[0:01] To the flag of the United States of
[0:03] America and to the republic for which it
[0:05] stands. One nation under God,
[0:09] indivisible, with liberty and justice
[0:11] for all.
[0:32] Thank you.
[0:34] Uh, roll call, please.
[0:36] » Council member Stevens,
[0:38] » Present.
[0:39] » Council member Kaine,
[0:40] » Present. Council member Coleman,
[0:42] » Present.
[0:43] » Vice Mayor Sud.
[0:45] » Mayor El Ramy,
[0:46] » Present.
[0:48] » Acting town manager Oaks,
[0:50] » Present.
[0:50] » Town attorney Good,
[0:52] » Present.
[0:53] » Public works director Lowour.
[0:55] Community Standards Director Gardner
[0:57] Young present.
[0:58] » And acting town clerk is present.
[1:01] » Thank you. Uh additions, deletions, and
[1:03] modifications.
[1:06] All good.
[1:08] And uh we'll open it up then to any
[1:11] public comments on non-aggenda items.
[1:14] » Yes, madame mayor. We have one comment
[1:16] card from Virginia Standish.
[1:19] » Thank you.
[1:31] While that's happening, can I get a
[1:32] motion to uh accept the
[1:34] » Make a motion to approve the agenda.
[1:35] » Thank you.
[1:36] » Second.
[1:37] » All right. All those in favor?
[1:38] » I
[1:39] » I opposed hearing none. Motion passes
[1:42] 40.
[1:46] » May I proceed?
[1:47] » Yes, please.
[1:48] » Good afternoon. Good evening. Virginia
[1:51] Standish Lockach.
[1:53] 11 months ago, I came before council and
[1:56] have continued to do so over various
[1:59] meetings to share my concern that the
[2:02] town's ULDC code involving tree
[2:04] mitigation is full of conflicts and
[2:07] places excessive financial hardship on
[2:10] land owners and should once again be
[2:12] reviewed by the ULDC committee and
[2:15] council as is being done with the RV
[2:19] ordinance.
[2:21] Yet, this has not happened. I will be
[2:23] making the same statement at your
[2:25] council meeting for the record.
[2:28] Additionally, on behalf of a landowner,
[2:30] I have requested via email that a
[2:32] property I represent be given the
[2:35] options for a new owner to purchase the
[2:38] property.
[2:39] Months have gone by without a final
[2:42] answer from this this landowner and
[2:45] their attorney have met with the town,
[2:48] called the town and have yet to receive
[2:51] an answer on what is supposed to be
[2:54] under your guidelines a casebycase
[2:57] review.
[2:58] And yet the answer is incomplete as
[3:02] compared to what your ULDC says.
[3:06] I've had to ask for this item to be
[3:09] placed on the town agenda for review by
[3:11] council. I did not wish to do that. I
[3:15] feel your staff could have handled this
[3:17] in-house. We still hope it can be
[3:19] handled in-house and frankly we are
[3:21] baffled that is it has been almost a
[3:24] year to get an answer with multiple
[3:28] options as outlined in your DC code for
[3:32] someone who has spent extensive funds
[3:35] and not cleared all the trees yet that
[3:38] they were going to clear.
[3:41] This is the perfect example of what
[3:44] should not happen. procedures should be
[3:46] in place for staff to do a case-bycase
[3:49] review and provide an answer within
[3:51] weeks, not a year. I know this council
[3:55] is revamping, refocused on getting
[3:57] things done efficiently, and this is one
[4:00] of many issues that needs to be
[4:02] addressed. In addition, for the record,
[4:04] I am telling you that today I submitted
[4:06] a public records request for the form
[4:11] for bonafide ad covenant and also how
[4:14] many of these covenants have been
[4:16] recorded by the town since 2019.
[4:19] Thank you.
[4:22] » Thank you, council. I know we've um
[4:25] we've had Miss Stish up here several
[4:28] times. Um, is this something I know that
[4:32] uh the manager had received the request
[4:34] to put this on as an agenda item and the
[4:37] conversation was it's allowed in the
[4:39] charter
[4:41] um but we really have no policy on how
[4:43] to bring that forward. Is that something
[4:45] that we want to
[4:47] allow the manager to determine
[4:50] documentation and timing or is that
[4:52] something that when a request comes
[4:54] forward, it is brought forward to us and
[4:56] we and we have a policy on when that
[4:59] comes forward depending on availability
[5:02] in the agenda.
[5:04] » When we talking about coming forward,
[5:05] we're talking about the ability for it
[5:06] to transfer over to a new owner.
[5:09] » No, the agenda item itself to have a
[5:11] policy. Yeah, she wants to create a
[5:14] policy
[5:15] » What's allowed in our charter,
[5:16] » Right?
[5:17] » So, do we want to develop a policy? Do
[5:20] we want to allow the manager to just
[5:22] place it on the agenda as available in
[5:24] timing and and it comes as it comes to
[5:27] us? Should it be a discussion item under
[5:29] the manager? How do we develop a policy
[5:32] for for these things coming forward
[5:35] um as agenda requests? I
[5:38] » I guess I'll rephrase my question.
[5:41] What
[5:42] A policy for what coming forward?
[5:44] » An requested agenda item by the public.
[5:48] » Oh, that that's what we're I mean
[5:51] » That's the general question in front of
[5:52] us right now.
[5:54] » I have my item.
[5:56] » Yeah, go ahead. I was going to say I
[6:00] think that
[6:02] since these types of items, as this one
[6:06] clearly is are an issue where there's a
[6:08] feeling that staff is not
[6:12] performing at a rate that this public
[6:15] would like them to. I I feel that it
[6:17] should be the manager's determination
[6:19] because I think the manager is the one
[6:21] who is qualified to make the
[6:23] determination. We are not we're not in
[6:26] here every day. We're not qualified to
[6:27] make the determination of whether all
[6:30] resources have been exhausted, whether
[6:32] it's in process, whether it's just that
[6:33] laboriously slow process. But I think
[6:35] the manager is the one who's uniquely
[6:37] qualified to make that determination and
[6:39] that she should then, as you said, put
[6:41] on the agenda as time fits.
[6:43] Unfortunately, for going into budgeting,
[6:45] I I don't see time fitting in the next
[6:49] near future. Um, and this seems to be a
[6:51] matter of some urgency, but that's my
[6:54] opinion.
[6:54] » Well, I would I would piggyback on that
[6:56] concept in that obviously some of the
[6:59] concern is that there's a staff
[7:01] performance question here. the managers
[7:03] in charge of staff. This is relatively
[7:06] new management overseeing staff. So,
[7:09] moving things along or having them come
[7:12] before council. I'm not sure the manager
[7:15] would always be the one necessarily to
[7:17] deem that that's something they want
[7:19] brought to the public view. So, perhaps
[7:21] there's two processes where maybe they
[7:23] can petition the manager or they can
[7:25] petition council and council can bring
[7:28] it up and under a simple majority vote
[7:29] it comes forward on the next agenda.
[7:31] Maybe we have both processes available.
[7:33] » Maybe maybe they petition the manager
[7:35] first and if they don't feel like they
[7:36] get satisfaction then then they petition
[7:38] council.
[7:39] » Yeah.
[7:40] » Yes.
[7:40] » So you know
[7:41] » Or they do it simultaneously. So
[7:43] » So they we create a policy to that.
[7:47] » Okay.
[7:47] » I don't think we need to get real crazy
[7:48] and create
[7:49] » I don't think we need to get crazy.
[7:50] Right.
[7:51] » As far as Yeah. All right.
[7:52] » Two two avenues makes it makes it easy.
[7:54] » Yeah. It's a little peck and balance.
[7:56] » Zachary a question. I'm sorry. I just
[7:58] want to make sure you know one of the um
[8:01] conundrums of the council manager style
[8:04] of government is that the um council
[8:08] can't interfere with the manager doing
[8:09] their job. Could this in any way be
[8:11] construed as interference
[8:14] » As long as you all have a policy that is
[8:17] set forth
[8:19] uh and it that a policy is adhered to. I
[8:21] think that what you're suggesting here
[8:24] as having a process for the manager to
[8:28] place items on the agenda and for the
[8:31] town council to place items on the
[8:33] agenda is reasonable. Um, and certainly
[8:38] it is the town council's agenda. So if
[8:40] you all want to discuss an item, you are
[8:43] within your rights and your powers to
[8:46] bring that forward.
[8:47] » It was a little further than that. It
[8:49] was it was somebody is somebody has some
[8:53] discontent with the way that the
[8:55] management with the staff is handling
[8:57] things which as Lisa pointed out in this
[9:00] case it rolls uphill right things go up
[9:03] to the manager ultimately it's the
[9:04] manager's responsibility
[9:08] » May I offer a suggestion
[9:10] » Certainly
[9:11] » Thank you so because one of my concerns
[9:14] is if a request comes forward it is in
[9:17] your charter and then It's kind of that
[9:19] that determination of you know is the
[9:22] manager handling it or not. So for
[9:24] example you know any manager in this
[9:26] seat could think that they may have
[9:27] handled the situation appropriately and
[9:30] you could have the resident that may
[9:31] think differently. What I would like to
[9:33] suggest um which was going to kind of be
[9:36] my intention was to place Miss
[9:38] Standish's item underneath the town
[9:40] manager's report and notify council that
[9:42] we received a request from a resident to
[9:46] place an item on the agenda. let you
[9:48] guys know what the agenda item is,
[9:50] provide you with a brief background, and
[9:53] then if you guys want to move forward
[9:55] with placing the item on the next agenda
[9:57] for further discussion, you can do so at
[9:59] that time by consensus. Or you could
[10:01] say, "Thank you for, you know, letting
[10:03] us know, please come back in 30 days and
[10:05] report back or what have you, you know,
[10:06] case by case." And so that way it's kind
[10:09] of one avenue. It's clean, it's clear,
[10:11] and it's also transparent and on the
[10:13] agenda. Yeah.
[10:14] » Right.
[10:15] » Right.
[10:15] » So that's a suggestion.
[10:16] » You did your job. right that also
[10:18] whoever the manager is
[10:19] » And also to make sure that the residents
[10:21] feel heard um and that we are kind of
[10:23] adhering to our charter um in a sense
[10:26] and just keeping things transparent and
[10:27] moving forward.
[10:28] » So to recap, so you're suggesting that
[10:31] the the first avenue is for them to to
[10:33] come to you and file an appeal whatever
[10:36] they want something on the agenda that
[10:38] you would then include that in the next
[10:39] meeting's manager's report at which time
[10:42] council would make a decision of whether
[10:44] it goes on the following agenda.
[10:46] » Right? And so and theoretically um you
[10:48] know I would have a conversation in this
[10:50] instance it would be Miss Standish to
[10:52] say hey you know is there any supporting
[10:53] documentation that you want to include
[10:56] uh do you want to add a memo to the file
[10:58] and that way we can include all of that
[11:00] as part of the agenda item under my
[11:02] report.
[11:02] » I think it would be interesting though
[11:03] to to provide a couple like Paul said a
[11:07] couple different avenues for for public
[11:09] discourse to be brought forward in a
[11:11] more formal way. So I I you know to your
[11:15] point Zach that this is you know
[11:17] something that as long as the council
[11:19] has a policy and they they invoke that
[11:21] policy and follow it. So
[11:23] » And I mean I'm happy to work with your
[11:26] manager in to develop that policy.
[11:30] » Yeah. Well let's see as it comes forward
[11:31] because I know um uh the manager had
[11:34] plan to to bring it forward.
[11:36] » Yeah. Yeah. In anticipation of this
[11:37] conversation we did reach out to several
[11:39] municipalities. A lot of them um do not
[11:42] have this in their charter. Uh the one
[11:44] that did have it in their charter uh who
[11:46] responded out of those that we uh
[11:48] emailed was Puna Gorta and when we said
[11:51] okay um we recognize that it's in your
[11:53] charter very similar language they don't
[11:55] have a detailed policy in terms of you
[11:58] know the resident can speak for five
[11:59] minutes and make a presentation you know
[12:00] it's you know because what we want to
[12:02] get away well we don't want staff to sit
[12:05] here and spend hours on an item that
[12:07] council may not deem as a priority or as
[12:11] Miss Standish said we're in the middle
[12:13] of a major transition and so we need to
[12:15] be very mindful of what our priorities
[12:17] are and what our focuses are and while
[12:18] that is a priority there are a lot of
[12:20] things that are going on right now and
[12:22] so we want to just make sure that
[12:23] everything is in line and that you know
[12:24] we're communicating those things
[12:25] effectively.
[12:26] » Okay. Well, I guess we'll see it at the
[12:28] September September. Awesome.
[12:31] » Any other public comments?
[12:33] » Yes, madame mayor. We have Cassie Suchi.
[12:45] Um
[12:47] I just want to bring back some some
[12:49] things just happened on North B Road uh
[12:53] with some of the grading that recently
[12:54] happened a couple days ago, say a week
[12:57] ago. I just took photographs. Apparently
[13:00] staff decided to grade the remaining
[13:02] portion of North B Road beyond its legal
[13:05] limit for width. And I know that for a
[13:07] fact because people in North Be sued the
[13:10] town because they illegally took their
[13:12] money, inverse condemnation. It was a
[13:14] big lawsuit and the town ended up
[13:17] spending what $350,000 to defend it.
[13:20] They wanted to maintain legal control of
[13:23] their land if it was ever um if the
[13:26] maintenance maps were ever filed and
[13:28] they would lose it. So that was done.
[13:30] And I want to take you back historically
[13:33] back in 2017.
[13:36] uh a guy named Frank Smith decided to
[13:40] when Underwood was in charge decided to
[13:42] do the same thing all over again and he
[13:45] got to a portion on B- Road and there
[13:47] were three trees that have been there
[13:48] for many many years and I stopped him,
[13:51] contacted Underwood. They called the
[13:52] police. They hadn't stopped. He came to
[13:55] the meeting and said he was told by a
[13:56] certain councilman who denied it, never
[13:59] got paid. And uh when you look at the
[14:03] maintenance maps, those trees show that
[14:05] they're part are the roadway, which
[14:07] they're not. So they he what he was
[14:09] doing was grading illegally to the
[14:11] maintenance. When I took pictures this
[14:14] last week, the grading is exactly
[14:17] matching almost exactly all the way
[14:20] down. Now, I don't know if this occurred
[14:22] because at the last council meeting, you
[14:24] guys talked about um finishing paving on
[14:28] roads, but you need to ask those people
[14:31] for the easements and there is a recent
[14:34] survey of those portions that was given
[14:36] to the road in the lawsuit, but this is
[14:40] keeps happening. It happens on other
[14:42] roads and it needs to stop. I don't know
[14:45] if there's a disconnect between staff
[14:48] comprehension and what council wants
[14:51] because I have not heard council once
[14:54] say go ahead and steal people's private
[14:56] land.
[14:58] So, I'm contacting the attorney that
[15:00] took the original lawsuit just to keep
[15:02] him on standby. But I would hope that
[15:04] this gets brought up maybe at the next
[15:06] meeting and council will make sure that
[15:08] staff corrects what they did on the
[15:11] roadway puts the people's property back
[15:13] and if they have to put ballards in
[15:15] because nobody can seem to understand
[15:17] where to grade maybe that's what it is.
[15:18] But I'm going to tell you Ballards on
[15:20] five or six properties is going to be a
[15:22] whole lot cheaper than the 350,000 which
[15:24] is going to cost for another inverse
[15:26] condemnation. So please, I urge you as
[15:28] council to make staff correct their
[15:30] mistake and make sure that this
[15:33] comprehension between what you guys
[15:35] want, which is our stewards and our
[15:37] representatives, is relayed to them and
[15:39] they they carry it out. Thanks.
[15:41] » Thank you.
[15:44] » Any other public comments? Okay.
[15:47] » So to that end, I'm sure public works
[15:49] will be on it so everyone's aware. So,
[15:54] uh, that brings us to agenda item one.
[15:57] And I believe our auditor is here
[16:00] virtually.
[16:12] » Andrew, I see you, but I There you are.
[16:15] » All right. Can you hear me now?
[16:17] » Yes. Thank you.
[16:18] » Okay, great. Well, thank you very much,
[16:20] um, honorable mayor, members of the
[16:22] council. Uh, for the record, my name is
[16:25] Andrew Fearman. I'm a partner with
[16:26] Fearman Accounts and Adviserss, and I am
[16:28] here to provide a brief presentation on
[16:31] your annual comprehensive financial
[16:33] report for the fiscal end of September
[16:34] 30th, 2025.
[16:37] The first thing I'd like to point out is
[16:38] just within the within the table of
[16:40] contents, um, what I could do as well,
[16:43] if it if it would be helpful, I could I
[16:45] could also share my screen and and point
[16:47] out on the screen what what I'm uh what
[16:50] I'm discussing. Um, if that would be
[16:52] helpful. Let me try to do that.
[16:53] Actually, that'll probably be good. Just
[16:55] one moment. Let me see if it lets me
[16:57] share.
[17:09] Okay. So, if everyone sees it, sees it
[17:11] up on the screen.
[17:13] » Yes, we can.
[17:14] » Okay, great. It'll make it easier
[17:17] everyone. All right. So, the first thing
[17:19] I'd like to point out is actually right
[17:21] in the table of contents. Um, your
[17:23] annual comprehensive financial report is
[17:25] broken up into into various sections.
[17:27] It's actually four specific sections. is
[17:29] the introductory section, the financial
[17:32] section, the statistical section, and
[17:34] the compliance section. I'm going to
[17:36] highlight a few things within each
[17:37] section and provide an explanation on
[17:39] each one. So, the introductory section
[17:41] um which is the very first section
[17:43] includes your letter of transmitt um
[17:46] some some information on the town such
[17:47] as the officials, the organizational
[17:49] chart. What I wanted to point out here
[17:51] is um on the last page here on on page
[17:56] Roman numeral 7 is that the town did
[17:57] receive the certificate of excellence um
[18:00] of achievement for financial reporting.
[18:02] Um this was provided for the uh fiscal
[18:05] year 2024 annual comprehensive financial
[18:07] report and as everyone knows it is a a
[18:09] prestigious award that's provided by the
[18:11] government finance office association
[18:12] and just it holds your financial
[18:14] statements and your financial reporting
[18:15] to a to a higher standard. There's
[18:17] certain sections that in addition that
[18:19] the town puts in um that are
[18:21] requirements just for this certificate
[18:23] program which is included within the
[18:24] introductory section which is the letter
[18:26] of transmitt and then the third section
[18:28] of the document which is statistical
[18:30] section. Um those are additional
[18:32] sections that are included for
[18:33] additional information for for the the
[18:35] readers of the financial statements that
[18:36] that are required to be able to um
[18:39] achieve this uh this award. So this has
[18:41] been awarded for the uh for the 2024 uh
[18:44] report and I believe that this this one
[18:46] is also going to be submitted as well
[18:47] for 2025.
[18:49] Um after the introductory section comes
[18:52] the financial section. The financial
[18:54] section the first item within there is
[18:56] the uh independent auditor's report. Um
[19:00] so obviously this is our report on the
[19:02] financial statements. Uh it is broken up
[19:04] into various sections. I'm going to
[19:06] point out a few of the sections and
[19:07] paraphrase a few items within there. So
[19:09] the first section is our opinion
[19:10] section. That's the most important
[19:12] section. It it describes what we've
[19:14] audited and it also tells you what our
[19:16] opinion is on the financial statements
[19:17] and that states that we have audited the
[19:19] accompanying financial statements of the
[19:21] town of Lockxahei Groves as of and for
[19:24] the fiscal September 3rd, 2025. In our
[19:26] opinion, the financials statements
[19:28] referred to above present fairly in all
[19:30] material respects the respective
[19:32] financial position of the government
[19:33] activities, business type activities,
[19:35] and each major fund of the town as of
[19:37] September 30th, 2025. Now, this is an
[19:40] unmodified or clean opinion, and that's
[19:41] of course the only opinion you want on
[19:43] your financial statements. The next
[19:45] section talks about under what standards
[19:46] we performed our audit and that states
[19:49] that we conducted our audit in
[19:50] accordance with the auditing standards
[19:52] generally accepted in the United States
[19:53] of America and government auditing
[19:55] standards.
[19:57] The next section talks about what
[19:58] management's responsibilities are for
[20:00] the financial statements and that states
[20:01] that management is responsible for the
[20:03] preparation and fair presentation of the
[20:05] financial statements. And the last
[20:07] section I'm going to point out here is
[20:08] right here on the first page, which is
[20:09] what our responsibilities are as
[20:11] auditors. And that states that our
[20:13] objectives are to obtain reasonable
[20:14] assurance about whether the financial
[20:16] statements as a whole are free from
[20:18] material misstatement, whether due to
[20:20] fraud or error, and to issue an
[20:21] auditor's report that includes our
[20:23] opinions.
[20:25] Now, after the uh after the auditor's
[20:27] report is the managed discussion
[20:30] analysis. The management's discussion
[20:32] analysis runs from pages three to page
[20:35] uh to page 15. So it's about it's about
[20:37] 12 pages. And if and you'll note that
[20:39] it's 12 pages in a in a document that's
[20:41] over 100 pages. If no one reads anything
[20:44] else in this document should read this
[20:46] because it talks about the year. It
[20:49] compares current year to prior year and
[20:51] provides explanations for those changes
[20:53] year-over-year. And it's written from
[20:54] management's perspective. So it's a it's
[20:56] similar to what's provided in public
[20:57] company financial statements. And it um
[21:00] it is an excellent executive summary of
[21:02] what's what's in the document, you know,
[21:04] of the financial statements and the
[21:05] notes and everything themselves. It
[21:06] gives you a very good overview of
[21:08] everything in that 12 pages. So that
[21:10] runs from pages three to page 15.
[21:15] Now when we get to page 16,
[21:19] this begins the financial statements.
[21:22] And we're still in the financial section
[21:23] of the of the document. Obviously, the
[21:25] financial state section is the largest
[21:26] section. Um, this section includes the
[21:29] governmentwide statement of net position
[21:31] and statement of activities as well as
[21:33] the fund financial statements for your
[21:35] governmental funds and your enterprise
[21:38] fund and your proprietary fund. Um, the
[21:40] main thing I want to point out here is
[21:42] going to be on page 18.
[21:46] So, page 18 is the balance sheet of your
[21:48] governmental funds. Um, and the first
[21:51] line the first column is the general
[21:53] fund which is the operating fund of the
[21:55] of the town. What I wanted to point out
[21:56] here is that September 30th, 2025, the
[21:59] town had unassigned uh fund balance of
[22:02] approximately 1,164,000
[22:05] um at year end.
[22:11] Now, moving just past the the financial
[22:14] statement section,
[22:16] we get to the the notes of the financial
[22:19] statements. Now the notes to the
[22:21] financial statements are the required
[22:22] disclosures which provide additional
[22:24] information on the town as well as the
[22:26] numbers that are presented within the
[22:28] financial statements. So it tells the
[22:30] whole story. You know it's it's
[22:31] suggested and I I personally believe
[22:33] required that uh that you read the the
[22:36] notes in conjunction with the the
[22:38] financial statements in conjunction with
[22:39] the notes because it gives you
[22:40] additional narrative information on the
[22:42] numbers. It also give you gives you
[22:44] additional numerical detail. So it gets
[22:46] it gets more into detail within the
[22:47] numbers. Um as an example for your
[22:50] capital assets there will be uh you know
[22:53] one number on the note on the on the
[22:55] face of the financial statements but
[22:57] then in the notes of the financial
[22:58] statements you'll see that
[23:00] that the capital assets it gives you a
[23:03] beginning balance by type of asset. It
[23:06] tells you what tells you about the
[23:07] increases the decreases and it gives the
[23:09] ending balance. So it gives you you know
[23:11] the the full the full story of what
[23:12] occurred where we began and what
[23:14] happened during the year and then comes
[23:16] to those totals and that which you get
[23:18] that net amount which is what you which
[23:19] what you would see on the face of the
[23:20] financial statements. So again a very
[23:22] good lot of good information within the
[23:23] notes within the notes of the financial
[23:25] statements.
[23:27] Now beginning now beginning on page on
[23:30] page 44 going to move to page 44 now
[23:34] that begins the required supplementary
[23:36] information.
[23:38] So, the required supplementary
[23:40] information is information that the the
[23:42] Governmental Accounting Standards Board
[23:43] requires that you include within within
[23:45] your financial statements. It includes a
[23:47] budgetary comparison information as well
[23:49] as information on the Florida Retirement
[23:51] System and it gives you some some trend
[23:53] information as well. Um, what I'd like
[23:55] to point out here is you can see this.
[23:57] There's a lot of good information just
[23:59] on this one page because it it gives you
[24:01] your general fund budget, gives you the
[24:03] original adopted budget, final amended
[24:05] budget, and then your actual results and
[24:07] then comparing those actual results to
[24:10] the to the final amended budget showing
[24:12] what those what those budget variances
[24:13] are. Um, so once again, a lot of good
[24:16] information here. And you can see just
[24:18] as an example, you see total
[24:19] expenditures. The original budget was
[24:21] approximately 3,291,000.
[24:24] The final amended budget was
[24:25] approximately 3,522,000.
[24:28] The actual results were approximately
[24:30] 3,429,000.
[24:32] So you have a positive uh budget
[24:34] variance of approximately $93,000
[24:38] um within total expenditures. So again,
[24:40] this is a lot of good information just
[24:41] just on this one page. Um and um
[24:46] you will also see if we go to page
[24:55] We go to page 52,
[25:00] you can see there's also, and this is on
[25:03] all of the pages, you could see 10 years
[25:05] of information of contributions
[25:08] um related to the uh and also relates
[25:11] the net pension liability related to
[25:12] your Florida retirement system. So, it
[25:14] gives you that information from 2016 all
[25:15] the way to 2026. So you can kind of see
[25:17] where the where the plan has gone um
[25:20] over the last over the last 10 years.
