stance or actually

[2:36:40] previous councils and we've carried that

[2:36:41] on that the the stance with our code

[2:36:44] enforcement is a health and life safety

[2:36:47] direction, right? Or complaint driven.

[2:36:50] Okay? So we're not going out and we're

[2:36:53] not actively

[2:36:55] correct me if I'm wrong, anybody has a

[2:36:57] different opinion. We're not actively

[2:36:58] going after people for sight line right

[2:37:00] now.

[2:37:01] » Not presently. They did and we we put a

[2:37:04] stop private drives.

[2:37:07] You're you're still enforcing like level

[2:37:10] service road in

[2:37:12] » No. Okay.

[2:37:13] » Yeah. They they stopped it. Was it

[2:37:15] January, right? We stopped. They sent

[2:37:17] out some courtesy letters and we said,

[2:37:20] "Whoa, whoa, whoa."

[2:37:20] » Has there been a rise in accidents and

[2:37:22] driveways and intersections?

[2:37:25] » No. The answer is no.

[2:37:26] » You know, yeah.

[2:37:28] So I think

[2:37:29] » I think with clearing clearing the

[2:37:31] vegetation to the vertical plane that

[2:37:34] that does address quite a bit of it

[2:37:36] again as the roads have encroached. I

[2:37:39] did go up north in E- Road where it was

[2:37:42] paved on that little last little strip.

[2:37:44] » It's an interesting corner. I did speak

[2:37:46] to Craig about it. He had he had he had

[2:37:48] logic. Um I'm not sure I agreed with the

[2:37:50] logic, but there's there was logic. Um

[2:37:53] so but it to me it it's a blind curve.

[2:37:57] There is one of the city. Yeah, the city

[2:37:59] has its own its own bubble mirror

[2:38:02] » Driveway

[2:38:03] » Kind of. Yeah. But, you know, I think

[2:38:08] I'm I'm with get rid of it. Um or

[2:38:11] curtail it back and but I I know safety

[2:38:16] always becomes like the legal buzzword

[2:38:18] and and lawyers lose these things.

[2:38:20] » I I think the argument is there that it

[2:38:22] is safer to have this, right? It is

[2:38:24] because you're as you pull up, you know,

[2:38:27] there are some intersections that, you

[2:38:30] know, private drives where they're more

[2:38:32] challenging than others and people have

[2:38:34] to nudge out and, you know, now that

[2:38:37] it's paved even more so than when it was

[2:38:39] dirt cuz

[2:38:40] » Listen, when I was young, I used to fly.

[2:38:42] I'm not going to lie to you, okay? I had

[2:38:44] a 1978 F250. I drove my dad's truck and

[2:38:48] you know, but people have to nudge out,

[2:38:52] right? So the safe sight corner actually

[2:38:53] helps. So I think maybe we go a

[2:38:57] direction of after said date if you do a

[2:39:01] substantial improvement or if

[2:39:03] » New construction

[2:39:04] » New construction

[2:39:06] we

[2:39:06] » Get rid of substantial improvement.

[2:39:08] Substantial improvement is over 50%.

[2:39:09] Right.

[2:39:10] » Okay.

[2:39:10] » So if you do substantial improvement or

[2:39:12] you say you buy a house it's on 20 acres

[2:39:14] with just a house but then you go put

[2:39:15] this big huge barn.

[2:39:17] » Right.

[2:39:17] » Can I can I weigh in?

[2:39:18] » Right. Um, can we also provide for the

[2:39:21] people that have the current issue

[2:39:24] that we do not we wave the um, what do

[2:39:28] you all call that? A right-of-way

[2:39:29] permit, right? To put to put in a safety

[2:39:33] bubble mirror, convex mirror. Can can we

[2:39:36] have staff wave that?

[2:39:37] » So, in essence, it becomes free, right,

[2:39:40] to put it in if they want to use it for

[2:39:41] from a safety standpoint. So, we've

[2:39:43] provided them an avenue to make their

[2:39:45] driveway more safe to exit.

