City Council - Regular Meeting

All right, good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We're going to call this regular city council meeting to order. We will first stand for a moment of silence, and then we'll have the Pledge of Allegiance led by Councilman Nunn. All right. Thank you so much for that. Madam Clerk, roll call.

All right, there's a part of our agenda. Any agenda modifications? I know, Mr. Stokes, you have an agenda modification.

All right, thank you. Where would you like to put that in? You would like for us to make that decision about where to input this, or you want to just proceed now? Yeah, I mean... Okay, very good. Then we'll proceed now.

Okay. Then that's what we'll do. Any discussion? Mr. Dodd.

Yeah, I think, well, the previous vice mayor, McPartland, resigned to run when he was running for county commission. And I would move that we reappoint Bob McPartland to fill the remainder of the term that he was resigned for.

I'll second that. All right. We have a motion and a second. Anyone from the public would like to comment on this?

Absolutely. Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else? All right, anything from council? Well, I'd just like to say one thing. First of all, the charter gives us the ability to do this because of what had happened with the state. And I think the citizens of Sebastian elected Mr. McPartland to serve out his two-year term, and he's one year into that term. I think it's the right thing for us to appoint him to carry out his last year in this term just simply because he was voted by the people, and Bob has done a good job, and I think it's the right thing to do now for us to continue until this electio

I agree as well, but I would like for Mr. Stokes to just address some of the comments that were just made. Is there anything that we have done that's out of character, out of line, out of procedure?

I would agree with Mayor Jones that Mr. McPartland was voted overwhelmingly his last election for this position and I don't think the people have changed their mind on supporting him at this point. So I say we move forward.

I don't believe there anybody ran against the three of you, was there?

Okay, so maybe two elections ago, but yes.

Yes. Motion carries. Mayor Jones. Yes, sir. We have one other item that steps onto this. We're without a vice mayor, and I... The attorney might want to address this,

So the first order of business after he's sworn in would be to do the vice mayor election?

Then let's swear him in. Swear him in. Out there.

All right, thank you. I think while we're getting ready and getting everything set, if Mr. Nunn want to go ahead, you all can continue what you're doing there. He'll read the brief announcements while we wait in the interim.

All right, brief announcements. Tuesday, September 29th, the Sebastian River High School Homecoming Parade on Indian River Drive starting at Robert Hardy Main Street Boat Ramp Park. to Riverview Park at 5 p.m. Saturday, October 3rd, Kids Fest in Riverview Park from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. Saturday, October 10th, Craft Club of Sebastian in Riverview Park from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. Wednesday, October 14th, will be the only city council meeting in October due to the early voting taking place in the council chambers beginning October 19th. Thursday, October 15th, Sebastian Police Department Community Night

All right. Thank you so much. And now we'll go ahead and we'll have a motion for vice mayor. Now that we have everyone seated, I'd like to hear a motion for vice mayor. All right, Mr. McPartland. Yeah, turn it on, yeah.

Okay, now I officially nominate Bobby McPartland for vice mayor.

Okay, I'll second it. Do we have anyone else? All right, that's it. Mr. McPartland is vice mayor again. Or do you want to call it? No, can we all move? We only have once you want that in seat, don't you? Well good All right, we're called a question. Yeah good madam clerk Here we go Councilmember done.

We have While they get ready, I would like to have Shelly Stewart and her group to come up. Carrie, are you coming up with her? I will. Thank you. All right. Thank you so much. Oh, we have more from Thrive. Great. Come on down. Okay. All right. So this is a proclamation, September Recovery Month. Whereas September is recognized nationally as Recovery Month, a time to celebrate the gains made by the individuals and families in recovery from substance use. While raising awareness that recovery is possible for everyone, and whereas recovery is a journey of hope, healing, resilience, and transform

Can we come down and stand in unity with you guys and have a photograph with you? Okay, thank you. Come on.

Come on, Dan. You can do it. You can do it.