[25:24] Now we're going to move into the third
[25:25] section. So we've looked at the
[25:26] introductory section. We've looked at
[25:27] the financial section. Now we're going
[25:28] to look at the statistical section. This
[25:30] was the other section that I mentioned
[25:32] that is that is included as a
[25:34] requirement for the GFO certificate
[25:36] program. This section includes uh trend
[25:40] information uh financial information or
[25:43] and generally over 10 years. So you'll
[25:45] have financial information. Um you see
[25:47] here you have the net position that's
[25:49] being shown over the last over the last
[25:52] uh over the last 10 years. Here you see
[25:54] 2016 to 2025. So there's also financial
[25:57] information. You also have information
[25:59] on operating information within within
[26:01] uh the statistical section. And this is
[26:03] a really important section. The town the
[26:05] town puts a lot of work into putting
[26:06] getting this information together. Um,
[26:09] and it's it's excellent for the readers
[26:11] to come in and be able to see, you know,
[26:13] where the where the where the town has
[26:14] been over the last over the last 10
[26:16] years. Um, as simple as, you know,
[26:19] looking at full-time uh equivalent town
[26:22] employees by function. So, basically
[26:24] showing that um and also talking about
[26:27] uh several different types of operating
[26:28] indicators that are required to be
[26:30] shown. Again, it's just something that
[26:31] that assists the town in um in seeing
[26:33] that history.
[26:36] Moving from there, we get into our
[26:37] compliance section, which is the fourth
[26:39] section. This section includes the
[26:41] reports that are required under uh
[26:43] generally accepted government auditing
[26:44] standards. Um and as well as the rules
[26:47] of the utter general of the state of
[26:48] Florida. So this within within within
[26:50] these reports here we did we did note
[26:53] that that we found um two significant
[26:56] deficiencies in internal control and
[26:58] three instances of non-compliance which
[27:00] we have reported within the document and
[27:02] management has provided responses and
[27:04] those are those are also included within
[27:06] the document.
[27:09] In addition to that you also received a
[27:15] communication to those charged with
[27:16] governance letter. Um so as your
[27:19] auditors and under a professional
[27:21] standards we are required to um go over
[27:24] certain matters with you and we always
[27:25] feels it's it's the best to put it with
[27:27] it within a letter to explain it. These
[27:29] are all uh standard communications. It
[27:31] talks about if there was any you know
[27:33] changes in accounting policies if
[27:35] there's any any particular uh notes to
[27:37] the financial statements that we that we
[27:39] point out that you may want to you may
[27:40] want to look at. Um those notes it
[27:42] doesn't mean that it's anything
[27:43] negative. It's just saying hey you know
[27:44] you might want to take a look at these.
[27:46] Um, also talks about if we had any any
[27:49] uh corrected or uncorrected
[27:51] misstatements. Um, they're noted there
[27:52] as well. Some some adjustments that that
[27:54] needed to be made to be made to the
[27:55] financial statements. It also talks
[27:57] about if we had any anything to report
[28:00] any any other um findings or issues
[28:03] which we also mentioned in there as well
[28:04] that we that we did identify those two
[28:06] significant deficiencies um in three
[28:08] instances of non-compliance which again
[28:10] are described in that schedule of
[28:11] findings and responses which management
[28:13] has provided uh responses to those as
[28:15] well. Um overall I just wanted to uh
[28:20] thank the town for the the opportunity
[28:21] to to to u be of service. Um, it is an
[28:25] honor and a privilege and it's it's a
[28:27] it's a uh it's a responsibility that we
[28:29] take that we take very seriously and we
[28:31] uh we we appreciate the um the town's
[28:34] hard work and the town's cooperation and
[28:36] assistance throughout the process to be
[28:37] able to have the opportunity to to
[28:39] present to you today. Um with that, I'll
[28:41] leave it there. I mean, I'll open it up
[28:43] to any questions that you have of me, of
[28:45] the manager, of the of the finance
[28:46] director at this time. Thanks again for
[28:48] the opportunity to uh to present to you
[28:50] this evening.
[28:52] » Thank you. Uh, Council Member Kaine has
[28:54] her question light on.
[28:56] » Right. Well, my first concern, well, I
[29:00] have a couple of concerns.
[29:02] My first concern is I didn't receive
[29:04] this document until 3:51 today. So, um,
[29:10] I haven't had a chance to really dig
[29:12] deep into it. Um,
[29:15] is there a and of course this doc this
[29:18] audit itself was due several months ago.
[29:21] Can you speak to why the audit is late?
[29:25] » Yeah, it's uh and I can actually uh if
[29:27] the if the manager would like to would
[29:29] like to respond. Um I know that
[29:31] everything is is reported within the
[29:32] document um as far as as far as what you
[29:35] know what we found and what the
[29:36] responses are of management related to
[29:38] related to uh the delay in in the
[29:42] completion of the audit and the fact
[29:44] that we're here today being able to uh
[29:45] present to you.
[29:48] » Okay. Uh the second thing is again I
[29:52] didn't receive this document till I was
[29:54] literally walking out to feed my horses.
[29:55] So I haven't been able to spend a whole
[29:57] lot of time with it but a brief perusal
[29:59] of this looks like a lot of the uh
[30:03] issues and that's really the section
[30:05] that I usually look at is uh your the
[30:10] you know where there were issues um were
[30:14] have to do with our financial reporting.
[30:17] Um, do you feel that the move, the shift
[30:22] that we've recently made to using a firm
[30:25] and then an in-house financial person
[30:28] will
[30:30] help to address these concerns so that
[30:33] they don't happen in the future?
[30:35] » Yes, I do. and I and in conversations
[30:37] with the with with with the manager as
[30:39] well as the as well as how management
[30:41] has responded to the uh to the to the
[30:44] concerns um the the change in the move
[30:47] should should should assist in that in
[30:49] that process going forward.
[30:51] » Thank you.
[30:53] » So just for the record um I did receive
[30:56] the draft ACFR
[30:59] uh from Andrew uh I believe it was at
[31:02] 316 is when I got it from you Andrew. Is
[31:05] that
[31:06] » Yeah.
[31:06] » Yeah. And I sent it out to council at
[31:08] 3:30. So, I mean, almost immediately
[31:11] after I received it, I sent it out. Um,
[31:13] and I think when he refers to
[31:15] management, we're spec we're specifying
[31:17] um really the financial consultants. Um,
[31:21] because naturally, they're the ones that
[31:22] have to put the information together and
[31:24] provide it to uh the auditors and a lot
[31:27] of the delays uh were with inconsistent
[31:30] information and having to go back and
[31:31] forth and correct that information.
[31:35] Uh may I add something to address what
[31:38] was said?
[31:38] » I see that you were there. Yes, please
[31:40] speak.
[31:41] » Okay. Thank you. Um just to note that
[31:44] the idea is obviously that the model
[31:47] that we've put in place now is going to
[31:48] solve these problems going forward. That
[31:51] said, some of these are um we're coming
[31:54] in in August of 2026 for a fiscal year
[31:58] that's ending in 30 days, which means
[32:01] that some of these issues that are noted
[32:03] in this audit, we can't fix what
[32:06] happened for the first 11 months of the
[32:08] year, we can only fix it going forward.
[32:12] So, um, depending on how an auditor is
[32:15] going to view that and and I can't
[32:16] predict how that's going to to come
[32:19] about, um, sometimes they'll clear the
[32:21] comments if it's cleared by the end of
[32:23] the fiscal year. Sometimes they say
[32:25] they'll include it. They'll lower it to
[32:28] a a lower a lesser type of finding, you
[32:32] know, going from a significant
[32:33] deficiency to an internal control
[32:35] deficiency. um and then comment that
[32:39] it's cleared going forward, but that
[32:42] during the year under audit, it wasn't
[32:44] addressed. I just wanted to be perfectly
[32:47] clear. It's not going to wave a magic
[32:49] wand and fiscal year 26 is going to be
[32:52] perfect because we're coming in too late
[32:55] in the end of fiscal 26 in order to get
[32:58] everything fixed in 30 days.
[33:02] » Thank you. And just for the record,
[33:04] could you please say your name since
[33:05] you're here virtually?
[33:06] » I'm sorry. Ivon Claybourne, CRI
[33:08] Advisors.
[33:10] » Thank you.
[33:12] » And and I concur with with Ivonne. And
[33:14] that's typically how it works. And then
[33:15] in in mentioning seeing that things are
[33:17] going to improve with is on a on a going
[33:19] forward basis. So um one of the first
[33:21] things that we do when we come back for
[33:22] the audit obviously is we go over we go
[33:24] over the prior year uh the prior year
[33:26] findings, discuss that and say, "Okay,
[33:28] what what what has been done um to
[33:30] correct these going forward?" And
[33:32] obviously if they were if they were an
[33:33] issue during the year typically they
[33:34] they they are they are repeated but
[33:37] there is but the response is that that
[33:39] has been that obviously has been
[33:41] corrected going forward. And it is and
[33:42] it and the the finding typically is
[33:44] adjusted to to note that we reviewed
[33:47] information subsequent to noting that um
[33:50] you know that the matter the matter
[33:52] appears to have been appears to have
[33:53] been resolved going forward even though
[33:55] the matter was um was an issue during
[33:57] the year. So um that's exactly right. So
[33:59] I I concur with what Ivonne said.
[34:02] And if you look at page 72, uh if you
[34:05] look at 202502 financial closed
[34:07] reporting, there's a statement in there
[34:09] uh under criteria where it states the
[34:11] town currently lacks personnel to allow
[34:13] for appropriate and adequate review of
[34:15] accounting data and financial
[34:17] information. Timely preparation and
[34:19] accurate accounting reconciliations are
[34:21] key to maintaining adequate internal
[34:22] control over financial reporting. And so
[34:25] when you look at the responses, the
[34:26] responses uh, you know, go back to, you
[34:30] know, this new hybrid model that we're
[34:32] looking to implement.
[34:34] Thank you.
[34:36] » Any other questions?
[34:40] Any questions from the public? Just
[34:42] wanted to say thank you.
[34:45] » We have a public
[34:47] » Tracy's whi whipping a card around back
[34:49] there.
[34:50] » Well, look out, Andrew. It's the chair
[34:52] of the finance committee wanting to come
[34:54] forward for questions. So,
[35:00] uh oh, she's got a file folder.
[35:01] » No, no. Unacceptable. Got right. We got
[35:03] right ahead.
[35:04] » See that?
[35:11] » Talk closer to your microphone. No.
[35:18] » It's hidden.
[35:23] I like a lot.
[35:26] » TMI.
[35:28] » Yeah, that's my favorite little TMI.
[35:30] » Hi, Andrew. Can you hear me?
[35:32] » Yes, can hear you.
[35:33] » Hi, this is Tracy Rafitz, 1261 FRO,
[35:36] chair of the fact committee. So, I have
[35:38] a couple questions since I got this at 4
[35:40] o'clock this afternoon as well. Um, the
[35:44] big one, if your audit had not been
[35:46] identified and corrected, not identified
[35:48] and corrected, the adjustments, would
[35:51] the town's financial statements have
[35:52] been materially materially misstated?
[35:56] » Yes. Yes. That's typically the the the
[35:59] material adjustments that we find. If
[36:01] they're not if they're not corrected,
[36:02] they would be materially misstated. Yes.
[36:04] » Okay. The town's initial working trial
[36:06] balance required 59 audit adjustments
[36:09] totaling approximately $10 million from
[36:12] for a municipality our size. Is that
[36:14] normal?
[36:16] » No. Typically when we get the working
[36:18] trial balance um there's not there's not
[36:20] that many adjustments that that are
[36:21] required um prior to getting it. Um so
[36:25] when there's that when there's that many
[36:26] adjustments that means that the that the
[36:28] working trial balance wasn't was not
[36:29] completely adjusted when we received it.
[36:31] Um and then I and then as the process
[36:33] went through as as as we asked questions
[36:35] there was there had been adjustments
[36:37] that were that had been that have been
[36:38] recorded um even internally subsequent
[36:41] to us receiving the working trial
[36:43] balance. So as as the manager stated
[36:45] that's exactly what happened. There was
[36:47] there was there was discrepancies and
[36:48] changes and there was there was a lot of
[36:50] back and forth in the process um to come
[36:52] to come to the point of having the uh
[36:54] the the the fully adjusted trial balance
[36:57] and obviously fully adjusted financial
[36:58] statements.
[36:59] So, of that $10 million, how much was
[37:02] routine reclassification and how much
[37:04] was represented as actual errors
[37:06] affecting our cash, revenues, expenses,
[37:08] receivables, payables, or fund balance?
[37:12] » So, that detail that detail we would we
[37:14] would have to get back to you. I can
[37:15] tell you though that there was there was
[37:16] several reclassifications.
[37:19] » So, those 59 adjustments were they
[37:21] identified by the town staff before the
[37:23] actual audit or were they primarily
[37:24] discovered by the auditors during the
[37:26] audit process?
[37:29] So I so I believe it's it's a
[37:30] combination of both. Um I think that
[37:33] when we received the the working trial
[37:34] balance there once we um identified that
[37:37] there was differences, it was it was
[37:39] explained that there was adjustments
[37:40] that had been have been recorded that
[37:42] had not been provided um that they had
[37:44] been recorded internally. Um we consider
[37:47] those audit adjustments because anything
[37:50] anything that gets adjusted based on one
[37:51] of our questions or based on something
[37:53] that we propose um they're considered
[37:55] audit adjustments. Um but they were
[37:57] several of them were explained as as
[37:59] adjustments that had been recorded but
[38:01] uh had not been provided to us. Um again
[38:04] going back to the to the point of the
[38:06] working trial balance initially that we
[38:08] received was not was not fully adjusted.
[38:12] » You classified the financial close and
[38:14] the reporting problems as a significant
[38:15] deficiency but not a material weakness.
[38:18] Can you explain why?
[38:22] So we consider we consider it a uh a
[38:24] significant deficiency uh in the in the
[38:26] in the respect that they um that this is
[38:29] the the first year once again of having
[38:31] this number one. Um number two the the
[38:35] adjustments that the adjustments that
[38:36] were that were provided um it's a it was
[38:40] how it was a combination of adjustments
[38:42] that they had not been fully adjusted
[38:43] and ones that we had proposed and that's
[38:45] the reason why we uh we classified as a
[38:47] significant deficiency as opposed to
[38:48] material weakness.
[38:51] uh the bank reconciliations, were you
[38:52] able to determine if the accounts
[38:54] actually had been reconciled or
[38:55] reviewed, but the signatures and dates
[38:57] were simply missing or could you not
[38:59] really establish that an independent
[39:01] review occurred at at all?
[39:05] » So we so yeah, this since the
[39:06] documentation wasn't there, it was
[39:08] explained to us that there was that
[39:09] there was an independent review. It just
[39:10] we we weren't able to um to identify and
[39:13] there was the proper audit trail for it
[39:14] wasn't there. Hence why we had the uh
[39:16] the uh the finding
[39:19] You tested 41 POS.
[39:22] 30 did not have corresponding purchase
[39:24] orders available. Were you able to
[39:26] verify through other documentation that
[39:28] those purchase orders were properly
[39:30] authorized before the money was spent?
[39:35] » Thanks.
[39:37] » So yeah, within within those se within
[39:39] those selections, the there was
[39:40] authorization whenever we looked at the
[39:42] expenditures, there was authorization
[39:43] for the uh for the payment. Were they
[39:46] signed?
[39:46] » It just was obvious obviously there
[39:47] wasn't there wasn't there was not there
[39:49] was not purchase orders.
[39:51] » Were they signed?
[39:53] » I'd have to see how I'd have to see how
[39:55] that how that would go through in the
[39:56] system. Uh I will confirm that.
[39:59] » During your audit, did you identify any
[40:01] transaction that appeared to be
[40:02] unauthorized, unsupported, duplicated,
[40:05] improperly paid, or otherwise
[40:07] questionable?
[40:08] » Can you repeat the question?
[40:11] » Do you need a minute?
[40:12] » No. I said, can you repeat the question?
[40:15] During your audit, did you identify any
[40:17] transaction that appeared to be
[40:19] unauthorized, unsupported, duplicated,
[40:22] improperly paid, or otherwise
[40:24] questionable?
[40:27] » Other than other than what we reported
[40:28] in the document, uh within our within
[40:30] our findings, no,
[40:33] » The audit was not completed within the
[40:34] nine months required by Florida law. In
[40:36] your opinion, was the primary cause the
[40:38] auditor's timetable or was it the time
[40:41] the town's inability to timely close,
[40:44] reconcile or provide accurate financial
[40:46] records?
[40:47] » Well, was yeah, it was as a result of
[40:49] the of the information of the uh
[40:51] information that was provided and the
[40:52] back and forth that was required based
[40:54] on the uh primarily due to the initial
[40:56] trial balance and the and the and the
[40:58] back and forth throughout the process of
[40:59] of the um multiple adjustments and and
[41:02] questions on the information that was
[41:03] provided. When you asked for
[41:05] information, how long did it take you to
[41:06] get
[41:11] » From the responses? Responses were
[41:14] pretty uh were pretty quick when we
[41:16] would receive responses and there was
[41:18] maybe some points where some time would
[41:19] go by where we where we wouldn't uh
[41:21] wouldn't receive responses. So, it was
[41:23] it was it was a little bit of both.
[41:25] Was it recently or the whole nine months
[41:28] that was it recently that you received
[41:30] better responses or was it the whole
[41:33] nine months of asking?
[41:37] » Uh I believe it was it was again it was
[41:40] it was a mix throughout the process. Um
[41:42] I can't really I can't really recall now
[41:44] the exact uh time frame of how long it
[41:46] took for responses throughout the
[41:48] process.
[41:49] And then lastly, based on everything you
[41:51] saw during this audit, are the
[41:53] corrective actions management
[41:55] is prop are the corrective actions
[41:58] management proposed sufficient? And what
[42:01] specifically should council require to
[42:03] see during fiscal year 26 to know these
[42:06] problems actually have been corrected
[42:08] rather than simply promised?
[42:11] » Yes, I believe so. Um, and it it's going
[42:14] to be it's going to be a direct result
[42:15] and we're we're going to know when it
[42:17] when it comes time when the the year end
[42:18] close um comes cuz as Ivon as Ivonne
[42:21] mentioned, you know, as it relates as it
[42:22] relates to the findings, if something
[42:23] was happening during the year and it
[42:25] comes up and we go back and check, it
[42:27] may be repeated, but that doesn't mean
[42:29] that um next year's audit process um
[42:32] will take will take as long. So the the
[42:35] process will be we'll meet uh we'll meet
[42:36] early on obviously that basically we're
[42:38] going to basically be rolling right into
[42:40] 2026 you know providing our requests
[42:43] we'll we'll speak with uh with
[42:44] management um come up with come up with
[42:47] an appropriate timeline working
[42:48] backwards from the deadline to see to
[42:51] explain exactly when we need the
[42:52] information to be able to uh be able to
[42:54] move forward. And I think the best way
[42:57] the best way for uh for council to know
[42:59] is obviously receiving um you know
[43:01] regular regular updates from uh from
[43:03] from town management as to as to how
[43:05] that process is going.
[43:07] » Just so council knows, I have 100% faith
[43:09] in Yavon and her people after speaking
[43:11] with her last night that it's going to
[43:14] be an incredible year because I think
[43:16] the staff now has has a way to speak
[43:20] with her openly and get documentation a
[43:24] lot better. So, I think our books are
[43:26] going to be really good for 26
[43:28] » Next year.
[43:28] » All right.
[43:29] » Coming year.
[43:31] » Any other questions, comments? Thank
[43:33] you. Thank you.
[43:34] » I think that sounds like Tracy looks
[43:35] forward to fing up until like 28 208.
[43:39] » Thanks.
[43:40] » Very excited about it. She's going to
[43:41] chair
[43:42] » Andrew. Thank you. Thank you for all
[43:43] your hard work. I It was a long time
[43:45] coming. So, and hopefully the changes
[43:48] will make your job next year easier. So,
[43:52] » Thank you.
[43:53] » All right.
[43:54] That will bring us to uh agenda item
[43:57] two. I know that we all have some notes
[44:01] on this one.
[44:06] » Got somebody fast on her button over
[44:08] here. So
[44:09] » First, but she's okay.
[44:13] Council member Kaine.
[44:15] » Thank you.
[44:16] » So,
[44:18] well, we were at the league conference
[44:20] this weekend. uh the mayor, the vice
[44:23] mayor, and myself. At one point, I had a
[44:26] little break for something and I said,
[44:28] "I'm going to go to my room and figure
[44:29] out this RV problem." Well, I didn't. Um
[44:34] here's what
[44:35] » That was very antilimactic.
[44:37] » That's pretty ambitious of me. But
[44:39] here's what I did figure out. Here's a
[44:42] couple of things I did figure out. I
[44:44] figured out that
[44:47] as I don't know who said it. I think
[44:49] Miss Standish said it before. There
[44:50] appears to be some kind of a disconnect
[44:53] because
[44:55] we have repeatedly I I know because I'm
[44:57] one of the ones who said it have said
[44:59] that we are looking to simplify this RV
[45:02] program. We are looking to not have it
[45:06] be this laborintensive
[45:10] thing for staff because we quite frankly
[45:13] don't have the staff for it. Um, and we
[45:15] are looking for it to be user friendly,
[45:19] easy for people to comply with so that
[45:21] they will actually comply. And I read
[45:25] none of that in here. I mean, I read
[45:28] additional
[45:31] problems. You've got to now you got to
[45:33] go to the health department too and get
[45:34] a permit from them besides getting a
[45:36] health permit from us. I mean, the whole
[45:37] thing just smacks a bureaucracy and red
[45:40] tape. And the bottom line at the end of
[45:44] the day when I was done digesting all of
[45:47] this, the bottom line I came to is the
[45:50] people who are going to follow the rules
[45:52] and who are going to do this the right
[45:54] way are going to do it whether they have
[45:56] a permit or not. And the people who
[45:59] aren't going to follow the rules, let's
[46:01] talk about Dro. What just happened three
[46:04] days ago? We had an RV catch on fire and
[46:08] on the news they reported that the main
[46:10] residence that was an RV next to the
[46:12] main residence. But here's the clicker
[46:14] folks. There is no main residence on
[46:16] that property. So I'm not sure whether
[46:18] the main residence was a lean to or a
[46:20] bigger RV. I mean I'm not sure what they
[46:23] I'm not sure what main residence they
[46:25] were referring to. So, the fact that
[46:28] there is an RV complex, one of which was
[46:30] so whatever the electric wasn't right,
[46:33] well, for whatever reason, caught on
[46:34] fire and jeopardized the entire
[46:36] neighborhood. Um, that's not somebody
[46:39] who's going to come in for an RV permit.
[46:41] All right? They're already what they're
[46:42] doing is illegal. I'm not sure what the
[46:45] solution is, but I know what the problem
[46:47] is. And it's not the people who rent out
[46:50] one or two RVs on their property for
[46:52] circuit who maybe have their son-in-law
[46:56] living there because he's fallen on hard
[46:58] times or whatever for a little while.
[47:00] And the the people who store their own
[47:02] personal RVs, they are not the problem,
[47:04] right? They're not the problem. The
[47:07] problem is the people that have four and
[47:09] five and 10 RVs buried in the woods out
[47:11] here that are nowhere close to roadw
[47:14] worthy that people are living in year
[47:16] round and that are creating situations
[47:18] like this. And I don't see anything in
[47:20] here. Requiring the people that are
[47:22] following the rules to jump through a
[47:25] set of circus hoops is not going to
[47:27] solve our RV problem. That's my soap box
[47:30] and I'm done.
[47:32] » Okay, Council Member Coleman. Yeah, I I
[47:36] agree with you, but I mean the the the
[47:40] reason for the health department is
[47:41] because you have a lot of um in my
[47:44] opinion, you have a lot of it's no
[47:46] different than you put in putting a
[47:48] mother-in-law's quarters on your
[47:50] property and you have to add a secondary
[47:52] septic or your septic doesn't or or your
[47:55] septic doesn't come in line. So, but you
[47:57] but you throw that you threw that in
[47:59] with the bureaucracy of it all. And the
[48:01] whole idea is I and I get what you're
[48:04] saying. I'm with you. the people that
[48:05] are going to comply are going to comply
[48:07] and they're going to do the proper
[48:08] thing. Um, but I think it's still that
[48:11] kind of stuff still needs to be there
[48:13] because um the minute you don't have it
[48:15] there and then somebody goes, "What do
[48:17] you mean I can't put a 55gallon drum in
[48:18] the ground with rocks in it and call it
[48:20] a day?
[48:21] » Just dump it on
[48:22] » Or just dump it on the ground."
[48:24] » And that's, you know, it doesn't say
[48:25] there that I have to have signed off by
[48:26] the health department. I mean, if your
[48:29] current septic tank will support it,
[48:33] they'll make that determination. You
[48:35] know, you don't necessarily have to add
[48:36] a septic depending on where what you're
[48:38] doing. But, I mean, something like that,
[48:40] I think, but I'm with you. It needs to
[48:41] be We've been saying since we've been in
[48:43] this around, I don't think we want to
[48:44] keep beating around annually either,
[48:47] right? But we've been saying since we
[48:48] started this, we're trying to make it
[48:49] simpler, right? And I think that's the,
[48:51] you know,
[48:52] » I don't see this as simpler. And again,
[48:54] I don't see it as a solution. As Mr.
[48:57] Austin keeps pointing out, we have an RV
[48:59] problem. This is not a solution to the
[49:02] RV problem.
[49:04] » It wasn't intended to be a solution to
[49:06] the RV problem. I think we've all felt
[49:07] that code enforcement is the solution to
[49:10] the problem properties. So, do you want
[49:13] to start on the first page of the
[49:15] exhibit A section 92 010?
[49:20] um because we need to get through this
[49:21] and and direct staff so I can come back
[49:23] for first reading.
[49:24] » So you're on page three of eight.
[49:27] » Article 92.
[49:30] » On page four. Okay.