[2:39:47] » Yeah. I and I would recommend that if

[2:39:51] you want to go that route, I would

[2:39:53] recommend that they still have to

[2:39:54] receive,

[2:39:58] » But we would wave the fee.

[2:39:59] » Yeah.

[2:39:59] » Right.

[2:40:03] » Yes. So,

[2:40:05] » Yeah, I think that that's all part of

[2:40:06] it. I think we go that direction where

[2:40:08] at some point in the future,

[2:40:11] » None of us will be here. Everybody will

[2:40:14] start becoming more compliant and safe,

[2:40:17] right? We're

[2:40:18] gonna go after, you know, no offense.

[2:40:20] We're not gonna go after Karen. She has

[2:40:22] actually nice wide driveway. You can

[2:40:23] kind of see, right? But we're not going

[2:40:26] to go after Ken. We're not gonna go

[2:40:27] after Joe. We're not, you know, and if

[2:40:29] you're on a major letter road, you know,

[2:40:32] Lisa plans next month and you can't see

[2:40:34] your property and you know, you're

[2:40:36] there. We're not going after Lisa

[2:40:38] because there's a, you know, there's not

[2:40:40] a safe sight corner,

[2:40:42] » Right? It's an existing thing. Now if

[2:40:44] you do a substantial improvement

[2:40:46] different scenario kind of like flood

[2:40:49] regulations and things like that right

[2:40:51] so along the same lines because you know

[2:40:55] because and again how much can we

[2:40:57] enforce with an a property

[2:40:59] » But it might not be an egg property

[2:41:00] tomorrow you might sell correct

[2:41:02] » Joe when Joe doesn't want to be

[2:41:04] » Are we okay with what they

[2:41:06] » Because the 10-ft setbacks on fences and

[2:41:08] stuff like that I think that's a little

[2:41:09] intrusive um

[2:41:11] » Yeah you start losing property I mean 10

[2:41:13] foot setback back on my place.

[2:41:15] » Maybe this needs to come back

[2:41:17] » With that caveat that, you know, if it's

[2:41:20] determined to be one that would have

[2:41:23] been deemed for a site triangle, that

[2:41:25] resident can apply for the permit

[2:41:28] without paying the fee, the waiver, the

[2:41:31] new the new site development or

[2:41:34] significant improvement,

[2:41:35] » Right? uh that that way I hate to hold

[2:41:40] people

[2:41:41] like to me that's kind of um what

[2:41:45] happening when people hate you want if

[2:41:47] you want your significant improvement

[2:41:48] permit you got to put in a site trying

[2:41:50] » I know I mean it's it's just part it's

[2:41:52] it's part of the conditions of approval

[2:41:54] right I mean you do significant approval

[2:41:56] significant improvement happens a lot

[2:41:59] right so I I I've or just do do all you

[2:42:02] know new but see if I buy a property

[2:42:04] with a with 20 acres with an existing

[2:42:07] house and I go put up this big honk and

[2:42:10] barn, right? Da da d d d d d d d d d d d

[2:42:12] d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d

[2:42:12] d d d d d d d d d and I'm going to have

[2:42:12] 18 wheel horse trailers coming in out of

[2:42:14] there.

[2:42:15] » Well, you probably driveway anyway,

[2:42:17] » You know, you never know, right? So,

[2:42:21] » So it's like where do you draw that

[2:42:22] line? So, it's you know, we talk about

[2:42:24] equestrian estate planning and we talk

[2:42:26] about all this other stuff that we

[2:42:28] talked about, you know, somebody puts in

[2:42:29] a large nursery, you know, it it it's I

[2:42:34] don't know. I I think there's some

[2:42:35] there's some room there to work with and

[2:42:37] I think we send it back to ULDC and go

[2:42:39] we got a good start but we got some

[2:42:41] better idea. We got some other ideas

[2:42:42] here.

[2:42:43] » Let's throw it in.

[2:42:44] » Y

[2:42:44] » Right.

[2:42:45] » Yeah.

