To the flag of the United States of
America and to the republic for which it
stands. One nation under God,
indivisible, with liberty and justice
for all.
Thank you.
Uh, roll call, please.
» Council member Stevens,
» Present.
» Council member Kaine,
» Present. Council member Coleman,
» Present.
» Vice Mayor Sud.
» Mayor El Ramy,
» Present.
» Acting town manager Oaks,
» Present.
» Town attorney Good,
» Present.
» Public works director Lowour.
Community Standards Director Gardner
Young present.
» And acting town clerk is present.
» Thank you. Uh additions, deletions, and
modifications.
All good.
And uh we'll open it up then to any
public comments on non-aggenda items.
» Yes, madame mayor. We have one comment
card from Virginia Standish.
» Thank you.
While that's happening, can I get a
motion to uh accept the
» Make a motion to approve the agenda.
» Thank you.
» Second.
» All right. All those in favor?
» I
» I opposed hearing none. Motion passes
40.
» May I proceed?
» Yes, please.
» Good afternoon. Good evening. Virginia
Standish Lockach.
11 months ago, I came before council and
have continued to do so over various
meetings to share my concern that the
town's ULDC code involving tree
mitigation is full of conflicts and
places excessive financial hardship on
land owners and should once again be
reviewed by the ULDC committee and
council as is being done with the RV
ordinance.
Yet, this has not happened. I will be
making the same statement at your
council meeting for the record.
Additionally, on behalf of a landowner,
I have requested via email that a
property I represent be given the
options for a new owner to purchase the
property.
Months have gone by without a final
answer from this this landowner and
their attorney have met with the town,
called the town and have yet to receive
an answer on what is supposed to be
under your guidelines a casebycase
review.
And yet the answer is incomplete as
compared to what your ULDC says.
I've had to ask for this item to be
placed on the town agenda for review by
council. I did not wish to do that. I
feel your staff could have handled this
in-house. We still hope it can be
handled in-house and frankly we are
baffled that is it has been almost a
year to get an answer with multiple
options as outlined in your DC code for
someone who has spent extensive funds
and not cleared all the trees yet that
they were going to clear.
This is the perfect example of what
should not happen. procedures should be
in place for staff to do a case-bycase
review and provide an answer within
weeks, not a year. I know this council
is revamping, refocused on getting
things done efficiently, and this is one
of many issues that needs to be
addressed. In addition, for the record,
I am telling you that today I submitted
a public records request for the form
for bonafide ad covenant and also how
many of these covenants have been
recorded by the town since 2019.
Thank you.
» Thank you, council. I know we've um
we've had Miss Stish up here several
times. Um, is this something I know that
uh the manager had received the request
to put this on as an agenda item and the
conversation was it's allowed in the
charter
um but we really have no policy on how
to bring that forward. Is that something
that we want to
allow the manager to determine
documentation and timing or is that
something that when a request comes
forward, it is brought forward to us and
we and we have a policy on when that
comes forward depending on availability
in the agenda.
» When we talking about coming forward,
we're talking about the ability for it
to transfer over to a new owner.
» No, the agenda item itself to have a
policy. Yeah, she wants to create a
policy
» What's allowed in our charter,
» Right?
» So, do we want to develop a policy? Do
we want to allow the manager to just
place it on the agenda as available in
timing and and it comes as it comes to
us? Should it be a discussion item under
the manager? How do we develop a policy
for for these things coming forward
um as agenda requests? I
» I guess I'll rephrase my question.
What
A policy for what coming forward?
» An requested agenda item by the public.
» Oh, that that's what we're I mean
» That's the general question in front of
us right now.
» I have my item.
» Yeah, go ahead. I was going to say I
think that
since these types of items, as this one
clearly is are an issue where there's a
feeling that staff is not
performing at a rate that this public
would like them to. I I feel that it
should be the manager's determination
because I think the manager is the one
who is qualified to make the
determination. We are not we're not in
here every day. We're not qualified to
make the determination of whether all
resources have been exhausted, whether
it's in process, whether it's just that
laboriously slow process. But I think
the manager is the one who's uniquely
qualified to make that determination and
that she should then, as you said, put
on the agenda as time fits.
Unfortunately, for going into budgeting,
I I don't see time fitting in the next
near future. Um, and this seems to be a
matter of some urgency, but that's my
opinion.
» Well, I would I would piggyback on that
concept in that obviously some of the
concern is that there's a staff
performance question here. the managers
in charge of staff. This is relatively
new management overseeing staff. So,
moving things along or having them come
before council. I'm not sure the manager
would always be the one necessarily to
deem that that's something they want
brought to the public view. So, perhaps
there's two processes where maybe they
can petition the manager or they can
petition council and council can bring
it up and under a simple majority vote
it comes forward on the next agenda.
Maybe we have both processes available.
» Maybe maybe they petition the manager
first and if they don't feel like they
get satisfaction then then they petition
council.
» Yeah.
» Yes.
» So you know
» Or they do it simultaneously. So
» So they we create a policy to that.
» Okay.
» I don't think we need to get real crazy
and create
» I don't think we need to get crazy.
Right.
» As far as Yeah. All right.
» Two two avenues makes it makes it easy.
» Yeah. It's a little peck and balance.
» Zachary a question. I'm sorry. I just
want to make sure you know one of the um
conundrums of the council manager style
of government is that the um council
can't interfere with the manager doing
their job. Could this in any way be
construed as interference
» As long as you all have a policy that is
set forth
uh and it that a policy is adhered to. I
think that what you're suggesting here
as having a process for the manager to
place items on the agenda and for the
town council to place items on the
agenda is reasonable. Um, and certainly
it is the town council's agenda. So if
you all want to discuss an item, you are
within your rights and your powers to
bring that forward.
» It was a little further than that. It
was it was somebody is somebody has some
discontent with the way that the
management with the staff is handling
things which as Lisa pointed out in this
case it rolls uphill right things go up
to the manager ultimately it's the
manager's responsibility
» May I offer a suggestion
» Certainly
» Thank you so because one of my concerns
is if a request comes forward it is in
your charter and then It's kind of that
that determination of you know is the
manager handling it or not. So for
example you know any manager in this
seat could think that they may have
handled the situation appropriately and
you could have the resident that may
think differently. What I would like to
suggest um which was going to kind of be
my intention was to place Miss
Standish's item underneath the town
manager's report and notify council that
we received a request from a resident to
place an item on the agenda. let you
guys know what the agenda item is,
provide you with a brief background, and
then if you guys want to move forward
with placing the item on the next agenda
for further discussion, you can do so at
that time by consensus. Or you could
say, "Thank you for, you know, letting
us know, please come back in 30 days and
report back or what have you, you know,
case by case." And so that way it's kind
of one avenue. It's clean, it's clear,
and it's also transparent and on the
agenda. Yeah.
» Right.
» So that's a suggestion.
» You did your job. right that also
whoever the manager is
» And also to make sure that the residents
feel heard um and that we are kind of
adhering to our charter um in a sense
and just keeping things transparent and
moving forward.
» So to recap, so you're suggesting that
the the first avenue is for them to to
come to you and file an appeal whatever
they want something on the agenda that
you would then include that in the next
meeting's manager's report at which time
council would make a decision of whether
it goes on the following agenda.
» Right? And so and theoretically um you
know I would have a conversation in this
instance it would be Miss Standish to
say hey you know is there any supporting
documentation that you want to include
uh do you want to add a memo to the file
and that way we can include all of that
as part of the agenda item under my
report.
» I think it would be interesting though
to to provide a couple like Paul said a
couple different avenues for for public
discourse to be brought forward in a
more formal way. So I I you know to your
point Zach that this is you know
something that as long as the council
has a policy and they they invoke that
policy and follow it. So
» And I mean I'm happy to work with your
manager in to develop that policy.
» Yeah. Well let's see as it comes forward
because I know um uh the manager had
plan to to bring it forward.
» Yeah. Yeah. In anticipation of this
conversation we did reach out to several
municipalities. A lot of them um do not
have this in their charter. Uh the one
that did have it in their charter uh who
responded out of those that we uh
emailed was Puna Gorta and when we said
okay um we recognize that it's in your
charter very similar language they don't
have a detailed policy in terms of you
know the resident can speak for five
minutes and make a presentation you know
it's you know because what we want to
get away well we don't want staff to sit
here and spend hours on an item that
council may not deem as a priority or as
Miss Standish said we're in the middle
of a major transition and so we need to
be very mindful of what our priorities
are and what our focuses are and while
that is a priority there are a lot of
things that are going on right now and
so we want to just make sure that
everything is in line and that you know
we're communicating those things
effectively.
» Okay. Well, I guess we'll see it at the
September September. Awesome.
» Any other public comments?
» Yes, madame mayor. We have Cassie Suchi.
Um
I just want to bring back some some
things just happened on North B Road uh
with some of the grading that recently
happened a couple days ago, say a week
ago. I just took photographs. Apparently
staff decided to grade the remaining
portion of North B Road beyond its legal
limit for width. And I know that for a
fact because people in North Be sued the
town because they illegally took their
money, inverse condemnation. It was a
big lawsuit and the town ended up
spending what $350,000 to defend it.
They wanted to maintain legal control of
their land if it was ever um if the
maintenance maps were ever filed and
they would lose it. So that was done.
And I want to take you back historically
back in 2017.
uh a guy named Frank Smith decided to
when Underwood was in charge decided to
do the same thing all over again and he
got to a portion on B- Road and there
were three trees that have been there
for many many years and I stopped him,
contacted Underwood. They called the
police. They hadn't stopped. He came to
the meeting and said he was told by a
certain councilman who denied it, never
got paid. And uh when you look at the
maintenance maps, those trees show that
they're part are the roadway, which
they're not. So they he what he was
doing was grading illegally to the
maintenance. When I took pictures this
last week, the grading is exactly
matching almost exactly all the way
down. Now, I don't know if this occurred
because at the last council meeting, you
guys talked about um finishing paving on
roads, but you need to ask those people
for the easements and there is a recent
survey of those portions that was given
to the road in the lawsuit, but this is
keeps happening. It happens on other
roads and it needs to stop. I don't know
if there's a disconnect between staff
comprehension and what council wants
because I have not heard council once
say go ahead and steal people's private
land.
So, I'm contacting the attorney that
took the original lawsuit just to keep
him on standby. But I would hope that
this gets brought up maybe at the next
meeting and council will make sure that
staff corrects what they did on the
roadway puts the people's property back
and if they have to put ballards in
because nobody can seem to understand
where to grade maybe that's what it is.
But I'm going to tell you Ballards on
five or six properties is going to be a
whole lot cheaper than the 350,000 which
is going to cost for another inverse
condemnation. So please, I urge you as
council to make staff correct their
mistake and make sure that this
comprehension between what you guys
want, which is our stewards and our
representatives, is relayed to them and
they they carry it out. Thanks.
» Thank you.
» Any other public comments? Okay.
» So to that end, I'm sure public works
will be on it so everyone's aware. So,
uh, that brings us to agenda item one.
And I believe our auditor is here
virtually.
» Andrew, I see you, but I There you are.
» All right. Can you hear me now?
» Yes. Thank you.
» Okay, great. Well, thank you very much,
um, honorable mayor, members of the
council. Uh, for the record, my name is
Andrew Fearman. I'm a partner with
Fearman Accounts and Adviserss, and I am
here to provide a brief presentation on
your annual comprehensive financial
report for the fiscal end of September
30th, 2025.
The first thing I'd like to point out is
just within the within the table of
contents, um, what I could do as well,
if it if it would be helpful, I could I
could also share my screen and and point
out on the screen what what I'm uh what
I'm discussing. Um, if that would be
helpful. Let me try to do that.
Actually, that'll probably be good. Just
one moment. Let me see if it lets me
share.
Okay. So, if everyone sees it, sees it
up on the screen.
» Yes, we can.
» Okay, great. It'll make it easier
everyone. All right. So, the first thing
I'd like to point out is actually right
in the table of contents. Um, your
annual comprehensive financial report is
broken up into into various sections.
It's actually four specific sections. is
the introductory section, the financial
section, the statistical section, and
the compliance section. I'm going to
highlight a few things within each
section and provide an explanation on
each one. So, the introductory section
um which is the very first section
includes your letter of transmitt um
some some information on the town such
as the officials, the organizational
chart. What I wanted to point out here
is um on the last page here on on page
Roman numeral 7 is that the town did
receive the certificate of excellence um
of achievement for financial reporting.
Um this was provided for the uh fiscal
year 2024 annual comprehensive financial
report and as everyone knows it is a a
prestigious award that's provided by the
government finance office association
and just it holds your financial
statements and your financial reporting
to a to a higher standard. There's
certain sections that in addition that
the town puts in um that are
requirements just for this certificate
program which is included within the
introductory section which is the letter
of transmitt and then the third section
of the document which is statistical
section. Um those are additional
sections that are included for
additional information for for the the
readers of the financial statements that
that are required to be able to um
achieve this uh this award. So this has
been awarded for the uh for the 2024 uh
report and I believe that this this one
is also going to be submitted as well
for 2025.
Um after the introductory section comes
the financial section. The financial
section the first item within there is
the uh independent auditor's report. Um
so obviously this is our report on the
financial statements. Uh it is broken up
into various sections. I'm going to
point out a few of the sections and
paraphrase a few items within there. So
the first section is our opinion
section. That's the most important
section. It it describes what we've
audited and it also tells you what our
opinion is on the financial statements
and that states that we have audited the
accompanying financial statements of the
town of Lockxahei Groves as of and for
the fiscal September 3rd, 2025. In our
opinion, the financials statements
referred to above present fairly in all
material respects the respective
financial position of the government
activities, business type activities,
and each major fund of the town as of
September 30th, 2025. Now, this is an
unmodified or clean opinion, and that's
of course the only opinion you want on
your financial statements. The next
section talks about under what standards
we performed our audit and that states
that we conducted our audit in
accordance with the auditing standards
generally accepted in the United States
of America and government auditing
standards.
The next section talks about what
management's responsibilities are for
the financial statements and that states
that management is responsible for the
preparation and fair presentation of the
financial statements. And the last
section I'm going to point out here is
right here on the first page, which is
what our responsibilities are as
auditors. And that states that our
objectives are to obtain reasonable
assurance about whether the financial
statements as a whole are free from
material misstatement, whether due to
fraud or error, and to issue an
auditor's report that includes our
opinions.
Now, after the uh after the auditor's
report is the managed discussion
analysis. The management's discussion
analysis runs from pages three to page
uh to page 15. So it's about it's about
12 pages. And if and you'll note that
it's 12 pages in a in a document that's
over 100 pages. If no one reads anything
else in this document should read this
because it talks about the year. It
compares current year to prior year and
provides explanations for those changes
year-over-year. And it's written from
management's perspective. So it's a it's
similar to what's provided in public
company financial statements. And it um
it is an excellent executive summary of
what's what's in the document, you know,
of the financial statements and the
notes and everything themselves. It
gives you a very good overview of
everything in that 12 pages. So that
runs from pages three to page 15.
Now when we get to page 16,
this begins the financial statements.
And we're still in the financial section
of the of the document. Obviously, the
financial state section is the largest
section. Um, this section includes the
governmentwide statement of net position
and statement of activities as well as
the fund financial statements for your
governmental funds and your enterprise
fund and your proprietary fund. Um, the
main thing I want to point out here is
going to be on page 18.
So, page 18 is the balance sheet of your
governmental funds. Um, and the first
line the first column is the general
fund which is the operating fund of the
of the town. What I wanted to point out
here is that September 30th, 2025, the
town had unassigned uh fund balance of
approximately 1,164,000
um at year end.
Now, moving just past the the financial
statement section,
we get to the the notes of the financial
statements. Now the notes to the
financial statements are the required
disclosures which provide additional
information on the town as well as the
numbers that are presented within the
financial statements. So it tells the
whole story. You know it's it's
suggested and I I personally believe
required that uh that you read the the
notes in conjunction with the the
financial statements in conjunction with
the notes because it gives you
additional narrative information on the
numbers. It also give you gives you
additional numerical detail. So it gets
it gets more into detail within the
numbers. Um as an example for your
capital assets there will be uh you know
one number on the note on the on the
face of the financial statements but
then in the notes of the financial
statements you'll see that
that the capital assets it gives you a
beginning balance by type of asset. It
tells you what tells you about the
increases the decreases and it gives the
ending balance. So it gives you you know
the the full the full story of what
occurred where we began and what
happened during the year and then comes
to those totals and that which you get
that net amount which is what you which
what you would see on the face of the
financial statements. So again a very
good lot of good information within the
notes within the notes of the financial
statements.
Now beginning now beginning on page on
page 44 going to move to page 44 now
that begins the required supplementary
information.