[49:33] » I I don't know which page because I'm
[49:35] going off my I'm going off my old notes.
[49:37] » It says four of eight.
[49:38] » So let me let me get to your page as
[49:40] well. Uh
[49:41] » Oh. He's going to get his glasses.
[49:44] » Uh you're on page four of eight. Okay.
[49:47] » Yeah.
[49:47] » Four of eight.
[49:48] » Article 92.
[49:49] eight.
[49:51] Uh,2
[49:55] that's
[49:58] that's the old ordinance 2407. I'm
[50:01] talking about article 92.
[50:02] » I'm talking about the new one. Go to
[50:04] page 14 of the current agenda.
[50:06] » But isn't the underlying stuff in this?
[50:08] » Go to go to page 14 of the current
[50:10] agenda. This is the proposed.
[50:12] » This is the new article 92.
[50:14] » Yeah,
[50:14] » That's what I thought. But just making
[50:16] sure.
[50:17] » Yeah.
[50:18] So, we should be on page 14 of the
[50:20] current agenda. I believe that's 14.
[50:22] Yes.
[50:22] » Ah, doesn't look like a copy. Look at
[50:25] that bon color.
[50:27] » So, uh
[50:30] the first section where it says as used
[50:32] in this article, bonafideed feed, uh
[50:35] agricultural use classification shall
[50:36] mean such classification signed by the
[50:38] Palm Beach County Property Appraiser. Uh
[50:41] I know council member Coleman, you've
[50:43] had issue with this. Um, so
[50:48] obviously we want if we're going to
[50:50] allow the caretaker one RV
[50:54] 80% of the property has to be a use ad
[50:56] classified. How does that get determined
[50:59] Paul if you feel that that's not
[51:01] » I I think it's it's along the same lines
[51:03] of what you have to provide to the
[51:04] property appraiser because again keep
[51:07] hating to harp on this but you don't
[51:09] have to file with the property
[51:11] appraiser. So what do you want? So you
[51:13] want them to submit to staff because
[51:15] this is the one that's going to have the
[51:16] most regulation agriculture use.
[51:19] » I would say it will
[51:21] » Whoever's writing this needs to refer to
[51:23] the state a law and make sure that we're
[51:25] compliant with that number one because I
[51:28] we have a lot of passionate people that
[51:30] that deal with this in our neighborhood
[51:31] in our town and they're going to be
[51:33] throwing it in our face every time we
[51:34] get a chance, right? So we need to make
[51:36] sure that it complies. But I would I
[51:37] would think property appraiser is one
[51:39] outlet, but I think there needs to be
[51:41] like the list of different things that
[51:43] we'll accept.
[51:44] » You can demonstrate
[51:45] » Schedule F for the IRS. You know, a copy
[51:48] of your sun biz, you know, multiple
[51:50] documents. Same things that you would
[51:51] supply to, you know, the property
[51:55] appraiser, you can supply to us in lie
[51:57] of the property
[51:57] » Appraiser. Would you agree that this is
[51:59] the one use that's going to have the
[52:01] most input from that? Absolutely.
[52:03] Because it's going to have to have a
[52:04] permitted septic. It's going to have to
[52:06] have permitted electric.
[52:07] » Yeah.
[52:07] » Right. And it has to be 80% of the
[52:09] property to allow it.
[52:11] » Uh I think that one of my notes on that
[52:13] require was requiring tie-downs, but
[52:15] let's stay on this page. Um other notes
[52:18] on this page from me was the time the
[52:20] vehicle was going to be allowed on the
[52:21] property was proposed by the uldc. We're
[52:24] on page 14
[52:26] » 14 of the jobs.
[52:29] » So
[52:29] » No, that's is the old one off the chain.
[52:31] Uh, do we want to uh place a limit from
[52:35] November 1st to April 30?
[52:37] » It says that during November of the in
[52:39] the recommendation. Yeah. Oh, I'm sorry.
[52:42] » I'm asking do we want to keep it?
[52:44] » Well, I mean, not to be Yeah, but don't
[52:47] polo start doesn't polo start showing up
[52:49] like October 15th.
[52:50] » They're back.
[52:51] » They're back now. It's really depending
[52:53] on and I'm not trying to make it bigger,
[52:57] please.
[52:58] » This was not us. This is I'm just saying
[53:00] but you know and there's a lot of horse
[53:02] folks on the uldc but my I guess my
[53:04] point is
[53:05] » Our horse season isn't necessarily just
[53:08] » Correct
[53:08] » Hunter jumpers or dr there's other folks
[53:11] » We want to keep this you want to strike
[53:13] it
[53:13] » Also have a a growing season right
[53:16] that's a different season that you might
[53:17] want to bring in if you're a bonafide
[53:19] egg and it's growing peppers right and
[53:21] you might want to bring in people to
[53:23] stay to pick the peppers um I'm not sure
[53:26] I don't
[53:32] But
[53:33] » I'm not sure
[53:36] » What their growing season is. However,
[53:39] we don't necessarily know that it is. So
[53:41] maybe we just want to say to a time
[53:43] period like six months
[53:46] » And I think it does say that it it's
[53:48] just uldc had recommended a specific
[53:50] six-month window.
[53:51] » And I get where they're coming from, but
[53:53] I just think that we
[53:54] » So we want to take that out. Strike it.
[53:56] » Discriminatory.
[53:56] » Yeah, I think so. It could be like six
[53:58] months within a within a 12-month period
[54:00] or something like that. Well, because
[54:02] calendar year is going to bridge, right?
[54:03] So, yeah,
[54:04] » We're good with striking that. So,
[54:06] strike
[54:07] » Strike.
[54:09] All right, next page.
[54:13] So, yeah, here's where
[54:17] my my one note on this one was, do we
[54:20] want to require it to be secured down
[54:22] since it's going to be a a year round in
[54:26] essence resident for the caretaker? So,
[54:29] I don't think that's actually on here
[54:31] though. So, it's going to need to be
[54:34] secured
[54:35] somehow that so that needs to be added.
[54:38] There is a securing thing later on,
[54:40] Lisa, but because I had that, but I also
[54:43] had the the question. So, are we under
[54:45] E, which I presume is what you're
[54:47] looking at.
[54:48] » Um, under E. So, are we saying that
[54:51] somebody has a a caretaker's quarters
[54:55] » Um that they must install a septic or
[54:58] hook up to a septic or why can't they
[55:00] have it pumped? because we're trying to
[55:02] discourage people from just parking RVs
[55:05] and staying on the property without
[55:08] » In essence there's there's a little more
[55:09] buy in, right? If you're you're not
[55:11] just,
[55:12] » You know,
[55:13] » I know I know currently if you're if
[55:14] you're building a house outside of here,
[55:16] if you're building a house, um you they
[55:18] they still have that caveat that you
[55:20] could place a mobile home on the
[55:22] property for the term of building the
[55:25] house
[55:25] » Be your mobile home.
[55:27] » Well, that's I'm getting at.
[55:28] This is just one of and they you don't
[55:31] have to have the septic set up ahead of
[55:33] time that's going to be for the house.
[55:35] You have a temporary septic which is a
[55:37] basically a big black tub that gets
[55:39] pumped out. Um, and in thinking of that
[55:42] maybe and hearing you guys talk, you
[55:45] know, this provision
[55:48] as far as I understand it, um, and you
[55:53] know, having the caretaker's quarters
[55:55] for a nursery is not set up when you're
[55:57] talking about tying down, it's not set
[55:59] up for an RV. That that's was more to a
[56:02] mobile home. um you know for for years
[56:05] you go by you go by a nursery and there
[56:07] would be a mobile home there and it's
[56:08] it's anchored it's secured it's sitting
[56:10] at the proper elevation it's got a
[56:12] septic of a kind right everything is
[56:16] permitted etc and inspected with an RV
[56:20] there's no per there's no building
[56:21] permit there's nothing and secure and
[56:23] it's you know it's sitting on tires it's
[56:25] not so I don't know how you go about you
[56:28] know maybe you'll find some engineer to
[56:29] design something for you but I don't
[56:31] know how you go about securing it
[56:32] » Secure the evac evacuated.
[56:33] » Correct.
[56:35] » But then again, if it's an RV, it's only
[56:37] supposed to be here 6 months though.
[56:40] » Not under on the A. That was what that
[56:42] discussion was about allowing it. Is
[56:45] that not something we want to allow
[56:46] then?
[56:46] » That's that's I was kind of having I
[56:48] know we talked about it before and just
[56:50] didn't dawn me, but that's what I'm kind
[56:51] of thinking about. If that's your where
[56:54] you're wanting to go, I think it needs
[56:55] to be a permitted mobile home as
[57:01] » We can do that under state law for act,
[57:03] but I used to
[57:06] » Yeah.
[57:07] » Can we require them to have a mobile
[57:08] home or could they have their caretaker
[57:10] in an RV?
[57:13] » Um,
[57:14] » Something you might have to look into.
[57:15] » Yeah, I'm probably don't know that one
[57:17] off the top of your head.
[57:18] » Have to look into that a little bit. Um,
[57:20] and there's as bonafide a you do receive
[57:24] a large amount of permit exemptions.
[57:27] » Correct.
[57:28] » Um, but I'll have to look into whether
[57:31] or not we can require a mobile home
[57:33] versus an RV as workers.
[57:36] » No, dwelling spaces aren't one of them.
[57:38] » Yeah, the dwelling that's the, you know,
[57:41] the whole caveat. That's how people are
[57:43] able to build these big palatial barns
[57:44] without permits. As long as there's no
[57:46] dwelling, no sleeping space, right?
[57:48] because you only need the 4hour firewall
[57:50] this other stuff that's required. So I
[57:52] think we need to revisit that part.
[57:54] » This was also partly for let's say an
[57:57] equestrian use that does not have a home
[58:00] right that is a a
[58:02] » That wants to leave somebody on property
[58:04] » That wants wants somebody there. Uh it
[58:07] would fall under the sixmonth limit and
[58:10] not under this. Is that what we're
[58:12] saying?
[58:12] » That's what I'm saying. Okay. Because if
[58:14] you're if you have a year round
[58:16] equestrian facility,
[58:18] you know, temporary RV is not conducive
[58:22] to it's not a dwelling.
[58:25] » You know what I'm saying?
[58:27] » No, I understand.
[58:29] » So, we'll wait and hear back on whether
[58:31] that's even allowed as or we're required
[58:34] to allow it as versus a mobile home. So,
[58:38] that one is a question coming back. I
[58:40] know uh Karen we asked previously under
[58:43] our allowance for disabled folks uh
[58:47] there's been zero applications under
[58:49] that and then would the federal
[58:52] government override us anyway I think
[58:54] was my question at the time if you were
[58:56] able to find that
[58:58] » I have a question on H on that page are
[59:00] you are you
[59:00] » Not there yet okay sorry
[59:03] » Parking of the recreational vehicle uh
[59:06] specified in a lease agreement is this
[59:08] something we want to get involved in
[59:09] staff staffwise.
[59:11] » I I don't think we need to be seeing
[59:12] lease agreements.
[59:14] » So, I think we take that language out.
[59:17] » Um
[59:19] cuz we're not going to be reviewing
[59:21] that. I don't know how one removes that,
[59:23] but remove and you had something on H.
[59:26] » I do because it says no recreational
[59:28] vehicle may be used for the storage of
[59:30] goods, material, or equipment. But this
[59:33] strikes me again as an enormous
[59:37] enforcement issue. How the heck do you
[59:39] know what's going on inside an RV? I
[59:41] mean, that one over there at Sea Road to
[59:43] Collective was clearly being used for
[59:44] storage. It was storing hay because it
[59:46] set on fire, right? But nobody knew that
[59:49] because who knows what's inside of the
[59:51] RV. So, I I just think, you know, it's
[59:56] like
[59:57] telling your kids you're not going to do
[59:59] this for a month, right? And then the
[1:00:01] problem is you're actually punishing
[1:00:03] yourself because for a month you have to
[1:00:05] enforce that. This is not something
[1:00:06] that's enforceable for us. We can't
[1:00:08] had code staff to go around and open the
[1:00:10] door of every RV and see what
[1:00:12] » To you to your point though it there was
[1:00:14] a fire so they got busted right there
[1:00:16] was there was evidence this is going to
[1:00:19] be complaint driven so if you've got
[1:00:20] somebody that complains hey you know
[1:00:22] they're using that as their
[1:00:24] » Back room right and then that gives
[1:00:28] staff the opportunity to go in and
[1:00:30] enforce something if it's not on the
[1:00:32] rules it's uninforceable right
[1:00:34] » But again yeah this says the
[1:00:36] recreational vehicle has to be able to
[1:00:37] be amused immediately. Certainly, it
[1:00:39] can't be as if it's strapped down, even
[1:00:41] if it's a year round. So, I think maybe
[1:00:42] we need a different ordinance for
[1:00:44] caretakers, but anyhow, go ahead. I
[1:00:45] think
[1:00:46] » That's possible, too. Um, and when what
[1:00:48] is the definition of roadworthiness,
[1:00:51] right? And I know that there's some
[1:00:52] question if it's
[1:00:54] » I think it has to be tagged like
[1:00:56] » Well, if it's something you own, right?
[1:00:58] If I want to let my own RV tag expire
[1:01:01] because I don't have any plans of taking
[1:01:02] it anywhere, I think there has to be
[1:01:06] some clarity here.
[1:01:08] » I think it said it has to be tagged
[1:01:10] whether it's your own or not.
[1:01:11] » I I don't think you can force somebody
[1:01:13] to tag their their vehicle, their RV
[1:01:15] that's they're storing on their own
[1:01:16] property.
[1:01:17] » Well, I mean, they force you to tag a
[1:01:18] vehicle vehicle, right? So, I mean,
[1:01:21] there's out out in the ether. I'm not
[1:01:23] sure about here, but out, you know,
[1:01:24] everywhere, you know, there's ordinances
[1:01:26] in towns and stuff that, you know, code
[1:01:29] enforcement drives by the house and
[1:01:30] there's a car without a tag.
[1:01:32] » They'll violate you. Yeah. Even if it's
[1:01:34] a
[1:01:35] » Do we require that now on all vehicles.
[1:01:41] The audience seems to have an opinion.
[1:01:43] Um,
[1:01:46] » There's there's a lot of stuff that
[1:01:47] there's a lot of stuff that's that's in
[1:01:49] there that you know that's why I've
[1:01:51] always said he's
[1:01:54] » Because it's defined as a motor vehicle
[1:01:58] you're supposed to have.
[1:01:58] » That wasn't my my question was do we
[1:02:00] require autos to have tags current tags
[1:02:03] under our current code? So this would
[1:02:06] just be an expansion of existing
[1:02:08] language
[1:02:10] » Existing harbs. No existing code period.
[1:02:14] » Somebody's got a car repair place that
[1:02:16] they
[1:02:16] » I got a classic car that's I sit in my
[1:02:18] garage.
[1:02:19] » Does it have to be tagged? I know it
[1:02:21] does under cab under state.
[1:02:24] » Under state. Perfect. That's what we
[1:02:26] were looking for.
[1:02:27] » Sorry.
[1:02:27] » So, so you're telling me if I have a
[1:02:29] 1965 Ford Mustang and it's sitting in my
[1:02:32] front yard, right? It's roadw worthy,
[1:02:35] but it doesn't have a tag on. I'm in
[1:02:36] violation of state statute because it's
[1:02:38] not registered even though I just bought
[1:02:39] it last week and it just got shipped
[1:02:41] here.
[1:02:42] » That's different.
[1:02:43] » And state
[1:02:44] » I'm gonna wait. We got a lawyer jump.
[1:02:48] » So just doing a quick search of your
[1:02:50] code does not appear that you have a
[1:02:52] local requirement related to abandoned
[1:02:55] vehicles, you know, or defining an
[1:02:58] abandoned vehicle as
[1:03:00] » Even in our nuisance abatement. You
[1:03:01] would think it would be there. the state
[1:03:04] statute
[1:03:06] which right the sheriff or state police
[1:03:08] would be enforcing
[1:03:11] is usually for a vehicle that is on the
[1:03:14] road.
[1:03:15] » Correct.
[1:03:16] » Right. It's just in your yard
[1:03:20] at least not yet. The
[1:03:20] » Gest that's along the lines of what I
[1:03:23] was thinking I I guess my point is I
[1:03:25] wouldn't say also you know that having a
[1:03:29] tag doesn't deem it roadw worthy, right?
[1:03:31] I I can I can have a 1985 uh Wnebago and
[1:03:35] I go down to and I take all the title
[1:03:39] information and everything. I go down to
[1:03:41] the tag office and I get a tag issued.
[1:03:43] They're not looking to see the
[1:03:44] Winnebago. They're going to issue my
[1:03:46] tag. I got a signed title with my name
[1:03:48] on it. They're going to issue my tag. Da
[1:03:50] da da da. I'm going to slap a tag on it.
[1:03:52] You come to my yard and the thing's half
[1:03:54] fallen apart.
[1:03:55] » Right.
[1:03:55] » Right. So, I think roadw worthy is, you
[1:03:58] know, it's it's got tires on it. It's
[1:04:00] not lack of tires, right? That and I
[1:04:02] think we do and again not trying to make
[1:04:05] things more difficult, but I think some
[1:04:06] of these things need to be defined. Yes.
[1:04:08] » You know, roadw worthy needs to be
[1:04:09] defined. There is a tongue on the
[1:04:11] trailer. It's not,
[1:04:12] » You know, a mobile home doesn't have the
[1:04:14] apparatus to tow. Correct. It's got
[1:04:16] tires on it. It's got, you know, lights
[1:04:19] on it. I mean,
[1:04:20] » Yeah.
[1:04:21] » Yeah. I don't think
[1:04:21] » I think that needs a little more
[1:04:22] defining as well. So, uh, ownership of
[1:04:26] the vehicle, the vehicle park must be
[1:04:27] owned or leased by the property's owner
[1:04:29] or tenant. This this it goes back into
[1:04:31] that lease agreement. Um,
[1:04:35] how do we want to define that? I mean,
[1:04:37] the vehicle parked. This goes back to
[1:04:40] » Yeah. being able people obviously can't
[1:04:43] park other people's RVs,
[1:04:46] » But that goes to outdoor storage and we
[1:04:47] do have an outdoor storage, right? So,
[1:04:50] you know, I
[1:04:51] » I think if it goes back to being
[1:04:53] complaint driven and if somebody's like,
[1:04:55] you know, they've got eight RVs parked
[1:04:56] over there on the side of their
[1:04:58] property, you show up and they're
[1:05:00] charging people to park them there.
[1:05:02] » So,
[1:05:03] » Yeah,
[1:05:03] » And I think we've seen those around
[1:05:05] town. Uh, no major repairs, no problem
[1:05:08] with that. Let's see next page.
[1:05:12] Okay. Yeah, this is where it gets really
[1:05:14] wild. All right. Uh so permit required
[1:05:19] uh if the recreational vehicle is being
[1:05:22] stored on the property and then I have
[1:05:25] owned question mark. So
[1:05:28] again, I think it's important to the to
[1:05:30] the words matter in these things that we
[1:05:33] are not
[1:05:36] we are not regulating people's
[1:05:39] private
[1:05:42] things, boats,
[1:05:44] you know, car toy hauler, you know, RVs,
[1:05:48] horse trailers, right? So I think that
[1:05:52] » This just may need some clarification
[1:05:54] that way.
[1:05:55] Um,
[1:05:57] » Yep.
[1:05:58] » In that same page on A, it says a town
[1:06:01] building permit is only required for an
[1:06:03] operational recreational vehicle if the
[1:06:06] recreational vehicle is occupied.
[1:06:09] » Yeah, I think we need to get away from
[1:06:10] this permit language because, you know,
[1:06:12] this again, maybe permit is the right
[1:06:14] language. I'll leave it up to the legal
[1:06:16] on that, but you know, this is more of a
[1:06:19] registration program. Uh and then going
[1:06:23] into that. So well that's I now I
[1:06:26] understand why you have stored as versus
[1:06:29] occupied. So
[1:06:32] and then my comment here is how is this
[1:06:34] simplifying all of these steps that have
[1:06:36] to be gone through and I also want to
[1:06:38] make another appeal here. I know I made
[1:06:41] it before for the people that have
[1:06:43] already gone through this process and
[1:06:45] allowed their property to be inspected
[1:06:47] last year and paid the fees that they
[1:06:50] should somehow be grandfathered in for
[1:06:52] however many years they were promised.
[1:06:54] They were promised a year or five years
[1:06:56] or whatever they were promised they
[1:06:57] should be that we should stick to that.
[1:06:59] We we we asked them to have the
[1:07:01] inspection. I think there were what
[1:07:02] 40ome people that that complied with
[1:07:04] that. I think those 41 people get a buy
[1:07:07] on this and for whatever period of time
[1:07:10] we said on
[1:07:10] » I disagree. We've got we've got vacant
[1:07:13] properties with four RVs on them. We're
[1:07:15] going to give them a campground for 5
[1:07:16] years.
[1:07:17] » No, I'm saying the 41 people that went
[1:07:19] through the process or they're and that
[1:07:21] are on record as going through the
[1:07:23] inspection and being inspected.
[1:07:24] » I know the one I'm talking about had
[1:07:26] gone through it. So, they get four years
[1:07:29] of getting four more years of having
[1:07:31] four RVs on vacant land. We complain
[1:07:33] about that person or there but that that
[1:07:36] caut
[1:07:40] the new the new requirements
[1:07:42] » Within the new requirements that have
[1:07:44] already had the inspection should get a
[1:07:45] buy because they've already paid the
[1:07:46] inspection fee and the but those people
[1:07:51] » On vacant land are not in the rules of
[1:07:53] the new compliance. So therefore they
[1:07:55] get from because they don't have the
[1:07:58] homestead. I think legal can guide us on
[1:08:00] amortizing that or not am advertising
[1:08:02] that right so
[1:08:04] » Yeah I if you would like to provide for
[1:08:06] grandfathering we can do that and that's
[1:08:09] easy to do
[1:08:10] » Grandfathering those who still
[1:08:12] » Would qualify
[1:08:13] » Qualify under the new thing for
[1:08:15] » But I don't think you get five years for
[1:08:16] your $100 when it's going to be $50 for
[1:08:18] everybody else every other year.
[1:08:21] » Well I was given five years for $100
[1:08:22] because it's my personal RV and it's
[1:08:24] still sitting there. I paid for a stored
[1:08:25] RV. I mean because that's what I was
[1:08:27] » Well, then maybe you should get your
[1:08:28] money back. I said, well, we still
[1:08:30] aren't anymore.
[1:08:31] » So,
[1:08:31] » Right. I think
[1:08:33] » I think what but I think what you're
[1:08:35] » Did that. Okay. Yeah. You know, so
[1:08:37] » I think the only route you're going is
[1:08:38] that you don't think since you got a
[1:08:40] permit last year and it's good for five
[1:08:42] years, you should not have to go get
[1:08:43] another permit this year regardless if
[1:08:45] it's $50 or $500. Yeah. No, I'm just
[1:08:49] using you as an example because, you
[1:08:51] know, I think that's what she's saying
[1:08:52] is I shouldn't have to go apply again
[1:08:54] this year.
[1:08:56] If if somebody who applied and has their
[1:08:58] thing is not compliant with the new
[1:08:59] ordinance,
[1:09:00] » Tough nookies, you know.
[1:09:01] » But I'm just saying that $100 bought you
[1:09:03] five years under the old one. It doesn't
[1:09:05] buy you five years under the new one.
[1:09:06] That goes
[1:09:07] » I I get it. Well, you know, good for
[1:09:10] » It's her owned own RV, though.
[1:09:12] » You shouldn't have to do it all under
[1:09:14] Exactly.
[1:09:14] » You get a refund.
[1:09:16] » Um, so I think I think the form
[1:09:19] basically I don't have a problem with
[1:09:20] the form until it gets to dates the
[1:09:22] recreational vehicle will be on site.
[1:09:24] I'm I'm not sure
[1:09:29] right because if we're not going to
[1:09:30] limit that is that
[1:09:32] » Versus on-site versus occupied is what I
[1:09:34] have dates the RV would be occupied
[1:09:38] » Maybe that's a better language there if
[1:09:40] we're going to ask that question at all
[1:09:42] maybe it gets asked I don't I in our
[1:09:45] conversations in the workshop we talked
[1:09:47] about them signing under penalty of
[1:09:50] perjury that they attest that they have
[1:09:53] a permanent electric a permitted um
[1:09:56] septic or they pump it out, right? And
[1:10:00] then again, if it's complaint driven,
[1:10:02] somebody says, you know, they're just
[1:10:04] pulling their cord out there. So, um you
[1:10:07] get in and that's when they get really
[1:10:09] tagged. Uh D.
[1:10:12] » Should we add something about the
[1:10:14] continued use of generator or something
[1:10:16] like that for power? So, they don't
[1:10:18] think that's a loophole.
[1:10:19] » Well, it says electric permit, but I I
[1:10:22] take your point. Yes. You know what I'm
[1:10:23] saying?
[1:10:24] » They cannot They cannot utilize um
[1:10:26] generator.
[1:10:28] » Yeah, you're not at a roping. You cannot
[1:10:31] stand.
[1:10:33] » It's not post Hurricane Francis. You
[1:10:35] can't go three weeks without power and
[1:10:36] still use your generator because FPL
[1:10:38] doesn't know how to fuse. Oh, sorry.
[1:10:41] » Um so,
[1:10:43] » And then Karen Karen on item K, my
[1:10:46] question was,
[1:10:48] do we want in an ordinance to set the
[1:10:51] fee? My concern is then we have to
[1:10:54] change the fee by ordinance. It just
[1:10:55] could it just be set by council by via
[1:10:58] resolution? Can we leave that language a
[1:11:00] little more open-ended so that the point
[1:11:02] is starting the program encouraging
[1:11:05] compliance getting people used to
[1:11:07] complying and then if the cost of it we
[1:11:09] see is still higher then obviously
[1:11:12] adjusting the fee to to continue to
[1:11:15] allow it to be. I I just was concerned
[1:11:17] that this if this language is in the
[1:11:19] ordinance then it would be hard to
[1:11:21] change in the future because it would
[1:11:22] require another ordinance. So
[1:11:24] » Typically these schedules are done with
[1:11:26] resolution.