[2:42:45] » Maybe let PZ&B look at it. I don't know.

[2:42:47] » So Manish, did you have anything to add

[2:42:49] to that?

[2:42:54] » No, I'm good. I think I agree. Let's

[2:42:56] just focus on the main problem and let

[2:42:58] it come back later. We have other main

[2:43:00] priorities. Thank you.

[2:43:03] Okay. Okay. Was that

[2:43:06] » Going back to RPC? Did the you know with

[2:43:09] the discussion today allow individuals

[2:43:12] to apply for the rightway permit with no

[2:43:14] fee in order to install the mirrors or

[2:43:16] whatever they feel to help them.

[2:43:19] » I our goal is not to make it less safe,

[2:43:21] right? So if they feel that that's a

[2:43:23] safety something for them to force them

[2:43:25] to pay to put in a convex mirror for

[2:43:27] safety versus I got to hack off these

[2:43:30] two corners of my property that oh by

[2:43:31] the way that was my pasture and now you

[2:43:34] know and I've got little paddics

[2:43:35] whatever right

[2:43:36] » Well it's part of what we're providing

[2:43:38] with the tax dollar right that's

[2:43:40] » Well and it's just waving it we're not

[2:43:42] giving them mirrors right

[2:43:43] » Yeah we'll just only thing we would be

[2:43:45] providing is a standard to the mirror

[2:43:47] » Okay

[2:43:48] » Yeah the specification

[2:43:49] » It would be with a breakaway sign O

[2:43:51] sign, you know, sleeve that we currently

[2:43:53] » You don't want to stop the car when they

[2:43:55] go over the canal make with that.

[2:43:57] » Not to not to complicate, but do not to

[2:43:59] complicate, but do we have the ability

[2:44:00] for them to purchase the sign from the

[2:44:03] mirror from us?

[2:44:04] » No.

[2:44:05] » No.

[2:44:06] » I mean, do there's a kind of

[2:44:09] » I'm just saying that way there's kind of

[2:44:10] a standard across the

[2:44:12] » Is there any public comment on this?

[2:44:13] » Yes, ma'am.

[2:44:14] » I see shaking heads. Thank you.

[2:44:16] » Some interior.

[2:44:16] » No. left out, you know, pulled out of a

[2:44:18] Walgreens after a demolition convex

[2:44:21] terror that's going to rot in two, three

[2:44:23] weeks.

[2:44:23] » That's pretty standard.

[2:44:25] » Who's up first?

[2:44:27] » Tracy Ruffalo.

[2:44:33] » He's cutting into my cocktail hour. I'm

[2:44:35] just saying.

[2:44:36] » Sorry.

[2:44:37] » Oh, right.

[2:44:38] » Wow.

[2:44:42] » Recording out there.

[2:44:45] » Somebody's AI that. Hello. Hello.

[2:44:47] » She So, she joins me at the cocktail

[2:44:49] hour at her cocktail hour, too.

[2:44:52] » Line of sight. I think the line of sight

[2:44:54] issue has totally gotten out of control.

[2:44:57] I support addressing a real visibility

[2:44:59] hazard when one actually exists. What I

[2:45:02] do not support is creating a proactive

[2:45:04] enforcement system that sends staff out

[2:45:06] through town looking for theoretical

[2:45:08] violations involving mature trees,

[2:45:10] shrubs, fences, gates, driveways,

[2:45:12] trails, and landscaping on private

[2:45:14] property. This started with a townwide

[2:45:17] sweep.

[2:45:19] The workshop packet states the town

[2:45:21] staff conducted a a townwide review of

[2:45:23] line of sight violations and sent

[2:45:25] courtesy notices to approximately 30

[2:45:27] properties. The packet does not say

[2:45:29] those 30 properties were identified

[2:45:31] because of 30 resident complaints,

[2:45:33] accidents, or documented safety

[2:45:35] incidents. Councelor later directed

[2:45:38] staff to stop enforcing the line of

[2:45:40] sight regulations and send the issue

[2:45:41] back for review. Here we are back at

[2:45:43] reviewing. My first question is simple.