So, the required supplementary
information is information that the the
Governmental Accounting Standards Board
requires that you include within within
your financial statements. It includes a
budgetary comparison information as well
as information on the Florida Retirement
System and it gives you some some trend
information as well. Um, what I'd like
to point out here is you can see this.
There's a lot of good information just
on this one page because it it gives you
your general fund budget, gives you the
original adopted budget, final amended
budget, and then your actual results and
then comparing those actual results to
the to the final amended budget showing
what those what those budget variances
are. Um, so once again, a lot of good
information here. And you can see just
as an example, you see total
expenditures. The original budget was
approximately 3,291,000.
The final amended budget was
approximately 3,522,000.
The actual results were approximately
3,429,000.
So you have a positive uh budget
variance of approximately $93,000
um within total expenditures. So again,
this is a lot of good information just
just on this one page. Um and um
you will also see if we go to page
We go to page 52,
you can see there's also, and this is on
all of the pages, you could see 10 years
of information of contributions
um related to the uh and also relates
the net pension liability related to
your Florida retirement system. So, it
gives you that information from 2016 all
the way to 2026. So you can kind of see
where the where the plan has gone um
over the last over the last 10 years.
Now we're going to move into the third
section. So we've looked at the
introductory section. We've looked at
the financial section. Now we're going
to look at the statistical section. This
was the other section that I mentioned
that is that is included as a
requirement for the GFO certificate
program. This section includes uh trend
information uh financial information or
and generally over 10 years. So you'll
have financial information. Um you see
here you have the net position that's
being shown over the last over the last
uh over the last 10 years. Here you see
2016 to 2025. So there's also financial
information. You also have information
on operating information within within
uh the statistical section. And this is
a really important section. The town the
town puts a lot of work into putting
getting this information together. Um,
and it's it's excellent for the readers
to come in and be able to see, you know,
where the where the where the town has
been over the last over the last 10
years. Um, as simple as, you know,
looking at full-time uh equivalent town
employees by function. So, basically
showing that um and also talking about
uh several different types of operating
indicators that are required to be
shown. Again, it's just something that
that assists the town in um in seeing
that history.
Moving from there, we get into our
compliance section, which is the fourth
section. This section includes the
reports that are required under uh
generally accepted government auditing
standards. Um and as well as the rules
of the utter general of the state of
Florida. So this within within within
these reports here we did we did note
that that we found um two significant
deficiencies in internal control and
three instances of non-compliance which
we have reported within the document and
management has provided responses and
those are those are also included within
the document.
In addition to that you also received a
communication to those charged with
governance letter. Um so as your
auditors and under a professional
standards we are required to um go over
certain matters with you and we always
feels it's it's the best to put it with
it within a letter to explain it. These
are all uh standard communications. It
talks about if there was any you know
changes in accounting policies if
there's any any particular uh notes to
the financial statements that we that we
point out that you may want to you may
want to look at. Um those notes it
doesn't mean that it's anything
negative. It's just saying hey you know
you might want to take a look at these.
Um, also talks about if we had any any
uh corrected or uncorrected
misstatements. Um, they're noted there
as well. Some some adjustments that that
needed to be made to be made to the
financial statements. It also talks
about if we had any anything to report
any any other um findings or issues
which we also mentioned in there as well
that we that we did identify those two
significant deficiencies um in three
instances of non-compliance which again
are described in that schedule of
findings and responses which management
has provided uh responses to those as
well. Um overall I just wanted to uh
thank the town for the the opportunity
to to to u be of service. Um, it is an
honor and a privilege and it's it's a
it's a uh it's a responsibility that we
take that we take very seriously and we
uh we we appreciate the um the town's
hard work and the town's cooperation and
assistance throughout the process to be
able to have the opportunity to to
present to you today. Um with that, I'll
leave it there. I mean, I'll open it up
to any questions that you have of me, of
the manager, of the of the finance
director at this time. Thanks again for
the opportunity to uh to present to you
this evening.
» Thank you. Uh, Council Member Kaine has
her question light on.
» Right. Well, my first concern, well, I
have a couple of concerns.
My first concern is I didn't receive
this document until 3:51 today. So, um,
I haven't had a chance to really dig
deep into it. Um,
is there a and of course this doc this
audit itself was due several months ago.
Can you speak to why the audit is late?
» Yeah, it's uh and I can actually uh if
the if the manager would like to would
like to respond. Um I know that
everything is is reported within the
document um as far as as far as what you
know what we found and what the
responses are of management related to
related to uh the delay in in the
completion of the audit and the fact
that we're here today being able to uh
present to you.
» Okay. Uh the second thing is again I
didn't receive this document till I was
literally walking out to feed my horses.
So I haven't been able to spend a whole
lot of time with it but a brief perusal
of this looks like a lot of the uh
issues and that's really the section
that I usually look at is uh your the
you know where there were issues um were
have to do with our financial reporting.
Um, do you feel that the move, the shift
that we've recently made to using a firm
and then an in-house financial person
will
help to address these concerns so that
they don't happen in the future?
» Yes, I do. and I and in conversations
with the with with with the manager as
well as the as well as how management
has responded to the uh to the to the
concerns um the the change in the move
should should should assist in that in
that process going forward.
» Thank you.
» So just for the record um I did receive
the draft ACFR
uh from Andrew uh I believe it was at
316 is when I got it from you Andrew. Is
that
» Yeah.
» Yeah. And I sent it out to council at
3:30. So, I mean, almost immediately
after I received it, I sent it out. Um,
and I think when he refers to
management, we're spec we're specifying
um really the financial consultants. Um,
because naturally, they're the ones that
have to put the information together and
provide it to uh the auditors and a lot
of the delays uh were with inconsistent
information and having to go back and
forth and correct that information.
Uh may I add something to address what
was said?
» I see that you were there. Yes, please
speak.
» Okay. Thank you. Um just to note that
the idea is obviously that the model
that we've put in place now is going to
solve these problems going forward. That
said, some of these are um we're coming
in in August of 2026 for a fiscal year
that's ending in 30 days, which means
that some of these issues that are noted
in this audit, we can't fix what
happened for the first 11 months of the
year, we can only fix it going forward.
So, um, depending on how an auditor is
going to view that and and I can't
predict how that's going to to come
about, um, sometimes they'll clear the
comments if it's cleared by the end of
the fiscal year. Sometimes they say
they'll include it. They'll lower it to
a a lower a lesser type of finding, you
know, going from a significant
deficiency to an internal control
deficiency. um and then comment that
it's cleared going forward, but that
during the year under audit, it wasn't
addressed. I just wanted to be perfectly
clear. It's not going to wave a magic
wand and fiscal year 26 is going to be
perfect because we're coming in too late
in the end of fiscal 26 in order to get
everything fixed in 30 days.
» Thank you. And just for the record,
could you please say your name since
you're here virtually?
» I'm sorry. Ivon Claybourne, CRI
Advisors.
» Thank you.
» And and I concur with with Ivonne. And
that's typically how it works. And then
in in mentioning seeing that things are
going to improve with is on a on a going
forward basis. So um one of the first
things that we do when we come back for
the audit obviously is we go over we go
over the prior year uh the prior year
findings, discuss that and say, "Okay,
what what what has been done um to
correct these going forward?" And
obviously if they were if they were an
issue during the year typically they
they they are they are repeated but
there is but the response is that that
has been that obviously has been
corrected going forward. And it is and
it and the the finding typically is
adjusted to to note that we reviewed
information subsequent to noting that um
you know that the matter the matter
appears to have been appears to have
been resolved going forward even though
the matter was um was an issue during
the year. So um that's exactly right. So
I I concur with what Ivonne said.
And if you look at page 72, uh if you
look at 202502 financial closed
reporting, there's a statement in there
uh under criteria where it states the
town currently lacks personnel to allow
for appropriate and adequate review of
accounting data and financial
information. Timely preparation and
accurate accounting reconciliations are
key to maintaining adequate internal
control over financial reporting. And so
when you look at the responses, the
responses uh, you know, go back to, you
know, this new hybrid model that we're
looking to implement.
Thank you.
» Any other questions?
Any questions from the public? Just
wanted to say thank you.
» We have a public
» Tracy's whi whipping a card around back
there.
» Well, look out, Andrew. It's the chair
of the finance committee wanting to come
forward for questions. So,
uh oh, she's got a file folder.
» No, no. Unacceptable. Got right. We got
right ahead.
» See that?
» Talk closer to your microphone. No.
» It's hidden.
I like a lot.
» TMI.
» Yeah, that's my favorite little TMI.
» Hi, Andrew. Can you hear me?
» Yes, can hear you.
» Hi, this is Tracy Rafitz, 1261 FRO,
chair of the fact committee. So, I have
a couple questions since I got this at 4
o'clock this afternoon as well. Um, the
big one, if your audit had not been
identified and corrected, not identified
and corrected, the adjustments, would
the town's financial statements have
been materially materially misstated?
» Yes. Yes. That's typically the the the
material adjustments that we find. If
they're not if they're not corrected,
they would be materially misstated. Yes.
» Okay. The town's initial working trial
balance required 59 audit adjustments
totaling approximately $10 million from
for a municipality our size. Is that
normal?
» No. Typically when we get the working
trial balance um there's not there's not
that many adjustments that that are
required um prior to getting it. Um so
when there's that when there's that many
adjustments that means that the that the
working trial balance wasn't was not
completely adjusted when we received it.
Um and then I and then as the process
went through as as as we asked questions
there was there had been adjustments
that were that had been that have been
recorded um even internally subsequent
to us receiving the working trial
balance. So as as the manager stated
that's exactly what happened. There was
there was there was discrepancies and
changes and there was there was a lot of
back and forth in the process um to come
to come to the point of having the uh
the the the fully adjusted trial balance
and obviously fully adjusted financial
statements.
So, of that $10 million, how much was
routine reclassification and how much
was represented as actual errors
affecting our cash, revenues, expenses,
receivables, payables, or fund balance?
» So, that detail that detail we would we
would have to get back to you. I can
tell you though that there was there was
several reclassifications.
» So, those 59 adjustments were they
identified by the town staff before the
actual audit or were they primarily
discovered by the auditors during the
audit process?
So I so I believe it's it's a
combination of both. Um I think that
when we received the the working trial
balance there once we um identified that
there was differences, it was it was
explained that there was adjustments
that had been have been recorded that
had not been provided um that they had
been recorded internally. Um we consider
those audit adjustments because anything
anything that gets adjusted based on one
of our questions or based on something
that we propose um they're considered
audit adjustments. Um but they were
several of them were explained as as
adjustments that had been recorded but
uh had not been provided to us. Um again
going back to the to the point of the
working trial balance initially that we
received was not was not fully adjusted.
» You classified the financial close and
the reporting problems as a significant
deficiency but not a material weakness.
Can you explain why?
So we consider we consider it a uh a
significant deficiency uh in the in the
in the respect that they um that this is
the the first year once again of having
this number one. Um number two the the
adjustments that the adjustments that
were that were provided um it's a it was
how it was a combination of adjustments
that they had not been fully adjusted
and ones that we had proposed and that's
the reason why we uh we classified as a
significant deficiency as opposed to
material weakness.
uh the bank reconciliations, were you
able to determine if the accounts
actually had been reconciled or
reviewed, but the signatures and dates
were simply missing or could you not
really establish that an independent
review occurred at at all?
» So we so yeah, this since the
documentation wasn't there, it was
explained to us that there was that
there was an independent review. It just
we we weren't able to um to identify and
there was the proper audit trail for it
wasn't there. Hence why we had the uh
the uh the finding
You tested 41 POS.
30 did not have corresponding purchase
orders available. Were you able to
verify through other documentation that
those purchase orders were properly
authorized before the money was spent?
» Thanks.
» So yeah, within within those se within
those selections, the there was
authorization whenever we looked at the
expenditures, there was authorization
for the uh for the payment. Were they
signed?
» It just was obvious obviously there
wasn't there wasn't there was not there
was not purchase orders.
» Were they signed?
» I'd have to see how I'd have to see how
that how that would go through in the
system. Uh I will confirm that.
» During your audit, did you identify any
transaction that appeared to be
unauthorized, unsupported, duplicated,
improperly paid, or otherwise
questionable?
» Can you repeat the question?
» Do you need a minute?
» No. I said, can you repeat the question?
During your audit, did you identify any
transaction that appeared to be
unauthorized, unsupported, duplicated,
improperly paid, or otherwise
questionable?
» Other than other than what we reported
in the document, uh within our within
our findings, no,
» The audit was not completed within the
nine months required by Florida law. In
your opinion, was the primary cause the
auditor's timetable or was it the time
the town's inability to timely close,
reconcile or provide accurate financial
records?
» Well, was yeah, it was as a result of
the of the information of the uh
information that was provided and the
back and forth that was required based
on the uh primarily due to the initial
trial balance and the and the and the
back and forth throughout the process of
of the um multiple adjustments and and
questions on the information that was
provided. When you asked for
information, how long did it take you to
get
» From the responses? Responses were
pretty uh were pretty quick when we
would receive responses and there was
maybe some points where some time would
go by where we where we wouldn't uh
wouldn't receive responses. So, it was
it was it was a little bit of both.
Was it recently or the whole nine months
that was it recently that you received
better responses or was it the whole
nine months of asking?
» Uh I believe it was it was again it was
it was a mix throughout the process. Um
I can't really I can't really recall now
the exact uh time frame of how long it
took for responses throughout the
process.
And then lastly, based on everything you
saw during this audit, are the
corrective actions management
is prop are the corrective actions
management proposed sufficient? And what
specifically should council require to
see during fiscal year 26 to know these
problems actually have been corrected
rather than simply promised?
» Yes, I believe so. Um, and it it's going
to be it's going to be a direct result
and we're we're going to know when it
when it comes time when the the year end
close um comes cuz as Ivon as Ivonne
mentioned, you know, as it relates as it
relates to the findings, if something
was happening during the year and it
comes up and we go back and check, it
may be repeated, but that doesn't mean
that um next year's audit process um
will take will take as long. So the the
process will be we'll meet uh we'll meet
early on obviously that basically we're
going to basically be rolling right into
2026 you know providing our requests
we'll we'll speak with uh with
management um come up with come up with
an appropriate timeline working
backwards from the deadline to see to
explain exactly when we need the
information to be able to uh be able to
move forward. And I think the best way
the best way for uh for council to know
is obviously receiving um you know
regular regular updates from uh from
from town management as to as to how
that process is going.
» Just so council knows, I have 100% faith
in Yavon and her people after speaking
with her last night that it's going to
be an incredible year because I think
the staff now has has a way to speak
with her openly and get documentation a
lot better. So, I think our books are
going to be really good for 26
» Next year.
» All right.
» Coming year.
» Any other questions, comments? Thank
you. Thank you.
» I think that sounds like Tracy looks
forward to fing up until like 28 208.
» Thanks.
» Very excited about it. She's going to
chair
» Andrew. Thank you. Thank you for all
your hard work. I It was a long time
coming. So, and hopefully the changes
will make your job next year easier. So,
» Thank you.
» All right.
That will bring us to uh agenda item
two. I know that we all have some notes
on this one.
» Got somebody fast on her button over
here. So
» First, but she's okay.
Council member Kaine.
» Thank you.
» So,
well, we were at the league conference
this weekend. uh the mayor, the vice
mayor, and myself. At one point, I had a
little break for something and I said,
"I'm going to go to my room and figure
out this RV problem." Well, I didn't. Um
here's what
» That was very antilimactic.
» That's pretty ambitious of me. But
here's what I did figure out. Here's a
couple of things I did figure out. I
figured out that
as I don't know who said it. I think
Miss Standish said it before. There
appears to be some kind of a disconnect
because
we have repeatedly I I know because I'm
one of the ones who said it have said
that we are looking to simplify this RV
program. We are looking to not have it
be this laborintensive
thing for staff because we quite frankly
don't have the staff for it. Um, and we
are looking for it to be user friendly,
easy for people to comply with so that
they will actually comply. And I read
none of that in here. I mean, I read
additional
problems. You've got to now you got to
go to the health department too and get
a permit from them besides getting a
health permit from us. I mean, the whole
thing just smacks a bureaucracy and red
tape. And the bottom line at the end of
the day when I was done digesting all of
this, the bottom line I came to is the
people who are going to follow the rules
and who are going to do this the right
way are going to do it whether they have
a permit or not. And the people who
aren't going to follow the rules, let's
talk about Dro. What just happened three
days ago? We had an RV catch on fire and
on the news they reported that the main
residence that was an RV next to the
main residence. But here's the clicker
folks. There is no main residence on
that property. So I'm not sure whether
the main residence was a lean to or a
bigger RV. I mean I'm not sure what they
I'm not sure what main residence they
were referring to. So, the fact that
there is an RV complex, one of which was
so whatever the electric wasn't right,
well, for whatever reason, caught on
fire and jeopardized the entire
neighborhood. Um, that's not somebody
who's going to come in for an RV permit.