[1:11:27] » Okay. So
[1:11:28] » Digressing about the the six month
[1:11:30] change.
[1:11:31] » You're changing your mind. Well, I just
[1:11:33] thought about that as we're talk as
[1:11:34] we're talking and
[1:11:37] um you know the the
[1:11:40] purpose of this is not so we can have
[1:11:42] you know
[1:11:45] open-ended year round use right it it
[1:11:48] it's meant to be during the horse season
[1:11:50] of really kind of or
[1:11:52] » Six months is what we said
[1:11:53] » Six months period
[1:11:54] » Six months but it was for agricultural
[1:11:56] uses again you could have the pickers
[1:11:58] I'm trying not to be I'm a horse
[1:12:00] person's trying I'm trying Not to be
[1:12:03] » Well he says polo's already here just
[1:12:05] for
[1:12:06] » Now they usually come Octoberish
[1:12:09] somebody else here
[1:12:10] » Support all agriculture not just
[1:12:12] » I'm with you I'm just you know again I'm
[1:12:14] I'm actually a person that always says
[1:12:16] you can't build it for the one person
[1:12:18] that's going to violate you got to build
[1:12:20] it for you know um but what about the
[1:12:23] what about the person that says well I
[1:12:25] got you know four RVs on my property all
[1:12:27] year round and I'm going to Airbnb these
[1:12:28] things.
[1:12:29] » No that's already not allowed. Okay,
[1:12:32] that's
[1:12:33] » It says in here don't make it an Airbnb.
[1:12:36] » No, but th that number of RVs offers
[1:12:40] » I'm within my numbers,
[1:12:43] » Right? See, I got two
[1:12:45] » And I'm going to Airbnb them.
[1:12:49] » We can't stop people from Airbnb as long
[1:12:51] as we don't do it for more than six
[1:12:52] months.
[1:12:54] » So, how they how they come about being
[1:12:57] rented, I don't think we want to
[1:12:59] regulate that.
[1:13:00] » I don't think we can. So I can't either.
[1:13:02] » So um and then the the final one L that
[1:13:07] was um recommended by uldc with
[1:13:10] verifying occupant identification.
[1:13:13] Again I I say that that's just
[1:13:17] » Prohibitive.
[1:13:19] So do we want to remove that?
[1:13:23] » I don't think so.
[1:13:25] » I just I mean how are we how will we do
[1:13:27] that? We're looking I mean we're looking
[1:13:29] at a process that's gonna just meet
[1:13:30] staff might as well work weekends are
[1:13:32] free to do that.
[1:13:33] » Well I mean
[1:13:34] » It goes back to what I said which is
[1:13:35] again the people who like Lena who are
[1:13:38] ready
[1:13:40] out
[1:13:41] » They are not going to want a sex
[1:13:43] offender or a murderer in their RV and
[1:13:45] they're going to do their due diligence
[1:13:46] to take it. So the people that are
[1:13:48] following the rules are going to follow
[1:13:50] the rules and be responsible about it.
[1:13:51] What we have to
[1:13:53] » Especially homesteaded their homestead
[1:13:55] where they're living. I mean, she's not
[1:13:57] going to want to have a pedophile living
[1:13:58] next door to her grandchild, you know?
[1:13:59] So, I'm pretty sure she's not l
[1:14:02] » Don't get me wrong. I I'm with you. I I
[1:14:04] I would love that though to know. I
[1:14:06] mean, I lived it for three and a half
[1:14:07] years and then watching SWAT teams every
[1:14:10] three or four months go over there and
[1:14:11] then put somebody in handcuffs and march
[1:14:13] them off the property.
[1:14:14] » It's the offenders. They're they're not
[1:14:15] going to follow these any matter what we
[1:14:18] have on here. They're not going to do
[1:14:19] it.
[1:14:19] » We got I mean, that's like another issue
[1:14:22] that we to address.
[1:14:24] » Uh inspections. This is may maybe you
[1:14:27] want one by request. Um but certainly
[1:14:30] complaint driven, right? If you get a
[1:14:31] complaint about someone, right? Even if
[1:14:33] they filled out this lovely little form,
[1:14:35] you get a complaint, an inspection is
[1:14:37] happening, but it's not going to be a
[1:14:38] requirement.
[1:14:39] » Well,
[1:14:40] » Because we're trying to cut down cost
[1:14:42] and staff time.
[1:14:42] » Yeah, it's happening as long as I let
[1:14:44] you in at my gate.
[1:14:46] That's what this is about. Well,
[1:14:49] » I I I I'm assuming that's what this
[1:14:52] » You can put that you agree by signing
[1:14:54] this this form, you're agreeing that
[1:14:57] under complaint, you're going to allow
[1:14:59] access.
[1:15:01] » Yeah. Yeah. I
[1:15:03] » I mean, again, this goes back to if
[1:15:04] you're going to be compliant, this is to
[1:15:06] help people absolutely gain compliance.
[1:15:09] » Again, I'm not picking on Lena, but
[1:15:10] she's not going to dump poop out on her
[1:15:11] ground, you know, like she's going to
[1:15:14] something there for her. cleanest place
[1:15:16] ever.
[1:15:18] » Yeah.
[1:15:18] » So,
[1:15:19] » I I get what you're saying, but you
[1:15:22] know, not for nothing, if if you know,
[1:15:25] you come to my gate and I don't want to
[1:15:26] let you in. I don't have to let you in.
[1:15:28] » But offender, like particularly the one
[1:15:30] actually
[1:15:32] who's being talked about here on the
[1:15:34] day, that's somebody who never has
[1:15:35] allowed anybody onto their property,
[1:15:37] stood at their gate,
[1:15:38] » Was clearly visible,
[1:15:39] » Even though the smoke was clearly
[1:15:41] visible, even though the neighbors
[1:15:42] complained. That's a it's a different
[1:15:44] issue. It's a it's a it's a different
[1:15:46] issue,
[1:15:46] » But that's a different code enforcement
[1:15:48] process then, right? That escalates to a
[1:15:50] different level and that that should be
[1:15:52] something we provide for already
[1:15:56] » Through our processes. Right.
[1:15:57] » Right.
[1:15:57] » Okay.
[1:15:58] » Um so some of the language in D will
[1:16:01] have to be adjusted requiring
[1:16:02] inspection. Requiring inspection
[1:16:05] um the water hookup uh use of extension
[1:16:09] cords. Uh I think that's where some of
[1:16:11] these fires start is the use of
[1:16:12] extension cords. So um again, how do we
[1:16:16] regulate that? Um
[1:16:18] » 100%.
[1:16:19] » I I can just say, you know, use of
[1:16:21] extensions cards are discouraged and in
[1:16:24] the event of a
[1:16:26] outbreak of fire, your your permit is
[1:16:29] now invalid. Your registration's
[1:16:31] invalid. I mean, no, no one wants to
[1:16:33] start a fire, but they won't let us stop
[1:16:35] fireworks either. So it's a whole
[1:16:37] different problem. uh septic hookup. Um
[1:16:41] again, you're attesting that your septic
[1:16:43] is permitted. So, that I think is okay
[1:16:47] to be in there, that your statement of
[1:16:50] your septic permit is it was through the
[1:16:52] health department and maybe some
[1:16:54] language thereof. Solid waste. Um
[1:17:00] I mean, is that language? I mean, it
[1:17:02] seems pretty innocuous to me. So
[1:17:07] uh and then lastly bunk houses
[1:17:12] you know we don't this is not to allow
[1:17:15] you know bunk houses you know this is
[1:17:18] for what would you call it recreational
[1:17:21] » Right we have to again
[1:17:22] » Recreational
[1:17:25] there's a use con consumer use versus
[1:17:29] what are basically
[1:17:32] uh emergency housing for first
[1:17:35] responders,
[1:17:36] right? So, I don't know how you guys
[1:17:39] weave that, you know, that's threading
[1:17:42] the needle, but I I see some of our
[1:17:45] larger a uses wanting to roll in a
[1:17:49] couple bunk houses and a couple shower
[1:17:51] bathroom houses on wheels and say,
[1:17:54] "Well, it's allowed under your RV
[1:17:55] permit." So, and I think that may be
[1:17:58] something in here that your RV cannot
[1:18:00] exceed its stated capacity and that or
[1:18:03] may that may already be in here and I
[1:18:05] apologize if it is, but the RV cannot be
[1:18:08] used for any use outside of its doesn't
[1:18:12] it have like a little panel on it that
[1:18:14] says, you know, how many people or
[1:18:15] something?
[1:18:16] » It does. They do.
[1:18:18] » There you go. That's the word.
[1:18:19] Manufacturer couldn't think of it.
[1:18:21] » So, all right. I think we beat that up
[1:18:22] pretty well. Any other questions?
[1:18:24] » I'm happy. She's happy.
[1:18:26] » What do we have a section in here that
[1:18:29] dedicated to definitions?
[1:18:32] Because we can clearly define in
[1:18:34] definitions what an RV is. And we can we
[1:18:37] I'm assume and we could also there we
[1:18:39] could mention that an RV is not of this
[1:18:42] capacity. We consider an RV to be under
[1:18:45] this many feet and D. You know, we could
[1:18:47] give or something.
[1:18:49] » Well, no, it's a lot of codes are
[1:18:51] written with definitions. I know this
[1:18:52] isn't a code, but a lot of codes are
[1:18:54] written with definitions. You have a
[1:18:55] whole section that's definitions over
[1:18:57] here and then you have all these codes
[1:18:59] that come after it and they'll refer to
[1:19:01] those definition. You know the words
[1:19:03] they use are in the definitions. So if
[1:19:05] we define an RV as being
[1:19:08] » This big this you know whatever and you
[1:19:11] know I don't know kind you get what I'm
[1:19:14] saying right? You kind of play with that
[1:19:16] and
[1:19:16] » You jump in there if you don't mind.
[1:19:18] Yeah, we're happy to to add a definition
[1:19:22] either as part of this section or in
[1:19:24] another section of your code.
[1:19:25] » Yeah, that's I'm saying somewhere we
[1:19:28] » Agree that it should be clean.
[1:19:29] » Right. And I think that'll take care of
[1:19:32] the confusion as to does a bunk house
[1:19:35] comply. No, this is RV code. This is as
[1:19:38] as per
[1:19:38] » Definition. They're technically RVs,
[1:19:40] those bunk houses.
[1:19:41] » I know, but we're we're defining as RV
[1:19:43] as this big by this big and not more
[1:19:45] than this many. And
[1:19:47] » Yeah, but what if you got one of those
[1:19:48] gigantic Post
[1:19:51] buses with like six pop outs and
[1:19:54] » Well, those generally only sleep about
[1:19:55] four or five people. So,
[1:19:56] » Yes, that's true.
[1:19:57] » I'm I'm just saying.
[1:19:58] » But you said this size by this size
[1:20:00] » In the definition, we could stipulate
[1:20:02] that
[1:20:05] » Yeah. Pass or RV or whatever. They can
[1:20:07] play with the definition as to where And
[1:20:09] I think um I'm sorry,
[1:20:10] » Not pigeons.
[1:20:11] » I'm bad with names.
[1:20:12] » Zack.
[1:20:13] » Zack. I think Zach's kind of getting
[1:20:14] what we're, you know, smelling what
[1:20:16] we're stepping in. So, you know, we're
[1:20:18] not taking a 40 unit, you know, 40 bunk
[1:20:22] » 18-wheeler and parking it somewhere.
[1:20:25] » Yeah.
[1:20:25] » Yeah.
[1:20:26] » Okay.
[1:20:26] » Yeah. We could do you have the
[1:20:28] definition of that. Have the definition
[1:20:30] of a exempt, right? We talked about the
[1:20:32] different options. Roadworthy was
[1:20:34] another definition to put in. So, as
[1:20:36] Zach and I go through, we can figure out
[1:20:38] what might be, you know, unclear and
[1:20:41] we'll try to use.
[1:20:42] » Awesome. And I know we're trying to
[1:20:43] bring this back soon because of season
[1:20:45] coming up and
[1:20:47] » Getting people people rolled in. Yes.
[1:20:50] Public comments.
[1:20:51] » So, thank you Karen.
[1:20:54] » Yes, madam mayor. The first part we have
[1:20:56] is Tracy Raflowitz.
[1:21:00] » Not Tracy.
[1:21:03] » At least she didn't bring her folder
[1:21:04] this time.
[1:21:10] » We're talking.
[1:21:11] » We are. Yes.
[1:21:13] » What is the state statute for an RV? The
[1:21:16] vehicle.
[1:21:19] » Um, can't we make this simple,
[1:21:21] necessary, make the ribbon? We've been
[1:21:23] talking about RVs for so darn long. I
[1:21:25] mean, it's been many years. I'm
[1:21:28] concerned that the RV
[1:21:31] items move that it makes the town
[1:21:33] proactive enforcement instead of solving
[1:21:35] the resident complaint. Um, the RV rules
[1:21:39] need to be simple. When rules become too
[1:21:41] complicated, people either do not
[1:21:42] understand them or don't follow them.
[1:21:45] The town should create a clear seasonal
[1:21:47] argued rule that supports the question
[1:21:49] without turning it into a paperwork
[1:21:51] track. And you know, I thought about
[1:21:53] this too is I just thinking about the
[1:21:56] questioning. There's other people in the
[1:21:58] town
[1:21:59] » That would like to use an RV or have
[1:22:00] parents come down for the summer season
[1:22:03] or the winter season to get them out of
[1:22:04] up north in the in the snow.
[1:22:07] Why are we making it six months? You
[1:22:10] guys are making this so difficult. And I
[1:22:12] I watch these meeting and it keeps
[1:22:14] coming back. You guys say don't do this
[1:22:16] and somebody brings it to the ULDC or
[1:22:18] the PNZ and then they go back through it
[1:22:20] and then it comes back to you guys.
[1:22:21] Let's just we just make it simple so
[1:22:24] everybody in this town can have an RV if
[1:22:26] they want an RV. I know doesn't want an
[1:22:28] RV, but I think it's necessary for a
[1:22:31] rural community. keep it like if if
[1:22:34] there's a problem, let it be complaint
[1:22:36] driven. Is this happening? How many
[1:22:38] complaints have been done this year
[1:22:40] versus just going out and giving a code
[1:22:42] to somebody that has that would be a
[1:22:44] really good information for us to know
[1:22:46] whether it's complaint driven, go get
[1:22:49] them. Stop worrying about people that
[1:22:51] are doing things right.
[1:22:53] » Thank you, Council Member Coleman. You
[1:22:55] had your
[1:22:56] » Yeah. Our intention is for it to be
[1:22:59] complaint driven. Um, you know, that's
[1:23:01] and we our intention is to make it
[1:23:03] simple, but unfortunately you have to
[1:23:05] give stipulations. You know, I mean, I
[1:23:07] can appreciate what you're saying, but I
[1:23:08] you can't give a five item list of rules
[1:23:12] and call it a day. You have you have to
[1:23:15] stipulate because with that five item
[1:23:17] list of rules, yes, all the people that
[1:23:19] are willing to comply are going to
[1:23:20] comply, right? But you're going to have
[1:23:22] the other 90% of people, they're going
[1:23:24] to, you know, they're going to find a
[1:23:26] way. So, we have to stipulate as much,
[1:23:28] but it sounds a little more complex than
[1:23:30] it is. We're actually restricting the
[1:23:31] number of uh more restrictive as to the
[1:23:34] number of RVs total. Um, you can have an
[1:23:37] R your own RV. Your your in-laws can
[1:23:40] come down and stay in the winter time in
[1:23:42] your RV. Um, if you're so set up for
[1:23:45] that, whatever. And you you know, that's
[1:23:47] not this is forprofit to subsidize
[1:23:51] RV program to, you know, this is what
[1:23:54] this is talking about. It's not saying
[1:23:56] that you can't have a a boat with a
[1:23:58] living quarters on it, a a horse trailer
[1:24:00] with living quarters on it, an RV,
[1:24:03] » Toy hauler,
[1:24:03] » A toy hauler, and a a a conversion van
[1:24:07] that you, you know, Mercedes transit van
[1:24:09] that you've converted to an RV. It's not
[1:24:10] saying you can't have all that in your
[1:24:12] yard. What it's just kind of given some
[1:24:14] guidelines. And I think with guidelines,
[1:24:15] you have to be a little specific about
[1:24:17] things. And I think
[1:24:18] » Another public comment.
[1:24:19] » Yes, madame mayor. Cassie Suchi.
[1:24:31] I thought this was advertised at the
[1:24:32] workshop.
[1:24:35] Three minutes.
[1:24:37] » You're not getting three minutes. We're
[1:24:38] not setting the clock.
[1:24:39] » Okay. So, now I want to talk about bunk
[1:24:40] house. So the key to uh bunk house RV is
[1:24:45] basically what I think they're designing
[1:24:48] separate bunker rooms or secondary rooms
[1:24:51] separate each separate that that is what
[1:24:54] I picture as a bunker what they use at
[1:24:56] the fairs. So I think the key to
[1:24:58] defining that is that regulated activity
[1:25:01] has to be done very carefully so that we
[1:25:04] could talk about basically the the town
[1:25:06] recognizes that certain recreation
[1:25:08] vehicles are manufactured with separated
[1:25:10] load bunk rooms or secondary sleeping
[1:25:13] rooms. For the purposes of this section,
[1:25:15] we would say a bunk house RV use means
[1:25:18] the use of a recreational vehicle
[1:25:20] containing a separate enclosed bunk room
[1:25:23] or secondary sleeping room when that
[1:25:25] room or recreational vehicle as a whole
[1:25:27] is routinely used for by independent or
[1:25:30] long-term sleeping accommodations for
[1:25:32] employees, workers, tenants, paying
[1:25:33] occupants of persons residing on the
[1:25:35] property separate from the occupants
[1:25:37] principal residence. That's just an ID.
[1:25:40] um it it then would a recreational
[1:25:43] vehicle then was normally not considered
[1:25:45] a bunk house. So I would take in the
[1:25:47] separate living room if you're talking
[1:25:48] about it instead of because I know there
[1:25:51] are bunk beds.
[1:25:53] » Miss Succi, excuse me for interrupting
[1:25:55] you but for the record. Um Mr. uh Vice
[1:25:57] Mayor Sud is on the Zoom so I just
[1:25:59] wanted to note that for the record.
[1:26:02] » All right. Thank you.
[1:26:03] » I apologize.
[1:26:05] » Go ahead. So basically, I was just
[1:26:07] trying to say just kind of maybe that
[1:26:09] might help.
[1:26:10] » I I think though I think some of these I
[1:26:12] think some of these bunk houses are not
[1:26:14] separate rooms. I think they're just
[1:26:16] bunks along the wall and an air
[1:26:18] conditioning unit
[1:26:20] comes into play.
[1:26:22] » We ask it's like
[1:26:24] » No they each have separate doors. I
[1:26:26] understand. But there are bunk bunk
[1:26:28] trailers that come in and they'll sleep
[1:26:30] 42 people. They're not separate rooms.
[1:26:32] They're all hanging out in bunks.
[1:26:36] Like you could it could be secondary
[1:26:38] sleeping rooms and you just add in what
[1:26:40] the use was for or something. I'm just
[1:26:41] trying to think it's very difficult
[1:26:43] because it doesn't state it doesn't
[1:26:46] state statute when it talks about RVs
[1:26:47] doesn't distinguate between
[1:26:49] » Correct
[1:26:49] » RVs and these functions. It's all
[1:26:51] considered one.
[1:26:52] » So it just makes it a very difficult
[1:26:54] concept.
[1:26:54] » Yeah.
[1:26:55] » Um
[1:26:56] » As far as I think you guys talked about
[1:26:59] the registration.
[1:27:03] Yes. You're glad you're going to into
[1:27:05] that or whatever. Um, but uh I think the
[1:27:08] Florida law is very clear that a motor
[1:27:10] vehicle that's not operated on the roads
[1:27:12] of this state during a registration
[1:27:14] period is not required to be registered.
[1:27:16] Um, I know for one, my RV horse trailer
[1:27:20] sat idle for four years because my
[1:27:22] daughter decided to do each vol and I
[1:27:24] couldn't afford two. I mean, she had a
[1:27:28] big one. So now mom's getting back into
[1:27:32] registry, but I wasn't going to
[1:27:34] continually pay it. It was insured
[1:27:36] as through insurance for damage, but it
[1:27:39] was not registered as it was operating
[1:27:41] on roads. So, that's something that
[1:27:44] might need to be addressed. Um, because
[1:27:46] I feel that that, you know, people might
[1:27:49] have a collect.
[1:27:50] » Can I ask a question? How would you de
[1:27:52] we say that it has to be road road? How
[1:27:54] would you demonstrate roadworthiness if
[1:27:56] it if it's not
[1:27:58] » Has tires? It's it has four tires. It
[1:28:00] has, you know, it can go. You can hook
[1:28:03] it up to a car and go. I just
[1:28:04] » But you can't you can't go if it doesn't
[1:28:06] have a tag.
[1:28:07] » Get a tag.
[1:28:08] » You can do whatever you want.
[1:28:10] » You can drive it down the road today.
[1:28:12] » Yes. But you get hopefully get a tag.
[1:28:13] » Well, yeah. Hopefully hopefully you know
[1:28:16] those guys in green and white ain't
[1:28:17] right behind you.
[1:28:19] » Yeah.
[1:28:21] » It's just again loopholes that people
[1:28:24] are going to try to use.
[1:28:26] » Car insuranceire
[1:28:28] to have car insurance.
[1:28:29] » If the car not driving the car. Yeah.
[1:28:31] Exactly.
[1:28:32] just uh figuring out.
[1:28:34] » Okay, awesome.
[1:28:36] » And the final card, I believe her name
[1:28:39] is Lena.
[1:28:41] » Not going to even try that.
[1:28:42] » Sorry, Lena. I wasn't picking on you. I
[1:28:44] just saw your
[1:28:45] » Yes, she was. I think she was.
[1:28:52] » So, raise that microphone and you'll
[1:28:53] have to talk really close to it. So
[1:28:58] » Entry enter the properties that cannot
[1:29:01] be the liability when we have forces on
[1:29:04] the property and people come in as they
[1:29:08] wish cannot be done. I have from the
[1:29:11] sheriff I have registered with the
[1:29:14] sheriff's no trespasses on my property.
[1:29:17] I have nothing to hide. If somebody
[1:29:18] wants to come in they can come in but
[1:29:20] they cannot come in without a think that
[1:29:24] For you to say that they're going to be
[1:29:27] we have to sign off for them to come in
[1:29:28] at any time. That is absolutely insane.
[1:29:32] » I don't think we I don't think we were
[1:29:33] saying they could come in on any time
[1:29:34] that that you will you will agree to an
[1:29:37] inspection
[1:29:40] to agree to an inspection.
[1:29:43] » Absolutely. I don't think anybody's
[1:29:44] coming in to just run over your fence.
[1:29:47] So
[1:29:52] » Inspected last year. There was never any
[1:29:55] paperwork sent out. That's something
[1:29:57] that won't be sent out if we have proof
[1:30:00] that it was actually inspected.
[1:30:03] » We're not going to be requiring
[1:30:04] inspections. You're just going to file
[1:30:06] the registration form and and it
[1:30:10] site insp
[1:30:12] that's what council member Kaine was
[1:30:14] talking about. You know that
[1:30:17] We didn't receive any paperwork that
[1:30:19] showed
[1:30:20] » We just received you're okay. That's
[1:30:24] the sense that we did it. And I'll be
[1:30:25] honest, the the invoice that was sent
[1:30:29] out, I never paid it. I went into the
[1:30:32] office the second I got it because it
[1:30:34] says miscellaneous it on the invoice.
[1:30:38] And I was like, there's no way. My my
[1:30:40] accountant would never allow that not to
[1:30:42] be specified. It was supposed to be sent
[1:30:45] out a new invoice was never sent.
[1:30:48] So that's the town that wants to do all
[1:30:51] these things and then it never gets done
[1:30:54] all the way. Correct. It just starts it
[1:30:56] out. But I had it surveyed. They came to
[1:31:00] check all my artists. We spend a good
[1:31:02] amount of money to set the artist up so
[1:31:05] it looks nice.
[1:31:06] » So I hope that they don't keep changing.
[1:31:09] Every year it seems like, oh, we're
[1:31:10] going to do this and If you keep
[1:31:14] spending money setting it up two
[1:31:18] and then all of a sudden there's
[1:31:19] something else that happens.
[1:31:22] » We're trying. Yeah, we're trying and and
[1:31:24] we're trying to also be aware of the
[1:31:27] folks that did comply and you know
[1:31:32] » I I have the same people coming back
[1:31:33] every
[1:31:34] » Right
[1:31:35] » I would never have somebody come in my
[1:31:37] property that I cannot trust. I mean,
[1:31:40] sure. I mean,
[1:31:42] » There's properties that are
[1:31:44] » Have disgusting people in it, but
[1:31:46] » 100%
[1:31:47] » Don't go after us who trying to do what
[1:31:50] we supposed to do.
[1:31:51] » Well, I think the idea with that with
[1:31:52] the um you had to have a homesteaded
[1:31:54] property, right? Because then you have
[1:31:56] people that are invested in the
[1:31:57] community. It's not just people that are
[1:32:00] buying to rent, maximizing their rental
[1:32:03] dollars,
[1:32:04] » On a vacant property, and that
[1:32:07] » We're we're trying to curtail that and
[1:32:09] and and give staff, you know, guidance
[1:32:12] to again encourage compliance, but give
[1:32:14] them the tools they still need to go out
[1:32:16] and and get the offenders that are
[1:32:18] really causing the problems.