[2:45:46] What actual problem are we trying to

[2:45:48] solve?

[2:45:50] Lots of questions. How many crashes,

[2:45:52] near misses, emergency access problems,

[2:45:55] or resident complaints have actually

[2:45:56] been caused by these sight triangle

[2:45:58] conditions? Of the approximate 30

[2:46:01] properties identified by staff, how many

[2:46:03] came from an actual complaint or

[2:46:05] documented safety incident? And how many

[2:46:07] were found simply because staff

[2:46:09] conducted a townwide review?

[2:46:11] What happens to a mature tree that has

[2:46:13] existed so safely for decades? Are

[2:46:16] existing trees, gates, fences, and

[2:46:18] landscaping grandfathered? What happens

[2:46:20] with irregular driveways or old access

[2:46:23] points that are no longer used? If the

[2:46:25] town expanded or widened a road, changed

[2:46:28] the edge of pavement, altered drainage,

[2:46:30] or otherwise changed a resident's

[2:46:32] frontage, why should that same property

[2:46:34] owner be cited because an existing tree,

[2:46:37] hedge, fence, gate, or landscaping now

[2:46:39] falls within a sight triangle? If the

[2:46:41] town created a worsen if the town

[2:46:43] created or worsened the condition, why

[2:46:46] should the resident automatically bear

[2:46:47] the cost of correcting it? If the

[2:46:50] roadway, equestrian trails, and greenway

[2:46:52] committee believe the existing 10-ft

[2:46:54] line of sight was sufficient or rider

[2:46:55] visibility in overall safety, why are we

[2:46:58] making the regulation more complicated?

[2:47:00] Why should council direct staff to draft

[2:47:02] an ordinance before the town attorney

[2:47:03] determines whether the proposed language

[2:47:05] could be could be prohibited as a more

[2:47:08] restrictive or burdensome land

[2:47:10] development regulation under SP 180.

[2:47:13] The proposed rule goes much further than

[2:47:15] a simple safety standard. The proposed

[2:47:18] language regulates parking spaces,

[2:47:20] signs, walls, fences, hedges, shrubs,

[2:47:22] trees, earth mounds, natural growth, and

[2:47:24] other obstructions within the sight

[2:47:26] triangle.

[2:47:27] It establishes a clear zone between 30

[2:47:30] in and 8 ft. Trees within the clear

[2:47:33] sight triangle are proposed to have a

[2:47:34] minimum of 8 ft of clear trunk.

[2:47:36] Shrubbery is limited to a maximum mature

[2:47:39] height of 30 in. The proposal also

[2:47:42] includes setbacks for landscaping from

[2:47:44] roadway and driveway pavement. This is a

[2:47:47] significant level of control over

[2:47:48] private property, especially in a rural

[2:47:51] agricultural community where mature

[2:47:52] trees, natural vegetation, and unusual

[2:47:55] driveways, canals, trails, and older

[2:47:57] properties layouts are very common. Town

[2:48:00] pro town road projects are existing.

[2:48:06] This is one of my biggest concerns.

[2:48:09] » Town has expanded.

[2:48:16] there.

[2:48:17] » Uh, one of my biggest concerns, the town

[2:48:19] has expanded and altered roads over

[2:48:21] time. When that happens, the

[2:48:22] relationship between the roadway, the

[2:48:24] edgement of pavement, the right of way,

[2:48:26] a driveway, and existing trees, fences,

[2:48:28] gates, and landscaping change. A

[2:48:31] resident may have had a tree, hedge,

[2:48:33] fence, or gate in the same location for

[2:48:35] years without creating a documented

[2:48:37] safety problem. If a town road project

[2:48:39] later changed that frontage, it's

[2:48:41] unacceptable that to turn around and

[2:48:43] site the property owner simply because

[2:48:45] the town's work changed where the site

[2:48:46] triangle is measured or how close the

[2:48:48] roadway is to an existing feature.