All right? They're already what they're
doing is illegal. I'm not sure what the
solution is, but I know what the problem
is. And it's not the people who rent out
one or two RVs on their property for
circuit who maybe have their son-in-law
living there because he's fallen on hard
times or whatever for a little while.
And the the people who store their own
personal RVs, they are not the problem,
right? They're not the problem. The
problem is the people that have four and
five and 10 RVs buried in the woods out
here that are nowhere close to roadw
worthy that people are living in year
round and that are creating situations
like this. And I don't see anything in
here. Requiring the people that are
following the rules to jump through a
set of circus hoops is not going to
solve our RV problem. That's my soap box
and I'm done.
» Okay, Council Member Coleman. Yeah, I I
agree with you, but I mean the the the
reason for the health department is
because you have a lot of um in my
opinion, you have a lot of it's no
different than you put in putting a
mother-in-law's quarters on your
property and you have to add a secondary
septic or your septic doesn't or or your
septic doesn't come in line. So, but you
but you throw that you threw that in
with the bureaucracy of it all. And the
whole idea is I and I get what you're
saying. I'm with you. the people that
are going to comply are going to comply
and they're going to do the proper
thing. Um, but I think it's still that
kind of stuff still needs to be there
because um the minute you don't have it
there and then somebody goes, "What do
you mean I can't put a 55gallon drum in
the ground with rocks in it and call it
a day?
» Just dump it on
» Or just dump it on the ground."
» And that's, you know, it doesn't say
there that I have to have signed off by
the health department. I mean, if your
current septic tank will support it,
they'll make that determination. You
know, you don't necessarily have to add
a septic depending on where what you're
doing. But, I mean, something like that,
I think, but I'm with you. It needs to
be We've been saying since we've been in
this around, I don't think we want to
keep beating around annually either,
right? But we've been saying since we
started this, we're trying to make it
simpler, right? And I think that's the,
you know,
» I don't see this as simpler. And again,
I don't see it as a solution. As Mr.
Austin keeps pointing out, we have an RV
problem. This is not a solution to the
RV problem.
» It wasn't intended to be a solution to
the RV problem. I think we've all felt
that code enforcement is the solution to
the problem properties. So, do you want
to start on the first page of the
exhibit A section 92 010?
um because we need to get through this
and and direct staff so I can come back
for first reading.
» So you're on page three of eight.
» Article 92.
» On page four. Okay.
» I I don't know which page because I'm
going off my I'm going off my old notes.
» It says four of eight.
» So let me let me get to your page as
well. Uh
» Oh. He's going to get his glasses.
» Uh you're on page four of eight. Okay.
» Yeah.
» Four of eight.
» Article 92.
eight.
Uh,2
that's
that's the old ordinance 2407. I'm
talking about article 92.
» I'm talking about the new one. Go to
page 14 of the current agenda.
» But isn't the underlying stuff in this?
» Go to go to page 14 of the current
agenda. This is the proposed.
» This is the new article 92.
» Yeah,
» That's what I thought. But just making
sure.
» Yeah.
So, we should be on page 14 of the
current agenda. I believe that's 14.
Yes.
» Ah, doesn't look like a copy. Look at
that bon color.
» So, uh
the first section where it says as used
in this article, bonafideed feed, uh
agricultural use classification shall
mean such classification signed by the
Palm Beach County Property Appraiser. Uh
I know council member Coleman, you've
had issue with this. Um, so
obviously we want if we're going to
allow the caretaker one RV
80% of the property has to be a use ad
classified. How does that get determined
Paul if you feel that that's not
» I I think it's it's along the same lines
of what you have to provide to the
property appraiser because again keep
hating to harp on this but you don't
have to file with the property
appraiser. So what do you want? So you
want them to submit to staff because
this is the one that's going to have the
most regulation agriculture use.
» I would say it will
» Whoever's writing this needs to refer to
the state a law and make sure that we're
compliant with that number one because I
we have a lot of passionate people that
that deal with this in our neighborhood
in our town and they're going to be
throwing it in our face every time we
get a chance, right? So we need to make
sure that it complies. But I would I
would think property appraiser is one
outlet, but I think there needs to be
like the list of different things that
we'll accept.
» You can demonstrate
» Schedule F for the IRS. You know, a copy
of your sun biz, you know, multiple
documents. Same things that you would
supply to, you know, the property
appraiser, you can supply to us in lie
of the property
» Appraiser. Would you agree that this is
the one use that's going to have the
most input from that? Absolutely.
Because it's going to have to have a
permitted septic. It's going to have to
have permitted electric.
» Yeah.
» Right. And it has to be 80% of the
property to allow it.
» Uh I think that one of my notes on that
require was requiring tie-downs, but
let's stay on this page. Um other notes
on this page from me was the time the
vehicle was going to be allowed on the
property was proposed by the uldc. We're
on page 14
» 14 of the jobs.
» So
» No, that's is the old one off the chain.
Uh, do we want to uh place a limit from
November 1st to April 30?
» It says that during November of the in
the recommendation. Yeah. Oh, I'm sorry.
» I'm asking do we want to keep it?
» Well, I mean, not to be Yeah, but don't
polo start doesn't polo start showing up
like October 15th.
» They're back.
» They're back now. It's really depending
on and I'm not trying to make it bigger,
please.
» This was not us. This is I'm just saying
but you know and there's a lot of horse
folks on the uldc but my I guess my
point is
» Our horse season isn't necessarily just
» Correct
» Hunter jumpers or dr there's other folks
» We want to keep this you want to strike
it
» Also have a a growing season right
that's a different season that you might
want to bring in if you're a bonafide
egg and it's growing peppers right and
you might want to bring in people to
stay to pick the peppers um I'm not sure
I don't
But
» I'm not sure
» What their growing season is. However,
we don't necessarily know that it is. So
maybe we just want to say to a time
period like six months
» And I think it does say that it it's
just uldc had recommended a specific
six-month window.
» And I get where they're coming from, but
I just think that we
» So we want to take that out. Strike it.
» Discriminatory.
» Yeah, I think so. It could be like six
months within a within a 12-month period
or something like that. Well, because
calendar year is going to bridge, right?
So, yeah,
» We're good with striking that. So,
strike
» Strike.
All right, next page.
So, yeah, here's where
my my one note on this one was, do we
want to require it to be secured down
since it's going to be a a year round in
essence resident for the caretaker? So,
I don't think that's actually on here
though. So, it's going to need to be
secured
somehow that so that needs to be added.
There is a securing thing later on,
Lisa, but because I had that, but I also
had the the question. So, are we under
E, which I presume is what you're
looking at.
» Um, under E. So, are we saying that
somebody has a a caretaker's quarters
» Um that they must install a septic or
hook up to a septic or why can't they
have it pumped? because we're trying to
discourage people from just parking RVs
and staying on the property without
» In essence there's there's a little more
buy in, right? If you're you're not
just,
» You know,
» I know I know currently if you're if
you're building a house outside of here,
if you're building a house, um you they
they still have that caveat that you
could place a mobile home on the
property for the term of building the
house
» Be your mobile home.
» Well, that's I'm getting at.
This is just one of and they you don't
have to have the septic set up ahead of
time that's going to be for the house.
You have a temporary septic which is a
basically a big black tub that gets
pumped out. Um, and in thinking of that
maybe and hearing you guys talk, you
know, this provision
as far as I understand it, um, and you
know, having the caretaker's quarters
for a nursery is not set up when you're
talking about tying down, it's not set
up for an RV. That that's was more to a
mobile home. um you know for for years
you go by you go by a nursery and there
would be a mobile home there and it's
it's anchored it's secured it's sitting
at the proper elevation it's got a
septic of a kind right everything is
permitted etc and inspected with an RV
there's no per there's no building
permit there's nothing and secure and
it's you know it's sitting on tires it's
not so I don't know how you go about you
know maybe you'll find some engineer to
design something for you but I don't
know how you go about securing it
» Secure the evac evacuated.
» Correct.
» But then again, if it's an RV, it's only
supposed to be here 6 months though.
» Not under on the A. That was what that
discussion was about allowing it. Is
that not something we want to allow
then?
» That's that's I was kind of having I
know we talked about it before and just
didn't dawn me, but that's what I'm kind
of thinking about. If that's your where
you're wanting to go, I think it needs
to be a permitted mobile home as
» We can do that under state law for act,
but I used to
» Yeah.
» Can we require them to have a mobile
home or could they have their caretaker
in an RV?
» Um,
» Something you might have to look into.
» Yeah, I'm probably don't know that one
off the top of your head.
» Have to look into that a little bit. Um,
and there's as bonafide a you do receive
a large amount of permit exemptions.
» Correct.
» Um, but I'll have to look into whether
or not we can require a mobile home
versus an RV as workers.
» No, dwelling spaces aren't one of them.
» Yeah, the dwelling that's the, you know,
the whole caveat. That's how people are
able to build these big palatial barns
without permits. As long as there's no
dwelling, no sleeping space, right?
because you only need the 4hour firewall
this other stuff that's required. So I
think we need to revisit that part.
» This was also partly for let's say an
equestrian use that does not have a home
right that is a a
» That wants to leave somebody on property
» That wants wants somebody there. Uh it
would fall under the sixmonth limit and
not under this. Is that what we're
saying?
» That's what I'm saying. Okay. Because if
you're if you have a year round
equestrian facility,
you know, temporary RV is not conducive
to it's not a dwelling.
» You know what I'm saying?
» No, I understand.
» So, we'll wait and hear back on whether
that's even allowed as or we're required
to allow it as versus a mobile home. So,
that one is a question coming back. I
know uh Karen we asked previously under
our allowance for disabled folks uh
there's been zero applications under
that and then would the federal
government override us anyway I think
was my question at the time if you were
able to find that
» I have a question on H on that page are
you are you
» Not there yet okay sorry
» Parking of the recreational vehicle uh
specified in a lease agreement is this
something we want to get involved in
staff staffwise.
» I I don't think we need to be seeing
lease agreements.
» So, I think we take that language out.
» Um
cuz we're not going to be reviewing
that. I don't know how one removes that,
but remove and you had something on H.
» I do because it says no recreational
vehicle may be used for the storage of
goods, material, or equipment. But this
strikes me again as an enormous
enforcement issue. How the heck do you
know what's going on inside an RV? I
mean, that one over there at Sea Road to
Collective was clearly being used for
storage. It was storing hay because it
set on fire, right? But nobody knew that
because who knows what's inside of the
RV. So, I I just think, you know, it's
like
telling your kids you're not going to do
this for a month, right? And then the
problem is you're actually punishing
yourself because for a month you have to
enforce that. This is not something
that's enforceable for us. We can't
had code staff to go around and open the
door of every RV and see what
» To you to your point though it there was
a fire so they got busted right there
was there was evidence this is going to
be complaint driven so if you've got
somebody that complains hey you know
they're using that as their
» Back room right and then that gives
staff the opportunity to go in and
enforce something if it's not on the
rules it's uninforceable right
» But again yeah this says the
recreational vehicle has to be able to
be amused immediately. Certainly, it
can't be as if it's strapped down, even
if it's a year round. So, I think maybe
we need a different ordinance for
caretakers, but anyhow, go ahead. I
think
» That's possible, too. Um, and when what
is the definition of roadworthiness,
right? And I know that there's some
question if it's
» I think it has to be tagged like
» Well, if it's something you own, right?
If I want to let my own RV tag expire
because I don't have any plans of taking
it anywhere, I think there has to be
some clarity here.
» I think it said it has to be tagged
whether it's your own or not.
» I I don't think you can force somebody
to tag their their vehicle, their RV
that's they're storing on their own
property.
» Well, I mean, they force you to tag a
vehicle vehicle, right? So, I mean,
there's out out in the ether. I'm not
sure about here, but out, you know,
everywhere, you know, there's ordinances
in towns and stuff that, you know, code
enforcement drives by the house and
there's a car without a tag.
» They'll violate you. Yeah. Even if it's
a
» Do we require that now on all vehicles.
The audience seems to have an opinion.
Um,
» There's there's a lot of stuff that
there's a lot of stuff that's that's in
there that you know that's why I've
always said he's
» Because it's defined as a motor vehicle
you're supposed to have.
» That wasn't my my question was do we
require autos to have tags current tags
under our current code? So this would
just be an expansion of existing
language
» Existing harbs. No existing code period.
» Somebody's got a car repair place that
they
» I got a classic car that's I sit in my
garage.
» Does it have to be tagged? I know it
does under cab under state.
» Under state. Perfect. That's what we
were looking for.
» Sorry.
» So, so you're telling me if I have a
1965 Ford Mustang and it's sitting in my
front yard, right? It's roadw worthy,
but it doesn't have a tag on. I'm in
violation of state statute because it's
not registered even though I just bought
it last week and it just got shipped
here.
» That's different.
» And state
» I'm gonna wait. We got a lawyer jump.
» So just doing a quick search of your
code does not appear that you have a
local requirement related to abandoned
vehicles, you know, or defining an
abandoned vehicle as
» Even in our nuisance abatement. You
would think it would be there. the state
statute
which right the sheriff or state police
would be enforcing
is usually for a vehicle that is on the
road.
» Correct.
» Right. It's just in your yard
at least not yet. The
» Gest that's along the lines of what I
was thinking I I guess my point is I
wouldn't say also you know that having a
tag doesn't deem it roadw worthy, right?
I I can I can have a 1985 uh Wnebago and
I go down to and I take all the title
information and everything. I go down to
the tag office and I get a tag issued.
They're not looking to see the
Winnebago. They're going to issue my
tag. I got a signed title with my name
on it. They're going to issue my tag. Da
da da da. I'm going to slap a tag on it.
You come to my yard and the thing's half
fallen apart.
» Right.
» Right. So, I think roadw worthy is, you
know, it's it's got tires on it. It's
not lack of tires, right? That and I
think we do and again not trying to make
things more difficult, but I think some
of these things need to be defined. Yes.
» You know, roadw worthy needs to be
defined. There is a tongue on the
trailer. It's not,
» You know, a mobile home doesn't have the
apparatus to tow. Correct. It's got
tires on it. It's got, you know, lights
on it. I mean,
» Yeah.
» Yeah. I don't think
» I think that needs a little more
defining as well. So, uh, ownership of
the vehicle, the vehicle park must be
owned or leased by the property's owner
or tenant. This this it goes back into
that lease agreement. Um,
how do we want to define that? I mean,
the vehicle parked. This goes back to
» Yeah. being able people obviously can't
park other people's RVs,
» But that goes to outdoor storage and we
do have an outdoor storage, right? So,
you know, I
» I think if it goes back to being
complaint driven and if somebody's like,
you know, they've got eight RVs parked
over there on the side of their
property, you show up and they're
charging people to park them there.
» So,
» Yeah,
» And I think we've seen those around
town. Uh, no major repairs, no problem
with that. Let's see next page.
Okay. Yeah, this is where it gets really
wild. All right. Uh so permit required
uh if the recreational vehicle is being
stored on the property and then I have
owned question mark. So
again, I think it's important to the to
the words matter in these things that we
are not
we are not regulating people's
private
things, boats,
you know, car toy hauler, you know, RVs,
horse trailers, right? So I think that
» This just may need some clarification
that way.
Um,
» Yep.
» In that same page on A, it says a town
building permit is only required for an
operational recreational vehicle if the
recreational vehicle is occupied.
» Yeah, I think we need to get away from
this permit language because, you know,
this again, maybe permit is the right
language. I'll leave it up to the legal
on that, but you know, this is more of a
registration program. Uh and then going
into that. So well that's I now I
understand why you have stored as versus
occupied. So
and then my comment here is how is this
simplifying all of these steps that have
to be gone through and I also want to
make another appeal here. I know I made
it before for the people that have
already gone through this process and
allowed their property to be inspected
last year and paid the fees that they
should somehow be grandfathered in for
however many years they were promised.
They were promised a year or five years
or whatever they were promised they
should be that we should stick to that.
We we we asked them to have the
inspection. I think there were what
40ome people that that complied with
that. I think those 41 people get a buy
on this and for whatever period of time
we said on
» I disagree. We've got we've got vacant
properties with four RVs on them. We're
going to give them a campground for 5
years.
» No, I'm saying the 41 people that went
through the process or they're and that
are on record as going through the
inspection and being inspected.
» I know the one I'm talking about had
gone through it. So, they get four years
of getting four more years of having
four RVs on vacant land. We complain
about that person or there but that that
caut
the new the new requirements
» Within the new requirements that have
already had the inspection should get a
buy because they've already paid the
inspection fee and the but those people
» On vacant land are not in the rules of
the new compliance. So therefore they
get from because they don't have the
homestead. I think legal can guide us on
amortizing that or not am advertising
that right so
» Yeah I if you would like to provide for
grandfathering we can do that and that's
easy to do
» Grandfathering those who still
» Would qualify
» Qualify under the new thing for
» But I don't think you get five years for
your $100 when it's going to be $50 for
everybody else every other year.