[1:32:20] And just a note, it it does say here,
[1:32:23] item L, it says access to the property
[1:32:26] upon request. Yeah, buzzwords happen and
[1:32:30] everybody stops and goes, "Oh, we're not
[1:32:32] getting on my prop." But the whole thing
[1:32:34] says upon request. I just wanted to
[1:32:35] clear that up for you, so yeah.
[1:32:39] » Yeah. I don't think we want to send
[1:32:40] anybody straight to your house. Yeah.
[1:32:42] Yeah. Yeah.
[1:32:43] » All right. So, if I have campaignations
[1:32:47] and I have her notes on nuisance
[1:32:48] abatement, so
[1:32:51] So,
[1:32:52] » So I mean I get to go take her chair
[1:32:53] again.
[1:32:54] » You can seriously. Oh my gosh.
[1:32:57] » No, I'm not. I'll stay right here.
[1:33:00] » That's right.
[1:33:02] » Talking the mic. Okay, so that uh that
[1:33:05] was the last public comment, correct?
[1:33:06] Awesome. Thank you. Uh nuisance
[1:33:08] abatement. I think that's you, Mr.
[1:33:10] Lowour.
[1:33:11] » Yes, ma'am.
[1:33:13] We brought the news abatement up as for
[1:33:16] majority of all the overgrowing trees
[1:33:20] that's enroaching all
[1:33:21] » Microphone. Correct. Your microphone.
[1:33:23] » I'm sorry.
[1:33:27] » You're on the right page. Okay.
[1:33:29] » Yes.
[1:33:30] » Is it working?
[1:33:30] » It's working.
[1:33:32] » All right. So, the news is abatement.
[1:33:33] This letter was coming forward as to all
[1:33:36] the overgrowth trees that are all
[1:33:38] through the whole town. Um in the past
[1:33:40] the the town staff has pract their
[1:33:43] practice was is staff went out and we
[1:33:46] cut all the trees back and this was
[1:33:48] private properties owners trees
[1:33:50] enroaching the roadway enroaching
[1:33:52] rightaways.
[1:33:54] Now that is our taxpayers monies of
[1:33:58] staff going out to maintain private
[1:34:01] properties over both trees approaching
[1:34:03] the roadway.
[1:34:06] If we approach this with code
[1:34:07] enforcement,
[1:34:09] we will come down to what we've seen
[1:34:12] some you will have some residents that
[1:34:14] will come in compliance and then we have
[1:34:16] what we know with our normal code. Some
[1:34:18] of our residents will not come in
[1:34:19] compliance. Then it will come down to a
[1:34:21] life safety issue. Then I would have to
[1:34:23] ask the town manager, can I go out and
[1:34:26] go out and cut it at the town's, you
[1:34:28] know, cost. At this right here, we're
[1:34:31] looking at with the nuent abatement.
[1:34:33] We're going to give the the property
[1:34:34] owners a courtesy notice. Hey, put them
[1:34:38] on point. Hey, you have trees in
[1:34:40] approaching the roadway. It's it's
[1:34:42] blocking the travel path. It's blocking
[1:34:43] the rightway that we cannot maintain the
[1:34:45] rightaways.
[1:34:47] Um and then after that, if it's not
[1:34:49] comes into comp after the 30-day notice,
[1:34:52] we will issue the nuisance abatement.
[1:34:55] And then within the town's code, the
[1:34:57] nuisance abatement has a 20-day period
[1:34:59] on it.
[1:35:01] um if they don't come in compliance
[1:35:02] after the 28-day period, we will with
[1:35:06] your guys' recommendation, either the
[1:35:07] staff does it or we're recommending that
[1:35:09] we have a contractor come out, remove
[1:35:12] cuts the trees back to the rightway,
[1:35:14] back to the edge of road, and they give
[1:35:17] us the bill and we assess the property
[1:35:19] owners accessibly
[1:35:21] as we would.
[1:35:24] » See, I have I have an issue though.
[1:35:26] » Go ahead.
[1:35:27] » Sorry for open discussion, whatever.
[1:35:31] My my issue is and I've been asking to
[1:35:34] see this whatever you know a few years
[1:35:36] ago the maps were redone. There's a lot
[1:35:40] of contention with the redone maps,
[1:35:43] » Right? Some roads had shifted a little.
[1:35:45] Some roads had done this, you know?
[1:35:47] » Mhm.
[1:35:48] » Got this easement, got that ement. We
[1:35:49] talk about trails. And I go, "Well, who
[1:35:51] has the list of easements that we have
[1:35:54] now for trails?" Because, and they're
[1:35:56] like, "Oh, we have the list. We have we
[1:35:58] have the map with the" And I'm like,
[1:35:59] "Well, was it was it the new map they
[1:36:01] did that was wrong, or is it the old map
[1:36:03] or is it, you know, I I think I get what
[1:36:06] you're saying. I see the pictures. Um I
[1:36:09] I know there's a lot of of stuff, you
[1:36:11] know, personally, you know, I have more
[1:36:13] issues with the grater taking too much
[1:36:15] of my
[1:36:16] » Yard when he goes by. Um that's a whole
[1:36:18] different thing. But, you know, and I I
[1:36:21] you know, myself on my road, there's not
[1:36:23] a real problem. Um you know, yeah, my
[1:36:26] neighbor's trees a little fat, whatever.
[1:36:29] You know, I know what it is. I drive
[1:36:30] down there. I I really don't care. But
[1:36:32] that's just me. And it's a side road.
[1:36:34] It's a dead end road. It's, you know,
[1:36:36] but some of these main roads you have
[1:36:38] trees that are growing, you know, they
[1:36:40] could be canopy over, but they're trees
[1:36:42] that are growing over. We do have a a
[1:36:43] position.
[1:36:45] My thing is is
[1:36:47] I think we need to we need to be very
[1:36:51] vigilant to those maps and make sure
[1:36:54] that before we cut a single send a
[1:36:56] single person to whatever that that's
[1:36:59] actually our easement and not something
[1:37:02] that's been you know um addressed
[1:37:05] previously by a previous town engineer
[1:37:09] or whatever you know saying nope you're
[1:37:11] absolutely right nope that is still your
[1:37:13] your your spot That's not our easement.
[1:37:15] That's not our rightway. Um, you know,
[1:37:19] it's a sticky wicket and you going to,
[1:37:21] you know, we're going to hit hit folks
[1:37:23] with NOVs
[1:37:25] for nuisance abatement. You know, I
[1:37:28] mean, yeah. Do I think that we need to
[1:37:31] start drawing a line in the sand and
[1:37:33] tell folks, listen, you need to cut your
[1:37:35] trees back? Absolutely. Um, you know,
[1:37:38] how what the mechanism for that is, not
[1:37:40] exactly sure. you know, we we both live
[1:37:43] on side roads, right? We don't live on
[1:37:45] main drags, you know, um you know, I I
[1:37:48] can tell you the mayor's trees don't
[1:37:50] hang over the road, but I mean,
[1:37:52] » You know, um so I it's, you know, we we
[1:37:57] definitely are in a more populated time
[1:38:00] than we were back at one point in time
[1:38:02] when it really didn't matter. It was
[1:38:03] just, you know, beat up old trucks going
[1:38:05] down dirt roads, right? Things have
[1:38:08] progressed and changed a little bit. Um,
[1:38:10] and I think that, you know, that again I
[1:38:14] it's a message that needs to be and a
[1:38:16] conversation needs to be had. I don't
[1:38:17] know that we necessar And of course
[1:38:19] we're getting into hurricane season,
[1:38:20] too. So, it's it's kind of a sticky
[1:38:22] thing. You know, I you know, I but
[1:38:26] again, I ask I would like to see and
[1:38:28] maybe it's going to take a visit. I come
[1:38:30] by and visit or whatever. I'd like to
[1:38:31] see these maps and see, you know,
[1:38:34] what we have, what we own, what we don't
[1:38:36] own. And before we go cutting somebody's
[1:38:38] stuff because we think we own it, we
[1:38:40] need to verify. You know, I think that
[1:38:42] needs to be a step. So that's my two
[1:38:45] cents for right now. I'm sure it's going
[1:38:47] to expand, go to four or five cents,
[1:38:49] four to six cents.
[1:38:50] » Council member Stevens and
[1:38:51] » Where did the 20 days come from? I just
[1:38:54] » That's what's in our code.
[1:38:55] » It is. Okay.
[1:38:56] » That is directly out of the code.
[1:38:58] » Okay. I just I just think if it was me
[1:39:00] and you said, "Hey, you got you have 20
[1:39:02] days." And I'm looking at my schedule.
[1:39:04] I'm like, well, I appreciate that, but
[1:39:06] man, if I could have a
[1:39:07] » Well, that's why we had suggested the 30
[1:39:09] days before.
[1:39:11] » There's a there'd be a courtesy letter
[1:39:12] 30 days before and then there would be a
[1:39:14] 20 on top.
[1:39:15] » Fair enough. I disagree.
[1:39:16] » Okay.
[1:39:17] » And if I may jump in, you know, this is
[1:39:19] why we are bringing this forward to
[1:39:21] council. Yes, it's in the code. It's
[1:39:23] something that at some point a council
[1:39:25] approved, naturally adopted. Um and so
[1:39:29] we have clearly a situation
[1:39:33] um that public works is trying to work
[1:39:34] through and naturally we can enforce um
[1:39:38] this code but we also understand as you
[1:39:40] said it's kind of a sticky situation and
[1:39:43] so that's why we are bringing it to
[1:39:45] council to have this discussion um and
[1:39:47] naturally have residents um come up and
[1:39:50] kind of you know comment on the issue to
[1:39:54] find a solution that you know public
[1:39:56] works can get out there safely do their
[1:39:58] job um
[1:40:01] or if we need to address, you know, the
[1:40:02] code that's currently in place.
[1:40:09] » Vice Mayor Sud, do you have anything
[1:40:10] you'd like to add?
[1:40:16] » Hi there. Hello. Yeah. Um I think um I
[1:40:20] think it's this safety issue. I
[1:40:22] experience it on the roads every day.
[1:40:25] Some of these pictures are um are I
[1:40:30] think examples of um the safety issue
[1:40:34] for the everyday people who use those
[1:40:36] roads and also public work. So I think
[1:40:39] having a strong notification process uh
[1:40:44] where they know this is a serious
[1:40:46] situation and they pay attention. It's
[1:40:48] not one of those males that gets thrown
[1:40:51] out and and then if that action doesn't
[1:40:54] occur then town has to absolutely um
[1:40:59] remove that and then I agree that in
[1:41:02] that case
[1:41:04] uh the bill has to be sent to the
[1:41:06] property owners if in spite of the
[1:41:08] notices if somebody does not care does
[1:41:11] not have I would use the word pride or
[1:41:14] common sense then I guess that can't be
[1:41:18] a nuisance to other neighbors and other
[1:41:20] people using the public road. So I agree
[1:41:24] we we have to have a strong process with
[1:41:26] I think the key word I would use is
[1:41:28] transparency.
[1:41:30] All those people whose notices are gone
[1:41:32] and and then we are ready to take
[1:41:34] action. We should put that list publicly
[1:41:36] on the website that this is our vendor
[1:41:39] is coming to remove these and this is
[1:41:42] the list guys. you still have time and
[1:41:45] if they don't do it then I think we have
[1:41:48] to do it and and then cost has to be uh
[1:41:53] incurred by the respective owners
[1:41:56] whoever is responsible in spite of all
[1:41:59] these notices they haven't taken action
[1:42:01] so I guess they need to pay the bill
[1:42:03] then in that instance
[1:42:05] thank you
[1:42:07] » Okay I I think for me it it comes down
[1:42:10] to and this was my concern when this
[1:42:12] nuisance abatement was originally
[1:42:14] brought forward many many moons ago that
[1:42:17] it's it's a little too subjective,
[1:42:20] right? Uh so what's overgrowth? What's
[1:42:25] um what's a a nuisance, right? What my
[1:42:28] favorite is it attracts vermin. I said
[1:42:30] out here we call them wildlife, right?
[1:42:32] As I watch the I evicted some raccoons
[1:42:35] out of a hole in my property and they
[1:42:36] keep crossing my property. Uh so
[1:42:40] the po I think the point for me is
[1:42:42] unless this is obstructive in some way
[1:42:45] and I think what you're bringing here
[1:42:46] tonight is you know it's obstructing
[1:42:48] right whether it's a trail roadway right
[1:42:53] » Historically for me
[1:42:56] we've had public works go in and they
[1:42:59] cut back reach over people's fences and
[1:43:02] grind it down to me you own to the
[1:43:05] vertical plane correct right you do not
[1:43:07] get to go past that.
[1:43:08] » Yes, ma'am.
[1:43:09] » So, frankly, I understand your your
[1:43:12] comment of about the cost of maintaining
[1:43:14] it, but that's the cost of maintaining
[1:43:16] any right of way, right?
[1:43:18] » So, my concern becomes more that one,
[1:43:21] it's not subjective. Um, we're not an
[1:43:24] HOA. We're not looking to determine, you
[1:43:27] know, what materials are considered
[1:43:31] a, you know, as as far as undesirable, I
[1:43:34] guess, is probably a good word. Um, so,
[1:43:39] uh, to mention Council Member Kane's
[1:43:41] comment, it is on page 21.
[1:43:45] Her comment was the keeping of fill in
[1:43:48] an unsafe and unsanitary manner. And
[1:43:51] this goes back to my subjective comment,
[1:43:52] as determined by whom, right? Unless
[1:43:55] it's interfering with a drain pipe or a
[1:43:57] roadway. To me, this is where this
[1:44:00] language and I know that that's not the
[1:44:02] point of bringing this forward tonight,
[1:44:04] » But there's a lot about this nuisance
[1:44:06] abatement that I think as we go forward
[1:44:08] in our strategic plan and we define what
[1:44:11] rural is, it'll give us some structure
[1:44:14] to come back to to recreate language in
[1:44:16] these ordinances that aligns more
[1:44:18] closely with the town. Um,
[1:44:22] my question is is if it unless it was
[1:44:26] illegally dumped or it's it's
[1:44:29] intentional like you can't help that
[1:44:32] your tree grows a big old branch. Right.
[1:44:34] » Right.
[1:44:35] » So to me it's up to us to maintain our
[1:44:37] right of way, not not the property
[1:44:38] owner. Right. To the vertical plane. So
[1:44:43] now I would not want you coming by and
[1:44:45] hacking off my tree branch with a giant
[1:44:48] mower arm. Right.
[1:44:49] » Yeah. You know,
[1:44:50] » I'm going to come in with my arborist
[1:44:51] and I'm going to say, "You need to take
[1:44:52] this branch down and everything else."
[1:44:54] » Who's your tree trimmer guy?
[1:44:55] » He would be the arborist.
[1:44:56] » Well, I know yours would be, but
[1:44:58] » Me. I got
[1:44:59] » The dude with the chainsaw and that
[1:45:01] thingy that goes up and down, right? I
[1:45:03] wish I wish I owned one of those.
[1:45:05] » Is that the tentacle ter?
[1:45:06] » Yes, it is. It is. So
[1:45:08] » Yes,
[1:45:09] » I guess for me it comes down to are we
[1:45:12] are we being responsible for our own
[1:45:14] right of way and then we just incur the
[1:45:16] cost of that
[1:45:18] » Or do we we burden the land owner
[1:45:22] because some of these are corporate
[1:45:24] absentee
[1:45:26] stuff's falling out of
[1:45:27] » I think some of the stuff though as well
[1:45:29] to your point though some of the stuff
[1:45:30] is is you know I think I I would say
[1:45:34] maybe some places there hasn't been some
[1:45:36] respect to to the right of way and
[1:45:38] things have been planted and they've
[1:45:40] grown and whatever. Um there's some of
[1:45:42] those issues, but again it's our it's
[1:45:44] our and I don't mean to derail you. I'm
[1:45:46] sorry.
[1:45:47] » But those you know those sable palms,
[1:45:48] they're very disrespectful where they
[1:45:50] grow, right?
[1:45:51] » They just grow anyway.
[1:45:52] » I wasn't trying to call you. I said I
[1:45:53] said you maintain your line there. Okay.
[1:45:55] Um
[1:45:57] » Isn't some of this town created though?
[1:45:59] I mean when we I mean you guys talked
[1:46:01] about it at the workshop when I was
[1:46:02] sitting back there in the cheap seats
[1:46:04] talking about stand
[1:46:09] » Guys
[1:46:12] standing ovation
[1:46:14] » Get many of those around here.
[1:46:16] » Yes. I mean thank you.
[1:46:17] » But I mean sitting back there months and
[1:46:18] months and months ago long before this
[1:46:20] doing this was on my mind I don't
[1:46:22] remember who brought it up at the table.
[1:46:23] I'm like that's a great point actually.
[1:46:25] you know, I mean,
[1:46:26] » There a lot of it has been created. But
[1:46:28] if you think about it though, um, and
[1:46:30] I'm not trying to pick on anybody else
[1:46:32] specific, so I'm not going to call out
[1:46:34] any addresses. I'm not going to call out
[1:46:36] it, but there's there's roads that used
[1:46:37] to be dirt that are now paved. And when
[1:46:39] they were dirt, the wind row went right
[1:46:42] along their property line. And if you
[1:46:45] had an oncoming vehicle, you had to pull
[1:46:47] over in their driveway, right? Hopefully
[1:46:50] they had a safe sight driveway or
[1:46:51] whatever, decent size driveway or you
[1:46:53] had to wait back here and there's a lot
[1:46:56] of things. So when we went through and
[1:46:57] paved the roads, it's a little more in
[1:47:00] your face I guess because you know even
[1:47:04] though
[1:47:05] whatever I'm going to say it even though
[1:47:07] the roads were paved improperly in my
[1:47:08] opinion um
[1:47:10] » You know not to start that whole thing
[1:47:11] up it's a paved road now, right? It's
[1:47:14] black tops. So, there's this this um
[1:47:18] concept of what it should look like. But
[1:47:20] to Lisa's point earlier, and you beat me
[1:47:21] to it, I turned my light on again. You
[1:47:23] know, we're not an HOA.
[1:47:25] » Yeah.
[1:47:25] » You know, that's every time code
[1:47:27] enforcement comes up in here, I I get
[1:47:29] those calls. Even before I was sitting
[1:47:31] here, um, you know, we got a new code
[1:47:33] enforcement company and they got they
[1:47:35] went by and and cited my my buddy for
[1:47:38] his grass was too tall and he I got a
[1:47:41] very largely filled expletative text
[1:47:43] going, "Can you believe this?" You know,
[1:47:47] um, we're not an HOA. Um, I I I I'm not
[1:47:51] going to sit up here and and support
[1:47:53] anything that's going to make us more of
[1:47:54] an HOA. I And I'm not I'm not in support
[1:47:58] of calling anybody out on the on the
[1:48:01] website saying, um, you know, this
[1:48:03] property, you know, Joe Stevens property
[1:48:06] on High Park Road and and Craig, you
[1:48:08] know, Craig's property, Cassy's
[1:48:10] property, Karen's property, Trey's
[1:48:11] property, Paul's property, Lee's
[1:48:12] property, we're going to go, we're going
[1:48:14] to trim those on the 15th of March,
[1:48:16] whether you like it or not. That's
[1:48:18] that's a little above and beyond. I I
[1:48:20] don't you know um thank you but that's
[1:48:23] not necessary. Um you know listen we we
[1:48:27] everybody knows to drive by it. We know
[1:48:28] we know who the who the you know and I
[1:48:30] think what we need to visit the whole
[1:48:33] nuisance ordinance because like you said
[1:48:35] there's a lot of stuff in there that
[1:48:36] probably and I keep saying you know we
[1:48:38] we challenge these or we task these
[1:48:41] committees with stuff. You know, I think
[1:48:44] our whole ULDC code needs to be kind of
[1:48:46] gone through.
[1:48:47] » Oh, yeah. Absolutely.
[1:48:48] » You know, so and and maybe this starting
[1:48:51] point,
[1:48:52] » You know, maybe that's and put task it
[1:48:54] with them. Give let them give options
[1:48:56] and give suggestions to see where that's
[1:48:58] at. Um, you know, we got some smart
[1:49:00] folks on there and I think, you know, we
[1:49:02] could start with that, but I mean, yeah.
[1:49:04] So, who's who's to decide whether Phil
[1:49:06] is sanitary or not? I mean,
[1:49:07] » Well, that's it. So, but they need
[1:49:09] direction tonight. That's what they're
[1:49:10] looking for. So
[1:49:12] » What we're looking for is direction on
[1:49:13] would you want us to push with code,
[1:49:16] push with the news of pavement or you
[1:49:18] would like staff to go out and to clear
[1:49:22] the trees. I mean there's a lot of trees
[1:49:24] that are approaching rightways there.
[1:49:26] some parts of the roads are starting to
[1:49:28] be impassable.
[1:49:29] That
[1:49:30] » I think if it can be objectively
[1:49:32] determined
[1:49:33] » That that is the case because
[1:49:36] objectively in the past um certain trees
[1:49:40] were accused of tearing up the road and
[1:49:43] they were not. So it's been used to take
[1:49:46] out certain what we would call historic
[1:49:49] trees right in the town. So
[1:49:52] » Uh yeah
[1:49:52] » I know. Yeah. So I I do think that it
[1:49:56] again has to be an objective
[1:49:59] an objective way because you have to
[1:50:02] justify it, right? You have to justify
[1:50:03] it to the land owner. You have to
[1:50:04] justify it to those of us that have to
[1:50:06] sit there and answer to that land owner,
[1:50:08] right? When their tree gets yanked out
[1:50:09] or or destroyed, which we've seen.
[1:50:12] » So um there are some public comments
[1:50:14] with some waving hands back there that
[1:50:16] would love to get up here. So we'll let
[1:50:17] them come up here and and talk. So and
[1:50:20] and then we'll we'll try to give you
[1:50:22] guidance.
[1:50:24] I'm kidding. No kidding.
[1:50:26] » She's joking. Who's first?
[1:50:29] » Tracy.
[1:50:32] » Wow.
[1:50:33] » She started putting all her cards in one
[1:50:35] time.
[1:50:37] » I know. It's It's a hybrid.
[1:50:39] » By the way, great meeting you guys had
[1:50:41] last night.
[1:50:43] » Yeah, you I think you have a really
[1:50:44] really good vice chair. I'm just
[1:50:46] throwing that out there.
[1:50:46] » Oh, wow.
[1:50:48] » There you go, Jenny.
[1:50:50] » Little nepotism.
[1:50:53] It's because you sleep with her.
[1:50:56] » Thanks.
[1:50:57] » Or tmi.
[1:50:59] » Nuisance abatement. Tracy Rwood 1261 up
[1:51:02] road. I want to clarify what we're
[1:51:03] actually discussing with the nuisance
[1:51:05] abatement program because I keep hearing
[1:51:07] it described as though it's simply about
[1:51:09] maintaining public roads in right away.
[1:51:11] That is not what I'm reading in this
[1:51:13] packet. The proposed courtesy notice
[1:51:16] specifically includes accumulation of
[1:51:17] trash, junk, debris, living and
[1:51:20] non-living plant material upon private
[1:51:22] property. It also includes excessive
[1:51:24] growth of grass, weeds, brush, branches,
[1:51:26] and other overgrowth as well as fill
[1:51:29] maintain and what the town determines to
[1:51:32] be unsafe or unsanitary manner.
[1:51:35] Then separately, the notice addresses
[1:51:37] vegetation over roadways and trails and
[1:51:40] obstructions and encroachments into the
[1:51:41] rightway. Those are two really different
[1:51:44] things. Protecting a public roadway,
[1:51:47] drainage system, trail, or right away
[1:51:49] from an actual obstruction is one thing.
[1:51:52] Giving the town authority to determine
[1:51:54] whether someone's grass, grass, brush,
[1:51:57] debris, landscaping, or other conditions
[1:52:00] on their property constitutes a nuisance
[1:52:02] is something much broader. We are a
[1:52:05] rural agricultural community. We are not
[1:52:09] an HOA. There's a difference between an
[1:52:12] actual public health or safety hazard
[1:52:14] and somebody's property is simply not
[1:52:16] looking the way someone else thinks it
[1:52:18] should. Before council approves this, I
[1:52:21] think we need a clear answer. What
[1:52:23] problems are we actually trying to
[1:52:24] solve?
[1:52:26] How many nuisance complaints has the
[1:52:27] town actually received? How many of
[1:52:30] those complaints could not be resolved
[1:52:32] simply by contacting the property owner
[1:52:34] and working with them? You know, help
[1:52:35] thy neighbor. How many involved on act
[1:52:38] how many involved on actual public
[1:52:40] health or safety hazards? What authority
[1:52:43] does the town currently lack under the
[1:52:45] existing code that requires the
[1:52:47] additional program? Is this intended to
[1:52:49] be complaint driven or is it code
[1:52:51] enforcement going proactively inspect
[1:52:53] properties looking for new nuance
[1:52:55] violations?
[1:52:57] If it's a complaint driven, then I want
[1:52:59] to understand why we need a new program
[1:53:00] at all. If it's going to be proactive,
[1:53:03] then council needs to understand that we
[1:53:05] are making a much larger policy decision
[1:53:07] than simply keeping our roads and right
[1:53:09] ofway clear. The proposed process does
[1:53:12] not stop with a courtesy letter.
[1:53:15] Following a notice of violation, the
[1:53:17] property owner is given 20 days. After
[1:53:19] that, the town may perform the work
[1:53:21] except it itself and accept and assess
[1:53:25] the cleanup and administrative costs
[1:53:26] against the property with those costs
[1:53:29] potentially continuing to acrue interest
[1:53:31] until they are paid. That's significant.
[1:53:33] That is a significant authority over
[1:53:36] property that is privately owned. If
[1:53:39] council's intent is truly only to
[1:53:41] protect public roads, trails, drainage
[1:53:43] systems, rights away, and town
[1:53:44] infrastructure, then I believe the
[1:53:46] language should say that exactly, that
[1:53:49] it should be expressly limited to those
[1:53:52] circumstances only. I do not want us
[1:53:54] approving something tonight believing
[1:53:55] that we're authorizing the rightway
[1:53:57] maintenance only to find out later that
[1:53:59] we have also authorized the town to
[1:54:00] determine whether someone's grass,
[1:54:02] brush, trees, debris, or other
[1:54:04] conditions on private property continue
[1:54:06] to be a nuisance. My preference is
[1:54:09] simple. If there's an actual complaint,
[1:54:12] it legitimate health safety issue,
[1:54:15] contact the property owner. Work with
[1:54:17] them to resolve it. If someone refuses
[1:54:19] to correct a genuine public safety
[1:54:21] problem, then use the enforcement tools
[1:54:23] we already have. But I do not support
[1:54:26] creating another proactive enforcement
[1:54:28] program that encourages staff to go
[1:54:29] looking for violations on private
[1:54:31] property. Show us the problem first.
[1:54:34] Show us the complaint. show us the
[1:54:36] existing code that it cannot be
[1:54:38] addressed.
[1:54:39] Then we can decide whether another
[1:54:41] enforcement program is actually
[1:54:42] necessary. I was watching Magistrate one
[1:54:44] day and they're going after somebody for
[1:54:46] having mold on their house. I mean, come
[1:54:47] on. That's ridiculous. I go down all
[1:54:49] these roads. What people do on their
[1:54:51] private property is their private
[1:54:52] property unless it's causing me harm to
[1:54:55] myself or safety in the public. But
[1:54:57] don't go after people on their private
[1:54:58] property. Thanks.
[1:55:00] » Thank you.
[1:55:01] » Really? It's Florida. Everybody's got
[1:55:02] mold on their house.
[1:55:03] » Yeah. in their house, on their house,
[1:55:05] around their house.
[1:55:07] » Get that exploding mulch next to you.
[1:55:09] » Raking hay today. Sneezing my head.
[1:55:13] » The next car we have,
[1:55:22] » Thank you for your comments, Cassie.
[1:55:23] Have a good night.
[1:55:24] » Thanks for sparing us.
[1:55:26] » Get the horns, babe.
[1:55:29] » I thought with all that clapping, she
[1:55:31] wasn't going to.
[1:55:31] » Do we want to know about history first?
[1:55:33] because everyone up there signed the
[1:55:35] petition to repeal the nuisance
[1:55:37] abatement ordinance.
[1:55:38] » I didn't
[1:55:38] » In its current written form. The
[1:55:41] continued erosion of residents property
[1:55:43] rights by town staff needs to end. It's
[1:55:46] continued. The people have had enough.
[1:55:48] They spoke in March. I hope that this
[1:55:50] council listened. I think they did
[1:55:52] because I've been very happy with the
[1:55:53] with the decisions. But
[1:55:56] they need to control staff because
[1:55:58] they're doing their own thing. Staff has
[1:55:59] no idea.
[1:56:01] Town government exists to serve its
[1:56:03] residents, not to target them,
[1:56:04] intimidate them, or use enforcement
[1:56:06] powers of the government against them.
[1:56:08] Gosh, I don't know. I've experienced all
[1:56:10] of that. Thank you very much. Locket
[1:56:12] Groves. When staff members engage in
[1:56:14] that conduct, it must be corrected and
[1:56:16] when appropriate, there must be
[1:56:17] accountability. Never had any
[1:56:19] accountability so far. Because accusing
[1:56:21] a resident of a violation or placing
[1:56:23] their property on a nuisance abatement
[1:56:25] list, staff should conduct complete and
[1:56:28] competent investigations, and I phrase
[1:56:30] the word confident. Government should
[1:56:32] never start with assumptions that the
[1:56:34] residence is wrong and then look for a
[1:56:36] way to justify the enforcement
[1:56:38] afterward. My property is a perfect
[1:56:40] example. My property was identified as
[1:56:43] having an abatement issue because I
[1:56:45] planted a tree on my property. Yet
[1:56:47] apparently nobody took the time to do
[1:56:50] the actual history.
[1:56:52] In 2016, the water district acknowledged
[1:56:55] that they illegally stole my link and
[1:56:58] corrected
[1:57:00] and said they will correct the maps.
[1:57:04] Maps haven't been corrected. Multiple
[1:57:05] emails went out saying, "You correcting
[1:57:07] the maps?" "No, Steve, you always said,
[1:57:09] "Here's the letter." I said, "Good. I
[1:57:10] want the letter because the maps haven't
[1:57:12] been correct."
[1:57:14] The water district recognized that and
[1:57:16] they fixed it. That history should have
[1:57:18] been investigated before photos were
[1:57:20] taken. Every one of those photos, I see
[1:57:23] no blockage of anything. I see a town
[1:57:25] that has a rural character. When I drive
[1:57:28] through Beer Run and Fox Run, I like to
[1:57:30] have trees. I'm regulated to drive on
[1:57:33] those interstate highways with my horse
[1:57:35] and carriage because I can't drive on
[1:57:37] the easements or I can't drive on the um
[1:57:40] canals because they're too thin anyways.
[1:57:42] So, I'm I'm regulated on that hot
[1:57:45] and people speeding by and
[1:57:47] praying I don't get hit by a drunk
[1:57:48] driver. But it is nice to come with a
[1:57:50] tree and shave me for maybe a few
[1:57:53] minutes. That's nice. But we want to
[1:57:55] take the vertical plane and just make
[1:57:57] straight highways. If we did, we might
[1:57:59] as well put up I95 signs. Let the let
[1:58:02] everybody come through from Westwood
[1:58:03] because then we lose the rural
[1:58:05] character. Stripping the canal banks of
[1:58:08] natural vegetation that is grown there.
[1:58:10] That doesn't in that doesn't stop any of
[1:58:13] the water blow because I've had
[1:58:14] discussions with each one. Those give
[1:58:17] character to our found.
[1:58:21] Let's talk about a little history. The
[1:58:24] additional language including adjacent
[1:58:27] and private property was included when
[1:58:29] they were legally widening the roads
[1:58:32] beyond their legal limit, stopping
[1:58:34] people from putting up a fence to stop
[1:58:36] the illegal widening and taking of lane.
[1:58:39] One guy on B Road that was in the
[1:58:41] lawsuit got cited, got scared, and
[1:58:43] pulled out of the lawsuit because he put
[1:58:45] up a fence. He put up a fence four feet
[1:58:48] inside his property. He gave the town
[1:58:50] four more feet because the town widened
[1:58:53] the canal beyond where it should have
[1:58:55] been
[1:58:55] » Road.
[1:58:56] » The no the canal which made then their
[1:58:59] 60oot easement less. So they wanted a
[1:59:01] 20ft road. He gave them a 20ft road, an
[1:59:04] 18 18t road. He gave him four additional
[1:59:06] feet and put his fence up and they
[1:59:09] cighted him and he got scared and pulled
[1:59:11] the fence out. So when I see those
[1:59:13] pictures with bushes and that that's on
[1:59:16] people's private lane that is health and
[1:59:19] safety don't go there. Show me a health
[1:59:22] and safety that a tree branch or a
[1:59:25] little bush not a don't mean show me a
[1:59:28] health and safety but some of those
[1:59:29] little wispy trees or a nice canopy
[1:59:31] that's what 20 ft in the air cost.
[1:59:36] Don't go back to health and safety
[1:59:38] because that's the catchall phrase.
[1:59:42] This nuisance abatement is full of a
[1:59:44] bunch of crap and that's what I'm going
[1:59:46] to say. It needs to be repeated. There's
[1:59:49] a petition and over 100 signatures right
[1:59:52] now to feel it and I've asked the town
[1:59:54] council multiple times to address it and
[1:59:56] look into it. I don't think there should
[1:59:58] be any enforcement on this entire
[1:59:59] ordinance till it's overhauled
[2:00:02] completely removed language where they
[2:00:04] they add it in to go after people so
[2:00:07] they could illegally widen their roads,
[2:00:10] adjacent property, private property,
[2:00:12] things like that. that needs to be taken
[2:00:14] out of meeting and show me where a palm
[2:00:18] frron interferes with somebody riding a
[2:00:20] horse
[2:00:22] really.
[2:00:24] So ask yourself what kind of town we
[2:00:26] are, what kind of town we want to be and
[2:00:28] what we want to reflect because our
[2:00:30] roadways with the striping which you
[2:00:32] guys are taking care of, thank you did
[2:00:34] not reflect what we are.
[2:00:37] So please don't do any enforcement on
[2:00:39] this ordinance. Review it. If not, that
[2:00:42] the residents are going to have to
[2:00:43] repeal it. Then it's going to cost us
[2:00:45] money in a referendum. So, please do
[2:00:47] what we've asked you to do in the past,
[2:00:49] what the residents don't want. Thank
[2:00:51] you.
[2:00:52] » Thank you.
[2:00:54] » I I do have issue with some of the the
[2:00:56] higher branch tree trimming cuz, you
[2:00:59] know, there's a semi coming through
[2:01:00] here, then they can just go around it,
[2:01:02] right? So, and most of those trucks
[2:01:04] knock off those branches and they they
[2:01:06] don't really grow. Uh, another public
[2:01:09] comment.
[2:01:10] » Yes, ma'am. Mayor Susan Collins.
[2:01:13] » She's over there champing at the bit.
[2:01:22] » Good evening, Susan Collins Boulevard.
[2:01:25] Um, I don't think anybody has issues
[2:01:28] with like the safety concerns, right?
[2:01:30] Like I know we have line of sight on the
[2:01:31] agenda tonight. That seems common sense
[2:01:34] to me.
[2:01:36] I would suggest that as we head down the
[2:01:39] road of being whatever the governmental
[2:01:42] alternative to an HOA is
[2:01:46] um I don't know a little bit of a glass.
[2:01:50] You want to talk about piles of debris
[2:01:53] and I think Burman also wildlife but but
[2:01:56] vermin and such.
[2:01:59] You have only to drive down the road
[2:02:01] right here to see the piles that were
[2:02:03] created
[2:02:05] by that activity that had been there for
[2:02:07] more than a year.
[2:02:10] » They some of those at least on the
[2:02:12] corner of of Ephrod and Collecting now
[2:02:14] did for a long time present uh sight
[2:02:18] line issues and safety issues and I
[2:02:21] can't as far as I can tell nothing is
[2:02:23] about any of that. there doesn't seem to
[2:02:25] be any plan to do. But when you speak to
[2:02:27] the issues of private property,
[2:02:31] I can tell you that just on my own
[2:02:33] property, I have 4 acres
[2:02:37] that the amount of damage that's been
[2:02:39] done by folks working for the town has
[2:02:42] been non-trivial.
[2:02:44] Like I get that you want to put up a
[2:02:46] sign saying, "Hey, road mark ahead."
[2:02:48] Nobody said to me, "Hey, is it okay if
[2:02:49] we put that sign on your property?
[2:02:54] No, they they just put it there. They
[2:02:55] tore up my grass. That is remediated
[2:02:58] that it's hard to remediate because I
[2:03:00] got no water out on water halfway up.
[2:03:03] That's as good as it gets. So, it's
[2:03:05] really hard to fix. All the trucks that
[2:03:08] used the side of my property for
[2:03:10] skating, which went on for months and
[2:03:13] months, have torn up the edge of the
[2:03:15] asphalt. It would the quote I got was
[2:03:18] $7700
[2:03:20] to remediate that to make it look like
[2:03:22] it did before all of that work happened.
[2:03:24] And then just the other day they they
[2:03:27] tore out Marsala Boulevard and put in
[2:03:29] some more drainage and did the same
[2:03:31] thing. And now I have, you know, a big
[2:03:35] chunk at the side of the street, but we
[2:03:38] try to keep looking by it. And I I did
[2:03:41] go out and it's like, you know, like I
[2:03:43] have to mow this
[2:03:45] old and not that stable. Like don't make
[2:03:47] it impossible for me to like use the the
[2:03:50] lawn mower without falling into the
[2:03:52] drainage ditch. And they kind of rolled
[2:03:54] their eyes and went.
[2:03:56] They took out landscaping material that
[2:03:59] we had put there to try to fill in one
[2:04:00] of the ditches so I didn't have to go
[2:04:02] there with my mower. And then they they
[2:04:04] left the nuts
[2:04:06] with piles of dirt debris
[2:04:10] and the road, you know, is now just
[2:04:12] almost as bad as the intersection here,
[2:04:14] which, you know, back potholes and you
[2:04:18] got to weave your way in and out so as
[2:04:21] not to fall into the ditch there, too.
[2:04:23] And despite asking multiple times, no
[2:04:26] one seems to be able to tell you when
[2:04:27] that's going to be finished and and
[2:04:30] looked at properly. So maybe before you
[2:04:32] worry about what's on people's, you
[2:04:33] know, people's backyards, we could
[2:04:35] address some of that.
[2:04:37] » Yeah. I think we all want to know when
[2:04:38] that's going to get done.
[2:04:40] » Yeah. I I don't think we're addressing
[2:04:41] what's in people's backyards, though.
[2:04:42] We're addressing what's hanging into the
[2:04:44] roadway. So, we're not even we're not
[2:04:46] even saying address the couple pictures
[2:04:48] that are possibly on the canal side that
[2:04:51] are easement wise. I mean, some of them
[2:04:53] are. Yeah, there's a couple that are
[2:04:55] kind of, you know, I mean, but and
[2:04:58] there's a couple that it's clearly
[2:05:00] you're not you're not getting. I'm not
[2:05:03] talking about yours. I specifically
[2:05:04] didn't specify your property. Yours
[2:05:07] yours are a whole different case because
[2:05:09] you have a letter saying that's your
[2:05:10] rightway. So,
[2:05:12] » I'm sorry. I'm I'm
[2:05:14] » Is it possible
[2:05:16] is it possible to create actual
[2:05:20] measurable limits like like to the
[2:05:23] vertical plane? You know, if it's
[2:05:24] hanging over more than 18 inches, it can
[2:05:27] be cut back to the vertical plane, but
[2:05:28] not higher than a certain height.
[2:05:30] » There is a height at 14 ft.
[2:05:32] » 14 ft. Correct.
[2:05:32] » 14. That's not bad. That's That's
[2:05:34] » That's the height in the code is 14 ft.
[2:05:36] » That's a That's a L trailer with AC on
[2:05:39] top. That's 14 foot. The reason it's 14
[2:05:41] ft cuz the height of a horse trailer or
[2:05:43] a top of a semi is 135.
[2:05:45] » Mhm.
[2:05:46] » So
[2:05:47] » Yeah,
[2:05:48] » Uh I would say that if if it's some if
[2:05:50] it's something that's measurable, you
[2:05:52] know, that and we stick within that
[2:05:54] measurement then and it's in the right
[2:05:57] of way.
[2:05:58] » Yeah. because I mean I I I see people,
[2:06:01] you know, there's yes, there are lines
[2:06:04] on the road and we we're addressing the
[2:06:06] lines on the road and, you know, one of
[2:06:08] these is clearly the the whole thing's
[2:06:10] grown out into the road. Um, but there's
[2:06:12] there's people that that will challenge
[2:06:14] you.
[2:06:15] » I don't care how big you are and if you
[2:06:17] thought you had the right, they're still
[2:06:18] going to challenge you. And there's, you
[2:06:19] know, there's going to be some, you
[2:06:21] know, at some point where do we become
[2:06:22] liable, we're not liable, whatever, you
[2:06:24] know, and I'm not saying clearcut it to
[2:06:26] the sky. Nobody's saying that. I mean,
[2:06:28] there's clear canopy. I mean, some of
[2:06:30] these in these pictured in these
[2:06:32] pictures are invasive species plants
[2:06:34] anyway, up against a brand new fence,
[2:06:36] which probably should have been
[2:06:37] addressed, but that's all, you know, I
[2:06:40] mean, that's I mean, yeah, granted, you
[2:06:42] know, Cassie, you have a different
[2:06:43] scenario, right? I'm not I'm not just I
[2:06:47] it's but but I think that the what we're
[2:06:49] not getting is Lisa said it, I said it.
[2:06:53] You know, we're looking at this as a
[2:06:54] whole. We're looking at at the nuisance
[2:06:58] abatement as a whole and reworking as a
[2:07:02] whole. I said that I think Lisa agreed
[2:07:04] with me. I might be correct me if I'm
[2:07:06] wrong, but we say, you know, Anita
[2:07:08] mentioned it in her comments. There's
[2:07:09] there's definitely some pieces in there
[2:07:12] that need to go. It can't happen
[2:07:14] immediately. Remember, we a bureaucracy.
[2:07:17] It's it takes time. You know, it can't
[2:07:19] happen immediately. But yeah, there's
[2:07:21] some things in there that need to be
[2:07:22] addressed. You know, we're talking about
[2:07:24] trimming for safety. And then in another
[2:07:27] paragraph, it talks about your grass
[2:07:29] height, right? And we already talked
[2:07:31] about
[2:07:31] » We need to get on to line jump in. I
[2:07:34] have some comments.
[2:07:36] » Hold on a moment. Hold on one second.
[2:07:40] » I think there's more public comments as
[2:07:42] well. Oh, sorry. Sorry. Manish, go
[2:07:46] ahead.
[2:07:47] » Okay. Hi. Thank you. I think uh I agree
[2:07:49] with uh Paul's and others
[2:07:53] specific wording and scope of this
[2:07:56] discussion is uh correcting genuine
[2:07:59] public health and safety hazards not
[2:08:02] aesthetics not somebody not someone who
[2:08:06] chooses to maintain their uh private
[2:08:09] property that's not the subject here I
[2:08:11] think the focus of the from my point of
[2:08:15] view the direction is let's narrow it
[2:08:17] down to the road public safety and
[2:08:20] health and safety and I think very
[2:08:24] specific steps identify the hazard
[2:08:27] whether it is tree or a shrub or
[2:08:29] whatever that overgrowth is determine
[2:08:31] the impact so you have a basically a
[2:08:34] very scientific objective report and
[2:08:37] then notify the property owner and then
[2:08:40] you know give them a reasonable
[2:08:42] opportunity to correct the hazard or
[2:08:43] inform if they say wow guys this is my
[2:08:46] land or whatever that issue is let them
[2:08:49] share that information with the town and
[2:08:52] then finally I think in good faith
[2:08:55] everybody will want to address this
[2:08:58] hazard because other people are
[2:09:00] suffering I know I drive on E-O and it
[2:09:04] is always a problem on E-O if you uh you
[2:09:08] know make a turn on Okie Chobi and you
[2:09:10] will notice that you have to actually
[2:09:13] avoid hitting those shrubs and trees and
[2:09:16] other guy on the canal side has to
[2:09:19] probably stop or they'll you know go in
[2:09:21] the canal. So it's a big hazard. It's a
[2:09:24] hazard liability for the town. So then
[2:09:27] verify the hazard is corrected and then
[2:09:29] take appropriate action when necessary.
[2:09:32] If the if let's say the owner is missing
[2:09:35] an action or it's an abandoned property
[2:09:37] or whatever that is then let's we have
[2:09:40] to do it for them and and and and in my
[2:09:44] humble view then in that case that
[2:09:47] landowner is responsible for that uh
[2:09:50] elimination of that hazard. So again
[2:09:53] once again I'm only focused my direction
[2:09:56] is only focus on road safety and and or
[2:10:02] uh right ofway safety issues only not
[2:10:05] what's happening inside the property
[2:10:07] that's not the subject of this at least
[2:10:10] my direction is so thank you
[2:10:14] » Okay Miss Stish you're gonna speak Yep.
[2:10:19] Sorry, I I sorry
[2:10:22] » That was my my fault. Virginia, I
[2:10:24] apologize.
[2:10:31] » Virginia Standish. H boy, this a loaded
[2:10:35] topic. Where could we go living 40 years
[2:10:37] in this community? But anyway, let's get
[2:10:40] » To the present. Um some good points made
[2:10:43] by council and the public. One council,
[2:10:46] the fact that yes,
[2:10:48] many years of paying for maps over and
[2:10:50] over. Wouldn't it be nice to have maps
[2:10:53] of our actual easements that are public
[2:10:55] record and showing those portions that a
[2:10:59] public a new public works employee might
[2:11:02] think is right of way but may actually
[2:11:04] be private property. It places a burden
[2:11:06] on employees when they don't know what
[2:11:09] is private property and what is a right
[2:11:11] of way. two, the news abatement, another
[2:11:15] ordinance that needs to be reviewed by
[2:11:17] council staff and committees. Um, but
[2:11:20] this information presented in this
[2:11:23] upcoming agenda
[2:11:26] is very broad and vague and it's my
[2:11:29] understanding you're trying to stick to
[2:11:31] right ofway topic only. That's what this
[2:11:36] should have been addressed as right of
[2:11:38] way only instead of throwing in the
[2:11:40] kitchen sink and everyone's property.
[2:11:42] Words and language matter. So I don't
[2:11:46] think this should be presented this way
[2:11:48] in the agenda if that was not your
[2:11:50] intent. Your focus is right of way. So
[2:11:53] why are we reading about everything else
[2:11:55] in this ordinance that needs to be
[2:11:57] redone? This nuisance abatement. That is
[2:11:59] your biggest problem. Um,
[2:12:03] and that's the crux of it. Everything
[2:12:05] else is private property, you know,
[2:12:07] living, vegetation, non-living. Okay.
[2:12:10] Yes. And like everyone said, we're an
[2:12:12] egg community. So, what does this have
[2:12:14] to do with our right of way? If you
[2:12:17] stick to right of way, you get your
[2:12:19] easement maps.
[2:12:21] You seem to be focused on the issue, not
[2:12:23] all this language you threw in there.
[2:12:25] Thank you.
[2:12:27] » Thank you. So, did we have another one?
[2:12:32] » Yes. I think um Miss Suchi would like to
[2:12:35] speak again.
[2:12:39] » Are you really going to talk again?
[2:12:42] Okay. Karen, are you going to get up and
[2:12:44] talk? Okay, we'll let Karen talk first.
[2:12:47] You could you could
[2:12:50] we could just pass it around.
[2:12:56] Okay.
[2:12:58] I just want to get to this next one,
[2:12:59] too. I don't want this one to go by.
[2:13:03] » Worried about health and safety when
[2:13:06] collecting canal road is a huge safety
[2:13:09] problem. And that's been like that for
[2:13:11] how long now? Um, but when it's private
[2:13:14] residents, then you're going to jump on
[2:13:16] them. I have no problem with the town
[2:13:18] trimming branches on my property that
[2:13:21] come out as my property actually goes to
[2:13:24] the burm of the canal. Um, even though
[2:13:27] they kept whittling away like everybody
[2:13:29] says with their um, greater and taking
[2:13:33] my property, taking my property until
[2:13:35] they made it big enough to where they
[2:13:36] could put a road in. Um, yeah. So, yeah,
[2:13:40] my tree do go over, but years ago I was
[2:13:43] approved by the border district son told
[2:13:46] us where we could put our arthas, where
[2:13:49] we could put our trees. He approved it
[2:13:51] and said that was far enough away from
[2:13:53] that road. Little did we know was that
[2:13:56] was going to be grading to our property.
[2:13:58] They took out my poles. They took out my
[2:14:01] fence. They did whatever they could to
[2:14:02] take over that land. And now they want
[2:14:05] to charge me for trimming or they trim
[2:14:08] over my fence. Any one of you, I am
[2:14:11] welcoming you to come out to my property
[2:14:12] and look where they have trim branches
[2:14:15] on the other side of my fence. And I
[2:14:18] don't think that's correct. I don't mind
[2:14:20] the greater coming along and along the
[2:14:22] white line of the road. you want to
[2:14:24] trim, trim away. But when you start
[2:14:26] bringing that thing in and trimming
[2:14:28] against my fence or down, I I think it's
[2:14:31] wrong. Um, and the other thing is I feel
[2:14:34] harassed. All these pictures, 12 12
[2:14:38] photos. How is it that there's 12 photos
[2:14:41] here with only
[2:14:44] I I'm trying to see there's no addresses
[2:14:47] on any of any of them. And tell me if
[2:14:49] this doesn't feel harassed. My address
[2:14:51] is on three of them. Three of them out
[2:14:55] of 12.
[2:14:57] I believe Cassy's address is on one. I
[2:15:00] feel very harassed. Um I did have an
[2:15:04] incident was a town employee who was
[2:15:05] trimming on the other side of my fence.
[2:15:08] I asked him to stop. He refused. And
[2:15:11] when I stood by him and asked him to
[2:15:14] stop, he look went alongside of me when
[2:15:18] I was standing looking at my bushes. He
[2:15:20] trimmed on top and one of the big
[2:15:22] branches hit me in the head really hard
[2:15:25] and he said he was going to call the
[2:15:26] police on me. Instead of calling the
[2:15:27] police, he called Craig and then I was
[2:15:30] harassed by Craig. I don't mind them
[2:15:32] trimming bushes that are over on their
[2:15:34] side, but they were trimming bushes on
[2:15:37] my my side, my side of the fence. And
[2:15:40] then I was harassed and I had somebody
[2:15:42] listening on the conversation so they
[2:15:44] can say that they'll tell you this is
[2:15:45] true that I was told that every time
[2:15:48] they do these things with the road in
[2:15:50] front of Canad
[2:15:53] took out my survey stake so I couldn't
[2:15:55] prove how far my property was. And then
[2:15:57] I was told by a friend that he could see
[2:16:00] it on the um Palm Beach uh
[2:16:05] uh papa site that he knows where the
[2:16:07] line is. I said, "You need to get a
[2:16:09] survey because they keep doing this to
[2:16:11] me and taking my survey and moving the
[2:16:13] line." And he says, "If we have to get a
[2:16:15] survey, I know your fence is over it,
[2:16:17] and we're going to make you take it
[2:16:18] out." that him and his person, I think
[2:16:22] his name was Tim Wood, two very rude
[2:16:24] employees to a resident when I'm just
[2:16:27] trying to protect our tree canopy and
[2:16:30] make it green and keep my house private
[2:16:32] from outsiders because of all the
[2:16:34] traffic and drinkers and fishers that
[2:16:37] come along on that corner and bombard us
[2:16:40] with garbage that they throw over my
[2:16:42] fence and into the bushes. And it's very
[2:16:46] uh disturbing when you get treated like
[2:16:48] this by employees. And by the way, I
[2:16:50] have not received anything from anybody
[2:16:51] in town saying how this was um taken
[2:16:54] care of. Um no apology by anybody or
[2:16:57] anything. But I am in uh disbelief. I
[2:17:01] don't understand. We pay taxes. I don't
[2:17:03] see what the big deal is. There's many
[2:17:05] properties worse than mine. And yet out
[2:17:08] of all these 12, three are mine. And I
[2:17:11] can tell you I've hit branches. I've hit
[2:17:13] trees. I've had to go around many
[2:17:16] properties. I don't mind. I do it. I
[2:17:19] move over when a car is coming. Um I
[2:17:21] don't know what the big deal is. If the
[2:17:22] town's they they have the time, we pay
[2:17:25] our taxes. Why can't they trim it just
[2:17:28] like they've done all these years? I
[2:17:30] don't understand what the big deal is.