[2:48:50] Before any citations are issued, the

[2:48:52] town should determine whether the

[2:48:54] alleged condition existed before the

[2:48:56] road project, whether the town's work

[2:48:58] created the or worsened the issue, or

[2:49:01] whether the there is an actual

[2:49:03] documented visibility hazard at that

[2:49:05] location. If the town contributed to

[2:49:07] creating the problem, the answer should

[2:49:08] be work with the property owner on a

[2:49:10] reasonable solution, not penalize the

[2:49:12] resident or make them pay or correct the

[2:49:14] condition caused or worsened by a town

[2:49:16] project. The committee themselves raised

[2:49:19] these concerns. The workshop packet

[2:49:22] showed that the ULDC committee discussed

[2:49:23] how old trees should be treated, whether

[2:49:26] they should be grandfathered, how

[2:49:27] irregular shaped driveways should be

[2:49:28] handled or whether unused access points

[2:49:30] should have been and or should have

[2:49:33] comply should have to comply with the

[2:49:35] line of sight requirements. The roadway,

[2:49:37] equestrian, trails, and greenway

[2:49:38] committee also concluded that the

[2:49:40] existing 10-ft line of sight appeared

[2:49:42] sufficient for rider visibility and

[2:49:44] overall safety. The uldc recommendation

[2:49:47] al ultimately passed by a 3 to2 vote. My

[2:49:50] position, if there is an actual

[2:49:52] visibility complaint, investigate it. If

[2:49:55] there's a genuine and documented safety

[2:49:57] hazard, contact the property owner and

[2:49:59] work with them to correct it. Do not

[2:50:01] conduct a townwide sweep looking for

[2:50:03] violations where nobody has complained

[2:50:04] and no safety incident has occurred. Do

[2:50:07] not force residents to remove or alter

[2:50:09] mature trees, shrubs, fences, gates, or

[2:50:12] landscaping without first providing the

[2:50:14] actual safety that there is an actual

[2:50:16] safety hazard that exists. Do not create

[2:50:19] new burdens for residents before we know

[2:50:21] the proposed ordinance is actually legal

[2:50:24] legally permissible. So, what can

[2:50:26] council do tonight, which I think you

[2:50:28] guys have already done? Um, this the

[2:50:30] memorandum specifically gives council

[2:50:32] the option to direct staff to draft an

[2:50:34] ordinance or to take no further action.

[2:50:36] I believe council should take no further

[2:50:38] action unless and until staff can

[2:50:41] demonstrate an actual safety problem

[2:50:43] that exists that existing rules and a

[2:50:45] complaint driven approach cannot

[2:50:47] address. In closing, we should not

[2:50:49] create violations first and then go

[2:50:51] looking for people who fit them. Code

[2:50:53] enforcement should solve real problems,

[2:50:55] not manufacture work for itself. And

[2:50:57] when a town road project has changed a

[2:50:59] resident's frontage, we should not make

[2:51:01] that resident the problem. Show us the

[2:51:03] accidents, show us the complaints, show

[2:51:05] us the documented safety problem, and we

[2:51:08] can decide whether additional regulation

[2:51:09] is actually necessary. Thanks. Thank

[2:51:12] you.

[2:51:13] » Next card is um Virginia Standish.

[2:51:16] » Well, Miss Standish is walking up. Just

[2:51:18] for the record, um staff has removed the

[2:51:20] photos off Thank you. the website.

[2:51:25] » And was Karen going to comment or did

[2:51:26] she leave?

[2:51:29] Okay.

[2:51:32] Who else do we have after Miss Standish?

[2:51:34] » Assucci.

[2:51:35] » Okay, thank you.

[2:51:37] » Okay,

[2:51:38] » Virginia Standish. So, a couple key

[2:51:41] points I've heard tonight. Um, but one I

[2:51:44] didn't hear is uh and maybe you've

[2:51:47] discussed it in the past. What is the

[2:51:50] town legally required to do when two

[2:51:53] roads intersect regarding line of sight?