» Well I was given five years for $100
because it's my personal RV and it's
still sitting there. I paid for a stored
RV. I mean because that's what I was
» Well, then maybe you should get your
money back. I said, well, we still
aren't anymore.
» So,
» Right. I think
» I think what but I think what you're
» Did that. Okay. Yeah. You know, so
» I think the only route you're going is
that you don't think since you got a
permit last year and it's good for five
years, you should not have to go get
another permit this year regardless if
it's $50 or $500. Yeah. No, I'm just
using you as an example because, you
know, I think that's what she's saying
is I shouldn't have to go apply again
this year.
If if somebody who applied and has their
thing is not compliant with the new
ordinance,
» Tough nookies, you know.
» But I'm just saying that $100 bought you
five years under the old one. It doesn't
buy you five years under the new one.
That goes
» I I get it. Well, you know, good for
» It's her owned own RV, though.
» You shouldn't have to do it all under
Exactly.
» You get a refund.
» Um, so I think I think the form
basically I don't have a problem with
the form until it gets to dates the
recreational vehicle will be on site.
I'm I'm not sure
right because if we're not going to
limit that is that
» Versus on-site versus occupied is what I
have dates the RV would be occupied
» Maybe that's a better language there if
we're going to ask that question at all
maybe it gets asked I don't I in our
conversations in the workshop we talked
about them signing under penalty of
perjury that they attest that they have
a permanent electric a permitted um
septic or they pump it out, right? And
then again, if it's complaint driven,
somebody says, you know, they're just
pulling their cord out there. So, um you
get in and that's when they get really
tagged. Uh D.
» Should we add something about the
continued use of generator or something
like that for power? So, they don't
think that's a loophole.
» Well, it says electric permit, but I I
take your point. Yes. You know what I'm
saying?
» They cannot They cannot utilize um
generator.
» Yeah, you're not at a roping. You cannot
stand.
» It's not post Hurricane Francis. You
can't go three weeks without power and
still use your generator because FPL
doesn't know how to fuse. Oh, sorry.
» Um so,
» And then Karen Karen on item K, my
question was,
do we want in an ordinance to set the
fee? My concern is then we have to
change the fee by ordinance. It just
could it just be set by council by via
resolution? Can we leave that language a
little more open-ended so that the point
is starting the program encouraging
compliance getting people used to
complying and then if the cost of it we
see is still higher then obviously
adjusting the fee to to continue to
allow it to be. I I just was concerned
that this if this language is in the
ordinance then it would be hard to
change in the future because it would
require another ordinance. So
» Typically these schedules are done with
resolution.
» Okay. So
» Digressing about the the six month
change.
» You're changing your mind. Well, I just
thought about that as we're talk as
we're talking and
um you know the the
purpose of this is not so we can have
you know
open-ended year round use right it it
it's meant to be during the horse season
of really kind of or
» Six months is what we said
» Six months period
» Six months but it was for agricultural
uses again you could have the pickers
I'm trying not to be I'm a horse
person's trying I'm trying Not to be
» Well he says polo's already here just
for
» Now they usually come Octoberish
somebody else here
» Support all agriculture not just
» I'm with you I'm just you know again I'm
I'm actually a person that always says
you can't build it for the one person
that's going to violate you got to build
it for you know um but what about the
what about the person that says well I
got you know four RVs on my property all
year round and I'm going to Airbnb these
things.
» No that's already not allowed. Okay,
that's
» It says in here don't make it an Airbnb.
» No, but th that number of RVs offers
» I'm within my numbers,
» Right? See, I got two
» And I'm going to Airbnb them.
» We can't stop people from Airbnb as long
as we don't do it for more than six
months.
» So, how they how they come about being
rented, I don't think we want to
regulate that.
» I don't think we can. So I can't either.
» So um and then the the final one L that
was um recommended by uldc with
verifying occupant identification.
Again I I say that that's just
» Prohibitive.
So do we want to remove that?
» I don't think so.
» I just I mean how are we how will we do
that? We're looking I mean we're looking
at a process that's gonna just meet
staff might as well work weekends are
free to do that.
» Well I mean
» It goes back to what I said which is
again the people who like Lena who are
ready
out
» They are not going to want a sex
offender or a murderer in their RV and
they're going to do their due diligence
to take it. So the people that are
following the rules are going to follow
the rules and be responsible about it.
What we have to
» Especially homesteaded their homestead
where they're living. I mean, she's not
going to want to have a pedophile living
next door to her grandchild, you know?
So, I'm pretty sure she's not l
» Don't get me wrong. I I'm with you. I I
I would love that though to know. I
mean, I lived it for three and a half
years and then watching SWAT teams every
three or four months go over there and
then put somebody in handcuffs and march
them off the property.
» It's the offenders. They're they're not
going to follow these any matter what we
have on here. They're not going to do
it.
» We got I mean, that's like another issue
that we to address.
» Uh inspections. This is may maybe you
want one by request. Um but certainly
complaint driven, right? If you get a
complaint about someone, right? Even if
they filled out this lovely little form,
you get a complaint, an inspection is
happening, but it's not going to be a
requirement.
» Well,
» Because we're trying to cut down cost
and staff time.
» Yeah, it's happening as long as I let
you in at my gate.
That's what this is about. Well,
» I I I I'm assuming that's what this
» You can put that you agree by signing
this this form, you're agreeing that
under complaint, you're going to allow
access.
» Yeah. Yeah. I
» I mean, again, this goes back to if
you're going to be compliant, this is to
help people absolutely gain compliance.
» Again, I'm not picking on Lena, but
she's not going to dump poop out on her
ground, you know, like she's going to
something there for her. cleanest place
ever.
» Yeah.
» So,
» I I get what you're saying, but you
know, not for nothing, if if you know,
you come to my gate and I don't want to
let you in. I don't have to let you in.
» But offender, like particularly the one
actually
who's being talked about here on the
day, that's somebody who never has
allowed anybody onto their property,
stood at their gate,
» Was clearly visible,
» Even though the smoke was clearly
visible, even though the neighbors
complained. That's a it's a different
issue. It's a it's a it's a different
issue,
» But that's a different code enforcement
process then, right? That escalates to a
different level and that that should be
something we provide for already
» Through our processes. Right.
» Right.
» Okay.
» Um so some of the language in D will
have to be adjusted requiring
inspection. Requiring inspection
um the water hookup uh use of extension
cords. Uh I think that's where some of
these fires start is the use of
extension cords. So um again, how do we
regulate that? Um
» 100%.
» I I can just say, you know, use of
extensions cards are discouraged and in
the event of a
outbreak of fire, your your permit is
now invalid. Your registration's
invalid. I mean, no, no one wants to
start a fire, but they won't let us stop
fireworks either. So it's a whole
different problem. uh septic hookup. Um
again, you're attesting that your septic
is permitted. So, that I think is okay
to be in there, that your statement of
your septic permit is it was through the
health department and maybe some
language thereof. Solid waste. Um
I mean, is that language? I mean, it
seems pretty innocuous to me. So
uh and then lastly bunk houses
you know we don't this is not to allow
you know bunk houses you know this is
for what would you call it recreational
» Right we have to again
» Recreational
there's a use con consumer use versus
what are basically
uh emergency housing for first
responders,
right? So, I don't know how you guys
weave that, you know, that's threading
the needle, but I I see some of our
larger a uses wanting to roll in a
couple bunk houses and a couple shower
bathroom houses on wheels and say,
"Well, it's allowed under your RV
permit." So, and I think that may be
something in here that your RV cannot
exceed its stated capacity and that or
may that may already be in here and I
apologize if it is, but the RV cannot be
used for any use outside of its doesn't
it have like a little panel on it that
says, you know, how many people or
something?
» It does. They do.
» There you go. That's the word.
Manufacturer couldn't think of it.
» So, all right. I think we beat that up
pretty well. Any other questions?
» I'm happy. She's happy.
» What do we have a section in here that
dedicated to definitions?
Because we can clearly define in
definitions what an RV is. And we can we
I'm assume and we could also there we
could mention that an RV is not of this
capacity. We consider an RV to be under
this many feet and D. You know, we could
give or something.
» Well, no, it's a lot of codes are
written with definitions. I know this
isn't a code, but a lot of codes are
written with definitions. You have a
whole section that's definitions over
here and then you have all these codes
that come after it and they'll refer to
those definition. You know the words
they use are in the definitions. So if
we define an RV as being
» This big this you know whatever and you
know I don't know kind you get what I'm
saying right? You kind of play with that
and
» You jump in there if you don't mind.
Yeah, we're happy to to add a definition
either as part of this section or in
another section of your code.
» Yeah, that's I'm saying somewhere we
» Agree that it should be clean.
» Right. And I think that'll take care of
the confusion as to does a bunk house
comply. No, this is RV code. This is as
as per
» Definition. They're technically RVs,
those bunk houses.
» I know, but we're we're defining as RV
as this big by this big and not more
than this many. And
» Yeah, but what if you got one of those
gigantic Post
buses with like six pop outs and
» Well, those generally only sleep about
four or five people. So,
» Yes, that's true.
» I'm I'm just saying.
» But you said this size by this size
» In the definition, we could stipulate
that
» Yeah. Pass or RV or whatever. They can
play with the definition as to where And
I think um I'm sorry,
» Not pigeons.
» I'm bad with names.
» Zack.
» Zack. I think Zach's kind of getting
what we're, you know, smelling what
we're stepping in. So, you know, we're
not taking a 40 unit, you know, 40 bunk
» 18-wheeler and parking it somewhere.
» Yeah.
» Okay.
» Yeah. We could do you have the
definition of that. Have the definition
of a exempt, right? We talked about the
different options. Roadworthy was
another definition to put in. So, as
Zach and I go through, we can figure out
what might be, you know, unclear and
we'll try to use.
» Awesome. And I know we're trying to
bring this back soon because of season
coming up and
» Getting people people rolled in. Yes.
Public comments.
» So, thank you Karen.
» Yes, madam mayor. The first part we have
is Tracy Raflowitz.
» Not Tracy.
» At least she didn't bring her folder
this time.
» We're talking.
» We are. Yes.
» What is the state statute for an RV? The
vehicle.
» Um, can't we make this simple,
necessary, make the ribbon? We've been
talking about RVs for so darn long. I
mean, it's been many years. I'm
concerned that the RV
items move that it makes the town
proactive enforcement instead of solving
the resident complaint. Um, the RV rules
need to be simple. When rules become too
complicated, people either do not
understand them or don't follow them.
The town should create a clear seasonal
argued rule that supports the question
without turning it into a paperwork
track. And you know, I thought about
this too is I just thinking about the
questioning. There's other people in the
town
» That would like to use an RV or have
parents come down for the summer season
or the winter season to get them out of
up north in the in the snow.
Why are we making it six months? You
guys are making this so difficult. And I
I watch these meeting and it keeps
coming back. You guys say don't do this
and somebody brings it to the ULDC or
the PNZ and then they go back through it
and then it comes back to you guys.
Let's just we just make it simple so
everybody in this town can have an RV if
they want an RV. I know doesn't want an
RV, but I think it's necessary for a
rural community. keep it like if if
there's a problem, let it be complaint
driven. Is this happening? How many
complaints have been done this year
versus just going out and giving a code
to somebody that has that would be a
really good information for us to know
whether it's complaint driven, go get
them. Stop worrying about people that
are doing things right.
» Thank you, Council Member Coleman. You
had your
» Yeah. Our intention is for it to be
complaint driven. Um, you know, that's
and we our intention is to make it
simple, but unfortunately you have to
give stipulations. You know, I mean, I
can appreciate what you're saying, but I
you can't give a five item list of rules
and call it a day. You have you have to
stipulate because with that five item
list of rules, yes, all the people that
are willing to comply are going to
comply, right? But you're going to have
the other 90% of people, they're going
to, you know, they're going to find a
way. So, we have to stipulate as much,
but it sounds a little more complex than
it is. We're actually restricting the
number of uh more restrictive as to the
number of RVs total. Um, you can have an
R your own RV. Your your in-laws can
come down and stay in the winter time in
your RV. Um, if you're so set up for
that, whatever. And you you know, that's
not this is forprofit to subsidize
RV program to, you know, this is what
this is talking about. It's not saying
that you can't have a a boat with a
living quarters on it, a a horse trailer
with living quarters on it, an RV,
» Toy hauler,
» A toy hauler, and a a a conversion van
that you, you know, Mercedes transit van
that you've converted to an RV. It's not
saying you can't have all that in your
yard. What it's just kind of given some
guidelines. And I think with guidelines,
you have to be a little specific about
things. And I think
» Another public comment.
» Yes, madame mayor. Cassie Suchi.
I thought this was advertised at the
workshop.
Three minutes.
» You're not getting three minutes. We're
not setting the clock.
» Okay. So, now I want to talk about bunk
house. So the key to uh bunk house RV is
basically what I think they're designing
separate bunker rooms or secondary rooms
separate each separate that that is what
I picture as a bunker what they use at
the fairs. So I think the key to
defining that is that regulated activity
has to be done very carefully so that we
could talk about basically the the town
recognizes that certain recreation
vehicles are manufactured with separated
load bunk rooms or secondary sleeping
rooms. For the purposes of this section,
we would say a bunk house RV use means
the use of a recreational vehicle
containing a separate enclosed bunk room
or secondary sleeping room when that
room or recreational vehicle as a whole
is routinely used for by independent or
long-term sleeping accommodations for
employees, workers, tenants, paying
occupants of persons residing on the
property separate from the occupants
principal residence. That's just an ID.
um it it then would a recreational
vehicle then was normally not considered
a bunk house. So I would take in the
separate living room if you're talking
about it instead of because I know there
are bunk beds.
» Miss Succi, excuse me for interrupting
you but for the record. Um Mr. uh Vice
Mayor Sud is on the Zoom so I just
wanted to note that for the record.
» All right. Thank you.
» I apologize.
» Go ahead. So basically, I was just
trying to say just kind of maybe that
might help.
» I I think though I think some of these I
think some of these bunk houses are not
separate rooms. I think they're just
bunks along the wall and an air
conditioning unit
comes into play.
» We ask it's like
» No they each have separate doors. I
understand. But there are bunk bunk
trailers that come in and they'll sleep
42 people. They're not separate rooms.
They're all hanging out in bunks.
Like you could it could be secondary
sleeping rooms and you just add in what
the use was for or something. I'm just
trying to think it's very difficult
because it doesn't state it doesn't
state statute when it talks about RVs
doesn't distinguate between
» Correct
» RVs and these functions. It's all
considered one.
» So it just makes it a very difficult
concept.
» Yeah.
» Um
» As far as I think you guys talked about
the registration.
Yes. You're glad you're going to into
that or whatever. Um, but uh I think the
Florida law is very clear that a motor
vehicle that's not operated on the roads
of this state during a registration
period is not required to be registered.
Um, I know for one, my RV horse trailer
sat idle for four years because my
daughter decided to do each vol and I
couldn't afford two. I mean, she had a
big one. So now mom's getting back into
registry, but I wasn't going to
continually pay it. It was insured
as through insurance for damage, but it
was not registered as it was operating
on roads. So, that's something that
might need to be addressed. Um, because
I feel that that, you know, people might
have a collect.
» Can I ask a question? How would you de
we say that it has to be road road? How
would you demonstrate roadworthiness if
it if it's not
» Has tires? It's it has four tires. It
has, you know, it can go. You can hook
it up to a car and go. I just
» But you can't you can't go if it doesn't
have a tag.
» Get a tag.
» You can do whatever you want.
» You can drive it down the road today.
» Yes. But you get hopefully get a tag.
» Well, yeah. Hopefully hopefully you know
those guys in green and white ain't
right behind you.
» Yeah.
» It's just again loopholes that people
are going to try to use.
» Car insuranceire
to have car insurance.
» If the car not driving the car. Yeah.
Exactly.
just uh figuring out.
» Okay, awesome.
» And the final card, I believe her name
is Lena.
» Not going to even try that.
» Sorry, Lena. I wasn't picking on you. I
just saw your
» Yes, she was. I think she was.
» So, raise that microphone and you'll
have to talk really close to it. So
» Entry enter the properties that cannot
be the liability when we have forces on
the property and people come in as they
wish cannot be done. I have from the
sheriff I have registered with the
sheriff's no trespasses on my property.
I have nothing to hide. If somebody
wants to come in they can come in but
they cannot come in without a think that
For you to say that they're going to be
we have to sign off for them to come in
at any time. That is absolutely insane.