All right, our next item up is item 6C, presentation on the new City of Sebastian Cemetery interactive map.

I mean, it's awesome. Yeah, I don't have any questions. Great job. Awesome. Thank you, Ross, for that.

Thank you. Awesome. All right. Awesome. Thank you so much. All right. Our next agenda item, council, is we're going to go ahead and go into the community redevelopment agency. So we're going to recess the city council meeting and convene the community redevelopment agency. And our first item is item 7A.

I'll make a motion, Mr. Chair, to approve the minutes. Second.

So we have a motion by... Mr. Nunn. Second by Mr. McPartland. Any other discussion? Hearing none. Madam Clerk.

All right. Thank you so much for that. Item B, consideration of the facade sign and landscape grant for the Sebastian Riverfront Chamber of Commerce. Here we go. Who do we have? Ms. Bernard.

All right. Thank you so much for that. I'm going to go ahead and move approval. You move approval? Yes, sir. Then I'll second that. We have a second by Mr. Dodd. Is there any other questions? Anybody from the community? Okay, yeah, absolutely.

All right. Next item is item C. Who do we have? I'll take this one, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Benton.

Thank you so much for that, sir. Any questions?

Yeah, I've just got one. Hold on a minute. Turned my monster off. Brian, the 2526 money for the sewer conversion program, that $228,000, that hasn't been expended, has it?

I just didn't, I mean, some of these projects, basically they're all still hanging around is what it amounts to. 25, 26 projects are all still hanging around to go into 26, 27.

I'll make a motion to approve Resolution R-27-01. Second.

So we have a motion and a second. Is there anyone from the public who would like to speak on this?

Thank you so much, sir. Is there anyone else? All right, public input is closed. Any more discussion from the council? Hearing none, Madam Clerk?

all right uh thank you so much now we're going to go ahead and recess the community redevelopment agency and reconvene this council meeting and our first item is item 8 public input i have miss lopez who would like to speak to us mr lopez

Thank you so much. Mr. Mayor, can I ask one question? Yes. Can you give me that date of the Veterans Meetup again at the VFW?

All right. Thank you so much. Thank you. All right. Is there anyone else who want to speak on anything that's not on the current agenda? And this is the part of our agenda, public input. For anything that's not on the current agenda, please come forward.

All right, thank you so much for that. Sir, do we have anyone else? Anyone with their hand raised? All right. No, one has raised their hand. Public input is closed. We're going to move on to Item 9, Consent Agenda. Counsel? Mike, I can't hear you, sir. Mike.

Move approval of Consent Items A, B, and C. I'm sorry, Mr. Mayor. I wanted to pull Item C from the agenda for discussion. Then I move approval of A and B. Okay, thank you. Second.

All right, so we have a motion by Mr. Dodd, a second by Mr. McPartland for A and C. A and B. A and B, and C has been pulled by Mr. Nunn. Madam Clerk.

Mr. Nunn. Yeah, you know, I'm looking at it, and obviously we have other things coming up related to the park, and I just really have some questions I'm sure other people probably have as well. Includes what, like 128 trees that are going to be planted in the Riverview Park area, and obviously we have a park plan coming, and I'm just wondering how are these trees fitting into that plan, because we'd hate to plant something that we'd have to dig up and move, you know, a year and a half from now.

I'll make a motion to approve the consideration for approving the grant for the Department of Agriculture for the tree program.

All right. So we have a motion by Mr. Nunn. Do we have a second? I'll second. Second by Ms. Matthews. Any further questions? Madam Clerk.

Our next item is item 11A, final public hearing, adoption of the fiscal 26-27 final millage. Mr. Benton.

All right, Don, thank you so much for that, sir. Mr. Benton.

All right. Mr. Benton, did you have anything else?

Right. Okay. Any questions from council?