[2:51:57] Are there legal requirements? I think

[2:52:00] going forward when this comes back, I'd

[2:52:02] like to hear that as a member of the

[2:52:03] public, you have council to answer that

[2:52:05] question. What are the legal

[2:52:07] requirements for line of sight when two

[2:52:10] roads come together?

[2:52:12] If there's bushes there, do you put a

[2:52:14] height restriction? Okay. Um,

[2:52:18] just asking what the rule the legal

[2:52:20] rules are, not giving an opinion on

[2:52:23] that. Um, mirrors, we talked about a

[2:52:26] standard for mirrors. So my question

[2:52:28] would be uh the mirrors, should that be

[2:52:32] on the property owner site or are you

[2:52:34] talking about putting them on the canal

[2:52:37] bank where mowers are trying to go and

[2:52:39] you're going to have all these mirrors.

[2:52:41] So is it is it just as efficient? What

[2:52:45] is the research show? Let's not just run

[2:52:48] out and do something to say we did

[2:52:50] something. Let's we're trying to revamp

[2:52:52] this town to be efficient, safe. Let's

[2:52:55] take the time to research this. Are

[2:52:57] those mirrors better placed

[2:52:59] strategically several feet down the

[2:53:02] property owner's side to see what's

[2:53:04] coming and going? And maybe they need

[2:53:06] two mirrors, not just one instead of

[2:53:08] having it on the canal bank. Again,

[2:53:10] let's take the time to get these answers

[2:53:13] regarding this going back to the ULDC.

[2:53:17] Please strike any unnecessary language

[2:53:20] to sit here and listen and say, "Well,

[2:53:21] this council says we know we have

[2:53:23] language, but we're not going to enforce

[2:53:24] it." Well, thank you, but there's people

[2:53:29] coming behind you and the present status

[2:53:31] of the roads today does not indicate the

[2:53:34] future. So, if there's if it's going

[2:53:38] back to the ULDC, please strike any

[2:53:40] unnecessary language and let's not count

[2:53:42] on oh well maybe code we're going to

[2:53:45] tell code not to enforce that. Well, who

[2:53:47] knows who's going to be doing our code

[2:53:48] and if we go back to Palm Beach County,

[2:53:51] they don't care what you you got this on

[2:53:54] the books. this is what we got to go by.

[2:53:55] I'm a code enforcement officer and I

[2:53:58] believe they're licensed and civily

[2:53:59] liable for any issues is my

[2:54:02] understanding.

[2:54:04] Um, so I'd be real careful on we're not

[2:54:08] going to enforce and just remove

[2:54:09] unnecessary language. As far as private

[2:54:12] properties, yes, existing properties,

[2:54:15] why are we going back and asking them to

[2:54:18] redo stuff if especially if they're on

[2:54:20] the intersection? great points on new

[2:54:23] construction,

[2:54:24] but

[2:54:26] the this is the part where I'm trying

[2:54:27] not to laugh or be sarcastic.

[2:54:30] 20 days to get something done.

[2:54:33] I'm going to say it. I challenge this

[2:54:35] town to get anything done in 20 days.

[2:54:37] Thank you very much.

[2:54:40] » Thank you,

[2:54:42] Cassie. Cassie,

[2:54:48] we're putting you on the clock this time

[2:54:50] so we can get out of here at 8:30.

[2:54:53] » Well, shorter shorter.

[2:54:57] » Um, so, you know, the agenda packet for

[2:55:01] uh the sighteline should really include

[2:55:03] um accident analysis, engineering

[2:55:07] studies, or evidence that show

[2:55:08] collisions involving private driveways.

[2:55:10] and that sightelines were the uh reason.

[2:55:13] So, I didn't see that in there. Now, one

[2:55:16] of the things I wanted to mention, we

[2:55:17] need to be very careful because we hear

[2:55:19] it all the time using that catch all

[2:55:21] health and safety. Health and safety

[2:55:23] should be a standard supported by facts,

[2:55:26] not something used to uh uh broaden the

[2:55:29] authority of code enforcement.