» I don't think we I don't think we were
saying they could come in on any time
that that you will you will agree to an
inspection
to agree to an inspection.
» Absolutely. I don't think anybody's
coming in to just run over your fence.
So
» Inspected last year. There was never any
paperwork sent out. That's something
that won't be sent out if we have proof
that it was actually inspected.
» We're not going to be requiring
inspections. You're just going to file
the registration form and and it
site insp
that's what council member Kaine was
talking about. You know that
We didn't receive any paperwork that
showed
» We just received you're okay. That's
the sense that we did it. And I'll be
honest, the the invoice that was sent
out, I never paid it. I went into the
office the second I got it because it
says miscellaneous it on the invoice.
And I was like, there's no way. My my
accountant would never allow that not to
be specified. It was supposed to be sent
out a new invoice was never sent.
So that's the town that wants to do all
these things and then it never gets done
all the way. Correct. It just starts it
out. But I had it surveyed. They came to
check all my artists. We spend a good
amount of money to set the artist up so
it looks nice.
» So I hope that they don't keep changing.
Every year it seems like, oh, we're
going to do this and If you keep
spending money setting it up two
and then all of a sudden there's
something else that happens.
» We're trying. Yeah, we're trying and and
we're trying to also be aware of the
folks that did comply and you know
» I I have the same people coming back
every
» Right
» I would never have somebody come in my
property that I cannot trust. I mean,
sure. I mean,
» There's properties that are
» Have disgusting people in it, but
» 100%
» Don't go after us who trying to do what
we supposed to do.
» Well, I think the idea with that with
the um you had to have a homesteaded
property, right? Because then you have
people that are invested in the
community. It's not just people that are
buying to rent, maximizing their rental
dollars,
» On a vacant property, and that
» We're we're trying to curtail that and
and and give staff, you know, guidance
to again encourage compliance, but give
them the tools they still need to go out
and and get the offenders that are
really causing the problems.
And just a note, it it does say here,
item L, it says access to the property
upon request. Yeah, buzzwords happen and
everybody stops and goes, "Oh, we're not
getting on my prop." But the whole thing
says upon request. I just wanted to
clear that up for you, so yeah.
» Yeah. I don't think we want to send
anybody straight to your house. Yeah.
Yeah. Yeah.
» All right. So, if I have campaignations
and I have her notes on nuisance
abatement, so
So,
» So I mean I get to go take her chair
again.
» You can seriously. Oh my gosh.
» No, I'm not. I'll stay right here.
» That's right.
» Talking the mic. Okay, so that uh that
was the last public comment, correct?
Awesome. Thank you. Uh nuisance
abatement. I think that's you, Mr.
Lowour.
» Yes, ma'am.
We brought the news abatement up as for
majority of all the overgrowing trees
that's enroaching all
» Microphone. Correct. Your microphone.
» I'm sorry.
» You're on the right page. Okay.
» Yes.
» Is it working?
» It's working.
» All right. So, the news is abatement.
This letter was coming forward as to all
the overgrowth trees that are all
through the whole town. Um in the past
the the town staff has pract their
practice was is staff went out and we
cut all the trees back and this was
private properties owners trees
enroaching the roadway enroaching
rightaways.
Now that is our taxpayers monies of
staff going out to maintain private
properties over both trees approaching
the roadway.
If we approach this with code
enforcement,
we will come down to what we've seen
some you will have some residents that
will come in compliance and then we have
what we know with our normal code. Some
of our residents will not come in
compliance. Then it will come down to a
life safety issue. Then I would have to
ask the town manager, can I go out and
go out and cut it at the town's, you
know, cost. At this right here, we're
looking at with the nuent abatement.
We're going to give the the property
owners a courtesy notice. Hey, put them
on point. Hey, you have trees in
approaching the roadway. It's it's
blocking the travel path. It's blocking
the rightway that we cannot maintain the
rightaways.
Um and then after that, if it's not
comes into comp after the 30-day notice,
we will issue the nuisance abatement.
And then within the town's code, the
nuisance abatement has a 20-day period
on it.
um if they don't come in compliance
after the 28-day period, we will with
your guys' recommendation, either the
staff does it or we're recommending that
we have a contractor come out, remove
cuts the trees back to the rightway,
back to the edge of road, and they give
us the bill and we assess the property
owners accessibly
as we would.
» See, I have I have an issue though.
» Go ahead.
» Sorry for open discussion, whatever.
My my issue is and I've been asking to
see this whatever you know a few years
ago the maps were redone. There's a lot
of contention with the redone maps,
» Right? Some roads had shifted a little.
Some roads had done this, you know?
» Mhm.
» Got this easement, got that ement. We
talk about trails. And I go, "Well, who
has the list of easements that we have
now for trails?" Because, and they're
like, "Oh, we have the list. We have we
have the map with the" And I'm like,
"Well, was it was it the new map they
did that was wrong, or is it the old map
or is it, you know, I I think I get what
you're saying. I see the pictures. Um I
I know there's a lot of of stuff, you
know, personally, you know, I have more
issues with the grater taking too much
of my
» Yard when he goes by. Um that's a whole
different thing. But, you know, and I I
you know, myself on my road, there's not
a real problem. Um you know, yeah, my
neighbor's trees a little fat, whatever.
You know, I know what it is. I drive
down there. I I really don't care. But
that's just me. And it's a side road.
It's a dead end road. It's, you know,
but some of these main roads you have
trees that are growing, you know, they
could be canopy over, but they're trees
that are growing over. We do have a a
position.
My thing is is
I think we need to we need to be very
vigilant to those maps and make sure
that before we cut a single send a
single person to whatever that that's
actually our easement and not something
that's been you know um addressed
previously by a previous town engineer
or whatever you know saying nope you're
absolutely right nope that is still your
your your spot That's not our easement.
That's not our rightway. Um, you know,
it's a sticky wicket and you going to,
you know, we're going to hit hit folks
with NOVs
for nuisance abatement. You know, I
mean, yeah. Do I think that we need to
start drawing a line in the sand and
tell folks, listen, you need to cut your
trees back? Absolutely. Um, you know,
how what the mechanism for that is, not
exactly sure. you know, we we both live
on side roads, right? We don't live on
main drags, you know, um you know, I I
can tell you the mayor's trees don't
hang over the road, but I mean,
» You know, um so I it's, you know, we we
definitely are in a more populated time
than we were back at one point in time
when it really didn't matter. It was
just, you know, beat up old trucks going
down dirt roads, right? Things have
progressed and changed a little bit. Um,
and I think that, you know, that again I
it's a message that needs to be and a
conversation needs to be had. I don't
know that we necessar And of course
we're getting into hurricane season,
too. So, it's it's kind of a sticky
thing. You know, I you know, I but
again, I ask I would like to see and
maybe it's going to take a visit. I come
by and visit or whatever. I'd like to
see these maps and see, you know,
what we have, what we own, what we don't
own. And before we go cutting somebody's
stuff because we think we own it, we
need to verify. You know, I think that
needs to be a step. So that's my two
cents for right now. I'm sure it's going
to expand, go to four or five cents,
four to six cents.
» Council member Stevens and
» Where did the 20 days come from? I just
» That's what's in our code.
» It is. Okay.
» That is directly out of the code.
» Okay. I just I just think if it was me
and you said, "Hey, you got you have 20
days." And I'm looking at my schedule.
I'm like, well, I appreciate that, but
man, if I could have a
» Well, that's why we had suggested the 30
days before.
» There's a there'd be a courtesy letter
30 days before and then there would be a
20 on top.
» Fair enough. I disagree.
» Okay.
» And if I may jump in, you know, this is
why we are bringing this forward to
council. Yes, it's in the code. It's
something that at some point a council
approved, naturally adopted. Um and so
we have clearly a situation
um that public works is trying to work
through and naturally we can enforce um
this code but we also understand as you
said it's kind of a sticky situation and
so that's why we are bringing it to
council to have this discussion um and
naturally have residents um come up and
kind of you know comment on the issue to
find a solution that you know public
works can get out there safely do their
job um
or if we need to address, you know, the
code that's currently in place.
» Vice Mayor Sud, do you have anything
you'd like to add?
» Hi there. Hello. Yeah. Um I think um I
think it's this safety issue. I
experience it on the roads every day.
Some of these pictures are um are I
think examples of um the safety issue
for the everyday people who use those
roads and also public work. So I think
having a strong notification process uh
where they know this is a serious
situation and they pay attention. It's
not one of those males that gets thrown
out and and then if that action doesn't
occur then town has to absolutely um
remove that and then I agree that in
that case
uh the bill has to be sent to the
property owners if in spite of the
notices if somebody does not care does
not have I would use the word pride or
common sense then I guess that can't be
a nuisance to other neighbors and other
people using the public road. So I agree
we we have to have a strong process with
I think the key word I would use is
transparency.
All those people whose notices are gone
and and then we are ready to take
action. We should put that list publicly
on the website that this is our vendor
is coming to remove these and this is
the list guys. you still have time and
if they don't do it then I think we have
to do it and and then cost has to be uh
incurred by the respective owners
whoever is responsible in spite of all
these notices they haven't taken action
so I guess they need to pay the bill
then in that instance
thank you
» Okay I I think for me it it comes down
to and this was my concern when this
nuisance abatement was originally
brought forward many many moons ago that
it's it's a little too subjective,
right? Uh so what's overgrowth? What's
um what's a a nuisance, right? What my
favorite is it attracts vermin. I said
out here we call them wildlife, right?
As I watch the I evicted some raccoons
out of a hole in my property and they
keep crossing my property. Uh so
the po I think the point for me is
unless this is obstructive in some way
and I think what you're bringing here
tonight is you know it's obstructing
right whether it's a trail roadway right
» Historically for me
we've had public works go in and they
cut back reach over people's fences and
grind it down to me you own to the
vertical plane correct right you do not
get to go past that.
» Yes, ma'am.
» So, frankly, I understand your your
comment of about the cost of maintaining
it, but that's the cost of maintaining
any right of way, right?
» So, my concern becomes more that one,
it's not subjective. Um, we're not an
HOA. We're not looking to determine, you
know, what materials are considered
a, you know, as as far as undesirable, I
guess, is probably a good word. Um, so,
uh, to mention Council Member Kane's
comment, it is on page 21.
Her comment was the keeping of fill in
an unsafe and unsanitary manner. And
this goes back to my subjective comment,
as determined by whom, right? Unless
it's interfering with a drain pipe or a
roadway. To me, this is where this
language and I know that that's not the
point of bringing this forward tonight,
» But there's a lot about this nuisance
abatement that I think as we go forward
in our strategic plan and we define what
rural is, it'll give us some structure
to come back to to recreate language in
these ordinances that aligns more
closely with the town. Um,
my question is is if it unless it was
illegally dumped or it's it's
intentional like you can't help that
your tree grows a big old branch. Right.
» Right.
» So to me it's up to us to maintain our
right of way, not not the property
owner. Right. To the vertical plane. So
now I would not want you coming by and
hacking off my tree branch with a giant
mower arm. Right.
» Yeah. You know,
» I'm going to come in with my arborist
and I'm going to say, "You need to take
this branch down and everything else."
» Who's your tree trimmer guy?
» He would be the arborist.
» Well, I know yours would be, but
» Me. I got
» The dude with the chainsaw and that
thingy that goes up and down, right? I
wish I wish I owned one of those.
» Is that the tentacle ter?
» Yes, it is. It is. So
» Yes,
» I guess for me it comes down to are we
are we being responsible for our own
right of way and then we just incur the
cost of that
» Or do we we burden the land owner
because some of these are corporate
absentee
stuff's falling out of
» I think some of the stuff though as well
to your point though some of the stuff
is is you know I think I I would say
maybe some places there hasn't been some
respect to to the right of way and
things have been planted and they've
grown and whatever. Um there's some of
those issues, but again it's our it's
our and I don't mean to derail you. I'm
sorry.
» But those you know those sable palms,
they're very disrespectful where they
grow, right?
» They just grow anyway.
» I wasn't trying to call you. I said I
said you maintain your line there. Okay.
Um
» Isn't some of this town created though?
I mean when we I mean you guys talked
about it at the workshop when I was
sitting back there in the cheap seats
talking about stand
» Guys
standing ovation
» Get many of those around here.
» Yes. I mean thank you.
» But I mean sitting back there months and
months and months ago long before this
doing this was on my mind I don't
remember who brought it up at the table.
I'm like that's a great point actually.
you know, I mean,
» There a lot of it has been created. But
if you think about it though, um, and
I'm not trying to pick on anybody else
specific, so I'm not going to call out
any addresses. I'm not going to call out
it, but there's there's roads that used
to be dirt that are now paved. And when
they were dirt, the wind row went right
along their property line. And if you
had an oncoming vehicle, you had to pull
over in their driveway, right? Hopefully
they had a safe sight driveway or
whatever, decent size driveway or you
had to wait back here and there's a lot
of things. So when we went through and
paved the roads, it's a little more in
your face I guess because you know even
though
whatever I'm going to say it even though
the roads were paved improperly in my
opinion um
» You know not to start that whole thing
up it's a paved road now, right? It's
black tops. So, there's this this um
concept of what it should look like. But
to Lisa's point earlier, and you beat me
to it, I turned my light on again. You
know, we're not an HOA.
» Yeah.
» You know, that's every time code
enforcement comes up in here, I I get
those calls. Even before I was sitting
here, um, you know, we got a new code
enforcement company and they got they
went by and and cited my my buddy for
his grass was too tall and he I got a
very largely filled expletative text
going, "Can you believe this?" You know,
um, we're not an HOA. Um, I I I I'm not
going to sit up here and and support
anything that's going to make us more of
an HOA. I And I'm not I'm not in support
of calling anybody out on the on the
website saying, um, you know, this
property, you know, Joe Stevens property
on High Park Road and and Craig, you
know, Craig's property, Cassy's
property, Karen's property, Trey's
property, Paul's property, Lee's
property, we're going to go, we're going
to trim those on the 15th of March,
whether you like it or not. That's
that's a little above and beyond. I I
don't you know um thank you but that's
not necessary. Um you know listen we we
everybody knows to drive by it. We know
we know who the who the you know and I
think what we need to visit the whole
nuisance ordinance because like you said
there's a lot of stuff in there that
probably and I keep saying you know we
we challenge these or we task these
committees with stuff. You know, I think
our whole ULDC code needs to be kind of
gone through.
» Oh, yeah. Absolutely.
» You know, so and and maybe this starting
point,
» You know, maybe that's and put task it
with them. Give let them give options
and give suggestions to see where that's
at. Um, you know, we got some smart
folks on there and I think, you know, we
could start with that, but I mean, yeah.
So, who's who's to decide whether Phil
is sanitary or not? I mean,
» Well, that's it. So, but they need
direction tonight. That's what they're
looking for. So
» What we're looking for is direction on
would you want us to push with code,
push with the news of pavement or you
would like staff to go out and to clear
the trees. I mean there's a lot of trees
that are approaching rightways there.
some parts of the roads are starting to
be impassable.
That
» I think if it can be objectively
determined
» That that is the case because
objectively in the past um certain trees
were accused of tearing up the road and
they were not. So it's been used to take
out certain what we would call historic
trees right in the town. So
» Uh yeah
» I know. Yeah. So I I do think that it
again has to be an objective
an objective way because you have to
justify it, right? You have to justify
it to the land owner. You have to
justify it to those of us that have to
sit there and answer to that land owner,
right? When their tree gets yanked out
or or destroyed, which we've seen.
» So um there are some public comments
with some waving hands back there that
would love to get up here. So we'll let
them come up here and and talk. So and
and then we'll we'll try to give you
guidance.
I'm kidding. No kidding.
» She's joking. Who's first?
» Tracy.
» Wow.
» She started putting all her cards in one
time.
» I know. It's It's a hybrid.
» By the way, great meeting you guys had
last night.
» Yeah, you I think you have a really
really good vice chair. I'm just
throwing that out there.
» Oh, wow.
» There you go, Jenny.
» Little nepotism.
It's because you sleep with her.
» Thanks.
» Or tmi.
» Nuisance abatement. Tracy Rwood 1261 up
road. I want to clarify what we're
actually discussing with the nuisance
abatement program because I keep hearing
it described as though it's simply about
maintaining public roads in right away.
That is not what I'm reading in this
packet. The proposed courtesy notice
specifically includes accumulation of
trash, junk, debris, living and
non-living plant material upon private
property. It also includes excessive
growth of grass, weeds, brush, branches,
and other overgrowth as well as fill
maintain and what the town determines to
be unsafe or unsanitary manner.
Then separately, the notice addresses
vegetation over roadways and trails and
obstructions and encroachments into the
rightway. Those are two really different
things. Protecting a public roadway,
drainage system, trail, or right away
from an actual obstruction is one thing.