[2:17:31] You took our property. You're enjoying
[2:17:33] it for your road. And yet you want us to
[2:17:36] be responsible for things that we
[2:17:37] planted 20 something years ago. Approved
[2:17:40] by the water district by police son.
[2:17:44] the I'm very dissatisfied with what's
[2:17:48] going on with this and um
[2:17:53] you get the message. This is horrific
[2:17:55] though. I don't like it. It's not nice.
[2:18:01] » Thank you.
[2:18:02] Yeah, I think again the history of the
[2:18:06] widening of the roads and then causing
[2:18:09] not only vegetation to be closer to the
[2:18:13] to the right of way and and to the
[2:18:14] traffic, it it now we're going to go
[2:18:17] into the sighteline. So the sighteline
[2:18:19] now becomes an issue when the road that
[2:18:22] used to be six feet from the where you
[2:18:24] stopped and looked out of your property,
[2:18:26] now it's literally your bumper and you
[2:18:29] can't see either way around. And some of
[2:18:32] the suggestions on here to set your
[2:18:34] fence back 10 ft. It's just a continuous
[2:18:38] enforcement
[2:18:39] of properties that happen to be located
[2:18:42] in strategic locations having to give up
[2:18:45] more and more while other properties
[2:18:48] that will remain unnamed um on other
[2:18:52] sides don't give up anything. Right? So,
[2:18:55] this is a continuing issue and um even
[2:19:00] some of the the language outside of a
[2:19:03] townowned intersection, which arguably a
[2:19:06] town-owned intersection would be one
[2:19:08] where the town has the authority to make
[2:19:09] sure the safety's there and has a
[2:19:10] liability. The trails I don't believe
[2:19:13] they do, and I certainly don't think
[2:19:14] that you could tell private people to do
[2:19:17] exceptionally
[2:19:19] true when they are an a property. So the
[2:19:22] the state preempts some of what you can
[2:19:24] and can te tell people to do when they
[2:19:26] have agricultural use there. So if
[2:19:29] that's my productive corn field and you
[2:19:31] want me to hack off a corn on my corn
[2:19:32] field, will you just cost me money? So
[2:19:35] that that I don't see as being part of
[2:19:37] this. So sorry to jump in on that, but
[2:19:40] » No. Is it possible we could ask the we
[2:19:42] can get these removed off the site just
[2:19:45] out of respect for the neighbors?
[2:19:47] » Um I are they on the p on the website
[2:19:50] » Supplemental. supplemental. Yeah.
[2:19:52] » Can we
[2:19:53] » Yeah. Can we take those off? Is that
[2:19:55] possible?
[2:19:56] » If there's a consensus because it it is
[2:19:58] there's a policy. So, as long as you
[2:20:00] guys give us consensus to do that, we we
[2:20:02] can remove it.
[2:20:03] » Yeah.
[2:20:03] » I mean, I do know some of the properties
[2:20:05] along like Collecting Canal that have
[2:20:07] some heavy Kucia hedges and stuff,
[2:20:09] pulling out of those is a little
[2:20:11] treacherous.
[2:20:12] But I think we should allow those
[2:20:13] driveways to have um without a rightaway
[2:20:16] permit, put one of the uh convex um
[2:20:20] mirrors in the in the canal bank so that
[2:20:23] they can get out safely. I don't think
[2:20:24] they should be told to cut down their
[2:20:25] bushes.
[2:20:27] » So, I just think dignity is the key word
[2:20:29] of the day. And if we can pick a
[2:20:30] consensus to take these photos off,
[2:20:32] that'd be great.
[2:20:32] » Three, three can give a consensus,
[2:20:33] right? Manisha is there. So, yeah, I I
[2:20:36] Yeah, let's
[2:20:38] » Let me interject here. I I first of all
[2:20:41] I'm surprised how uh these two residents
[2:20:44] um pictures end up in the sampling. I
[2:20:47] mean that's a just mathematically I I'm
[2:20:51] not I I don't know how why they were
[2:20:54] picked uh for this but unfortunately
[2:20:57] they were and uh I I agree fully with
[2:21:00] Joseph. Um we should remove those. But I
[2:21:03] think the point I'm going to make is we
[2:21:06] are strictly talking about road health
[2:21:09] and safety roads. Let's pick one. Right
[2:21:12] now we have certain roads where uh the
[2:21:16] » Vice may we've moved on to the
[2:21:18] sighteline.
[2:21:19] » Yeah. No, I'm talking about this issue.
[2:21:22] We haven't moved to the sighteline. We
[2:21:23] are saying remove these pictures and I'm
[2:21:25] » Yes, we have we have moved to the
[2:21:27] sighteline issue. We we provided we
[2:21:30] provided that you know if you're in the
[2:21:32] right of way they're gonna they're still
[2:21:34] going to trim the right of way per the
[2:21:36] objective measurements they have
[2:21:37] available but we've moved on to the
[2:21:38] sighteline agenda item.
[2:21:40] » Okay good. So my point is I agree remove
[2:21:43] the pictures and let's be careful next
[2:21:46] time selecting residents in this
[2:21:48] fashion. Thank you.
[2:21:50] » So to clarify Thank you. To clarify I
[2:21:53] don't think we should send out a
[2:21:54] courtesy notice. I think we should
[2:21:56] maintain our own right ofway. I don't
[2:21:58] think that just because your bushes grew
[2:21:59] bigger, right?
[2:22:01] » We shouldn't cross.
[2:22:02] » But I do I do firmly disagree that you
[2:22:05] cut back any further than the vertical
[2:22:07] plane of what is legally in that that
[2:22:10] space, you know, and that's been a a pet
[2:22:13] peeve of mine when Jamie Tickhome was
[2:22:15] here.
[2:22:15] » And I don't I necessarily don't think
[2:22:17] that we need to just blanket say the
[2:22:19] Motrim is what's doing the trimming
[2:22:21] either. I mean, I hate to say that
[2:22:22] because I know it's a lot more work, but
[2:22:24] » My staff is out there hands handed on
[2:22:27] » Chains on.
[2:22:27] » Well, I was speaking from the past. I
[2:22:29] know speaking of Jamie, you're speaking
[2:22:30] of old days back and cleier and all
[2:22:33] these, you know, it was the mot kind of
[2:22:35] like when they go down Okachobee with
[2:22:37] that big knife.
[2:22:39] » Except it was a Motrim and they just,
[2:22:41] you know, bush hoging trees, you know,
[2:22:44] and some of these trees are not, you
[2:22:45] know, holly and whatever. I do think the
[2:22:48] residents should be notified that it's
[2:22:50] going to happen and they can be given
[2:22:51] the option, right? So that it's not
[2:22:55] » Something really awful.
[2:22:56] » You said set a
[2:22:57] » But but it can't go over the vertical
[2:23:01] plane,
[2:23:02] » Right? It it has to stay in our our
[2:23:05] legal footprint.
[2:23:07] » And so
[2:23:08] » Can you bring us a can you bring us a
[2:23:09] schedule by September for our September
[2:23:12] meeting? Can you bring us a schedule
[2:23:13] » Like where you're planning on doing
[2:23:15] trimming?
[2:23:15] » Like like make a schedule like we're
[2:23:17] going to start on this road and then
[2:23:19] we're going to go to this road and you
[2:23:21] know or
[2:23:21] » It would just be added to the MO
[2:23:23] schedule that's already in place.
[2:23:25] » So the MO the banking schedule and the
[2:23:28] » And the vertical
[2:23:29] » Trimming schedule are the same schedule.
[2:23:31] » No, because normally we would go in and
[2:23:33] we would do most of the tree trimming in
[2:23:35] the off season,
[2:23:36] » Right,
[2:23:36] » Of out of out of the rainy season, but
[2:23:39] it is right now we didn't push it this
[2:23:41] year. So, we're getting so much
[2:23:43] overgrowth and complaints of cars
[2:23:45] hitting
[2:23:45] » Right
[2:23:46] » Overgrowth in the roadways.
[2:23:48] So,
[2:23:49] » Okay,
[2:23:49] » We are where we are right now.
[2:23:51] » Um, if you're giving us permission to
[2:23:53] say, "Hey, we can go out. We'll notify
[2:23:55] the residents. You know, your tree is
[2:23:57] approaching the rideway, the roadway.
[2:24:00] You know, I this this was the whole
[2:24:02] point of the discussion and direction
[2:24:04] for you guys. Give us direction of
[2:24:06] » What would you like us to do?"
[2:24:07] » Give them what? 10day notice that that
[2:24:09] you're planning on you've identified
[2:24:11] that they've got some some vegetation in
[2:24:13] the right of way and you're going to be
[2:24:15] trimming it if they would prefer that
[2:24:17] they do it themselves that
[2:24:20] » You know to contact you and tell you
[2:24:21] when they're going to do it.
[2:24:23] » Yeah.
[2:24:23] » So
[2:24:24] » If they contact said listen I can't get
[2:24:25] it done in 10 days I can get it done in
[2:24:26] 15 or 20
[2:24:28] » Contact
[2:24:28] » Then they contact you and just push your
[2:24:30] » We just could we send like a mass letter
[2:24:33] just notifying hey you know
[2:24:35] » Do they identified properties? Well, no,
[2:24:37] not to identify properties, but to, you
[2:24:39] know, bring to attention to residents.
[2:24:41] Hey, there is
[2:24:42] » I honestly I honestly think that's going
[2:24:44] to cause a lot more.
[2:24:44] » It's going to create too much confusion.
[2:24:46] You need to be property specific
[2:24:49] » Cost and stuff.
[2:24:51] » And that way, and I'm not I'm not trying
[2:24:53] to pick on Cassie, but because we
[2:24:54] already know she has a letter, but so
[2:24:57] you send a you send a letter to Cassie
[2:24:58] saying, "Hey, listen. Your trees in our
[2:25:00] rightway." And she goes, "Wait a minute.
[2:25:02] » You know, Mr. Low, Craig, buddy, listen.
[2:25:05] And I got this letter from Yoi, Steve
[2:25:08] Yoi back in 20 whatever that says that's
[2:25:11] not the case because who knows how Steve
[2:25:14] filed that letter, right? It might not
[2:25:15] be easily.
[2:25:17] » Yeah. Go to public works and see how our
[2:25:19] records are are maintained. It
[2:25:23] » Defense of you, Cass. So, all right. So,
[2:25:26] that way she can go, "Hey, listen,
[2:25:27] Craig. I got this letter. I don't know
[2:25:29] if you're aware of it because you know
[2:25:30] you're that was like four managers ago,
[2:25:32] but I have this letter. I know that this
[2:25:34] crap down there for the for this filing,
[2:25:37] but this is my letter. And you go,
[2:25:38] "Okay, Cassie, I'm going to look into
[2:25:39] it." Or, "Okay, Muchi, I'm going to look
[2:25:41] into this." And you look into it and you
[2:25:42] go, "Hey, listen. Okay, that's your
[2:25:44] tree. That's your right away. Thank you.
[2:25:46] We're not going to touch it."
[2:25:48] » Right? Or you come back and say, "I
[2:25:49] don't know what you're talking about."
[2:25:51] You know what I'm saying? This isn't,
[2:25:52] you know, I don't know. You there's some
[2:25:55] there's some communication there. You
[2:25:57] know what I'm saying?
[2:25:58] » More of a partnership rather than it's
[2:26:00] just, you know, the town kind of
[2:26:02] imposing. We we I think we we got the
[2:26:04] the the picture. So, one other thing
[2:26:06] that I do want to touch on um because of
[2:26:09] so much conversation with regards to the
[2:26:11] entire nuisance abatement ordinance. Do
[2:26:15] you guys want to bring that back in
[2:26:18] Septe Well, I wouldn't say at the
[2:26:20] September workshop because that's kind
[2:26:22] of our second public hearing for the
[2:26:23] budget and that's going to be a heavy
[2:26:24] meeting. Do you want us to bring this
[2:26:26] back in October for you guys to have a
[2:26:28] discussion on? Do you want to kind of
[2:26:30] put this
[2:26:30] » Myself? I'm not speaking for the other
[2:26:32] four, but myself, I'm in favor of it
[2:26:35] just going to ulc with a direction. Hey,
[2:26:38] » Review this and let's, you know, give
[2:26:41] give us some suggestions as to where we
[2:26:43] can we can cut the fat, whatever, where
[2:26:45] we can make it more blocks of Hatchy
[2:26:47] Citric.
[2:26:48] » Okay.
[2:26:48] » Can I if I could
[2:26:49] » So, Mayor, I was asking a question as to
[2:26:52] um
[2:26:53] » There was a lot of conversation about
[2:26:54] this ordinance in particular. Yeah. and
[2:26:56] council member Coleman suggested sending
[2:26:58] it back to ULDC for them to review it.
[2:27:02] So I just want to get a consensus if
[2:27:03] that's what the council direct. I think
[2:27:05] the the before Paul made his his ask it
[2:27:09] was also about as we get into the
[2:27:11] strategic plan and we define rural and
[2:27:14] you know what what holds the standard
[2:27:17] what sets the standard right so that I
[2:27:20] think it's important that the town have
[2:27:21] some authority to deal with issues that
[2:27:24] we've seen in the past right like
[2:27:26] illegal dumping and things like that but
[2:27:28] again some of the language in here it's
[2:27:30] it's a little too vague it's a little
[2:27:32] too subjective I mean if wants to tackle
[2:27:35] it. They they certainly, you know, with
[2:27:37] that directive being fairly clear that
[2:27:40] this gets tailored down and and it and
[2:27:42] it's tied to certain objective,
[2:27:45] measurable
[2:27:47] um metrics, then then it would be
[2:27:50] something that it's not just left up to,
[2:27:53] you know, employee X said, "Oh, you
[2:27:57] know, you're in trouble, right?" kind of
[2:27:59] thing. So, okay. So, what we'll do is
[2:28:01] we'll plan on placing this on for ULDC.
[2:28:04] We will give them a copy of the minutes
[2:28:05] from this meeting so they can kind of
[2:28:06] see the dialogue of council and and and
[2:28:08] the residents and the concerns and we'll
[2:28:11] also provide them with copies of other
[2:28:13] municipalities and you know their
[2:28:15] ordinances so they have something to
[2:28:16] kind of look at.
[2:28:17] » Make one where we went off the rails
[2:28:18] before but okay. Uh Vice Mayor Sud any
[2:28:21] comment on that?
[2:28:22] » Yeah I think we are back to discussing
[2:28:24] this u uh abatement issue and right away
[2:28:28] issue. I think I would like my direction
[2:28:30] is this is me alone that the I'm talking
[2:28:34] about paved roads. I'm talking about
[2:28:38] health and safety that are obstructing
[2:28:40] the paved roads at least have the
[2:28:43] directive to take care of that issue. to
[2:28:45] inform the owners as I said those
[2:28:48] stepwide stepwise fashion what is the
[2:28:51] hazard this is the impact etc etc let
[2:28:54] them engage and then take care of the
[2:28:56] issue if they can't we will do it but
[2:29:00] that issue is right and here and today
[2:29:02] we this policy improvement this and that
[2:29:05] can happen of course uh send it to DC
[2:29:09] but something that is here and now we
[2:29:12] need to address it second I think I
[2:29:14] don't want to underestimate the issue of
[2:29:17] customer service. I spoke with Miss Oaks
[2:29:20] and Craig in the past. If there is a
[2:29:23] situation where town staff is cutting
[2:29:25] down some branches and stuff and owner
[2:29:27] comes out and start arguing, disengage.
[2:29:31] In other words, tell them, "Okay, let us
[2:29:33] have my supervisor come and talk to you.
[2:29:36] Do not argue. Do not there. This is not
[2:29:39] uh I don't want any resident to feel
[2:29:42] disrespected and and and and customer
[2:29:45] service we are in the business of
[2:29:46] customer service. So uh I think Craig
[2:29:49] and team agreed that they have to train
[2:29:51] their people and what happened with uh
[2:29:54] Karen was unfortunate and it shouldn't
[2:29:57] repeat itself again. Thank you.
[2:30:00] » Okay. And and yes, you're in agreement
[2:30:02] that it goes back to uldc for some
[2:30:05] tailoring.
[2:30:06] » Yes, for some. But in the meantime, take
[2:30:08] action on health.
[2:30:09] » Yes, I'm I'm aware. Yes, in the
[2:30:11] meantime. Yes.
[2:30:12] » So, yeah. Okay. So, uh site triangles,
[2:30:16] any other input on site triangles?
[2:30:21] » I'm with you. I I do and I'm sorry I did
[2:30:24] not because I'm really tired hearing
[2:30:26] about site triangles to be honest with
[2:30:28] you. Um, do we go and look how it
[2:30:33] melds with the a community and with
[2:30:37] requirements? I mean, because we don't
[2:30:39] own
[2:30:42] farm A has one ent or two entrances
[2:30:46] right on
[2:30:49] D road,
[2:30:51] right? This equestrian facility has two
[2:30:53] entrances on D- road. This is just
[2:30:55] everything is made up here.
[2:30:56] » Hypothetical. Everything is made up and
[2:30:58] hypothetical, right? So the town doesn't
[2:31:02] own
[2:31:04] that corner. Like if you go, you know,
[2:31:06] we we like to, you know, and I I do it
[2:31:08] too. We we're this rule, we are rural
[2:31:10] community, but you know, we're not as
[2:31:12] rural as some others. And if you go out
[2:31:13] to farmland, right, and you go to where
[2:31:16] they're growing corn, go out just just
[2:31:17] west of here, it's Belgrade. Um, and as
[2:31:21] as as the the farm road comes up to the
[2:31:24] main road, there's shoulders, right? And
[2:31:27] there's easements for that road and the
[2:31:30] farm doesn't encroach past the ditch or
[2:31:33] whatever. And I think, you know, like
[2:31:36] when you're going down 80s, the the
[2:31:38] municipality, the county owns that part
[2:31:39] of the road. So, they farm right up to
[2:31:43] where they can farm, right? So without
[2:31:46] us owning that corner, I don't know how
[2:31:49] we dictate, you know, to set a horse
[2:31:52] farm on D- road. You can't plant Kousa
[2:31:55] hedges there that grow 10 ft tall and
[2:31:59] let them get that high. I don't I don't
[2:32:00] see how we can do that. I mean, I
[2:32:02] understand there's a safety aspect to
[2:32:04] it. Like like Lisa said, maybe we need
[2:32:06] to, you know, invest in some some of
[2:32:09] those convex or convex Yeah. convex
[2:32:13] mirrors because I mean and maybe this is
[2:32:16] something we look to the future like if
[2:32:18] you you develop your property do a
[2:32:20] substantial development or something
[2:32:21] like that then in that instance we're
[2:32:24] going to you know or you're you know you
[2:32:26] buy a vacant property and you're going
[2:32:28] to
[2:32:28] » Go through and tell people that have
[2:32:30] been had this gate here for 30 years and
[2:32:33] » That and the road being widened and x
[2:32:35] and y and z and everything else. So
[2:32:38] » I think all that has to go into
[2:32:39] » Yeah. into the
[2:32:40] » This for me needs to be seriously
[2:32:42] curtailed and especially where it
[2:32:44] regards the the trail heads as well.
[2:32:46] This is not just the roadways. I
[2:32:48] » Mean I do appreciate the kind of
[2:32:50] defining where things start and stop
[2:32:51] because the other one the one previous
[2:32:53] to this it was kind of ambiguous to
[2:32:55] where that dimension starts like where
[2:32:57] am I measuring from right you know. So
[2:33:00] » Yeah so and that was the old council
[2:33:02] direction. This is the new council. So,
[2:33:05] Vice Mayor Sue, do you have anything to
[2:33:06] add?
[2:33:07] » Yes. Yes. I I would say focus on the
[2:33:10] main roads. Uh, leave the private
[2:33:13] driveways alone. Leave the smaller um,
[2:33:17] you know, intersections alone. Focus on
[2:33:19] what we have consensus. Consensus is
[2:33:22] main roads is a health and safety issue.
[2:33:24] Let's take care of that as we discussed
[2:33:27] and that's the priority. rest can I I
[2:33:31] don't I'm not in the favor of telling
[2:33:33] people how to maintain their sight of
[2:33:35] triangle and their private driveways. I
[2:33:37] I don't think that's in our community
[2:33:40] that's applicable. And also for the
[2:33:43] small side streets coming into the
[2:33:46] letter roads and stuff. I don't think
[2:33:48] that is the priority either. Let's have
[2:33:50] a mirror or something along those lines.
[2:33:53] Let's let's agree to focus on the main
[2:33:55] roads for now. Thank you. Well, to be
[2:33:57] devil's advocate, some of the main
[2:33:59] roads, I'm assuming you're talking about
[2:34:01] any lettered road or level one service
[2:34:03] road that intersects.
[2:34:05] » No, I'm talking about Okichchobee or or
[2:34:07] main those kind of highways intersect
[2:34:10] Okchobee or southern intersecting with
[2:34:13] the letter roads, those corners that
[2:34:16] » I don't think there's any sight triangle
[2:34:17] issue on any one of those. So,
[2:34:19] » Okay. Well, that's a good news.
[2:34:21] » So, then this is this is a a non-issue
[2:34:23] for the town and we should get rid of
[2:34:24] the sight triangle. No, maybe it may be
[2:34:28] then it may be in my view unless unless
[2:34:31] you tell me it's a really health and
[2:34:32] safety issue I think the private
[2:34:35] driveways and all that other stuff in my
[2:34:37] humble view this is not this is a rural
[2:34:40] town we should not be putting those
[2:34:42] things
[2:34:43] » And that that goes back to city people
[2:34:45] coming out here and driving and saying
[2:34:47] it's not safe well nobody out here is
[2:34:49] trying to keep you safe it's there's a
[2:34:50] ditch over there don't drive in it right
[2:34:52] so
[2:34:53] » And you should look both ways There you
[2:34:55] go. So, um I I know we haven't got a
[2:34:59] bunch of public comment on this and and
[2:35:00] we've got Karen at the microphone.
[2:35:02] » That's it.
[2:35:03] » Yeah.
[2:35:05] » Similar to the conversation we had on
[2:35:07] the news, right? Whereas there's
[2:35:09] existing language, we have been
[2:35:11] instructed not to enforce the line of
[2:35:14] the line of sight.
[2:35:17] Um so I guess from from staff's
[2:35:20] perspective, we looking for some
[2:35:22] guidance. Is it as the mayor has said,
[2:35:24] are we looking to remove the language,
[2:35:27] which was my concern and the attorney,
[2:35:30] I'm sure, can take it up more than I
[2:35:31] can, having language in our code and not
[2:35:33] in the boards can, which I'm okay with.
[2:35:36] I'm not saying I'm not. Um, so I just
[2:35:39] want to make sure because we already
[2:35:41] brought it to the
[2:35:43] we gave you their language
[2:35:45] » Based on the direction that you gave
[2:35:47] them from a previous council. But
[2:35:52] » They're very boisterous.
[2:35:54] » I have direction because I want I want
[2:35:56] to address what your concerns are. Is it
[2:35:58] to go back to the ULDC based upon
[2:36:00] discussion in this meeting? Is it to
[2:36:03] remove it and then adopt something
[2:36:05] later, which is what you obviously can
[2:36:07] do. I I
[2:36:10] » I think item one is um we there is
[2:36:14] plenty of language in our code that we
[2:36:17] don't actively enforce. Um we've talked
[2:36:21] about some of it tonight, i.e. how tall
[2:36:24] my grass is, right? That's been in the
[2:36:26] code
[2:36:27] » Or your unsanitary fill
[2:36:28] » Or my unsanitary fill, which I still
[2:36:30] that maybe that's the stuff that comes
[2:36:32] out of the treatment center down in Del
[2:36:34] Re.
[2:36:35] But so I there's plenty of stuff we
[2:36:38] we've taken a stance or actually
[2:36:40] previous councils and we've carried that
[2:36:41] on that the the stance with our code
[2:36:44] enforcement is a health and life safety
[2:36:47] direction, right? Or complaint driven.
[2:36:50] Okay? So we're not going out and we're
[2:36:53] not actively
[2:36:55] correct me if I'm wrong, anybody has a
[2:36:57] different opinion. We're not actively
[2:36:58] going after people for sight line right
[2:37:00] now.
[2:37:01] » Not presently. They did and we we put a
[2:37:04] stop private drives.
[2:37:07] You're you're still enforcing like level
[2:37:10] service road in
[2:37:12] » No. Okay.
[2:37:13] » Yeah. They they stopped it. Was it
[2:37:15] January, right? We stopped. They sent
[2:37:17] out some courtesy letters and we said,
[2:37:20] "Whoa, whoa, whoa."
[2:37:20] » Has there been a rise in accidents and
[2:37:22] driveways and intersections?
[2:37:25] » No. The answer is no.
[2:37:26] » You know, yeah.
[2:37:28] So I think
[2:37:29] » I think with clearing clearing the
[2:37:31] vegetation to the vertical plane that
[2:37:34] that does address quite a bit of it
[2:37:36] again as the roads have encroached. I
[2:37:39] did go up north in E- Road where it was
[2:37:42] paved on that little last little strip.
[2:37:44] » It's an interesting corner. I did speak
[2:37:46] to Craig about it. He had he had he had
[2:37:48] logic. Um I'm not sure I agreed with the
[2:37:50] logic, but there's there was logic. Um
[2:37:53] so but it to me it it's a blind curve.
[2:37:57] There is one of the city. Yeah, the city
[2:37:59] has its own its own bubble mirror
[2:38:02] » Driveway
[2:38:03] » Kind of. Yeah. But, you know, I think
[2:38:08] I'm I'm with get rid of it. Um or
[2:38:11] curtail it back and but I I know safety
[2:38:16] always becomes like the legal buzzword
[2:38:18] and and lawyers lose these things.
[2:38:20] » I I think the argument is there that it
[2:38:22] is safer to have this, right? It is
[2:38:24] because you're as you pull up, you know,
[2:38:27] there are some intersections that, you
[2:38:30] know, private drives where they're more
[2:38:32] challenging than others and people have
[2:38:34] to nudge out and, you know, now that
[2:38:37] it's paved even more so than when it was
[2:38:39] dirt cuz
[2:38:40] » Listen, when I was young, I used to fly.
[2:38:42] I'm not going to lie to you, okay? I had
[2:38:44] a 1978 F250. I drove my dad's truck and
[2:38:48] you know, but people have to nudge out,
[2:38:52] right? So the safe sight corner actually
[2:38:53] helps. So I think maybe we go a
[2:38:57] direction of after said date if you do a
[2:39:01] substantial improvement or if
[2:39:03] » New construction
[2:39:04] » New construction
[2:39:06] we
[2:39:06] » Get rid of substantial improvement.
[2:39:08] Substantial improvement is over 50%.
[2:39:09] Right.
[2:39:10] » Okay.
[2:39:10] » So if you do substantial improvement or
[2:39:12] you say you buy a house it's on 20 acres
[2:39:14] with just a house but then you go put
[2:39:15] this big huge barn.
[2:39:17] » Right.
[2:39:17] » Can I can I weigh in?
[2:39:18] » Right. Um, can we also provide for the
[2:39:21] people that have the current issue
[2:39:24] that we do not we wave the um, what do
[2:39:28] you all call that? A right-of-way
[2:39:29] permit, right? To put to put in a safety
[2:39:33] bubble mirror, convex mirror. Can can we
[2:39:36] have staff wave that?
[2:39:37] » So, in essence, it becomes free, right,
[2:39:40] to put it in if they want to use it for
[2:39:41] from a safety standpoint. So, we've
[2:39:43] provided them an avenue to make their
[2:39:45] driveway more safe to exit.
[2:39:47] » Yeah. I and I would recommend that if
[2:39:51] you want to go that route, I would
[2:39:53] recommend that they still have to
[2:39:54] receive,
[2:39:58] » But we would wave the fee.
[2:39:59] » Yeah.
[2:39:59] » Right.
[2:40:03] » Yes. So,
[2:40:05] » Yeah, I think that that's all part of
[2:40:06] it. I think we go that direction where
[2:40:08] at some point in the future,
[2:40:11] » None of us will be here. Everybody will
[2:40:14] start becoming more compliant and safe,
[2:40:17] right? We're
[2:40:18] gonna go after, you know, no offense.
[2:40:20] We're not gonna go after Karen. She has
[2:40:22] actually nice wide driveway. You can
[2:40:23] kind of see, right? But we're not going
[2:40:26] to go after Ken. We're not gonna go
[2:40:27] after Joe. We're not, you know, and if
[2:40:29] you're on a major letter road, you know,
[2:40:32] Lisa plans next month and you can't see
[2:40:34] your property and you know, you're
[2:40:36] there. We're not going after Lisa
[2:40:38] because there's a, you know, there's not
[2:40:40] a safe sight corner,
[2:40:42] » Right? It's an existing thing. Now if
[2:40:44] you do a substantial improvement
[2:40:46] different scenario kind of like flood
[2:40:49] regulations and things like that right
[2:40:51] so along the same lines because you know
[2:40:55] because and again how much can we
[2:40:57] enforce with an a property
[2:40:59] » But it might not be an egg property
[2:41:00] tomorrow you might sell correct
[2:41:02] » Joe when Joe doesn't want to be
[2:41:04] » Are we okay with what they
[2:41:06] » Because the 10-ft setbacks on fences and
[2:41:08] stuff like that I think that's a little
[2:41:09] intrusive um
[2:41:11] » Yeah you start losing property I mean 10
[2:41:13] foot setback back on my place.
[2:41:15] » Maybe this needs to come back
[2:41:17] » With that caveat that, you know, if it's
[2:41:20] determined to be one that would have
[2:41:23] been deemed for a site triangle, that
[2:41:25] resident can apply for the permit
[2:41:28] without paying the fee, the waiver, the
[2:41:31] new the new site development or
[2:41:34] significant improvement,
[2:41:35] » Right? uh that that way I hate to hold
[2:41:40] people
[2:41:41] like to me that's kind of um what
[2:41:45] happening when people hate you want if
[2:41:47] you want your significant improvement
[2:41:48] permit you got to put in a site trying
[2:41:50] » I know I mean it's it's just part it's
[2:41:52] it's part of the conditions of approval
[2:41:54] right I mean you do significant approval
[2:41:56] significant improvement happens a lot
[2:41:59] right so I I I've or just do do all you
[2:42:02] know new but see if I buy a property
[2:42:04] with a with 20 acres with an existing
[2:42:07] house and I go put up this big honk and
[2:42:10] barn, right? Da da d d d d d d d d d d d
[2:42:12] d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d
[2:42:12] d d d d d d d d d and I'm going to have
[2:42:12] 18 wheel horse trailers coming in out of
[2:42:14] there.
[2:42:15] » Well, you probably driveway anyway,
[2:42:17] » You know, you never know, right? So,
[2:42:21] » So it's like where do you draw that
[2:42:22] line? So, it's you know, we talk about
[2:42:24] equestrian estate planning and we talk
[2:42:26] about all this other stuff that we
[2:42:28] talked about, you know, somebody puts in
[2:42:29] a large nursery, you know, it it it's I
[2:42:34] don't know. I I think there's some
[2:42:35] there's some room there to work with and
[2:42:37] I think we send it back to ULDC and go
[2:42:39] we got a good start but we got some
[2:42:41] better idea. We got some other ideas
[2:42:42] here.
[2:42:43] » Let's throw it in.
[2:42:44] » Y
[2:42:44] » Right.
[2:42:45] » Yeah.
[2:42:45] » Maybe let PZ&B look at it. I don't know.
[2:42:47] » So Manish, did you have anything to add
[2:42:49] to that?
[2:42:54] » No, I'm good. I think I agree. Let's
[2:42:56] just focus on the main problem and let
[2:42:58] it come back later. We have other main
[2:43:00] priorities. Thank you.
[2:43:03] Okay. Okay. Was that
[2:43:06] » Going back to RPC? Did the you know with
[2:43:09] the discussion today allow individuals
[2:43:12] to apply for the rightway permit with no
[2:43:14] fee in order to install the mirrors or
[2:43:16] whatever they feel to help them.
[2:43:19] » I our goal is not to make it less safe,
[2:43:21] right? So if they feel that that's a
[2:43:23] safety something for them to force them
[2:43:25] to pay to put in a convex mirror for
[2:43:27] safety versus I got to hack off these
[2:43:30] two corners of my property that oh by
[2:43:31] the way that was my pasture and now you
[2:43:34] know and I've got little paddics
[2:43:35] whatever right
[2:43:36] » Well it's part of what we're providing
[2:43:38] with the tax dollar right that's
[2:43:40] » Well and it's just waving it we're not
[2:43:42] giving them mirrors right
[2:43:43] » Yeah we'll just only thing we would be
[2:43:45] providing is a standard to the mirror
[2:43:47] » Okay
[2:43:48] » Yeah the specification
[2:43:49] » It would be with a breakaway sign O
[2:43:51] sign, you know, sleeve that we currently
[2:43:53] » You don't want to stop the car when they
[2:43:55] go over the canal make with that.
[2:43:57] » Not to not to complicate, but do not to
[2:43:59] complicate, but do we have the ability
[2:44:00] for them to purchase the sign from the
[2:44:03] mirror from us?
[2:44:04] » No.
[2:44:05] » No.
[2:44:06] » I mean, do there's a kind of
[2:44:09] » I'm just saying that way there's kind of
[2:44:10] a standard across the
[2:44:12] » Is there any public comment on this?
[2:44:13] » Yes, ma'am.
[2:44:14] » I see shaking heads. Thank you.
[2:44:16] » Some interior.
[2:44:16] » No. left out, you know, pulled out of a
[2:44:18] Walgreens after a demolition convex
[2:44:21] terror that's going to rot in two, three
[2:44:23] weeks.
[2:44:23] » That's pretty standard.
[2:44:25] » Who's up first?
[2:44:27] » Tracy Ruffalo.
[2:44:33] » He's cutting into my cocktail hour. I'm
[2:44:35] just saying.
[2:44:36] » Sorry.
[2:44:37] » Oh, right.
[2:44:38] » Wow.
[2:44:42] » Recording out there.
[2:44:45] » Somebody's AI that. Hello. Hello.
[2:44:47] » She So, she joins me at the cocktail
[2:44:49] hour at her cocktail hour, too.
[2:44:52] » Line of sight. I think the line of sight
[2:44:54] issue has totally gotten out of control.
[2:44:57] I support addressing a real visibility
[2:44:59] hazard when one actually exists. What I
[2:45:02] do not support is creating a proactive
[2:45:04] enforcement system that sends staff out
[2:45:06] through town looking for theoretical
[2:45:08] violations involving mature trees,
[2:45:10] shrubs, fences, gates, driveways,
[2:45:12] trails, and landscaping on private
[2:45:14] property. This started with a townwide
[2:45:17] sweep.
[2:45:19] The workshop packet states the town
[2:45:21] staff conducted a a townwide review of
[2:45:23] line of sight violations and sent
[2:45:25] courtesy notices to approximately 30
[2:45:27] properties. The packet does not say
[2:45:29] those 30 properties were identified
[2:45:31] because of 30 resident complaints,
[2:45:33] accidents, or documented safety
[2:45:35] incidents. Councelor later directed
[2:45:38] staff to stop enforcing the line of
[2:45:40] sight regulations and send the issue
[2:45:41] back for review. Here we are back at
[2:45:43] reviewing. My first question is simple.
[2:45:46] What actual problem are we trying to
[2:45:48] solve?
[2:45:50] Lots of questions. How many crashes,
[2:45:52] near misses, emergency access problems,
[2:45:55] or resident complaints have actually
[2:45:56] been caused by these sight triangle
[2:45:58] conditions? Of the approximate 30
[2:46:01] properties identified by staff, how many
[2:46:03] came from an actual complaint or
[2:46:05] documented safety incident? And how many
[2:46:07] were found simply because staff
[2:46:09] conducted a townwide review?
[2:46:11] What happens to a mature tree that has
[2:46:13] existed so safely for decades? Are
[2:46:16] existing trees, gates, fences, and
[2:46:18] landscaping grandfathered? What happens
[2:46:20] with irregular driveways or old access
[2:46:23] points that are no longer used? If the
[2:46:25] town expanded or widened a road, changed
[2:46:28] the edge of pavement, altered drainage,
[2:46:30] or otherwise changed a resident's
[2:46:32] frontage, why should that same property
[2:46:34] owner be cited because an existing tree,
[2:46:37] hedge, fence, gate, or landscaping now
[2:46:39] falls within a sight triangle? If the
[2:46:41] town created a worsen if the town
[2:46:43] created or worsened the condition, why
[2:46:46] should the resident automatically bear
[2:46:47] the cost of correcting it? If the
[2:46:50] roadway, equestrian trails, and greenway
[2:46:52] committee believe the existing 10-ft
[2:46:54] line of sight was sufficient or rider
[2:46:55] visibility in overall safety, why are we
[2:46:58] making the regulation more complicated?
[2:47:00] Why should council direct staff to draft
[2:47:02] an ordinance before the town attorney
[2:47:03] determines whether the proposed language
[2:47:05] could be could be prohibited as a more
[2:47:08] restrictive or burdensome land
[2:47:10] development regulation under SP 180.
[2:47:13] The proposed rule goes much further than
[2:47:15] a simple safety standard. The proposed
[2:47:18] language regulates parking spaces,
[2:47:20] signs, walls, fences, hedges, shrubs,
[2:47:22] trees, earth mounds, natural growth, and
[2:47:24] other obstructions within the sight
[2:47:26] triangle.
[2:47:27] It establishes a clear zone between 30
[2:47:30] in and 8 ft. Trees within the clear
[2:47:33] sight triangle are proposed to have a
[2:47:34] minimum of 8 ft of clear trunk.
[2:47:36] Shrubbery is limited to a maximum mature
[2:47:39] height of 30 in. The proposal also
[2:47:42] includes setbacks for landscaping from
[2:47:44] roadway and driveway pavement. This is a
[2:47:47] significant level of control over
[2:47:48] private property, especially in a rural
[2:47:51] agricultural community where mature
[2:47:52] trees, natural vegetation, and unusual
[2:47:55] driveways, canals, trails, and older
[2:47:57] properties layouts are very common. Town
[2:48:00] pro town road projects are existing.
[2:48:06] This is one of my biggest concerns.
[2:48:09] » Town has expanded.
[2:48:16] there.
[2:48:17] » Uh, one of my biggest concerns, the town
[2:48:19] has expanded and altered roads over
[2:48:21] time. When that happens, the
[2:48:22] relationship between the roadway, the
[2:48:24] edgement of pavement, the right of way,
[2:48:26] a driveway, and existing trees, fences,
[2:48:28] gates, and landscaping change. A
[2:48:31] resident may have had a tree, hedge,
[2:48:33] fence, or gate in the same location for
[2:48:35] years without creating a documented
[2:48:37] safety problem. If a town road project
[2:48:39] later changed that frontage, it's
[2:48:41] unacceptable that to turn around and
[2:48:43] site the property owner simply because
[2:48:45] the town's work changed where the site
[2:48:46] triangle is measured or how close the
[2:48:48] roadway is to an existing feature.
[2:48:50] Before any citations are issued, the
[2:48:52] town should determine whether the
[2:48:54] alleged condition existed before the
[2:48:56] road project, whether the town's work
[2:48:58] created the or worsened the issue, or
[2:49:01] whether the there is an actual
[2:49:03] documented visibility hazard at that
[2:49:05] location. If the town contributed to
[2:49:07] creating the problem, the answer should
[2:49:08] be work with the property owner on a
[2:49:10] reasonable solution, not penalize the
[2:49:12] resident or make them pay or correct the
[2:49:14] condition caused or worsened by a town
[2:49:16] project. The committee themselves raised
[2:49:19] these concerns. The workshop packet
[2:49:22] showed that the ULDC committee discussed
[2:49:23] how old trees should be treated, whether
[2:49:26] they should be grandfathered, how
[2:49:27] irregular shaped driveways should be
[2:49:28] handled or whether unused access points
[2:49:30] should have been and or should have
[2:49:33] comply should have to comply with the
[2:49:35] line of sight requirements. The roadway,
[2:49:37] equestrian, trails, and greenway
[2:49:38] committee also concluded that the
[2:49:40] existing 10-ft line of sight appeared
[2:49:42] sufficient for rider visibility and
[2:49:44] overall safety. The uldc recommendation
[2:49:47] al ultimately passed by a 3 to2 vote. My
[2:49:50] position, if there is an actual
[2:49:52] visibility complaint, investigate it. If
[2:49:55] there's a genuine and documented safety
[2:49:57] hazard, contact the property owner and
[2:49:59] work with them to correct it. Do not
[2:50:01] conduct a townwide sweep looking for
[2:50:03] violations where nobody has complained
[2:50:04] and no safety incident has occurred. Do
[2:50:07] not force residents to remove or alter
[2:50:09] mature trees, shrubs, fences, gates, or
[2:50:12] landscaping without first providing the
[2:50:14] actual safety that there is an actual
[2:50:16] safety hazard that exists. Do not create
[2:50:19] new burdens for residents before we know
[2:50:21] the proposed ordinance is actually legal
[2:50:24] legally permissible. So, what can
[2:50:26] council do tonight, which I think you
[2:50:28] guys have already done? Um, this the
[2:50:30] memorandum specifically gives council
[2:50:32] the option to direct staff to draft an
[2:50:34] ordinance or to take no further action.
[2:50:36] I believe council should take no further
[2:50:38] action unless and until staff can
[2:50:41] demonstrate an actual safety problem
[2:50:43] that exists that existing rules and a
[2:50:45] complaint driven approach cannot
[2:50:47] address. In closing, we should not
[2:50:49] create violations first and then go
[2:50:51] looking for people who fit them. Code
[2:50:53] enforcement should solve real problems,
[2:50:55] not manufacture work for itself. And
[2:50:57] when a town road project has changed a
[2:50:59] resident's frontage, we should not make
[2:51:01] that resident the problem. Show us the
[2:51:03] accidents, show us the complaints, show
[2:51:05] us the documented safety problem, and we
[2:51:08] can decide whether additional regulation
[2:51:09] is actually necessary. Thanks. Thank
[2:51:12] you.
[2:51:13] » Next card is um Virginia Standish.
[2:51:16] » Well, Miss Standish is walking up. Just
[2:51:18] for the record, um staff has removed the
[2:51:20] photos off Thank you. the website.
[2:51:25] » And was Karen going to comment or did
[2:51:26] she leave?
[2:51:29] Okay.
[2:51:32] Who else do we have after Miss Standish?
[2:51:34] » Assucci.
[2:51:35] » Okay, thank you.
[2:51:37] » Okay,
[2:51:38] » Virginia Standish. So, a couple key
[2:51:41] points I've heard tonight. Um, but one I
[2:51:44] didn't hear is uh and maybe you've
[2:51:47] discussed it in the past. What is the
[2:51:50] town legally required to do when two
[2:51:53] roads intersect regarding line of sight?
[2:51:57] Are there legal requirements? I think
[2:52:00] going forward when this comes back, I'd
[2:52:02] like to hear that as a member of the
[2:52:03] public, you have council to answer that
[2:52:05] question. What are the legal
[2:52:07] requirements for line of sight when two
[2:52:10] roads come together?
[2:52:12] If there's bushes there, do you put a
[2:52:14] height restriction? Okay. Um,
[2:52:18] just asking what the rule the legal
[2:52:20] rules are, not giving an opinion on
[2:52:23] that. Um, mirrors, we talked about a
[2:52:26] standard for mirrors. So my question
[2:52:28] would be uh the mirrors, should that be
[2:52:32] on the property owner site or are you
[2:52:34] talking about putting them on the canal
[2:52:37] bank where mowers are trying to go and
[2:52:39] you're going to have all these mirrors.
[2:52:41] So is it is it just as efficient? What
[2:52:45] is the research show? Let's not just run
[2:52:48] out and do something to say we did
[2:52:50] something. Let's we're trying to revamp
[2:52:52] this town to be efficient, safe. Let's
[2:52:55] take the time to research this. Are
[2:52:57] those mirrors better placed
[2:52:59] strategically several feet down the
[2:53:02] property owner's side to see what's
[2:53:04] coming and going? And maybe they need
[2:53:06] two mirrors, not just one instead of
[2:53:08] having it on the canal bank. Again,
[2:53:10] let's take the time to get these answers
[2:53:13] regarding this going back to the ULDC.
[2:53:17] Please strike any unnecessary language
[2:53:20] to sit here and listen and say, "Well,
[2:53:21] this council says we know we have
[2:53:23] language, but we're not going to enforce
[2:53:24] it." Well, thank you, but there's people
[2:53:29] coming behind you and the present status
[2:53:31] of the roads today does not indicate the
[2:53:34] future. So, if there's if it's going
[2:53:38] back to the ULDC, please strike any
[2:53:40] unnecessary language and let's not count
[2:53:42] on oh well maybe code we're going to
[2:53:45] tell code not to enforce that. Well, who
[2:53:47] knows who's going to be doing our code
[2:53:48] and if we go back to Palm Beach County,
[2:53:51] they don't care what you you got this on
[2:53:54] the books. this is what we got to go by.
[2:53:55] I'm a code enforcement officer and I
[2:53:58] believe they're licensed and civily
[2:53:59] liable for any issues is my
[2:54:02] understanding.
[2:54:04] Um, so I'd be real careful on we're not
[2:54:08] going to enforce and just remove
[2:54:09] unnecessary language. As far as private
[2:54:12] properties, yes, existing properties,
[2:54:15] why are we going back and asking them to
[2:54:18] redo stuff if especially if they're on
[2:54:20] the intersection? great points on new
[2:54:23] construction,
[2:54:24] but
[2:54:26] the this is the part where I'm trying
[2:54:27] not to laugh or be sarcastic.
[2:54:30] 20 days to get something done.
[2:54:33] I'm going to say it. I challenge this
[2:54:35] town to get anything done in 20 days.
[2:54:37] Thank you very much.
[2:54:40] » Thank you,
[2:54:42] Cassie. Cassie,
[2:54:48] we're putting you on the clock this time
[2:54:50] so we can get out of here at 8:30.
[2:54:53] » Well, shorter shorter.
[2:54:57] » Um, so, you know, the agenda packet for
[2:55:01] uh the sighteline should really include
[2:55:03] um accident analysis, engineering
[2:55:07] studies, or evidence that show
[2:55:08] collisions involving private driveways.
[2:55:10] and that sightelines were the uh reason.
[2:55:13] So, I didn't see that in there. Now, one
[2:55:16] of the things I wanted to mention, we
[2:55:17] need to be very careful because we hear
[2:55:19] it all the time using that catch all
[2:55:21] health and safety. Health and safety
[2:55:23] should be a standard supported by facts,
[2:55:26] not something used to uh uh broaden the
[2:55:29] authority of code enforcement.
[2:55:33] And it when you are looking and this
[2:55:34] goes out to Karen when she's reviewing
[2:55:36] her ordinance basically you need to ask
[2:55:39] yourself are you doing a blanket
[2:55:41] ordinance for everyone are we
[2:55:43] documenting crashes in locks of hatchy
[2:55:45] groves that have been caused by
[2:55:47] inadequate visibility from private
[2:55:49] residential driveways how many of those
[2:55:51] have been there should be some document
[2:55:53] otherwise it didn't occur because
[2:55:56] everything's based on evidence we have
[2:55:57] to base it on evidence government has
[2:55:59] good intentions but without evidence you
[2:56:01] can't prove
[2:56:03] What engineering studies have been done
[2:56:04] showing that private driveways need
[2:56:06] regulating?
[2:56:08] What public safety benefit will be
[2:56:10] achieved by continuing or expanding
[2:56:12] these restrictions onto private
[2:56:13] property?
[2:56:16] And why can't documented hazards be
[2:56:19] addressed individually instead of a
[2:56:20] blanket for everybody? So ask yourself
[2:56:23] those questions, answer those questions
[2:56:25] and include any of the engineer studies
[2:56:29] um
[2:56:31] uh any of the engineer studies or any of
[2:56:33] the problems in the actual packet so
[2:56:35] that the council has all that
[2:56:37] information. Thanks.
[2:56:39] » Thank you.
[2:56:41] » Gee, she was quick.
[2:56:44] So So hopefully that was clear as mud.
[2:56:47] Zack, Zach, welcome to our circus. Um,
[2:56:51] and uh, anybody have any closing
[2:56:54] comments for staff?
[2:56:58] » I'd like to say I like that seems like
[2:57:00] for the most part the last two things,
[2:57:04] everything we said was regurgitated to
[2:57:05] us. So, it sounds like we're
[2:57:07] » We're being heard.
[2:57:08] » We're being heard, that we're on par
[2:57:10] with what's going with feeling is coming
[2:57:12] from there. So, um, yeah. No, it's it's
[2:57:15] exciting to see that, you know, things
[2:57:17] are, you know, Yeah. It's not just we're
[2:57:19] up here saying what we're saying and
[2:57:21] nobody's realizing it. So, thank you
[2:57:23] ladies for being here tonight.
[2:57:24] » Yes. Thank you.
[2:57:25] » Appreciate it.
[2:57:27] » I was going to say same thing. Thank you
[2:57:28] for everybody just for your comments.
[2:57:30] » All right, Vice Mayor Sud.
[2:57:32] » Yes, thank you all. We appreciate it.
[2:57:34] Appreciate the residents who are staying
[2:57:35] late and uh giving us all these uh
[2:57:38] valuable inputs. Thank you. Bye-bye.
[2:57:40] » Yes. Thank you. Um I I just have two
[2:57:43] little requests. I know they're probably
[2:57:45] not little, but can we get the strategic
[2:57:46] plan on our first October agenda? Um I I
[2:57:50] had shared some documentation of of what
[2:57:52] I compiled and um I I I think that's
[2:57:56] going to be very important as we go
[2:57:58] forward with some of our financial stuff
[2:58:00] and and some of the other things we've
[2:58:01] talked about tonight and uh council
[2:58:04] rules as soon as possible council
[2:58:06] policy. I know staff had talked to me
[2:58:08] about it, you know, getting back in
[2:58:09] front of us again. So that would be it.
[2:58:11] Thank you staff for coming. Thank you
[2:58:13] everybody. Do I have a motion to
[2:58:15] adjurnn?
[2:58:17] » Counc.
[2:58:21] » All those in favor?
[2:58:22] » I
[2:58:22] » I
[2:58:24] » I
[2:58:24] » Opposed. Hearing none. Motion passes 4
[2:58:27] zero. Thank you.