[2:55:33] And it when you are looking and this

[2:55:34] goes out to Karen when she's reviewing

[2:55:36] her ordinance basically you need to ask

[2:55:39] yourself are you doing a blanket

[2:55:41] ordinance for everyone are we

[2:55:43] documenting crashes in locks of hatchy

[2:55:45] groves that have been caused by

[2:55:47] inadequate visibility from private

[2:55:49] residential driveways how many of those

[2:55:51] have been there should be some document

[2:55:53] otherwise it didn't occur because

[2:55:56] everything's based on evidence we have

[2:55:57] to base it on evidence government has

[2:55:59] good intentions but without evidence you

[2:56:01] can't prove

[2:56:03] What engineering studies have been done

[2:56:04] showing that private driveways need

[2:56:06] regulating?

[2:56:08] What public safety benefit will be

[2:56:10] achieved by continuing or expanding

[2:56:12] these restrictions onto private

[2:56:13] property?

[2:56:16] And why can't documented hazards be

[2:56:19] addressed individually instead of a

[2:56:20] blanket for everybody? So ask yourself

[2:56:23] those questions, answer those questions

[2:56:25] and include any of the engineer studies

[2:56:29] um

[2:56:31] uh any of the engineer studies or any of

[2:56:33] the problems in the actual packet so

[2:56:35] that the council has all that

[2:56:37] information. Thanks.

[2:56:39] » Thank you.

[2:56:41] » Gee, she was quick.

[2:56:44] So So hopefully that was clear as mud.

[2:56:47] Zack, Zach, welcome to our circus. Um,

[2:56:51] and uh, anybody have any closing

[2:56:54] comments for staff?

[2:56:58] » I'd like to say I like that seems like

[2:57:00] for the most part the last two things,

[2:57:04] everything we said was regurgitated to

[2:57:05] us. So, it sounds like we're

[2:57:07] » We're being heard.

[2:57:08] » We're being heard, that we're on par

[2:57:10] with what's going with feeling is coming

[2:57:12] from there. So, um, yeah. No, it's it's

[2:57:15] exciting to see that, you know, things

[2:57:17] are, you know, Yeah. It's not just we're

[2:57:19] up here saying what we're saying and

[2:57:21] nobody's realizing it. So, thank you

[2:57:23] ladies for being here tonight.

[2:57:24] » Yes. Thank you.

[2:57:25] » Appreciate it.

[2:57:27] » I was going to say same thing. Thank you

[2:57:28] for everybody just for your comments.

[2:57:30] » All right, Vice Mayor Sud.

[2:57:32] » Yes, thank you all. We appreciate it.

[2:57:34] Appreciate the residents who are staying

[2:57:35] late and uh giving us all these uh

[2:57:38] valuable inputs. Thank you. Bye-bye.

[2:57:40] » Yes. Thank you. Um I I just have two

[2:57:43] little requests. I know they're probably

[2:57:45] not little, but can we get the strategic

[2:57:46] plan on our first October agenda? Um I I

[2:57:50] had shared some documentation of of what

[2:57:52] I compiled and um I I I think that's

[2:57:56] going to be very important as we go

[2:57:58] forward with some of our financial stuff

[2:58:00] and and some of the other things we've

[2:58:01] talked about tonight and uh council

[2:58:04] rules as soon as possible council

[2:58:06] policy. I know staff had talked to me

[2:58:08] about it, you know, getting back in

[2:58:09] front of us again. So that would be it.

[2:58:11] Thank you staff for coming. Thank you

[2:58:13] everybody. Do I have a motion to

[2:58:15] adjurnn?

[2:58:17] » Counc.

[2:58:21] » All those in favor?

[2:58:22] » I

[2:58:24] » I

[2:58:24] » Opposed. Hearing none. Motion passes 4

[2:58:27] zero. Thank you.

08/18/2026 Town Council Workshop Meeting

Agenda

Transcript