Giving the town authority to determine
whether someone's grass, grass, brush,
debris, landscaping, or other conditions
on their property constitutes a nuisance
is something much broader. We are a
rural agricultural community. We are not
an HOA. There's a difference between an
actual public health or safety hazard
and somebody's property is simply not
looking the way someone else thinks it
should. Before council approves this, I
think we need a clear answer. What
problems are we actually trying to
solve?
How many nuisance complaints has the
town actually received? How many of
those complaints could not be resolved
simply by contacting the property owner
and working with them? You know, help
thy neighbor. How many involved on act
how many involved on actual public
health or safety hazards? What authority
does the town currently lack under the
existing code that requires the
additional program? Is this intended to
be complaint driven or is it code
enforcement going proactively inspect
properties looking for new nuance
violations?
If it's a complaint driven, then I want
to understand why we need a new program
at all. If it's going to be proactive,
then council needs to understand that we
are making a much larger policy decision
than simply keeping our roads and right
ofway clear. The proposed process does
not stop with a courtesy letter.
Following a notice of violation, the
property owner is given 20 days. After
that, the town may perform the work
except it itself and accept and assess
the cleanup and administrative costs
against the property with those costs
potentially continuing to acrue interest
until they are paid. That's significant.
That is a significant authority over
property that is privately owned. If
council's intent is truly only to
protect public roads, trails, drainage
systems, rights away, and town
infrastructure, then I believe the
language should say that exactly, that
it should be expressly limited to those
circumstances only. I do not want us
approving something tonight believing
that we're authorizing the rightway
maintenance only to find out later that
we have also authorized the town to
determine whether someone's grass,
brush, trees, debris, or other
conditions on private property continue
to be a nuisance. My preference is
simple. If there's an actual complaint,
it legitimate health safety issue,
contact the property owner. Work with
them to resolve it. If someone refuses
to correct a genuine public safety
problem, then use the enforcement tools
we already have. But I do not support
creating another proactive enforcement
program that encourages staff to go
looking for violations on private
property. Show us the problem first.
Show us the complaint. show us the
existing code that it cannot be
addressed.
Then we can decide whether another
enforcement program is actually
necessary. I was watching Magistrate one
day and they're going after somebody for
having mold on their house. I mean, come
on. That's ridiculous. I go down all
these roads. What people do on their
private property is their private
property unless it's causing me harm to
myself or safety in the public. But
don't go after people on their private
property. Thanks.
» Thank you.
» Really? It's Florida. Everybody's got
mold on their house.
» Yeah. in their house, on their house,
around their house.
» Get that exploding mulch next to you.
» Raking hay today. Sneezing my head.
» The next car we have,
» Thank you for your comments, Cassie.
Have a good night.
» Thanks for sparing us.
» Get the horns, babe.
» I thought with all that clapping, she
wasn't going to.
» Do we want to know about history first?
because everyone up there signed the
petition to repeal the nuisance
abatement ordinance.
» I didn't
» In its current written form. The
continued erosion of residents property
rights by town staff needs to end. It's
continued. The people have had enough.
They spoke in March. I hope that this
council listened. I think they did
because I've been very happy with the
with the decisions. But
they need to control staff because
they're doing their own thing. Staff has
no idea.
Town government exists to serve its
residents, not to target them,
intimidate them, or use enforcement
powers of the government against them.
Gosh, I don't know. I've experienced all
of that. Thank you very much. Locket
Groves. When staff members engage in
that conduct, it must be corrected and
when appropriate, there must be
accountability. Never had any
accountability so far. Because accusing
a resident of a violation or placing
their property on a nuisance abatement
list, staff should conduct complete and
competent investigations, and I phrase
the word confident. Government should
never start with assumptions that the
residence is wrong and then look for a
way to justify the enforcement
afterward. My property is a perfect
example. My property was identified as
having an abatement issue because I
planted a tree on my property. Yet
apparently nobody took the time to do
the actual history.
In 2016, the water district acknowledged
that they illegally stole my link and
corrected
and said they will correct the maps.
Maps haven't been corrected. Multiple
emails went out saying, "You correcting
the maps?" "No, Steve, you always said,
"Here's the letter." I said, "Good. I
want the letter because the maps haven't
been correct."
The water district recognized that and
they fixed it. That history should have
been investigated before photos were
taken. Every one of those photos, I see
no blockage of anything. I see a town
that has a rural character. When I drive
through Beer Run and Fox Run, I like to
have trees. I'm regulated to drive on
those interstate highways with my horse
and carriage because I can't drive on
the easements or I can't drive on the um
canals because they're too thin anyways.
So, I'm I'm regulated on that hot
and people speeding by and
praying I don't get hit by a drunk
driver. But it is nice to come with a
tree and shave me for maybe a few
minutes. That's nice. But we want to
take the vertical plane and just make
straight highways. If we did, we might
as well put up I95 signs. Let the let
everybody come through from Westwood
because then we lose the rural
character. Stripping the canal banks of
natural vegetation that is grown there.
That doesn't in that doesn't stop any of
the water blow because I've had
discussions with each one. Those give
character to our found.
Let's talk about a little history. The
additional language including adjacent
and private property was included when
they were legally widening the roads
beyond their legal limit, stopping
people from putting up a fence to stop
the illegal widening and taking of lane.
One guy on B Road that was in the
lawsuit got cited, got scared, and
pulled out of the lawsuit because he put
up a fence. He put up a fence four feet
inside his property. He gave the town
four more feet because the town widened
the canal beyond where it should have
been
» Road.
» The no the canal which made then their
60oot easement less. So they wanted a
20ft road. He gave them a 20ft road, an
18 18t road. He gave him four additional
feet and put his fence up and they
cighted him and he got scared and pulled
the fence out. So when I see those
pictures with bushes and that that's on
people's private lane that is health and
safety don't go there. Show me a health
and safety that a tree branch or a
little bush not a don't mean show me a
health and safety but some of those
little wispy trees or a nice canopy
that's what 20 ft in the air cost.
Don't go back to health and safety
because that's the catchall phrase.
This nuisance abatement is full of a
bunch of crap and that's what I'm going
to say. It needs to be repeated. There's
a petition and over 100 signatures right
now to feel it and I've asked the town
council multiple times to address it and
look into it. I don't think there should
be any enforcement on this entire
ordinance till it's overhauled
completely removed language where they
they add it in to go after people so
they could illegally widen their roads,
adjacent property, private property,
things like that. that needs to be taken
out of meeting and show me where a palm
frron interferes with somebody riding a
horse
really.
So ask yourself what kind of town we
are, what kind of town we want to be and
what we want to reflect because our
roadways with the striping which you
guys are taking care of, thank you did
not reflect what we are.
So please don't do any enforcement on
this ordinance. Review it. If not, that
the residents are going to have to
repeal it. Then it's going to cost us
money in a referendum. So, please do
what we've asked you to do in the past,
what the residents don't want. Thank
you.
» Thank you.
» I I do have issue with some of the the
higher branch tree trimming cuz, you
know, there's a semi coming through
here, then they can just go around it,
right? So, and most of those trucks
knock off those branches and they they
don't really grow. Uh, another public
comment.
» Yes, ma'am. Mayor Susan Collins.
» She's over there champing at the bit.
» Good evening, Susan Collins Boulevard.
Um, I don't think anybody has issues
with like the safety concerns, right?
Like I know we have line of sight on the
agenda tonight. That seems common sense
to me.
I would suggest that as we head down the
road of being whatever the governmental
alternative to an HOA is
um I don't know a little bit of a glass.
You want to talk about piles of debris
and I think Burman also wildlife but but
vermin and such.
You have only to drive down the road
right here to see the piles that were
created
by that activity that had been there for
more than a year.
» They some of those at least on the
corner of of Ephrod and Collecting now
did for a long time present uh sight
line issues and safety issues and I
can't as far as I can tell nothing is
about any of that. there doesn't seem to
be any plan to do. But when you speak to
the issues of private property,
I can tell you that just on my own
property, I have 4 acres
that the amount of damage that's been
done by folks working for the town has
been non-trivial.
Like I get that you want to put up a
sign saying, "Hey, road mark ahead."
Nobody said to me, "Hey, is it okay if
we put that sign on your property?
No, they they just put it there. They
tore up my grass. That is remediated
that it's hard to remediate because I
got no water out on water halfway up.
That's as good as it gets. So, it's
really hard to fix. All the trucks that
used the side of my property for
skating, which went on for months and
months, have torn up the edge of the
asphalt. It would the quote I got was
$7700
to remediate that to make it look like
it did before all of that work happened.
And then just the other day they they
tore out Marsala Boulevard and put in
some more drainage and did the same
thing. And now I have, you know, a big
chunk at the side of the street, but we
try to keep looking by it. And I I did
go out and it's like, you know, like I
have to mow this
old and not that stable. Like don't make
it impossible for me to like use the the
lawn mower without falling into the
drainage ditch. And they kind of rolled
their eyes and went.
They took out landscaping material that
we had put there to try to fill in one
of the ditches so I didn't have to go
there with my mower. And then they they
left the nuts
with piles of dirt debris
and the road, you know, is now just
almost as bad as the intersection here,
which, you know, back potholes and you
got to weave your way in and out so as
not to fall into the ditch there, too.
And despite asking multiple times, no
one seems to be able to tell you when
that's going to be finished and and
looked at properly. So maybe before you
worry about what's on people's, you
know, people's backyards, we could
address some of that.
» Yeah. I think we all want to know when
that's going to get done.
» Yeah. I I don't think we're addressing
what's in people's backyards, though.
We're addressing what's hanging into the
roadway. So, we're not even we're not
even saying address the couple pictures
that are possibly on the canal side that
are easement wise. I mean, some of them
are. Yeah, there's a couple that are
kind of, you know, I mean, but and
there's a couple that it's clearly
you're not you're not getting. I'm not
talking about yours. I specifically
didn't specify your property. Yours
yours are a whole different case because
you have a letter saying that's your
rightway. So,
» I'm sorry. I'm I'm
» Is it possible
is it possible to create actual
measurable limits like like to the
vertical plane? You know, if it's
hanging over more than 18 inches, it can
be cut back to the vertical plane, but
not higher than a certain height.
» There is a height at 14 ft.
» 14 ft. Correct.
» 14. That's not bad. That's That's
» That's the height in the code is 14 ft.
» That's a That's a L trailer with AC on
top. That's 14 foot. The reason it's 14
ft cuz the height of a horse trailer or
a top of a semi is 135.
» Mhm.
» So
» Yeah,
» Uh I would say that if if it's some if
it's something that's measurable, you
know, that and we stick within that
measurement then and it's in the right
of way.
» Yeah. because I mean I I I see people,
you know, there's yes, there are lines
on the road and we we're addressing the
lines on the road and, you know, one of
these is clearly the the whole thing's
grown out into the road. Um, but there's
there's people that that will challenge
you.
» I don't care how big you are and if you
thought you had the right, they're still
going to challenge you. And there's, you
know, there's going to be some, you
know, at some point where do we become
liable, we're not liable, whatever, you
know, and I'm not saying clearcut it to
the sky. Nobody's saying that. I mean,
there's clear canopy. I mean, some of
these in these pictured in these
pictures are invasive species plants
anyway, up against a brand new fence,
which probably should have been
addressed, but that's all, you know, I
mean, that's I mean, yeah, granted, you
know, Cassie, you have a different
scenario, right? I'm not I'm not just I
it's but but I think that the what we're
not getting is Lisa said it, I said it.
You know, we're looking at this as a
whole. We're looking at at the nuisance
abatement as a whole and reworking as a
whole. I said that I think Lisa agreed
with me. I might be correct me if I'm
wrong, but we say, you know, Anita
mentioned it in her comments. There's
there's definitely some pieces in there
that need to go. It can't happen
immediately. Remember, we a bureaucracy.
It's it takes time. You know, it can't
happen immediately. But yeah, there's
some things in there that need to be
addressed. You know, we're talking about
trimming for safety. And then in another
paragraph, it talks about your grass
height, right? And we already talked
about
» We need to get on to line jump in. I
have some comments.
» Hold on a moment. Hold on one second.
» I think there's more public comments as
well. Oh, sorry. Sorry. Manish, go
ahead.
» Okay. Hi. Thank you. I think uh I agree
with uh Paul's and others
specific wording and scope of this
discussion is uh correcting genuine
public health and safety hazards not
aesthetics not somebody not someone who
chooses to maintain their uh private
property that's not the subject here I
think the focus of the from my point of
view the direction is let's narrow it
down to the road public safety and
health and safety and I think very
specific steps identify the hazard
whether it is tree or a shrub or
whatever that overgrowth is determine
the impact so you have a basically a
very scientific objective report and
then notify the property owner and then
you know give them a reasonable
opportunity to correct the hazard or
inform if they say wow guys this is my
land or whatever that issue is let them
share that information with the town and
then finally I think in good faith
everybody will want to address this
hazard because other people are
suffering I know I drive on E-O and it
is always a problem on E-O if you uh you
know make a turn on Okie Chobi and you
will notice that you have to actually
avoid hitting those shrubs and trees and
other guy on the canal side has to
probably stop or they'll you know go in
the canal. So it's a big hazard. It's a
hazard liability for the town. So then
verify the hazard is corrected and then
take appropriate action when necessary.
If the if let's say the owner is missing
an action or it's an abandoned property
or whatever that is then let's we have
to do it for them and and and and in my
humble view then in that case that
landowner is responsible for that uh
elimination of that hazard. So again
once again I'm only focused my direction
is only focus on road safety and and or
uh right ofway safety issues only not
what's happening inside the property
that's not the subject of this at least
my direction is so thank you
» Okay Miss Stish you're gonna speak Yep.
Sorry, I I sorry
» That was my my fault. Virginia, I
apologize.
» Virginia Standish. H boy, this a loaded
topic. Where could we go living 40 years
in this community? But anyway, let's get
» To the present. Um some good points made
by council and the public. One council,
the fact that yes,
many years of paying for maps over and
over. Wouldn't it be nice to have maps
of our actual easements that are public
record and showing those portions that a
public a new public works employee might
think is right of way but may actually
be private property. It places a burden
on employees when they don't know what
is private property and what is a right
of way. two, the news abatement, another
ordinance that needs to be reviewed by
council staff and committees. Um, but
this information presented in this
upcoming agenda
is very broad and vague and it's my
understanding you're trying to stick to
right ofway topic only. That's what this
should have been addressed as right of
way only instead of throwing in the
kitchen sink and everyone's property.
Words and language matter. So I don't
think this should be presented this way
in the agenda if that was not your
intent. Your focus is right of way. So
why are we reading about everything else
in this ordinance that needs to be
redone? This nuisance abatement. That is
your biggest problem. Um,
and that's the crux of it. Everything
else is private property, you know,
living, vegetation, non-living. Okay.
Yes. And like everyone said, we're an
egg community. So, what does this have
to do with our right of way? If you
stick to right of way, you get your
easement maps.
You seem to be focused on the issue, not
all this language you threw in there.
Thank you.
» Thank you. So, did we have another one?
» Yes. I think um Miss Suchi would like to
speak again.
» Are you really going to talk again?
Okay. Karen, are you going to get up and
talk? Okay, we'll let Karen talk first.
You could you could
we could just pass it around.
Okay.
I just want to get to this next one,
too. I don't want this one to go by.
» Worried about health and safety when
collecting canal road is a huge safety
problem. And that's been like that for
how long now? Um, but when it's private
residents, then you're going to jump on
them. I have no problem with the town
trimming branches on my property that
come out as my property actually goes to
the burm of the canal. Um, even though
they kept whittling away like everybody
says with their um, greater and taking
my property, taking my property until
they made it big enough to where they
could put a road in. Um, yeah. So, yeah,
my tree do go over, but years ago I was
approved by the border district son told
us where we could put our arthas, where
we could put our trees. He approved it
and said that was far enough away from
that road. Little did we know was that
was going to be grading to our property.
They took out my poles. They took out my
fence. They did whatever they could to
take over that land. And now they want
to charge me for trimming or they trim
over my fence. Any one of you, I am
welcoming you to come out to my property
and look where they have trim branches
on the other side of my fence. And I
don't think that's correct. I don't mind
the greater coming along and along the
white line of the road. you want to
trim, trim away. But when you start
bringing that thing in and trimming
against my fence or down, I I think it's
wrong. Um, and the other thing is I feel
harassed. All these pictures, 12 12
photos. How is it that there's 12 photos
here with only
I I'm trying to see there's no addresses
on any of any of them. And tell me if
this doesn't feel harassed. My address
is on three of them. Three of them out
of 12.
I believe Cassy's address is on one. I
feel very harassed. Um I did have an
incident was a town employee who was
trimming on the other side of my fence.