I do have some comments I'd like to make. One of the things I want to talk about is that on the personnel, where it talks about the two full-time police officer positions, I just want to make that clear that those positions have been in play for several years now, and that it was just we didn't fill them based on. And during the workshops for the last couple of When we did the workshops, it was determined under the workforce statistics that we needed to go ahead and fill these positions. I don't want the public to think that we're talking about a lean budget and yet we're creating positions. T

All right. Thank you. Is there anything else? All right. So we'll just go ahead and start with Resolution R-26-39. So we have a motion by Councilmember Matthews, and we have a second by Mr. Nunn. Second. Any other discussion? Anybody from the public who would like to speak on this? Anyone with their hand raised? Thank you. Public input is closed. Madam Clerk?

All right, and the next item is resolution r-26-40 I'll make a motion to approve Second, so we have a motion by mr. Nunn second by mr. McPartland Anyone from the public who would like to speak on this? In hand Public input is closed. Madam Clerk.

All right. Thank you, Robin. Next item on the agenda is item 11B. This is going to be a legislative hearing. Mr. Stokes.

All right, thank you so much for that. Mr. Benton?

All right. Anything else from you, Mr. Benton? Do we all entertain a motion? Oh, no, sorry about that. Staff, that's all? Anybody else from staff? No? All right. Is there anyone from the public who would like to speak on this? Anyone with their hand raised?

All right. Mr. Benton, do you have anything final? No, sir. All right. We'll go ahead and close this. Now, counsel, we'll entertain a motion or a deliberation.

Second by Ms. Matthews. Anyone from the public who would like to speak on this? Anyone with their hand raised? Oh, no, we closed that. Sorry. Madam Clerk.

Yes. All right. We're going to go ahead and we have another hearing on item 11C. This is also a legislative hearing on Ordinance O-26-22. We're going to open this hearing. Mr. Stokes.

All right. Thank you so much for that. Ms. Bernard?

All right. Thank you so much for that presentation. We're going to go ahead and have the public input now, and then we'll call you back up if there's any questions. Is there anyone from the public who would like to speak on this? All right. Seeing none, anyone with a hand raised? All right. Thank you so much. Public input is closed. Ms. Bernard, you want to go ahead and do a summation, or are you good? You're good? All right.

One of the issues that comes up, I was the one that talked to Brian and the group management director, Alex, about this. 512 is our minimum. I mean, we don't allow anything below 512 within that area. And in reality, if we, and I understand the reason for doing this, you want to get more height in the floors in the buildings, basically. So you want to be able to go with a 10-foot floor as opposed to an 8-foot floor or something so you can do more stuff within the buildings. And it's a perfectly logical thing to do. But even at 812, if we go 512, 612, then we're within, you know, the 25-foot bo

And I don't know, is there anything in the code that specifies the width the minimum or maximum width of the building, the construction?

But that's a property limitation. That's not a code limitation. Yes. And as we all know, like, for example, that piece of property at the end of Davis Street is very small. Many people come in and want to build on that, and they can't put something together that actually meets our code to be able to build on that piece of property. whether the code stipulates, you know, something. We can't, and I know this is east of Indian River Drive, and I know there's not a lot of stuff down there right now, but there's certainly a lot of stuff that could be torn down. And then we have to have the code tha

Yeah, so where do you think we should go with max? 8 to 12 max? Set a max at 8 to 12 and then go?

The pitch, I mean, if we say the roof pitch, 8 to 12, 5 to 12, 6 to 12. 8 to 12. I think right now in the code, 5 to 12 is the minimum. It's 32, I think. I mean, if we say that, I don't know architecturally what we're doing. What we really should be concentrating on, in my opinion, is what's the foot? Is it 30 feet? Is that the maximum ridge line we want, 30 feet? Is the maximum range line 32 feet or 35 feet? Right now it's, you know, if we look at the one example, it's like 32 feet or something like that, or 28 feet under this one example or something. So what is that maximum elevation we wan

Before you, I have a wrinkle. Wow, that mic is hot. You know, we're looking at the peak of this roof as it's going like this. What if they want to put the peak of the roof That's a 10-12. Along the... From north to south. Because now you no longer have a 25-foot roof with a 30-foot peak. You now have a 30-foot roof because the entire peak is the entire length of it. I mean, we're looking at it as the peak is in the center of the building facing the road, but what if they want to put the peak in the center of the building facing north to south? That makes it a much different prospect because no

Can you put that drawing back up that was here?

I would propose that we add as clause to the end of this statement, the change in the document that basically says, with the maximum ridge line of 30 feet.

He's got you. He'll bring you up. You're good.

And that would stop anybody who wants to come in and build something crazy with a 10-12 pitch on this thing and running up to 42 feet or 43 feet or something like that.

Yeah, and by just adding a 30-foot statement, we're not impacting pitch. Correct. They can do whatever they want as long as they stay within that.

All right. Anything else? Do I need to make a motion to that? Yes. All right, I move that we approve. Is this a first reading?

Well, we don't have to move. We don't have to do it. No, no, we don't have to. Is there a consensus to add that clause to the change? Because we don't do a motion and vote on first reading, right? Not on the first reading. We currently do. Yes, currently do. Oh, currently? Okay. Well, we'll do it then. So we don't. You need to make a motion. I need to make a motion? Yes. All right. I move that we adopt the ordinance O2622 with the addition of a clause at the end where the last word ridge is a comma with a maximum ridge height of 30 feet.

All right. So we have a motion and a second. Yes. Yes, ma'am.

I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. I UNDERSTAND NOW. SO I NEED TO MODIFY MY MOTION THEN. JUST TO CHECK. THANK YOU. So my motion is to approve the ordinance with the modification being at the end of the word ridge place comma and that the ridge line east of Indian River Drive would be limited to 30 feet. I understand that because it doesn't do that.

Second. All right. We have a motion and a second. Any other discussion? Anybody from the public who would like to speak on this? Oh, no. We closed that. All right. Madam Clerk?

I was waiting for Fred to throw something at me and tell me it's my turn to vote.

All right, our next item is item 11D Delta. Who do we have? Mr. Benton? Oh, okay. Mr. Stokes.

Yeah, I imagine if that's instituted that probably early on the first few meetings we'll definitely have to make sure we take public comment and everything and store that information in our brains for later for the second reading. But I think it would probably be a little hurdle that we can get over.

Yeah, but they'll still have the opportunity at the second one regardless of whether or not they speak on the first reading or not, right?

Yes. So I'm just thinking about what you just said and if we just read the headline as it would be, does that mean we're not going to have discussion either?

tweaked some way i mean it would take away our ability right even listening to citizens or or ourselves to say well we really wanna we just did it on the first reading we just tweaked it which if we didn't do that we wouldn't have tweaked that it would have had to wait to the final hearing and then we would have to adjust it then instead of giving the the ability to uh... publicize what the new ordinance is going to be properly for the second reading so i don't know uh... i kind of like still having the the Discussion even if we don't have a hearing or vote But you know, well, I agree with hav

That's for sure. Yeah, I think so I think that's what does this change as it's presented in our agenda packet actually modify that because the only change is to item number nine under the procedural operations and it basically says there's there's The council deliberation in action is exempt for first readings where no motion or vote is necessary But all the other areas, it doesn't mean that the council can't ask questions or deliberate during the staff's presentation, during the applicant's presentation, or after public input, which all are still there.

I saw one of those agendas this week because I was looking this stuff up and I saw an agenda for a council meeting south of here. They had like nine first readings. Boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom. And it was like a consent agenda. Right. They approved it like a consent agenda.

Well, I'll make a motion to approve ordinance 026-24. Second.

So we have a motion by Council Member Nunn, second by Vice.

And set a second reading. What was the date? I could not find it on the ordinance. It's October 14th. And I'll remake the motion. I'll make a motion to approve ordinance 026-24 and set a second reading for October 14th. Second.

All right. So we have a motion by Council Member Nunn, second by Vice Mayor McPartland. Oh, there it is. Anybody from the public who would like to speak on this? Hearing none. Nothing? Public input is closed. Now, Madam Clerk.

All right, thank you so much for that, sir.

All right. Thank you so much for that. And I agree the city manager should have that over his staff. And unless it's just a de minimis amount of time, sure. But I think all of those boards need to be reporting to us directly and like they should.

Mr. Mayor, I move approval of Ordinance O2625 and set the second reading date for October 14th, 26. Second.

So we have a motion by Council Member Dodd, a second by Council Member Nunn. Anyone from the public? No. All right. Public input is closed. Any more discussion from Council? Hearing none, Madam Clerk.

Absolutely. All right. Thank you, sir. Anything from council on this? Let me get the public first. Is there anyone from the public who would like to speak on this item? All right. Thank you so much. Public input is closed. Mr. Dodd.

I was just interested in what the timing would be on the transition plan.

And have that done at the October 14th meeting?

Anything else? I'll make a motion to approve Ordinance 026-26, second reading for October 14th. Second.

So we have a motion and a second. Any other discussion? Madam Clerk?

All right, next item is item 11G, Mr. Stokes.

How does that square when we have the legislative and quasi-judicial when we combine them together?

I kind of feel like if it's a combined that we should just automatically have them sign an oath card to avoid that problem. It seems like if we're going to do a combined, it makes more sense. It makes it cleaner. That way it avoids the admonishment of data and information that you heard that you can't unhear.

I don't have a problem with that. I was just concerned mostly about when we combine the legislative and the quasi-judicial. And I know I've looked out there in the audience and I've seen people want to speak and I say, do you have an overcard and they're looking like... Did I need to have this or you know? am I going to have to or whoever is sitting in this chair is going to have to Say that at the beginning of one of those combined meetings that you can speak under the legislative portion of it without being under oath and

At what you're saying, but I'm thinking about our last meeting and trying to explain to the very nice young lady that was sitting in the front row which she's speaking on and what she's speaking on because she's not sure whether it's legislative or or quasi-judicial, and I could see a long, drawn-out conversation ensuing with many people, possibly. And I don't know. I kind of like just having the speaker card if it's a combined meeting just to avoid. I just see more confusion if we have to in any way have them identify.

Yeah, have them identify to separate it. If we can just, if it's combined, just, do we have to identify? I mean.

There's nothing anywhere that says that we can't ask for a speaker oath card for both quasi-judicial and legislative, right? No. So maybe what we should do is just say if you're going to address any of these items, you have to have an oath card. And that way it's kind of immaterial as to whether they're talking about legislative or not. I understand the issue where someone might want to talk about a legislative item and they're presenting hearsay or whatever and we shouldn't be considering that in a quasi-judicial hearing. Any substantive information that's being provided should be correct and

It's simple and straightforward and everybody does it. They only matter if three weeks from now somebody wants to sue us or challenge what we've been done in that meeting and then our clerk needs to needs to come up with speaker oath cards and so forth. So as long as we have everybody do it, it's simple and they don't have to decide. Because a lot of the people addressing us on an item, I mean, we've covered a judicial and a quasi-judicial legislative about annexations or about modifications to the comp plan in order to do a site plan. And they don't understand the difference between those thi

Thank you, Jay. We're combining it just across the board. If we're combining the two, then across the board, everybody has an Oath Card. Just word it and have it worded. And that way you're not dealing with the, if it's just legislative, we're not dealing with that. But if it's combined, then there's an Oath Card. Okay.

We're getting ready to do that right now. Mr. Nunn. Yes, sir. I'll make a motion to approve ordinance 026-27, modify 9C so that joint meetings will require an oath card. And setting second reading for October 14th.

All right. We have a motion and a second. Is there anyone from the public who would like to speak on this? All right. Anyone with their hand raised? Seeing none, public input is closed. Madam Clerk.

All right, our next item is item 12, unfinished business. There is none. 13, new business. Item 13A, who do we have? Cemetery. Here we go. Mr. Blankenship, you ready for us? I'm ready. All right.

All right. Thank you so much for that, sir. I have a question.

Yes. So I was talking to the city manager about this earlier, and I see that with our rates going up, I would just like to ask the price of two different things as related to Crest Lawn, City of Bear Beach, if I could. Um, sure. Okay. Uh, so basically the single and the double Calabarians, what, what, what are the prices of the single of the new approved rates for city of Vero now?

That sounds like a good idea to help keep up with costs, but we can talk about that. What was the, so the doubles, how expensive was the double? The doubles... So, so let's see.

That's okay. I'm good on the numbers. Um, and we don't have a residency required to be built to bury it in our cemetery. We just have a single rate for everybody that wants to be.

I think we really should consider the 3% CPI increase. I don't see what council thinks, but I think as we're doing the rates, we should try to future-proof those. It makes sense, but we can talk more about that. Anybody else has any thoughts? I appreciate that.

I would go for that too. I think the 3% because what we're looking at in the future, we're already talking about Amendment 3 and all the other things that's going to be happening down the road and we need to be able to take care of our cemetery. So We can have a way to build in some additional funds to support that cemetery. I think we should do it and do it now while we have the increase going in, add to it. 3% CPI.

Max 3% or CPI on an annual basis. It helps keep the cemetery funded with increases. It means we don't have to come back and do this in two years again, like we did? How to build it in? I don't know.

I mean, it's these automatic things. Is that, you know, at some point in time, it's 3%. You know, three years from now, all of a sudden, we realize, well, our 3% has raised it by $105, but we needed to raise it by $505. I don't know whether the CPI means anything anymore, if I know the truth about it. True. So...

It doesn't limit us from changing. I'm not sure it's actually a meaningful number, so... That's a great question. We don't know the answer to anymore.

Maybe what we should do is, right now it's discretionary. When the city manager decides he wants to evaluate the rates, they evaluate them and they bring it forward if they think they need to change. Maybe what you do is you put in here something along the lines of it says that the rates be re-evaluated every 36 months or every 48 months or something. That's a good idea. And you put an expectation level in there for a planning document that says, On this date, it's time to reevaluate the cemetery rates.

I'm not against that either. That sounds good as well. Just something to keep so that we are not doing this as a knee-jerk reaction and actually plan it out down the road. Obviously, after next year, the cemetery is going to need to hold its own and fund itself, and we're not going to have a lot of...

of money sitting in a fund there anymore, so... Well, with the change in the allocation of funds, I mean, the fact that we're building that building down there means that it's possible to allocate a higher percentage of the dollars to the maintenance of the facility as opposed to capital improvements, because we should not be doing... We're probably going to need to build another columbarium, I'm thinking, so... But the 20%, I think, that's being allocated to capital improvements should cover that cost for three years from now or four years from now when it's time to build it. We're not going

Go ahead. I thought you had something to say. I kind of agree with the leaving off the CPI and just going with the let's readdress it and set up a sunset, whatever you need to do, or a clause that says every three years we'll readdress this or look at it to make sure that we're in... you know, where we need to be.

Is there anyone from the public who would like to speak on this? Anyone with their hand raised no, sir, okay public input is closed any more from council Hearing none madam clerk councilmember Dodd Yes, mayor Jones.

All right. Thank you so much for that. Our next item is item 13B, consideration of resolution R-26-38. Who do we have? Ms. Bernard? Yes. Ms. Salina. Mr. Mayor, if I may. Yes. Go ahead, Mr. Benton.

October 14th. Can you have it ready for October 14th?

We don't want to table it, but we can continue it.

Go ahead. I'll make a motion to table item. I mean continue item B to October 14th, considering resolution R26-38. Second.

So we have a motion and a second. