[00:00:10]
>>> CALL TO ORDER THE APRIL 5, 2022, CITY COMMISSION WORKSHOP.
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. >> MAYOR LEDNOVICH.
>> HERE. >> VICE MAYOR KREGER.
>> HERE. >> COMMISSIONER ROSS.
>> HERE. >> COMMISSIONER BEAN.
>> HERE. >> PERSONAL DEVICES, TURN THEM ON SILENT, TURN THEM ON AIRPLANE, TURN THEM OFF, PLEASE.
GREATLY APPRECIATE IT. AS WEIRD AS THIS SOUNDS, WE ARE STILL UNDER COVID-19 GUIDELINES. AS ALWAYS TAKE WHATEVER MEASURES YOU DEEM NECESSARY TO PROTECT YOUR HEALTH AND THE HEALTH OF OTHERS. AND FINALLY ON DECORUM, WE WILL
[3.1 MARINA DEBT ]
HAVE INTEGRITY AND RESPECT AND CONDUCT OURSELVES IN A PROFESSIONAL MANNER. ITEM THREE DISCUSSION.3.1 MARINA DEBT. AND CITY MANAGER, I BELIEVE YOU HAVE A FEW WORDS TO SAY ABOUT THIS.
>> GOOD MORNING, GENTLEMEN. THIS IS PLACED ON THE AGENDA AT THE REQUEST OF THE CITY COMMISSION.
ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT THE CITY HAS HAD TO CONFRONT IS A ONE DAY, YEAR END LOAN TO BOTH THE GOLF COURSE AND THE MARINA IN ORDER TO BALANCE THE BUDGET FOR THE ANNUAL OPERATIONS.
THEN THE NEXT DAY THAT'S DONE AT THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR.
THEN THAT MONEY GOES BACK AND THAT IS REFERRED TO AS AN ACCUMULATED CASH DEFICIT. WE HAVE MADE EFFORTS TO ADDRESS THE CASH DEFICIT BEFORE WITH WHAT IS COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS THE STANTECH PLAN. THERE WAS NO DESIRE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT PLAN SO THIS IS ANOTHER OPTION.
MR. DESIREE HAS OFFERED A BRIEF PRESENTATION TO DEMONSTRATE THAT IF YOU DO PROCEED WITH THIS BUDGET TRANSFER IT WILL HAVE NORMAL IMPACT ON THE UTILITY REFER RESERVES TO MEET THEIR EXPECTED CAPITAL EXPENDITURES. THE AUDITOR IS ALSO HERE TONIGHT FOR A DIFFERENT ISSUE. BUT HE WILL BE AVAILABLE TO OFFER SOME ADDITIONAL INSIGHT INTO THE AUDITOR'S PERSPECTIVE.
THERE'S NO ACTION ASKED FOR THIS EVENING.
BUT IT IS SCHEDULED THE NEXT CITY COMMISSION AGENDA.
I'LL CALL MR. DESIREE UP TO OFFER HIS PRESENTATION.
THANK YOU. >> GOOD EVENING, MR. MAYOR AND
COMMISSIONERS. >> CAN YOU STATE YOUR NAME AND
POSITION FOR THE RECORD. >> ABSOLUTELY.
>> THANK YOU, SIR. >> APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY JUST TO KIND OF GO OVER SOME BASIC INFORMATION OF UTILITIES AND THEN KIND OF GIVE YOU AN UPDATE ON FINANCIAL STATUS AND OUR OUTLOOK IN THE NEXT TEN YEARS FOR OUR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS. STATISTICS, WE HAVE 9604 TOTAL WATER ACCOUNTS, 8607 TOTAL WASTEWATER ACCOUNTS.
YOU SEE THE BREAKDOWN BETWEEN CITY AND COUNTY.
OBVIOUSLY THE SERVICE AREA IS LARGER THAN THE INCORPORATED CITY. AND YOU CAN SEE THE REVENUE BREAKDOWN FOR THOSE PROPERTIES. WE'RE LOOKING AT ANNUAL REVENUE OF JUST OVER $10 MILLION. AND THE PORTION OF THAT COMES FROM NASSAU COUNTY. AS INDICATED IN THE BOTTOM, THERE'S COUNTY CUSTOMERS WE KNOW PAY A 25% SURCHARGE.
THAT AMOUNTED LAST YEAR TO $265,000 FOR THAT PARTICULAR ITEM. THIS IS JUST KIND OF A YEARLY BREAKDOWN OF OUR REVENUE AND EXPENSES BASED ON THE BEGINNING OF THIS FISCAL YEAR, JUST OVER $10 MILLION REVENUE ON OPERATING EXPENSES AT 6.85 MILLION. THE CURRENT GENERAL FUND TRANSFER IS $540,000 IN THE GENERAL FUND.
[00:05:02]
DEBT SERVICE 1.91 MILLION. AND THAT'S THE AVAILABLE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET OF $2.11 MILLION.AS OF THE BEGINNING OF THIS FISCAL YEAR, THE RESERVE BALANCE IS IN THREE MAIN UTILITY ACCOUNTS.
WTER ACCOUNT IS 5.36 MILLION. WASTEWATER IS 4.64.
AND WASTEWATER IMPROVEMENTS ACCOUNT IS 8.89.
AND THAT'S A SEPARATE ACCOUNT THAT WAS SET UP TO PLAN FOR LONG TERM AND SOME OF THE MORE COSTLY UPGRADES AND EXPENSES ASSOCIATED WITH WASTEWATER SYSTEM. $1.5 MILLION IN THE WASTEWATER BUDGET TO THE IMPROVEMENTS ACCOUNT.
SO IT'S BASICALLY A SAVINGS ACCOUNT FOR THESE LONG-TERM
>> GIVE YOU AN IDEA ON THE CURRENT DEBT, BASED ON THE INFORMATION FROM COMPTROLLER, CURRENT DEBT IS AT $23 MILLION AND THAT STEMS FROM THE PURCHASE OF THE WATER UTILITY FROM FPU IN 2002. AND ADDITIONAL BOND TAKEN OUT FOR WASTEWATER PLANT UPGRADES AND CAPACITY.
IT'S ABOUT A $2.5 MILLION ANNUAL PAYMENT AND THAT WILL BE PAID BACK IN 2033. SO JUST OUTSIDE OF OUR TENURED PLANNING HORIZON. AND THE COLLECTION OF IMPACT FEES GOES TOWARDS THAT DEBT SERVICE.
THE IMPACT WAS CALCULATED BASED ON THE CAPACITY TO REPAY THOSE BOND DEBTS. SO THE MAJORITY OF THAT COMES OUT OF THESE IMPACT FEES. OVER THE NEXT TEN YEARS WHAT WE'VE LOOKED AT IS ABOUT A $3.5 MILLION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET. WE'RE REALLY FOCUSED ON ASSET MANAGEMENT AND LOOKING AT THE ENTIRETY OF THE WASTEWATER SYSTEMS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT LIFE EXPECTANCY OF OUR ASSETS AND PROPER MAINTENANCE AND REPLACEMENT.
SO THAT'S WHAT'S TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT WITH THESE BUDGET PROJECTIONS. AT THE CURRENT FUNDING TRANSFER RATE, THAT WILL REDUCE OUR OVERALL RESERVE TO $8.5 MILLION AT THE END OF THIS TEN YEARS. AND THEN THE CURRENT DEBT WILL BE REPAID IN 2033. THAT DEBT SERVICE CAPITAL TO REPLENISH THE RESERVE AND CONTINUE OUR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS. SO CURRENTLY THE RESERVE BUDGET IS AROUND $19 MILLION RESERVE FUNDING.
THIS IS THE PROJECTION OVER THE NEXT TEN YEARS.
BLUE LINE REPRESENTS THE RESERVE BALANCE.
THE GREEN LINE REPRESENTS THE RESERVE BALANCE IF THE DEBT IS ABSOLVED AND THAT CASH TRANSFER TAKES PLACE.
IN THIS CASE THE BOTTOM GOLD LINE IS OUR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT YEARLY SPENDING. SO THE ONLY TIME WE'RE COMING CLOSE TO APPROACHING THAT IS IN 2031.
THIS IS JUST THE CURRENT RATE OF OUR RESERVE INCREASE.
WE DO GENERALLY RUN SURPLUS BUDGET OVER THE FISCAL YEAR.
SO IT DOES ACCUMULATE AND BASED ON THIS I THINK WE CAN ABSORB THAT LOSS TO THE RESERVE AND NOT COMPROMISE OUR OPERATION AND LONG-TERM FUNDS. I KIND OF WANTED TO KEEP IT SHORT. ANY QUESTIONS?
>> MR. MAYOR. >> WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE RESERVE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS, DOES THAT INCLUDE THE RESERVE
FOR DISASTER ISSUES? >> WE DON'T HAVE IT EARMARKED
FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE. >> YOU'RE TALKING CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENTS RIGHT NOW? >> YES.
>> MY QUESTION IS BASICALLY IF YOU PAY THIS MONEY, IF WE GIVE THIS MONEY AWAY, OR WE WASH AWAY THE DEBT OF THE MARINA WHAT
[00:10:02]
YOU'RE SAYING IS IT WON'T AFFECT OUR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.MY QUESTION IS WHERE IS DISASTER RECOVERY IN THERE?
ARE WE THINKING ABOUT THAT? >> WE ARE.
THERE IS A MANDATORY -- WHAT'S THE PERCENTAGE IN OUR RESERVE FOR OUR BOND? THERE IS A MINIMUM RESERVE FOR THAT. THE REASON I PROVIDE THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET IS BECAUSE RIGHT NOW OUR IMPROVEMENT BUDGET EXCEEDS OUR, IT'S GOING TO CUT INTO OUR RESERVE EVERY YEAR.
>> YOU SEE WHAT I'M SAYING, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WHEN THIS IS DISCUSSED THAT WE'RE NOT FORGETTING THE RISK OF SHOULD THERE BE A CATASTROPHIC PROBLEM THAT WE CAN RECOVER.
>> THAT SHOULD NOT BE A PROBLEM. NONE OF THAT IS I THINK GOING TO HAVE TO BE A CASH OUTLAY FOR IF WE HAVE TO REBUILD A SIGNIFICANT
PORTION OF THE SYSTEM. >> THEN WE WOULD BORROW MONEY
THAT WE'RE GIVING AWAY. >> IF WE GOT INTO THAT
CATASTROPHIC. >> WOULD YOU GO BACK A SLIDE?
>> YES. >> SO THAT WOULD BE OUR RESERVE AFTER WE REDUCE THE DEBT OR AFTER WE FORGAVE --
>> NO, THAT'S PRIOR TO THE FORGIVENESS.
SO THAT 8.5 IS THE BLUE LINE. SO LIKE 3.9.
>> SO YOU'RE COMFORTABLE? >> YES, I THINK THIS IS THE
WORST CASE SCENARIO. >> SO QUESTION FOR CITY MANAGER, WHY ARE WE FORGIVING THE MARINA DEBT AND NOT THE GOLF COURSE
DEBT? >> THE GOLF COURSE DEBT, THIS DISCUSSION FOLKS IS ON THE MARINA, BUT YES WHEN IT'S PRESENTED TO YOU NEXT MONTH OR THE NEXT MEETING, IT WILL INCLUDE THE GOLF COURSE. THAT'S WHY WHAT WE'RE DEMONSTRATING IS THE MARINA DEBT, I DON'T LIKE USING THE WORD DEBT BECAUSE THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ACCUMULATED CASH DEFICIT AND ACTUAL FORMAL DEBT.
WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT TRANSFERRING MONEY TO ELIMINATE THE ACCUMULATED CASH DEFICIT IS ABOUT $3 MILLION FOR THE MARINA AND $1.3 MILLION FOR THE GOLF COURSE.
WHAT THE LINES SHOW IS ACTUALLY A DIFFERENCE OF 5 MILLION.
SO WHAT WILL BE PRESENTED TO YOU AT THE CITY COMMISSION IS YES, WE'LL REDUCE THE DEBT FOR THE MARINA, WE SHOULD ALSO DO IT FOR
THE GOLF COURSE AS WELL. >> AND THEN SAY THAT'S ALL DONE, AS THEY ACCUMULATE MORE DEBT WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO?
>> WE'RE NOT GOING TO ACCUMULATE MORE.
WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO ANYMORE OF THE ACCUMULATED CASH DEFICIT.
AND WE'RE GOING TO TAKE WHATEVER ACTIONS ARE NECESSARY TO HAVE THAT HANDLED, CORRECT. ONCE WE FINISH THIS, NO GOING
BACK. >> ANDRE, I HAVE A QUESTION.
WE HAD BACK TO BACK HURRICANES, MATTHEW AND IRMA.
WHAT WAS THE RECOVERY COST? >> FOR THE UTILITIES, I DON'T BELIEVE THERE WAS SIGNIFICANT RECOVERY COSTS.
THE PLANTS WERE NEVER TAKEN OUT OF SERVICE.
THERE WAS NO MAJOR DAMAGE TO ANY FACILITIES.
I DON'T BELIEVE WE, OTHER THAN EMERGENCY STAFFING DURING THE EVENT, I DON'T BELIEVE THERE WAS SIGNIFICANT RECOVERY COSTS.
>> SO BASED ON OUR RESERVES WHICH THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO OTHER THAN OUR UTILITY RESERVES FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS.
BUT BASED ON OUR RESERVES, ARE ALL OF THE OPERATING PLANTS, THE SEWER PLANT, THE WATER PLANT, WHEN WILL BE THE NEXT LARGE EXPENDITURE THAT WOULD COME OUT OF RESERVES THAT YOU FORESEE?
>> IN THE NEXT TEN YEARS WE DO HAVE SOME SIGNIFICANT EXPENSES.
SENATE BILL 64 THAT WAS PASSED THIS PAST YEAR REQUIRES THAT IN THE NEXT TEN YEARS WE ELIMINATE OUR SURFACE WATER DISCHARGE.
SO THAT IS GOING TO REQUIRE SOME SIGNIFICANT PLANT UPGRADES.
WE'RE LOOKING AT ABOUT AN $8 MILLION PRICE TAG.
EARLY ESTIMATES WE'RE STILL IN THE IN THE PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDIES. BUT THAT'S TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE IMPROVEMENT BUDGET OVER SEVERAL YEARS BECAUSE IT'S GOING
[00:15:03]
TO BE A LONG PROCESS. >> CURRENTLY WHERE IS THAT
DISCHARGE? >> TO THE -- RIVER.
>> THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT. >> I'M SORRY, COMMISSIONER.
IS THAT A QUALITY OF WATER, YOU'RE BEING DISCHARGED OR
ELIMINATING THE DISCHARGE? >> THE SENATE BILL PAINTED EVERY WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT WITH THE SAME REQUIREMENTS.
SURFACE WATER DISCHARGE MUST BE COMPLETELY ELIMINATED EXCEPT UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES IT'S STILL ALLOWED BY 2032.
>> SORRY. >> THAT'S ALL RIGHT.
YEAH, I KNEW THAT THERE WAS A DISCHARGE AND IT'S BEEN LIKE THAT. BUT I DIDN'T KNOW THAT WE HAD TO DO AWAY WITH IT SO THAT'S INTERESTING.
>> AND IF I CAN INTERRUPT, COMMISSIONER STURGES, WE ARE WORKING WITH THE STATE BECAUSE THAT IS A LITTLE BIT OVER THE HORIZON. FOR THE LISTENERS, THE WATER THAT WE DISCHARGE FROM THE WASTEWATER PLANT IS ACTUALLY CLEANER THAN THE WATER THAT'S IN THE RIVER.
>> OH YEAH. >> THIS IS AS WE'VE TALKED ABOUT BEFORE WITH RESILIENCY AND SEAWATER RISE, THIS IS A SOUTH FLORIDA PROBLEM THAT IS BEING UNIFORMLY STANDARDIZED TO OUR WASTEWATER. WE HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THE QUALITY OF OUR DISCHARGE INTO THE AMELIA RIVER AND WE WILL HAVE TO AS THINGS STAY THE WAY THEY ARE, WE WILL HAVE TO BEAR A SIGNIFICANT FINANCIAL BURDEN TO STOP DISCHARGING THAT WATER INTO THE RIVER AND USE IT SOME PLACE ELSE.
>> RIGHT, BASICALLY WE'LL HAVE TO RECYCLE AND EITHER IRRIGATE OR RECYCLE AND DO SOMETHING WITH IT.
>> RIGHT. >> SO WE WILL WORK TO FIND OUT IF WE CAN COVER SOME EXEMPTIONS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
THAT'S ON A HIGH PRIORITY LIST FOR US TO TALK WITH OUR
LEGISLATURE. >> ANDRE, YOU SAID 3.5 MILLION IS BASICALLY WHAT WE'RE, IT'S THE DEFICIT THAT WE'RE HAVING ON
THIS EVERY YEAR. >> NO, RIGHT NOW WHERE IT STANDS WITH THE GOLF COURSE AND THE MARINA IS ABOUT 4.3, 4 AND A HALF. AND TO ADDRESS THE GOLD LINE PUT ON HERE, THIS I BELIEVE COUNTS FOR THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS TO WHICH HE WAS REFERRING. SO THAT'S DONE ON AN ONGOING BASIS. THAT SHOWS YOU WE CAN DO THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS REFERRED TO WITHOUT JEOPARDIZING THE ABILITY
TO DO THOSE IMPROVEMENTS. >> OKAY.
>> COMMISSIONER BEAN. >> THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR.
ANDRE, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU.
SOMETHING I WANT TO MAKE CLEAR TO THE PEOPLE LISTENING RIGHT NOW, IS WHEN WE SAY DEBT FOR THE MARINA, WE DON'T ACTUALLY MEAN DEBT. WHAT WE MEAN IS WE OWE ANOTHER CITY DEPARTMENT. SO ONE CITY DEPARTMENT OWES ANOTHER CITY DEPARTMENT THIS AMOUNT OF MONEY.
OWING THE UTILITIES FUNDS THIS AMOUNT OF MONEY.
MY QUESTION IS BECAUSE OF THE WAY THAT WORKS, DO WE ACTUALLY HAVE CURRENTLY AS THE BLUE LINE WOULD STATE FOR THIS YEAR, $19 MILLION SITTING IN A BANK ACCOUNT, BECAUSE WOULD THAT BE LIKE ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE WHERE WE HAVE THAT $5 MILLION OWED TO US AS ADDING TO THAT QUOTE UNQUOTE RESERVE BECAUSE THAT WOULD MAKE SENSE, RIGHT? OR DO WE ACTUALLY HAVE THE $19 MILLION IN CASH PAYING OFF THE DEBT BECAUSE WE DON'T OWE IT TO ANY CREDITOR, WE OWE IT TO OURSELVES.
THAT'S MY QUESTION, DO WE HAVE THAT AMOUNT OF MONEY WITH US, OR IS IT JUST AN OWED AMOUNT OF MONEY FROM THE ENTERPRISE FUNDS?
>> I BELIEVE THAT IS AN ACCOUNT THAT THE CITY --
>> PLEASE COME TO THE LECTERN. >> PAULINE, CITY COMPTROLLER.
WHAT IT'S DOING IS WE HAVE A NEGATIVE CASH BALANCE IN ONE FUND AND WE HAVE A POSITIVE CASH BALANCE IN ANOTHER.
SO WE JUST MAKE A JOURNAL ENTRY TO SHOW WE DON'T WANT TO SHOW A
NEGATIVE CASH BALANCE. >> I UNDERSTAND SO BECAUSE THERE'S A NEGATIVE CASH BALANCE EQUAL AND OPPOSITE TO THIS POSITIVE CASH BALANCE, AS A WHOLE OUR CITY ACTUALLY DOESN'T
HAVE THAT MONEY AT ALL. >> IF YOU LOOK AT THE CITY IN A TOTAL, YOU MIGHT HAVE A NEGATIVE WITH ONE FUND AND A POSITIVE WITH ANOTHER. BUT TOTAL CASH FOR THE CITY IS ONE. IT'S JUST HOW YOU'RE BREAKING IT OUT. DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION?
>> IT DOES ANSWER MY QUESTION. SO MY QUESTION WOULD BE LIKE I DON'T KNOW WHERE OUR CITY ACTUALLY BANKS.
BUT WE HAVE NO CHECKING ACCOUNT THAT HAS THIS $4.5 MILLION IN IT BECAUSE IT'S OWED MONEY TO ANOTHER ACCOUNT.
[00:20:02]
DOES THAT MAKE SENSE IN AN ACCOUNTING -->> SO WE HAVE ONE CHECKING ACCOUNT.
>> RIGHT. >> AND WE CALL IT POOLED CASH.
BUT THEN WE HAVE ALL OF THESE SUB LEDGERS UNDERNEATH IT.
AND THE MARINA AND THE GOLF COURSE HAVE MINUSES IN THEM.
>> I UNDERSTAND. >> SO WE ALL SHARE IN ONE BANK
ACCOUNT. >> PERFECT, THAT'S MY QUESTION.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I APPRECIATE THAT.
AND THEN MY NEXT QUESTION IS ABOUT THE AVAILABLE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET DOLLAR AMOUNT WHICH IS $2.1 MILLION AS OF RIGHT NOW. SO WITH THIS BUDGET TRANSFER REDUCING THE AMOUNT TO THE RED LINE, ACCORDING TO THE GOLD SPENDING, WE NEED TO SPEND ABOUT $2 MILLION A YEAR TO UPKEEP OUR, IS THAT CORRECT, WE HAVE TO SPEND $2 MILLION EVERY YEAR, IN
THE $2.1 MILLION IS WHAT OUR CURRENT REVENUE WILL SUPPORT WITHOUT HAVING TO DIP INTO RESERVES.
THE BLUE LINE REPRESENTS THE FACT THAT WE ARE SPENDING MORE THAN THAT $2 MILLION PER YEAR TO CATCH UP ON SOME MAINTENANCE AND TAKE CARE OF SOME LARGER PROBLEMS.
>> UNDERSTOOD. SO IN 2024 WHEN IT SAYS $2 MILLION, WE NEED TO SPEND $4 MILLION THAT YEAR BECAUSE WE HAVE $2 MILLION AVAILABLE IN COST IMPROVEMENT AND WE'RE
>> PERFECT. AND THIS LINE OF QUESTIONING GOES TO I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE ARE CHARGING THE RIGHT AMOUNT OF WATER. IF WE HAVE A VERY, VERY LARGE SURPLUS THAT WE ARE ABLE TO MOVE THINGS AROUND WITH, I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD BE CHARGING THE PEOPLE TOO MUCH FOR THEIR WATER.
BUT IT APPEARS TO BE THE CASE THAT IT SEEMS TO BE A BALANCED BUDGET RIGHT NOW. AND AS I THINK I GOT ON EARLIER, IT IS A NEGATIVE ACCOUNT WITH ONE DEPARTMENT TO A POSITIVE TO THE OTHER. SO IN ESSENCE THAT'S NOT JUST A FREE $5 MILLION THAT WE'RE GIVING TO SOMEONE ELSE.
IT'S ALREADY ASSOCIATED WITH THAT.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE KEEP MONITORING THE SPEND AND MONITOR THAT WE'RE DOING WISELY WITH THE UTILITIES FUND AS YOU ARE.
SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE TO THAT.
>> CERTAINLY. AND THE RATES ARE SOMETHING THAT WE'RE GOING TO LOOK AT CLOSELY BECAUSE WE ARE INCURRING A LOT OF INCREASED COSTS FOR OPERATION OF THE SYSTEM.
SO I THINK A LOT OF THIS IS THE RESULT OF MAINTENANCE THAT WAS PUT OFF AND THIS IS THE TIME THAT WE'RE TAKING CARE OF IT.
WE'LL LOOK AT OUR RATE STRUCTURE OBVIOUSLY AS WE'RE GOING THROUGH THE BUDGET PROCESS AND MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE WHERE WE NEED TO BE.
>> SOME OF THE CITY'S BOND DOCUMENTS CALL FOR AN ANNUAL 3% INCREASE TO WATER AND WASTEWATER RATES.
THE CITY HAS NOT HAD NEEDED TO IMPLEMENT THE 3% INCREASE FOR THE WATER RATES FOR APPROXIMATELY 4 OR 5 YEARS.
THERE'S BEEN NO RATE INCREASE ON THE WATER SIDE FOR ABOUT 4 OR 5 YEARS BECAUSE OF THE INCREASED USAGE AND EXPANDED NUMBER OF USERS, WE WERE ABLE TO ACHIEVE THE 3% INCREASE IN REVENUE BASED UPON THE INCREASED USERS AND THE INCREASED USAGE.
SEWER RATES WE JUST RECENTLY LAST YEAR OR THIS YEAR WE INCORPORATED A 14% DECREASE IN THE RATES.
AND AGAIN NOW THAT THINGS HAVE SOMEWHAT CHANGED OVER THE COURSE OF LAST YEAR WITH INCREASED FUEL COSTS, INCREASED PERSONNEL COSTS, INCREASED EQUIPMENT COSTS, WE'LL NEED TO TAKE A LOOK AT BOTH OF THE RATES FOR THE WATER AND SEWER DEPARTMENT.
AND I THINK IN A MORE DETAILED SLIDE WHICH WAS NOT PART OF THE PRESENTATION, HE COMPARED OUR RATES WITH SURROUNDING RATES IN NASSAU COUNTY AND THE SOUTH ISLAND.
AND THEY ARE VERY COMPARABLE TO THOSE UTILITIES RIGHT NOW.
>> COMMISSIONER ROSS. >> THANK YOU.
SO GOING BACK TEN YEARS, THIS PROBLEM COMES FROM I WANT TO SAY THE SINS OF OUR FATHERS, NOT SINS, BUT WHAT WAS DONE PREVIOUS TO THIS COMMISSION WHERE WE HAVE WHAT I CALL SHUFFLE MONEY AROUND. AND NOT ONLY HAS THE PREVIOUS AUDITOR, BUT THE CURRENT AUDITOR WHO I MET WITH THIS AFTERNOON, SAID THE SAME THING. THAT WE NEED TO RESOLVE THIS CONUNDRUM OF MOVING MONEY AROUND.
SO I DON'T THINK WE'RE GIVING THE MONEY AWAY.
WE ARE PAYING OFF THE DEBT THAT HAS BEEN ACCUMULATED BY BOTH THE GOLF COURSE AND THE, AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BY THE GOLF COURSE AND THE MARINA GOING BACK MORE THAN TEN YEARS.
AND THIS IS A WAY OF AND WE HAVE TO RECON THAT NUMBER.
WE CANNOT CONTINUE TO KEEP MOVING MONEY AROUND, NOT ONLY BY
[00:25:03]
THE PREVIOUS AUDITOR BUT THE CURRENT AUDITOR.I THINK THIS IS THE BEST WAY TO RESOLVE THE PROBLEM.
WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS NOW FOR MORE THAN TWO YEARS, MAYBE THREE YEARS. AND THEN GOING FORWARD NOT DO WHAT HAS BEEN DONE IN THE PAST WHICH IS LOAN THE GOLF COURSE AND THE MARINA MONEY THAT THERE WAS NO HOPE OF REALLY PAYING BACK, OR LIMITED HOPE. SO I AM IN SUPPORT OF THIS
>> WE ARE TAKING THE RATE PAYERS MONEY AND PAYING OFF THE DEBT THAT WAS INCURRED FOR THE OPERATION BY TWO ENTERPRISE.
AND AT THE SAME TIME WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HOW WE HAVE DEFERRED MAINTENANCE AND WE'RE GOING TO HAVE MAJOR COSTS.
SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT RELIEVING DEBT AND NOT DOING WHAT WE NEED TO DO TO PUT US IN A BIND WITH THE ASSUMPTION THAT WE CAN JUST RAISE RATES WHICH IS WHAT WE DO.
SO I JUST WANT TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT HOW THAT TRANSPIRES AND WHAT WE'RE DOING. I DON'T SEE ANY OPTION, I THINK THE CHALLENGE WILL BE SHOULD THIS OCCUR, THE CHALLENGE WILL
BE HOW THEY MOVE FORWARD. >> SO IN THE CASE OF THE GOLF COURSE, I THINK WE'RE RIGHTING A WRONG.
AND I SAID THIS BEFORE. DURING THE HAY DAY OF THE GOLF COURSE, DURING THE 2010S IT WAS PROFITABLE.
IT WAS PROFITABLE TO SUCH AN EXTENT THAT THE CITY TOOK $1.2 MILLION IN GOLF COURSE PROFITS AND PUT IT IN THE GENERAL FUND. NEVER PAID IT BACK.
SO WE'RE RIGHTING A WRONG. SO THE MARINA IS ACTUALLY THE ONE THAT'S UPSIDE DOWN. THE GOLF COURSE ISN'T.
COMMISSIONER ROSS. >> I JUST WOULD CLARIFY WHAT YOU SAID, WHEN YOU SAY THE CITY, YOU MEAN THE CITY COMMISSIONERS?
>> CORRECT. >> IT WASN'T THE MANAGEMENT, THE
CITY COMMISSIONERS. >> THE CITY COMMISSION OBVIOUSLY HAD TO APPROVE THAT TRANSFER OF FUNDS.
>> I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT.
>> I THOUGHT THAT WAS OBVIOUS FROM THE STATEMENT, BUT I GUESS NOT. THANK YOU, SIR.
>> I WANT TO MAKE IT CRYSTAL CLEAR.
>> CLEAR AS A BELL. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, THANK YOU, SIR.
COMMISSIONER ROSS. >> IS THERE ANYBODY OPPOSED TO MOVING FORWARD WITH THIS AT THE NEXT MEETING OR SHOULD THERE BE SOME OTHER SOMETHING THAT THEY SHOULD PLAN FOR FOR THE NEXT MEETING WHERE THEY'RE GOING TO BRING THIS UP?
>> I THINK WE'VE HAD THE DISCUSSION.
WE'LL HAVE THE DISCUSSION AGAIN BEFORE WE VOTE AND THE PUBLIC WILL COMMENT AND THE PUBLIC WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE
INPUT. >> IT WILL BE AN AGENDA ITEM THAT WILL COME BEFORE US. THANK YOU.
WHILE WE HAVE SOME TIME REMAINING, DURING MY MONDAY MEETING WITH THE CITY MANAGER, ALL OF YOU ARE AWARE OF SHELCO AND THE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND EMAILS WE HAVE RECEIVED.
AND I THINK AMONG COMMISSIONERS THERE IS DIFFERENT OPINIONS ON HOW TO HANDLE IT. SO WHILE THE FIVE OF US ARE HERE AND WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT, LET'S TALK ABOUT SHELL COVE AND THE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND GIVE THE CITY MANAGERS SOME DIRECTION ON HOW WE SHOULD PROCEED. SO I WILL OPEN THAT DISCUSSION.
VICE MAYOR. >> CITY MANAGER, CITY ATTORNEY, AT THE RIGHT-OF-WAY THE OTHER DAY, I USE IT PROBABLY 6 OR 7 TIMES A WEEK. MY CONCERN IS THAT THE INFRINGEMENT UPON THE RIGHT-OF-WAY NEGATIVELY AFFECTS THE ABILITY OF PEOPLE TO USE IT BECAUSE THE PERCEPTION IS THEY'RE WALKING THROUGH SOMEBODY'S BACKYARD.
SO THAT'S ONE CONCERN. MY OTHER CONCERN IS THAT IF WE CONTINUE TO ALLOW INFRINGEMENT ON THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, IT GOES FURTHER, THAT WE'RE SETTING A STANDARD THROUGHOUT THE CITY.
SO I THINK WE SHOULD EITHER THERE WERE SOME OPTIONS OF
[00:30:02]
PUTTING SOME KIND OF FENCE UP, I WOULD SAY AT THE COST OF THE DEVELOPMENT, NOT THE CITY COST, OR REMOVE IT AND MAKE THERIGHT-OF-WAY THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. >> THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR.
I FIRMLY BELIEVE THAT THE RIGHT-OF-WAY ANYWHERE IN THE CITY IS A SACRED PUBLIC LAND AND IT'S THE PEOPLE'S LAND THAT WE MUST MAINTAIN AND WE MUST MAKE SURE IT STAYS THERE AND STAYS SAFE FOR THE PEOPLE, ESPECIALLY THE GREENWAY AND THE GREENWAY ACCESS. THAT'S A PLACE I GREW UP RUNNING CROSS COUNTRY ON THAT BACK AND FORTH.
IT'S A VERY NICE PLACE, BUT AS THE VICE MAYOR SAID, THESE ENCROACHMENTS ARE STARTING TO MAKE IT LOOK LIKE IT'S NO LONGER PUBLIC LAND. IT'S APPEARING AS IF IT IS PRIVATE PROPERTY. AND I WENT DOWN THERE ON FRIDAY AND I WALKED UP AND DOWN AND I GOT THE FEELING THAT I WAS NOT ON THE SAME PLACE I GREW UP WALKING.
I HAD THE FEELING THAT I WAS IN PEOPLE'S BACKYARDS, BECAUSE THERE'S PATIOS AND THEN THERE'S WHATNOT THERE.
AND SOMETHING THAT WORRIED ME IS THEY ARE LANDSCAPED IN SUCH A MANNER THAT WOULD GIVE THE INDICATION THAT IT'S NOT PUBLIC LAND AND SOME OF THESE BUSHES WILL GROW VERY BIG VERY QUICKLY.
THAT'S GOING TO COVER THE RIGHT-OF-WAY.
I WOULD SUGGEST AND WHAT I WOULD SAY IS I THINK IT'S AN HONEST MISTAKE. I THINK THESE PROPERTY OWNERS MIGHT NOT KNOW WHERE THEIR PROPERTY LINES LIE.
SO WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST IS WE LET THEM ALL KNOW THAT WE NEED ALL ITEMS REMOVED FROM OUR SIDE OF THE PROPERTY LINE AND IF THEY DON'T DO IT WITHIN MAYBE THREE MONTHS, WE CAN GO AHEAD AND SAY WE MIGHT HAVE TO PUT A FENCE UP BEHIND THE DEVELOPMENT.
SO I WOULD SAY THEY SHOULD FIX THAT MISTAKE WITHIN THREE
COMMISSIONER ROSS. >> I'M JUST CURIOUS, A LITTLE BIT MORE INFORMATION. YOU REALIZE THOSE HOUSES ARE ABOUT FIVE FEET OFF THE PROPERTY LINE.
SO WHAT I'M HEARING YOU'RE SAYING IS WE SHOULD PUT A FENCE FIVE FEET OFF THE PROPERTY LINE WHICH IS WHERE MY RECOLLECTION, I HAVEN'T WALKED THERE RECENTLY, I HAVEN'T REALLY THOUGHT ABOUT THIS RECENTLY. CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, IT WAS A PUD, AND THE REASON THE PUD WAS PUT IN WAS THAT SO THEY COULD MOVE THE HOUSES AROUND SO THEY CAN MAINTAIN THE TREES.
WELL THE TREES GOT CUT DOWN, THE HOUSES GOT SQUISHED AGAINST THE PROPERTY LINE TO MAXIMIZE THE SIZE OF THE HOUSE.
THAT'S BASICALLY WHAT HAPPENED. AM I CORRECT?
>> YES. >> AND SO THOSE HOUSES AND I DON'T THINK ANY ONE OF THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS DOESN'T KNOW THAT THEY'RE FIVE FEET OFF THE PROPERTY LINE.
AND THE REASON I KNOW, I TALKED TO MOST OF THEM.
IT'S BEEN A NUMBER OF YEARS WHATEVER LIKE 2 OR 3 YEARS.
>> 2019 IS WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT IT AT THE COMMISSION.
>> YEAH, SO IT PROBABLY WAS BACK THEN.
I DON'T RECOLLECT WHEN IT WAS. BUT MOST OF THOSE PEOPLE ALL KNEW WHERE THEIR PROPERTY LINE WAS.
BUT I REMEMBER WE WENT AND FOUND ALL OF THE PROPERTY MARKERS AND SAW ALL OF THAT. BUT WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING IS THAT THERE WAS A FENCE THERE, ORIGINALLY IN THE PUD, THE COMMUNITY WAS SUPPOSED TO PROVIDE A 6-FOOT FENCE AT FIVE FEET. IS THAT CORRECT WITHOUT LOOKING
>> SO IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING?
>> I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT WE BUILD A FENCE, I'M SUGGESTING THAT WE HAVE THEM BUILD A FENCE. I WOULD LIKE THEM TO PAY FOR IT.
>> THAT PART I GOT. THE PART I'M ASKING IS ARE YOU PROPOSING IT WOULD BE ON THE PROPERTY LINE?
>> COMMISSIONER ROSS, THE ANSWER TO THAT IS, JUST TO ANSWER YOUR EARLIER POINT IS THAT I CERTAINLY DO BELIEVE THAT THEY DON'T KNOW WHERE THE PROPERTY LINE IS, BECAUSE IF THEY KNEW WHERE THE PROPERTY LINE WAS, I DON'T THINK ANYBODY WOULD KNOWINGLY BUILD PATIOS INTO PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAYS.
SO I'M GOING TO ASSUME THEY DON'T.
I'M SUGGESTING WE GIVE THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO REMOVE THE STONES AND IF THEY DO NOT REMOVE THE IMPROVEMENTS, WE THEN MOVE FORWARD WITH THE FENCE. BUT I THINK THEY WOULD REMOVE THE IMPROVEMENTS BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT SUCH A FENCE.
>> LET ME UPDATE, SO IN 2019 THIS CAME UP.
THE ISSUE OF THE SHELL COVE DEVELOPER PUTTING UP A FENCE ON THE PROPERTY LINE. AND BOTH COMMISSIONER ROSS AND MYSELF DURING THAT MEETING PRESENTED PHOTOGRAPHS WITH WHERE THE PROPERTY LINE WAS, AND HERE WAS ONE OF THE PROBLEMS, ONE OF THE PROBLEMS WAS IF WE HAD THE DEVELOPER PUT UP A FENCE, WE WOULD HAVE TO TAKE OUT TREES BECAUSE THE TREES WERE ON THE
[00:35:01]
PROPERTY LINE. SO THAT WAS ONE PROBLEM.WE DIDN'T WANT TO TAKE OUT ANY TREES.
AND THEN FINALLY THE AGREEMENT WAS WE WOULD LET THE HOMEOWNERS ENCROACH ON THE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND SHAME ON US, WE DIDN'T SAY YOU CAN ENCROACH THREE FEET OR FIVE FEET OR SIX FEET, AND KNOWING THE NATURE OF PEOPLE, YOU ALWAYS HAVE SOME PEOPLE THAT WILL TAKE THE EXTRA. SO SHAME ON US FOR NOT SETTING THAT STANDARD. BUT WE DID IT WITH THE PROVISO THAT IF THE CITY EVER NEEDED THAT RIGHT-OF-WAY, THEY HAD TO REMOVE WHATEVER WAS PLACED THERE.
NOTHING PERMANENT COULD BE PUT IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY.
SO THAT WAS THE AGREEMENT. DO YOU RECALL SOMETHING ELSE,
COMMISSIONER ROSS? >> MY RECOLLECTION, AND ACTUALLY THIS MORNING I WROTE DOWN THE DATE OF THIS, I WAS GOING TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE TAPE BECAUSE I DON'T REMEMBER.
I MEAN THIS WAS THREE YEARS AGO. BUT I REMEMBER WHEN I WALKED DOWN THAT PROPERTY LINE, THOSE WERE ALREADY ENCROACHED.
I MEAN THERE WERE LOTS OF PATIOS OVER THAT 5-FOOT LINE SO TO SUGGEST THAT PEOPLE, AND THEY KNEW IT AT THE TIME, BECAUSE THEY TALKED TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS, THEY SAID YEAH, WE KNEW IT, BUT WE DID IT. SO IT'S A CONUNDRUM.
BUT I THINK THAT THE PEOPLE DID KNOWINGLY, KNEW WHERE THEIR PROPERTY LINE WAS WHEN ENCROACHED.
>> WE AGREE TO THAT. >> YEAH, I AGREE THAT I REMEMBER THAT THEY WELL KNOW, IN FACT WHEN WE WERE OUT THERE LAST WEEK, SOME PEOPLE ARE AWARE OF IT.
THERE ARE ACTUALLY NO TREES ON THAT STRETCH BEHIND THOSE HOUSES ON THAT SIDE. AND I WILL TELL YOU IT'S GOT SO BAD THAT AT CHRISTMAS THEY ACTUALLY DECORATE TREES THAT ARE IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. AND THAT'S A REAL PROBLEM FOR PEOPLE WHO THINK THEY CAN WALK DOWN THERE.
AND I WANT TO REEMPHASIZE AGAIN THAT IF WE ALLOW IT THERE, ARE WE SETTING A STANDARD. SO I THINK WE SHOULD GO BACK AND SAY YOU NEED TO CLEAR THIS RIGHT-OF-WAY.
ON THE OTHER SIDE THEY HAVE BUILT THE FENCE.
BUT THOSE PEOPLE, I BELIEVE THEY DEFINITELY KNEW.
THE FIRST LADY WE TALKED TO SCALED BACK AND WAS ONE OF THE
ORIGINALS. >> COMMISSIONER ROSS.
>> MY RECOLLECTION WHEN I TOOK THE WALK WITH REX WAS THAT, WE FOUND WHERE THE FENCE LINE WAS AND THERE WERE A LOT OF TREES.
>> I COULD BE WRONG. >> I HAD PICTURES THAT I
DISPLAYED AT THE MEETING. >> VICE MAYOR.
>> THERE'S NONE THERE NOW. >> THE BIGGER ISSUE HERE WHEN WE TALK ABOUT SETTING A PRECEDENT, WELL THERE'S A HUGE PRECEDENT IN THIS CITY THAT LOTS OF PEOPLE INFRINGE ON THE RIGHT-OF-WAY WITH LOTS OF THINGS. AND THAT'S PART OF THE PROBLEM IS THAT WE HAVE NO WELL DEFINED RIGHT-OF-WAY POLICY.
IT'S SORT OF CATCH AND CATCH CAN.
I WILL TELL YOU THAT I HAVE A BRICK WALL ON MY PROPERTY THAT SITS IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. BUT I GOT PERMISSION FROM THE CITY TO DO THAT BACK IN THE DAY WE SAID WE WANTED TO DO THIS AND A LOT OF THE PEOPLE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD ENCROACHED INTO THE PROPERTY, BUT WE GOT PERMISSION TO DO IT.
THE CITY AGREED TO IT WITH THE PROVISO THAT IF WE EVER NEED THAT TO PUT SOMETHING IN, YOU'VE GOT TO TAKE IT OUT AND WE SAID FINE. SO I WONDER IF THERE'S SOME COMPROMISE AND THIS IS A BIT OF A SPECIAL THING BECAUSE IT SENDS A MESSAGE AND I HAVEN'T BEEN DOWN THERE RECENTLY HONESTLY THAT PEOPLE DON'T KNOW THAT THIS IS THE GREENWAY AND IT'S LOOKING LIKE PRIVATE SPACE AND THAT SEEMS TO BE AN ISSUE.
SO I DON'T HAVE A STRONG FEELING ON THIS ONE WAY OR THE OTHER BECAUSE I HAVEN'T THOUGHT ABOUT IT ENOUGH AND DON'T HAVE ENOUGH
INFORMATION. >> COMMISSIONER STURGES.
>> VERY BRIEFLY, I THINK I WAS TOLD A LONG TIME AGO BY MANY OF MY RELATIVES THAT GOOD FENCES MAKE GOOD NEIGHBORS.
AND I THINK THAT BEING THAT THIS IS A SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE, IN MY OPINION YOU SHOULD PROBABLY JUST PUT A SPLIT RAIL FENCE UP AND MAKE A HAPPY MEDIUM. I MEAN HOW WIDE IS THIS GREENWAY TRAIL NOW? I HAVEN'T BEEN OUT THERE IN A WHILE. HOW WIDE SHOULD IT BE, TEN FEET WIDE, 15 FEET WIDE? WITH MY COMMENTS TO THIS IS JUST TAKE THE HAPPY MEDIUM. IT'S WHAT I HAVE TO DO A LOT SOMETIMES AS A CONTRACTOR. AND INSTEAD OF SAYING OKAY INSISTING THAT YOU PUT A HARD 3-FOOT OR 6-FOOT FENCE OR
[00:40:02]
WHATEVER, A 6-FOOT FENCE EXACTLY ON THE PROPERTY LINE, WELL WE KIND OF MADE IT WHEN WE VOTED ON IT AND YOU GAVE THEM PERMISSION TO ENCROACH, YOU KIND OF, NOT THAT YOU CAN'T GO BACKWARDS, BUT THE CITY COMMISSION AT THAT POINT GAVE THEM PERMISSION TO HAVE FREE FOR ALL. SO INSTEAD OF REINING THEM ALL IN, WHY DON'T YOU ADD AN ADDITIONAL FIVE FEET, IN THEIR BACKYARD TEN FEET, WHICH IS REALLY NOT THEIR BACKYARD, BUT WITHOUT ENCROACHING TOO FAR INTO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND MAKE THEM MOVE EVERYTHING ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE BARRIER.FOR INSTANCE A SPLIT RAIL FENCE IS NOT TOO EXPENSIVE, YET IT SHOWS A BARRIER. THEY CAN PICK SOME OTHER FORM OF FENCE, I JUST SAID SPLIT RAIL BECAUSE IT'S TWO UP RIGHTS AND TWO HORIZONTALS. THAT'S MY OPINION OF HOW TO MEDIATE THIS SITUATION FOR A ONE-TIME OCCURRENCE.
HOWEVER WHEN IT COMES AGAIN FOR DEVELOPMENT, THE REASON WE WANT TO BE IN CONTROL OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONTROL OF HOW MANY TREES GET TAKEN OUT SO THIS DOESN'T HAPPEN, THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION, WE DON'T WANT TO GO THERE AGAIN.
SO WE WANT THEM TO HAVE DECENT SIZED BACKYARDS, WE WANT THEM TO HAVE SPACE IN BETWEEN THE HOUSES IF POSSIBLE, UNLESS THEY ARE A PUD, THEN THEY SHOULD LEAVE TREES.
BUT I KNOW EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT AND THERE WERE NO TREES LEFT TO SPEAK OF. WHICH IS POOR.
BUT I THINK THAT'S THE HAPPY MEDIUM IN MY OPINION, SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT. THE TRAIL THERE, GOING THERE --
>> IT'S 30 FEET RIGHT-OF-WAY. >> SO HOW FAR HAVE THEY
ENCROACHED PASSED THE -- >> 60 FEET.
>> MR. MAYOR, IF I COULD JUST INSERT SOMETHING.
THE RIGHT-OF-WAY IS NOT AS -- AS WE BELIEVE.
EVERYBODY THAT OWNS A HOUSE ON A PLATTED LOT IN THE CITY ENCROACHES INTO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY.
I HAVE LANDSCAPING IN THE CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY.
IF YOU GO DOWN 3RD STREET PEOPLE HAVE BRICK PAVER DRIVEWAYS AND LANDSCAPING IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. SO TO USE AS AN EXAMPLE AS OPENING A SIGNIFICANT PANDORA'S BOX.
I THINK STAFF CAN HANDLE THIS WITH THE IDEA THAT IF WE LOOK AT WHAT IS A COMMON ENCROACHMENT. SO LET'S ASSUME 3RD STREET IS A 60-FOOT RIGHT OF WAY, 25 TO 30 FEET OF PAVEMENT, THAT MEANS EACH PROPERTY OWNER IS ENCROACHING 15 FEET INTO THE CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY. AND IT'S SIMILAR TO THAT ON EVERY SINGLE STREET IN THE CITY. SO ARE WE GOING TO TRY TO SET A PRECEDENT AND GO BACK AND SAY ALL RIGHT, MR. MARTIN, YOU'VE GOT GRASS OR YOU'VE GOT A STATUE IN YOUR FRONT YARD, WHICH THOSE PEOPLE MAINTAIN THAT RIGHT-OF-WAY.
THEY COULD SAY YOU'RE RIGHT, THAT'S YOUR PROPERTY, YOU TAKE CARE OF IT. BUT THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT BEAUTIFY THEIR HOUSE AND THEY'RE NOT CAUSING, NOW WHAT THE CITY IS CURRENTLY WORKING ON AND I'M WORKING ON THIS WITH MS. BACH AND CODE ENFORCEMENT, IS WE WANT TO TAKE A LOOK AT SOME OF THE MORE SUBSTANTIVE ENCROACHMENTS INTO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY THAT CREATE A LIABILITY THAT IS TECHNICALLY ON CITY PROPERTY SO IF A YOUNG BOY OR GIRL IS RIDING A BICYCLE AND FALLS ON ONE OF THESE POSTS. SO WE WANT TO LOOK AT GETTING RETROACTIVE PERMITS OR SOME SORT OF WAIVER OF LIABILITY THAT OKAY WE'LL LET YOU KEEP YOUR LANDSCAPING THERE, BUT YOU'RE GOING TO ABSOLVE THE CITY FROM ANY LEGAL LIABILITY AND IF YOU DON'T SIGN THIS WAIVER, THEN THE CITY HAS THE RIGHT TO TAKE IT OUT. SO I THINK WE CAN ADDRESS THIS.
THE RIGHT-OF-WAY ISSUE WAS HINTED AT BY COMMISSIONER ROSS.
IT'S MUCH BROADER THROUGHOUT THE CITY AND MOST PEOPLE DON'T KNOW WHERE THE RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE IS. THEY'RE CUTTING THE GRASS, THEY'RE PLANTING FLOWERS, I THINK MOST OF THE PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY TAKE DARN GOOD CARE OF THE CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY.
>> COMMISSIONER BEAN. >> THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR.
I APPRECIATE THAT. I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT I BELIEVE THIS IS DIFFERENT. THIS IS A UNIQUE CASE OF A RIGHT-OF-WAY. COMMISSIONERS, I WOULD PAUSE IT TO YOU THAT THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SOMEONE CONNECTING THEIR HOUSE WITH A DRIVEWAY THROUGH THE RIGHT-OF-WAY TO THE STREET AS OPPOSED TO A TRAIL. IT IS ONE OF THE MAJOR ACCESSES TO THE GREENWAY. THIS IS ONE OF THE THREE MAJOR ACCESSES TO THE GREENWAY ON THAT SECTION.
SO THE DIFFERENCE TO ME, THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BUILDING A DRIVEWAY THAT CONNECTS TO THE STREET AND BUILDING A PATIO INTO A PUBLIC TRAIL. AND THAT IS TO ME A HUGE DIFFERENCE. IN FACT THERE'S EXAMPLES ON THIS
[00:45:03]
OF THIS PATIO BEING BUILT IN SUCH A WAY THAT THERE IS AN ENTIRE SET OF PATIO FURNITURE COMPLETELY IN THE PUBLIC LAND.COULD I GO OUT THERE AND SIT AND ENJOY MYSELF ON THAT PUBLIC LAND WHICH IN FACT HAS A PATIO, THERE'S A FULL COUCH AND A FULL LAWN CHAIR OUT THERE? I COULD GO SIT THERE.
AND I BELIEVE THAT'S A DIFFERENT INTENT THAN HAVING A DRIVEWAY WHICH WE ALL AGREE IS SOMETHING THAT WE NEED.
AND ON TOP OF THAT, I WOULD LIKE US TO CONSIDER THE PRECEDENT THIS SETS BECAUSE IT'S A DIFFERENT PRECEDENT.
THERE'S OTHER TRAILS IN THE CITY THAT HAVE PRIVATE HOUSES THAT BACK UP TO THESE TRAILS. AND THESE TRAILS ARE RUN BY THE CITY, ARE WE SAYING THAT AS LONG AS WE LET THEM DO IT FOR A MONTH, WE'LL COME BACK AND SAY WELL WE LET YOU ENCROACH OF THIS TRAIL THIS TIME, SO I GUESS WE'RE REALLY GOING TO STOP YOU HERE. WE'RE GOING TO PUT A SMALL LITTLE FENCE AROUND IT AND WE'LL WALK AROUND YOUR IMPROVEMENTS.
AND LASTLY I WOULD LIKE TO REALLY CONSIDER THIS, I'M OF THE OPINION WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THIS TRAIL STAYS OPEN AS MUCH AS WE CAN. BUT I WOULD LIKE TO CONSIDER THE BUSHES THAT WERE PLANTED THAT IF WE GIVE THAT JUST A FEW YEARS, THOSE THINGS ARE GOING TO TRIPLE AND QUADRUPLE IN SIZE TO THE POINT WHERE YOU REALLY CAN'T GO AROUND AND THESE VIBERNUM ARE PLANTED ALMOST DIRECTLY IN THE CENTER OF THE TRAIL IF YOU GO DOWN AND TAKE A LOOK. I WOULD JUST STRONGLY CAUTION US, IF WE LET THIS GO NOW, IT WILL GET WORSE AND WORSE AS WE GO. IF WE SET THIS PRECEDENT NOW, WE MIGHT LOSE SOME OF WHAT MAKES OUR ACCESS TO THE GREENWAY IMPORTANT. SO AGAIN I AGREE THAT RIGHT-OF-WAY IS A TOUGH ISSUE, BUT AGAIN THIS IS NOT AN ORDINARY RIGHT-OF-WAY. AND I THINK THAT THIS TRAIL THING SETS A PRECEDENT THAT WILL HURT US IN THE FUTURE IF WE
DON'T ADDRESS THIS NOW. >> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER BEAN.
I HAVE A QUESTION. I UNDERSTAND YOUR OPPOSITION, WHAT'S YOUR SOLUTION? THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO GET, WE'RE TRYING TO GET A SOLUTION SO THE CITY MANAGER CAN GO
FORWARD. >> MY SOLUTION IS I ALWAYS SEE THE BEST IN PEOPLE. AGAIN, BECAUSE THIS IS SOMETHING I WOULD NEVER DO AND I DON'T THINK ANYONE WOULD BUILD A FULL PATIO IN PUBLIC LAND. I DON'T THINK ANYONE WOULD DO THAT INTENTIONALLY. I'M GOING TO ASSUME THAT THEY DIDN'T KNOW AND I WOULD LIKE TO INFORM THEM THAT THEY DID IN FACT BUILD A PATIO IN PUBLIC LANDS AND WE DO HAVE A TRIGGER THAT WE CAN PULL. GENTLEMEN, WE CAN MAKE THE HOA BUILD A FENCE AT THEIR EXPENSE THAT I DON'T THINK THAT THEY WANT. AND THEY CERTAINLY DON'T WANT THAT FENCE. I WOULD ARGUE THAT WE GIVE THEM A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME TO CLEAN UP THOSE IMPROVEMENTS AND THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BUILDING A PATIO AND SIMPLY USING THE SPACE. THERE'S A DIFFERENCE THERE.
SO LET THEM FIX THIS THEMSELVES, AND IF THEY DON'T, WE DO HAVE THE OPTION TO ENCOURAGE THIS FENCE.
AND THE FENCE COULD BE SOMETHING THAT COMMISSIONER STURGES SUGGESTED. THERE'S A LOT OF OPTIONS WE COULD GO. BUT I WOULD SAY LET THEM RESOLVE IT BY WALKING THESE IMPROVEMENTS BACK TO THE PROPERTY LINE.
>> THANK YOU, THAT'S VERY HELPFUL.
VICE MAYOR. >> AS I SAID MY CONCERN WITH THIS IS YOU'RE AFFECTING PEOPLE'S ROUTE TO THE GREENWAY WITH THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE. WITH THE RIGHT-OF-WAY ISSUE, WHEN I LIVED ON FLETCHER IT WAS 80 FEET.
AND I REMEMBER PEOPLE ALWAYS GETTING CODE VIOLATIONS THERE.
SO THAT WE COULD WORK OUT SOME REALISTIC OPTION WOULD BE GOOD.
>> COMMISSIONER STURGES. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR.
I DO BELIEVE THAT IT'S A SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE.
I HEAR WHAT DALE IS SAYING AND I THINK I AGREE WITH CHIP NEEDING TO UPDATE LEGITIMATE WHAT IS ALLOWED IN OUR RIGHT-OF-WAYS ESPECIALLY TALKING ABOUT THE FRONT OF HOUSES.
WE DON'T HAVE MANY PROPERTIES THAT IT'S IN THE REAR.
BEING THAT THIS IS A TRAIL, I THINK WE COME UP WITH A HAPPY MEDIUM WHETHER IT'S 5 OR 10 FEET OR WHATEVER THE NUMBER IS THAT GIVES THEM WHAT FEELS LIKE A DECENT DISTANCE OF YARD OF THEIR OWN, PUT UP SOME SEMI FENCE SO THAT WE KNOW AND THEY KNOW THIS IS THE BARRIER, HERE'S YOUR BARRIER.
LIKE YOU CAN IMPROVE AND PUT PLANTS UP TO THIS BARRIER.
AND I THINK WE JUST MOVE ON. IT'S NOT A COMPLICATED ONE.
THANK YOU. >> OKAY, SO I ACTUALLY FAVOR COMMISSIONER STURGES'S IDEA OF GIVE THEM FIVE FEET.
THAT WOULD TAKE THE PATIO THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, COMMISSIONER BEAN, THAT WOULD CUT THAT IN HALF APPROXIMATELY FROM WHAT I'M TOLD. I BELIEVE THAT PATIO IS TEN FEET INTO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. SO THAT'S GOING TO CUT THAT IN HALF AND PUT THIS SPLIT RAIL FENCE UP WHICH DELINEATES THAT DEVELOPMENT FROM THE GREENWAY TRAIL.
[00:50:02]
AND IT ALSO SETS THE BARRIER TO THESE HOMEOWNERS, DO NOT CROSS THIS LINE. SO I WOULD LIKE TO SEE YOUR SUPPORT IN ADVISING THE CITY MANAGER AS A GO FORWARD PLAN TODO THAT. >> MR. MAYOR, I CAN CRAFT A DRAFT LETTER TO SHARE WITH ALL OF YOU BASICALLY SAYING PERHAPS TAKING COMMISSIONER BEAN'S INITIATIVE SAYING THE CITY COMMISSION HAS EXPRESSED CONCERN AS TO THE EXTENT OF ENCROACHMENT AND WE'D LIKE TO GIVE YOU 30 DAYS TO SCALE BACK.
IF THAT IS NOT TAKEN, THEN THE CITY IS PREPARED TO SCALE BACK FOR YOU AND ALSO WE CAN ALSO GET WHATEVER THE COST IS OF A SPLIT
RAIL FENCE AND THINGS LIKE THAT. >> I KEPT HEARING --
>> PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME. >> CERTAINLY.
TAMMY BACH, CITY ATTORNEY. >> THANK YOU.
>> YOU'RE WELCOME. I WOULD RECOMMEND KEEPING THE HOA OUT OF IT BECAUSE IT'S NOT AN HOA PROBLEM.
EVEN THOUGH WHEN WE DEALT WITH THIS A FEW YEARS AGO WE DEALT WITH THE DEVELOPER, IT WAS THE DEVELOPER WHO WAS NO LONGER EVEN A GOING CONCERN WHO TRANSFERRED THE COMMON AREAS INCLUDING WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN A FENCE THERE TO THE HOA.
THE HOA HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS.
THESE ARE PROPERTY OWNERS THAT ARE BACKING UP AND THERE'S PROBABLY TEN OF THEM AT MOST. AND I WOULD THINK WE WOULD SEND IT TO THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS, AND IF THEY WANT TO GET THE HOA INVOLVED, THAT'S FINE. BUT I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO.
>> OKAY. COMMISSIONER BEAN, YOUR LIGHT IS
STILL ON. >> YES, MR. MAYOR, I HAVE ONE LAST POINT. IT'S RELATING TO THIS IDEA ABOUT QUOTE UNQUOTE GIVING THEM FIVE FEET.
AND I WOULD MAKE THE ARGUMENT THAT WE ARE STEWARDS OF OUR LANDS AND WE'RE GOOD STEWARDS OF IT.
I DON'T BELIEVE THAT WE SHOULD GIVE THE RESIDENTS FIVE FEET QUOTE UNQUOTE. IF WE'RE FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES MAKING THIS FIVE FEET PART OF THEIR BACKYARD, I THINK THAT THEY SHOULD BUY IT FROM THE CITY AT FAIR MARKET VALUE.
I DON'T BELIEVE THAT WE SHOULD BE GIVING THEM ACCESS, PRIVATE ACCESS TO PUBLIC LAND. THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME AND IF WE'RE GOING TO BE GIVING THEM THE LAND, I THINK THAT WE SHOULD COME UP WITH A FEE FOR THEM TO PAY FOR THEM TO TAKE THAT. IF WE DON'T, WE'RE JUST LETTING OUR ASSETS GO FOR NO MONETARY COMPENSATION.
>> SO POINT OF CLARIFICATION, CITY MANAGER, DIDN'T YOU TELL ME YOU EXPLORED THAT AND THERE WAS SO LEGALITY --
>> NOT THE INTERPRETATION, WE CANNOT SELL CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY.
AND MS. BACH CAN GET INTO THE LEGAL DETAILS IF YOU'D LIKE.
BUT BASICALLY THE CITY DOESN'T OWN THAT LAND SO WE CAN'T SELL IT. WE ARE HOLDING IT IN TRUST OR --
>> THE PUBLIC TRUST. >> IN THE PUBLIC TRUST, RIGHT.
WE CANNOT SELL THAT PROPERTY. >> OKAY, THANK YOU.
COMMISSIONER ROSS. >> I WAS GOING TO BRING UP THE POINT ABOUT WHAT YOU'RE REALLY PROPOSING IS ABANDONING THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. THERE'S A WHOLE PUBLIC PROCESS.
I MEAN IT GOES ON AND ON. I'M NOT GOING TO GO INTO THE DETAILS. BUT THAT I DON'T THINK IS A
COMMISSIONERS, I'M HEARING MIXED MESSAGES HERE.
I'M HEARING A MESSAGE GO BACK TO THE PROPERTY LINE AND HAVE THE OWNERS REMOVE ALL OF THE IMPROVEMENTS THAT THEY'VE PUT INTO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND BUILD A SPLIT RAIL FENCE ON THE PROPERTY LINE SO THEY DON'T ENCROACH.
THAT'S ONE, THEN THE OTHER IS A COMPROMISE WHERE WE ALLOW THEM FIVE FEET, WE PUT A SPLIT RAIL FENCE WITH THE UNDERSTANDING WE ARE NOT ABANDONING THE RIGHT-OF-WAY.
WE HOLD THE RIGHT AND IF WE EVER NEED THAT FIVE FEET, THEY HAVE TO REMOVE WHATEVER THEY PLACE THERE.
SO WE'VE GOT TWO CHOICES HERE. >> MR. MAYOR, THE CITY ATTORNEY AND I WILL GO BACK AND REVIEW THE ORIGINAL RESOLUTION AND FIND OUT WHETHER THE ENCROACHMENT WAS ACTUALLY CODIFIED IN THE RESOLUTION AND WE'LL HAVE TO BRING THAT BACK TO UNWIND THAT OR WHETHER THAT WAS JUST PART OF THE GENERAL DISCUSSION.
BECAUSE THAT CITY COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM WAS ASSOCIATED WITH THE CITY TAKING OVER THE STREETS IN SHELL COVE, AND THE CONCERN WAS AS PART OF THE ORIGINAL PLANS FOR THAT PROJECT, IF THE PLANS DID CALL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 6-FOOT HIGH FENCE ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE. AND THAT WAS PASSED ON BY THE CITY COMMISSION AT THE TIME. SO CITY ATTORNEY AND I WILL GO BACK AND FIND OUT WHAT EXACTLY WAS THE RESOLUTION, WERE WE GOING TO ACCEPT THE STREETS AND WAS THIS A SIDE CONVERSATION OR
[00:55:01]
WAS IT TRULY CODIFIED. WE CAN LOOK THAT UP AND SHARETHAT INFORMATION WITH YOU. >> VICE MAYOR.
>> WE HAD VACATED RIGHTS OF WAY AND RECEIVED DONATIONS THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT AS YOU VACATE FIVE FEET OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND THEY DONATE THAT AS A VALUE OF THE PROPERTY.
WE'VE DONE THAT AND THEN THEY PUT UP A SPLIT RAIL FENCE, THAT MIGHT BE AN OPTION. I'LL LEAVE IT TO THE CITY MANAGER TO FIGURE OUT WHAT'S A VIABLE OPTION.
>> MR. ROSS. >> TWO POINTS, NUMBER ONE IF YOU VACATE THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, HALF GOES TO ONE SIDE, HALF GOES TO THE OTHER. THAT'S NUMBER ONE.
NUMBER TWO, I WOULD LIKE MORE INFORMATION BEFORE MAKING A DECISION AND GOING BACK TO WHAT WAS AGREED TO THEN, LOOK AT THAT TAPE AND SO ON AND SO FORTH. I WOULD LIKE TO PROCEED WITH
COMING UP WITH -- >> THAT'S THE WAY TO PROCEED.
I'D ALSO LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE HOMEOWNER.
COULD WE PUT SHELL COVE ON THE NEXT WORKSHOP, ON THE AGENDA
>> THE CRA MEETING. >> YES, SIR.
THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT ARE BACKLOG ON THAT.
WE'LL DO THE RESEARCH, BRING IT TO YOU, AND THEN WE CAN FIGURE
OUT. >> THEN PLACE IT ON THE WORKSHOP
>> I GUESS WHETHER YOU WANT TO ALLOW, TYPICALLY WE DON'T ALLOW
PUBLIC COMMENT -- >> I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR THE HOMEOWNERS. I THINK THAT'S FAIR AND RIGHT IF
WE'RE GOING TO TAKE ANY ACTION. >> OKAY.
>> I THINK WE NEED TO HEAR FROM THEM.
THANK YOU. ANY OTHER ITEMS OF DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, THE WORKSHOP IS ADJOURNED.
WE WILL RECONVENE AT 6:05.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.