I asked him to stop. He refused. And
when I stood by him and asked him to
stop, he look went alongside of me when
I was standing looking at my bushes. He
trimmed on top and one of the big
branches hit me in the head really hard
and he said he was going to call the
police on me. Instead of calling the
police, he called Craig and then I was
harassed by Craig. I don't mind them
trimming bushes that are over on their
side, but they were trimming bushes on
my my side, my side of the fence. And
then I was harassed and I had somebody
listening on the conversation so they
can say that they'll tell you this is
true that I was told that every time
they do these things with the road in
front of Canad
took out my survey stake so I couldn't
prove how far my property was. And then
I was told by a friend that he could see
it on the um Palm Beach uh
uh papa site that he knows where the
line is. I said, "You need to get a
survey because they keep doing this to
me and taking my survey and moving the
line." And he says, "If we have to get a
survey, I know your fence is over it,
and we're going to make you take it
out." that him and his person, I think
his name was Tim Wood, two very rude
employees to a resident when I'm just
trying to protect our tree canopy and
make it green and keep my house private
from outsiders because of all the
traffic and drinkers and fishers that
come along on that corner and bombard us
with garbage that they throw over my
fence and into the bushes. And it's very
uh disturbing when you get treated like
this by employees. And by the way, I
have not received anything from anybody
in town saying how this was um taken
care of. Um no apology by anybody or
anything. But I am in uh disbelief. I
don't understand. We pay taxes. I don't
see what the big deal is. There's many
properties worse than mine. And yet out
of all these 12, three are mine. And I
can tell you I've hit branches. I've hit
trees. I've had to go around many
properties. I don't mind. I do it. I
move over when a car is coming. Um I
don't know what the big deal is. If the
town's they they have the time, we pay
our taxes. Why can't they trim it just
like they've done all these years? I
don't understand what the big deal is.
You took our property. You're enjoying
it for your road. And yet you want us to
be responsible for things that we
planted 20 something years ago. Approved
by the water district by police son.
the I'm very dissatisfied with what's
going on with this and um
you get the message. This is horrific
though. I don't like it. It's not nice.
» Thank you.
Yeah, I think again the history of the
widening of the roads and then causing
not only vegetation to be closer to the
to the right of way and and to the
traffic, it it now we're going to go
into the sighteline. So the sighteline
now becomes an issue when the road that
used to be six feet from the where you
stopped and looked out of your property,
now it's literally your bumper and you
can't see either way around. And some of
the suggestions on here to set your
fence back 10 ft. It's just a continuous
enforcement
of properties that happen to be located
in strategic locations having to give up
more and more while other properties
that will remain unnamed um on other
sides don't give up anything. Right? So,
this is a continuing issue and um even
some of the the language outside of a
townowned intersection, which arguably a
town-owned intersection would be one
where the town has the authority to make
sure the safety's there and has a
liability. The trails I don't believe
they do, and I certainly don't think
that you could tell private people to do
exceptionally
true when they are an a property. So the
the state preempts some of what you can
and can te tell people to do when they
have agricultural use there. So if
that's my productive corn field and you
want me to hack off a corn on my corn
field, will you just cost me money? So
that that I don't see as being part of
this. So sorry to jump in on that, but
» No. Is it possible we could ask the we
can get these removed off the site just
out of respect for the neighbors?
» Um I are they on the p on the website
» Supplemental. supplemental. Yeah.
» Can we
» Yeah. Can we take those off? Is that
possible?
» If there's a consensus because it it is
there's a policy. So, as long as you
guys give us consensus to do that, we we
can remove it.
» Yeah.
» I mean, I do know some of the properties
along like Collecting Canal that have
some heavy Kucia hedges and stuff,
pulling out of those is a little
treacherous.
But I think we should allow those
driveways to have um without a rightaway
permit, put one of the uh convex um
mirrors in the in the canal bank so that
they can get out safely. I don't think
they should be told to cut down their
bushes.
» So, I just think dignity is the key word
of the day. And if we can pick a
consensus to take these photos off,
that'd be great.
» Three, three can give a consensus,
right? Manisha is there. So, yeah, I I
Yeah, let's
» Let me interject here. I I first of all
I'm surprised how uh these two residents
um pictures end up in the sampling. I
mean that's a just mathematically I I'm
not I I don't know how why they were
picked uh for this but unfortunately
they were and uh I I agree fully with
Joseph. Um we should remove those. But I
think the point I'm going to make is we
are strictly talking about road health
and safety roads. Let's pick one. Right
now we have certain roads where uh the
» Vice may we've moved on to the
sighteline.
» Yeah. No, I'm talking about this issue.
We haven't moved to the sighteline. We
are saying remove these pictures and I'm
» Yes, we have we have moved to the
sighteline issue. We we provided we
provided that you know if you're in the
right of way they're gonna they're still
going to trim the right of way per the
objective measurements they have
available but we've moved on to the
sighteline agenda item.
» Okay good. So my point is I agree remove
the pictures and let's be careful next
time selecting residents in this
fashion. Thank you.
» So to clarify Thank you. To clarify I
don't think we should send out a
courtesy notice. I think we should
maintain our own right ofway. I don't
think that just because your bushes grew
bigger, right?
» We shouldn't cross.
» But I do I do firmly disagree that you
cut back any further than the vertical
plane of what is legally in that that
space, you know, and that's been a a pet
peeve of mine when Jamie Tickhome was
here.
» And I don't I necessarily don't think
that we need to just blanket say the
Motrim is what's doing the trimming
either. I mean, I hate to say that
because I know it's a lot more work, but
» My staff is out there hands handed on
» Chains on.
» Well, I was speaking from the past. I
know speaking of Jamie, you're speaking
of old days back and cleier and all
these, you know, it was the mot kind of
like when they go down Okachobee with
that big knife.
» Except it was a Motrim and they just,
you know, bush hoging trees, you know,
and some of these trees are not, you
know, holly and whatever. I do think the
residents should be notified that it's
going to happen and they can be given
the option, right? So that it's not
» Something really awful.
» You said set a
» But but it can't go over the vertical
plane,
» Right? It it has to stay in our our
legal footprint.
» And so
» Can you bring us a can you bring us a
schedule by September for our September
meeting? Can you bring us a schedule
» Like where you're planning on doing
trimming?
» Like like make a schedule like we're
going to start on this road and then
we're going to go to this road and you
know or
» It would just be added to the MO
schedule that's already in place.
» So the MO the banking schedule and the
» And the vertical
» Trimming schedule are the same schedule.
» No, because normally we would go in and
we would do most of the tree trimming in
the off season,
» Right,
» Of out of out of the rainy season, but
it is right now we didn't push it this
year. So, we're getting so much
overgrowth and complaints of cars
hitting
» Right
» Overgrowth in the roadways.
So,
» Okay,
» We are where we are right now.
» Um, if you're giving us permission to
say, "Hey, we can go out. We'll notify
the residents. You know, your tree is
approaching the rideway, the roadway.
You know, I this this was the whole
point of the discussion and direction
for you guys. Give us direction of
» What would you like us to do?"
» Give them what? 10day notice that that
you're planning on you've identified
that they've got some some vegetation in
the right of way and you're going to be
trimming it if they would prefer that
they do it themselves that
» You know to contact you and tell you
when they're going to do it.
» Yeah.
» So
» If they contact said listen I can't get
it done in 10 days I can get it done in
15 or 20
» Contact
» Then they contact you and just push your
» We just could we send like a mass letter
just notifying hey you know
» Do they identified properties? Well, no,
not to identify properties, but to, you
know, bring to attention to residents.
Hey, there is
» I honestly I honestly think that's going
to cause a lot more.
» It's going to create too much confusion.
You need to be property specific
» Cost and stuff.
» And that way, and I'm not I'm not trying
to pick on Cassie, but because we
already know she has a letter, but so
you send a you send a letter to Cassie
saying, "Hey, listen. Your trees in our
rightway." And she goes, "Wait a minute.
» You know, Mr. Low, Craig, buddy, listen.
And I got this letter from Yoi, Steve
Yoi back in 20 whatever that says that's
not the case because who knows how Steve
filed that letter, right? It might not
be easily.
» Yeah. Go to public works and see how our
records are are maintained. It
» Defense of you, Cass. So, all right. So,
that way she can go, "Hey, listen,
Craig. I got this letter. I don't know
if you're aware of it because you know
you're that was like four managers ago,
but I have this letter. I know that this
crap down there for the for this filing,
but this is my letter. And you go,
"Okay, Cassie, I'm going to look into
it." Or, "Okay, Muchi, I'm going to look
into this." And you look into it and you
go, "Hey, listen. Okay, that's your
tree. That's your right away. Thank you.
We're not going to touch it."
» Right? Or you come back and say, "I
don't know what you're talking about."
You know what I'm saying? This isn't,
you know, I don't know. You there's some
there's some communication there. You
know what I'm saying?
» More of a partnership rather than it's
just, you know, the town kind of
imposing. We we I think we we got the
the the picture. So, one other thing
that I do want to touch on um because of
so much conversation with regards to the
entire nuisance abatement ordinance. Do
you guys want to bring that back in
Septe Well, I wouldn't say at the
September workshop because that's kind
of our second public hearing for the
budget and that's going to be a heavy
meeting. Do you want us to bring this
back in October for you guys to have a
discussion on? Do you want to kind of
put this
» Myself? I'm not speaking for the other
four, but myself, I'm in favor of it
just going to ulc with a direction. Hey,
» Review this and let's, you know, give
give us some suggestions as to where we
can we can cut the fat, whatever, where
we can make it more blocks of Hatchy
Citric.
» Okay.
» Can I if I could
» So, Mayor, I was asking a question as to
um
» There was a lot of conversation about
this ordinance in particular. Yeah. and
council member Coleman suggested sending
it back to ULDC for them to review it.
So I just want to get a consensus if
that's what the council direct. I think
the the before Paul made his his ask it
was also about as we get into the
strategic plan and we define rural and
you know what what holds the standard
what sets the standard right so that I
think it's important that the town have
some authority to deal with issues that
we've seen in the past right like
illegal dumping and things like that but
again some of the language in here it's
it's a little too vague it's a little
too subjective I mean if wants to tackle
it. They they certainly, you know, with
that directive being fairly clear that
this gets tailored down and and it and
it's tied to certain objective,
measurable
um metrics, then then it would be
something that it's not just left up to,
you know, employee X said, "Oh, you
know, you're in trouble, right?" kind of
thing. So, okay. So, what we'll do is
we'll plan on placing this on for ULDC.
We will give them a copy of the minutes
from this meeting so they can kind of
see the dialogue of council and and and
the residents and the concerns and we'll
also provide them with copies of other
municipalities and you know their
ordinances so they have something to
kind of look at.
» Make one where we went off the rails
before but okay. Uh Vice Mayor Sud any
comment on that?
» Yeah I think we are back to discussing
this u uh abatement issue and right away
issue. I think I would like my direction
is this is me alone that the I'm talking
about paved roads. I'm talking about
health and safety that are obstructing
the paved roads at least have the
directive to take care of that issue. to
inform the owners as I said those
stepwide stepwise fashion what is the
hazard this is the impact etc etc let
them engage and then take care of the
issue if they can't we will do it but
that issue is right and here and today
we this policy improvement this and that
can happen of course uh send it to DC
but something that is here and now we
need to address it second I think I
don't want to underestimate the issue of
customer service. I spoke with Miss Oaks
and Craig in the past. If there is a
situation where town staff is cutting
down some branches and stuff and owner
comes out and start arguing, disengage.
In other words, tell them, "Okay, let us
have my supervisor come and talk to you.
Do not argue. Do not there. This is not
uh I don't want any resident to feel
disrespected and and and and customer
service we are in the business of
customer service. So uh I think Craig
and team agreed that they have to train
their people and what happened with uh
Karen was unfortunate and it shouldn't
repeat itself again. Thank you.
» Okay. And and yes, you're in agreement
that it goes back to uldc for some
tailoring.
» Yes, for some. But in the meantime, take
action on health.
» Yes, I'm I'm aware. Yes, in the
meantime. Yes.
» So, yeah. Okay. So, uh site triangles,
any other input on site triangles?
» I'm with you. I I do and I'm sorry I did
not because I'm really tired hearing
about site triangles to be honest with
you. Um, do we go and look how it
melds with the a community and with
requirements? I mean, because we don't
own
farm A has one ent or two entrances
right on
D road,
right? This equestrian facility has two
entrances on D- road. This is just
everything is made up here.
» Hypothetical. Everything is made up and
hypothetical, right? So the town doesn't
own
that corner. Like if you go, you know,
we we like to, you know, and I I do it
too. We we're this rule, we are rural
community, but you know, we're not as
rural as some others. And if you go out
to farmland, right, and you go to where
they're growing corn, go out just just
west of here, it's Belgrade. Um, and as
as as the the farm road comes up to the
main road, there's shoulders, right? And
there's easements for that road and the
farm doesn't encroach past the ditch or
whatever. And I think, you know, like
when you're going down 80s, the the
municipality, the county owns that part
of the road. So, they farm right up to
where they can farm, right? So without
us owning that corner, I don't know how
we dictate, you know, to set a horse
farm on D- road. You can't plant Kousa
hedges there that grow 10 ft tall and
let them get that high. I don't I don't
see how we can do that. I mean, I
understand there's a safety aspect to
it. Like like Lisa said, maybe we need
to, you know, invest in some some of
those convex or convex Yeah. convex
mirrors because I mean and maybe this is
something we look to the future like if
you you develop your property do a
substantial development or something
like that then in that instance we're
going to you know or you're you know you
buy a vacant property and you're going
to
» Go through and tell people that have
been had this gate here for 30 years and
» That and the road being widened and x
and y and z and everything else. So
» I think all that has to go into
» Yeah. into the
» This for me needs to be seriously
curtailed and especially where it
regards the the trail heads as well.
This is not just the roadways. I
» Mean I do appreciate the kind of
defining where things start and stop
because the other one the one previous
to this it was kind of ambiguous to
where that dimension starts like where
am I measuring from right you know. So
» Yeah so and that was the old council
direction. This is the new council. So,
Vice Mayor Sue, do you have anything to
add?
» Yes. Yes. I I would say focus on the
main roads. Uh, leave the private
driveways alone. Leave the smaller um,
you know, intersections alone. Focus on
what we have consensus. Consensus is
main roads is a health and safety issue.
Let's take care of that as we discussed
and that's the priority. rest can I I
don't I'm not in the favor of telling
people how to maintain their sight of
triangle and their private driveways. I
I don't think that's in our community
that's applicable. And also for the
small side streets coming into the
letter roads and stuff. I don't think
that is the priority either. Let's have
a mirror or something along those lines.
Let's let's agree to focus on the main
roads for now. Thank you. Well, to be
devil's advocate, some of the main
roads, I'm assuming you're talking about
any lettered road or level one service
road that intersects.
» No, I'm talking about Okichchobee or or
main those kind of highways intersect
Okchobee or southern intersecting with
the letter roads, those corners that
» I don't think there's any sight triangle
issue on any one of those. So,
» Okay. Well, that's a good news.
» So, then this is this is a a non-issue
for the town and we should get rid of
the sight triangle. No, maybe it may be
then it may be in my view unless unless
you tell me it's a really health and
safety issue I think the private
driveways and all that other stuff in my
humble view this is not this is a rural
town we should not be putting those
things
» And that that goes back to city people
coming out here and driving and saying
it's not safe well nobody out here is
trying to keep you safe it's there's a
ditch over there don't drive in it right
so
» And you should look both ways There you
go. So, um I I know we haven't got a
bunch of public comment on this and and
we've got Karen at the microphone.
» That's it.
» Yeah.
» Similar to the conversation we had on
the news, right? Whereas there's
existing language, we have been
instructed not to enforce the line of
the line of sight.
Um so I guess from from staff's
perspective, we looking for some
guidance. Is it as the mayor has said,
are we looking to remove the language,
which was my concern and the attorney,
I'm sure, can take it up more than I
can, having language in our code and not
in the boards can, which I'm okay with.
I'm not saying I'm not. Um, so I just
want to make sure because we already
brought it to the
we gave you their language
» Based on the direction that you gave
them from a previous council. But
» They're very boisterous.
» I have direction because I want I want
to address what your concerns are. Is it
to go back to the ULDC based upon
discussion in this meeting? Is it to
remove it and then adopt something
later, which is what you obviously can
do. I I
» I think item one is um we there is
plenty of language in our code that we
don't actively enforce. Um we've talked
about some of it tonight, i.e. how tall
my grass is, right? That's been in the
code
» Or your unsanitary fill
» Or my unsanitary fill, which I still
that maybe that's the stuff that comes
out of the treatment center down in Del
Re.
But so I there's plenty of stuff we
we've taken a stance or actually
previous councils and we've carried that
on that the the stance with our code
enforcement is a health and life safety
direction, right? Or complaint driven.
Okay? So we're not going out and we're
not actively
correct me if I'm wrong, anybody has a
different opinion. We're not actively
going after people for sight line right
now.
» Not presently. They did and we we put a
stop private drives.
You're you're still enforcing like level
service road in
» No. Okay.
» Yeah. They they stopped it. Was it
January, right? We stopped. They sent
out some courtesy letters and we said,
"Whoa, whoa, whoa."
» Has there been a rise in accidents and
driveways and intersections?
» No. The answer is no.
» You know, yeah.
So I think
» I think with clearing clearing the
vegetation to the vertical plane that
that does address quite a bit of it
again as the roads have encroached. I
did go up north in E- Road where it was
paved on that little last little strip.
» It's an interesting corner. I did speak
to Craig about it. He had he had he had
logic. Um I'm not sure I agreed with the
logic, but there's there was logic. Um
so but it to me it it's a blind curve.
There is one of the city. Yeah, the city
has its own its own bubble mirror
» Driveway
» Kind of. Yeah. But, you know, I think
I'm I'm with get rid of it. Um or
curtail it back and but I I know safety
always becomes like the legal buzzword
and and lawyers lose these things.
» I I think the argument is there that it
is safer to have this, right? It is
because you're as you pull up, you know,
there are some intersections that, you
know, private drives where they're more
challenging than others and people have
to nudge out and, you know, now that
it's paved even more so than when it was
dirt cuz
» Listen, when I was young, I used to fly.
I'm not going to lie to you, okay? I had
a 1978 F250. I drove my dad's truck and
you know, but people have to nudge out,
right? So the safe sight corner actually
helps. So I think maybe we go a
direction of after said date if you do a
substantial improvement or if
» New construction
we
» Get rid of substantial improvement.
Substantial improvement is over 50%.
Right.
» Okay.
» So if you do substantial improvement or
you say you buy a house it's on 20 acres
with just a house but then you go put
this big huge barn.
» Right.
» Can I can I weigh in?
» Right. Um, can we also provide for the
people that have the current issue
that we do not we wave the um, what do
you all call that? A right-of-way
permit, right? To put to put in a safety
bubble mirror, convex mirror. Can can we
have staff wave that?
» So, in essence, it becomes free, right,
to put it in if they want to use it for
from a safety standpoint. So, we've
provided them an avenue to make their
driveway more safe to exit.
» Yeah. I and I would recommend that if
you want to go that route, I would
recommend that they still have to
receive,
» But we would wave the fee.
» Yeah.
» Right.
» Yes. So,
» Yeah, I think that that's all part of
it. I think we go that direction where
at some point in the future,
» None of us will be here. Everybody will
start becoming more compliant and safe,
right? We're
gonna go after, you know, no offense.
We're not gonna go after Karen. She has
actually nice wide driveway. You can
kind of see, right? But we're not going
to go after Ken. We're not gonna go
after Joe. We're not, you know, and if
you're on a major letter road, you know,
Lisa plans next month and you can't see
your property and you know, you're
there. We're not going after Lisa
because there's a, you know, there's not
a safe sight corner,
» Right? It's an existing thing. Now if
you do a substantial improvement
different scenario kind of like flood
regulations and things like that right
so along the same lines because you know
because and again how much can we
enforce with an a property
» But it might not be an egg property
tomorrow you might sell correct
» Joe when Joe doesn't want to be
» Are we okay with what they
» Because the 10-ft setbacks on fences and
stuff like that I think that's a little
intrusive um
» Yeah you start losing property I mean 10
foot setback back on my place.
» Maybe this needs to come back
» With that caveat that, you know, if it's
determined to be one that would have
been deemed for a site triangle, that
resident can apply for the permit
without paying the fee, the waiver, the
new the new site development or
significant improvement,
» Right? uh that that way I hate to hold
people
like to me that's kind of um what
happening when people hate you want if
you want your significant improvement
permit you got to put in a site trying
» I know I mean it's it's just part it's
it's part of the conditions of approval
right I mean you do significant approval
significant improvement happens a lot
right so I I I've or just do do all you
know new but see if I buy a property
with a with 20 acres with an existing
house and I go put up this big honk and
barn, right? Da da d d d d d d d d d d d
d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d
d d d d d d d d d and I'm going to have
18 wheel horse trailers coming in out of
there.
» Well, you probably driveway anyway,
» You know, you never know, right? So,
» So it's like where do you draw that
line? So, it's you know, we talk about
equestrian estate planning and we talk
about all this other stuff that we
talked about, you know, somebody puts in
a large nursery, you know, it it it's I
don't know. I I think there's some
there's some room there to work with and
I think we send it back to ULDC and go
we got a good start but we got some
better idea. We got some other ideas
here.
» Let's throw it in.
» Y
» Right.
» Yeah.
» Maybe let PZ&B look at it. I don't know.
» So Manish, did you have anything to add
to that?
» No, I'm good. I think I agree. Let's
just focus on the main problem and let
it come back later. We have other main
priorities. Thank you.
Okay. Okay. Was that
» Going back to RPC? Did the you know with
the discussion today allow individuals
to apply for the rightway permit with no
fee in order to install the mirrors or
whatever they feel to help them.
» I our goal is not to make it less safe,
right? So if they feel that that's a
safety something for them to force them
to pay to put in a convex mirror for
safety versus I got to hack off these
two corners of my property that oh by
the way that was my pasture and now you
know and I've got little paddics
whatever right
» Well it's part of what we're providing
with the tax dollar right that's
» Well and it's just waving it we're not
giving them mirrors right
» Yeah we'll just only thing we would be
providing is a standard to the mirror
» Okay
» Yeah the specification
» It would be with a breakaway sign O
sign, you know, sleeve that we currently
» You don't want to stop the car when they
go over the canal make with that.
» Not to not to complicate, but do not to
complicate, but do we have the ability
for them to purchase the sign from the
mirror from us?
» No.
» I mean, do there's a kind of
» I'm just saying that way there's kind of
a standard across the
» Is there any public comment on this?
» Yes, ma'am.
» I see shaking heads. Thank you.
» Some interior.
» No. left out, you know, pulled out of a
Walgreens after a demolition convex
terror that's going to rot in two, three
weeks.
» That's pretty standard.
» Who's up first?
» Tracy Ruffalo.
» He's cutting into my cocktail hour. I'm
just saying.
» Sorry.
» Oh, right.
» Wow.
» Recording out there.
» Somebody's AI that. Hello. Hello.
» She So, she joins me at the cocktail
hour at her cocktail hour, too.
» Line of sight. I think the line of sight
issue has totally gotten out of control.
I support addressing a real visibility
hazard when one actually exists. What I
do not support is creating a proactive
enforcement system that sends staff out
through town looking for theoretical
violations involving mature trees,
shrubs, fences, gates, driveways,
trails, and landscaping on private
property. This started with a townwide
sweep.
The workshop packet states the town
staff conducted a a townwide review of
line of sight violations and sent
courtesy notices to approximately 30
properties. The packet does not say
those 30 properties were identified
because of 30 resident complaints,
accidents, or documented safety
incidents. Councelor later directed
staff to stop enforcing the line of
sight regulations and send the issue
back for review. Here we are back at
reviewing. My first question is simple.
What actual problem are we trying to
solve?
Lots of questions. How many crashes,
near misses, emergency access problems,
or resident complaints have actually
been caused by these sight triangle
conditions? Of the approximate 30
properties identified by staff, how many
came from an actual complaint or
documented safety incident? And how many
were found simply because staff
conducted a townwide review?
What happens to a mature tree that has
existed so safely for decades? Are
existing trees, gates, fences, and
landscaping grandfathered? What happens
with irregular driveways or old access
points that are no longer used? If the
town expanded or widened a road, changed
the edge of pavement, altered drainage,
or otherwise changed a resident's
frontage, why should that same property
owner be cited because an existing tree,
hedge, fence, gate, or landscaping now
falls within a sight triangle? If the
town created a worsen if the town
created or worsened the condition, why
should the resident automatically bear
the cost of correcting it? If the
roadway, equestrian trails, and greenway
committee believe the existing 10-ft
line of sight was sufficient or rider
visibility in overall safety, why are we
making the regulation more complicated?
Why should council direct staff to draft
an ordinance before the town attorney
determines whether the proposed language
could be could be prohibited as a more
restrictive or burdensome land
development regulation under SP 180.
The proposed rule goes much further than
a simple safety standard. The proposed
language regulates parking spaces,
signs, walls, fences, hedges, shrubs,
trees, earth mounds, natural growth, and
other obstructions within the sight
triangle.
It establishes a clear zone between 30
in and 8 ft. Trees within the clear
sight triangle are proposed to have a
minimum of 8 ft of clear trunk.
Shrubbery is limited to a maximum mature
height of 30 in. The proposal also
includes setbacks for landscaping from
roadway and driveway pavement. This is a
significant level of control over
private property, especially in a rural
agricultural community where mature
trees, natural vegetation, and unusual
driveways, canals, trails, and older
properties layouts are very common. Town
pro town road projects are existing.
This is one of my biggest concerns.
» Town has expanded.
there.
» Uh, one of my biggest concerns, the town
has expanded and altered roads over
time. When that happens, the
relationship between the roadway, the
edgement of pavement, the right of way,
a driveway, and existing trees, fences,
gates, and landscaping change. A
resident may have had a tree, hedge,
fence, or gate in the same location for
years without creating a documented
safety problem. If a town road project
later changed that frontage, it's
unacceptable that to turn around and
site the property owner simply because
the town's work changed where the site
triangle is measured or how close the
roadway is to an existing feature.
Before any citations are issued, the
town should determine whether the
alleged condition existed before the
road project, whether the town's work
created the or worsened the issue, or
whether the there is an actual
documented visibility hazard at that
location. If the town contributed to
creating the problem, the answer should
be work with the property owner on a
reasonable solution, not penalize the
resident or make them pay or correct the
condition caused or worsened by a town
project. The committee themselves raised
these concerns. The workshop packet
showed that the ULDC committee discussed
how old trees should be treated, whether
they should be grandfathered, how
irregular shaped driveways should be
handled or whether unused access points
should have been and or should have
comply should have to comply with the
line of sight requirements. The roadway,
equestrian, trails, and greenway
committee also concluded that the
existing 10-ft line of sight appeared
sufficient for rider visibility and
overall safety. The uldc recommendation
al ultimately passed by a 3 to2 vote. My
position, if there is an actual
visibility complaint, investigate it. If
there's a genuine and documented safety
hazard, contact the property owner and
work with them to correct it. Do not
conduct a townwide sweep looking for
violations where nobody has complained
and no safety incident has occurred. Do
not force residents to remove or alter
mature trees, shrubs, fences, gates, or
landscaping without first providing the
actual safety that there is an actual
safety hazard that exists. Do not create
new burdens for residents before we know
the proposed ordinance is actually legal
legally permissible. So, what can
council do tonight, which I think you
guys have already done? Um, this the
memorandum specifically gives council
the option to direct staff to draft an
ordinance or to take no further action.
I believe council should take no further
action unless and until staff can
demonstrate an actual safety problem
that exists that existing rules and a
complaint driven approach cannot
address. In closing, we should not
create violations first and then go
looking for people who fit them. Code
enforcement should solve real problems,
not manufacture work for itself. And
when a town road project has changed a
resident's frontage, we should not make
that resident the problem. Show us the
accidents, show us the complaints, show
us the documented safety problem, and we
can decide whether additional regulation
is actually necessary. Thanks. Thank
you.
» Next card is um Virginia Standish.
» Well, Miss Standish is walking up. Just
for the record, um staff has removed the
photos off Thank you. the website.
» And was Karen going to comment or did
she leave?
Okay.
Who else do we have after Miss Standish?
» Assucci.
» Okay, thank you.
» Okay,
» Virginia Standish. So, a couple key
points I've heard tonight. Um, but one I
didn't hear is uh and maybe you've
discussed it in the past. What is the
town legally required to do when two
roads intersect regarding line of sight?
Are there legal requirements? I think
going forward when this comes back, I'd
like to hear that as a member of the
public, you have council to answer that
question. What are the legal
requirements for line of sight when two
roads come together?
If there's bushes there, do you put a
height restriction? Okay. Um,
just asking what the rule the legal
rules are, not giving an opinion on
that. Um, mirrors, we talked about a
standard for mirrors. So my question
would be uh the mirrors, should that be
on the property owner site or are you
talking about putting them on the canal
bank where mowers are trying to go and
you're going to have all these mirrors.
So is it is it just as efficient? What
is the research show? Let's not just run
out and do something to say we did
something. Let's we're trying to revamp
this town to be efficient, safe. Let's
take the time to research this. Are
those mirrors better placed
strategically several feet down the
property owner's side to see what's
coming and going? And maybe they need
two mirrors, not just one instead of
having it on the canal bank. Again,
let's take the time to get these answers
regarding this going back to the ULDC.
Please strike any unnecessary language
to sit here and listen and say, "Well,
this council says we know we have
language, but we're not going to enforce
it." Well, thank you, but there's people
coming behind you and the present status
of the roads today does not indicate the
future. So, if there's if it's going
back to the ULDC, please strike any
unnecessary language and let's not count
on oh well maybe code we're going to
tell code not to enforce that. Well, who
knows who's going to be doing our code
and if we go back to Palm Beach County,
they don't care what you you got this on
the books. this is what we got to go by.
I'm a code enforcement officer and I
believe they're licensed and civily
liable for any issues is my
understanding.
Um, so I'd be real careful on we're not
going to enforce and just remove
unnecessary language. As far as private
properties, yes, existing properties,
why are we going back and asking them to
redo stuff if especially if they're on
the intersection? great points on new
construction,
but
the this is the part where I'm trying
not to laugh or be sarcastic.
20 days to get something done.
I'm going to say it. I challenge this
town to get anything done in 20 days.
Thank you very much.
» Thank you,
Cassie. Cassie,
we're putting you on the clock this time
so we can get out of here at 8:30.
» Well, shorter shorter.
» Um, so, you know, the agenda packet for
uh the sighteline should really include
um accident analysis, engineering
studies, or evidence that show
collisions involving private driveways.
and that sightelines were the uh reason.
So, I didn't see that in there. Now, one
of the things I wanted to mention, we
need to be very careful because we hear
it all the time using that catch all
health and safety. Health and safety
should be a standard supported by facts,
not something used to uh uh broaden the
authority of code enforcement.
And it when you are looking and this
goes out to Karen when she's reviewing
her ordinance basically you need to ask
yourself are you doing a blanket
ordinance for everyone are we
documenting crashes in locks of hatchy
groves that have been caused by
inadequate visibility from private
residential driveways how many of those
have been there should be some document
otherwise it didn't occur because
everything's based on evidence we have
to base it on evidence government has
good intentions but without evidence you
can't prove
What engineering studies have been done
showing that private driveways need
regulating?
What public safety benefit will be
achieved by continuing or expanding
these restrictions onto private
property?
And why can't documented hazards be
addressed individually instead of a
blanket for everybody? So ask yourself
those questions, answer those questions
and include any of the engineer studies
um
uh any of the engineer studies or any of
the problems in the actual packet so
that the council has all that
information. Thanks.
» Thank you.
» Gee, she was quick.
So So hopefully that was clear as mud.
Zack, Zach, welcome to our circus. Um,
and uh, anybody have any closing
comments for staff?
» I'd like to say I like that seems like
for the most part the last two things,
everything we said was regurgitated to
us. So, it sounds like we're
» We're being heard.
» We're being heard, that we're on par
with what's going with feeling is coming
from there. So, um, yeah. No, it's it's
exciting to see that, you know, things
are, you know, Yeah. It's not just we're
up here saying what we're saying and
nobody's realizing it. So, thank you
ladies for being here tonight.
» Yes. Thank you.
» Appreciate it.
» I was going to say same thing. Thank you
for everybody just for your comments.
» All right, Vice Mayor Sud.
» Yes, thank you all. We appreciate it.
Appreciate the residents who are staying
late and uh giving us all these uh
valuable inputs. Thank you. Bye-bye.
» Yes. Thank you. Um I I just have two
little requests. I know they're probably
not little, but can we get the strategic
plan on our first October agenda? Um I I
had shared some documentation of of what
I compiled and um I I I think that's
going to be very important as we go
forward with some of our financial stuff
and and some of the other things we've
talked about tonight and uh council
rules as soon as possible council
policy. I know staff had talked to me
about it, you know, getting back in
front of us again. So that would be it.
Thank you staff for coming. Thank you
everybody. Do I have a motion to
adjurnn?
» Counc.
» All those in favor?
» I
» Opposed. Hearing none. Motion passes 4
zero. Thank you.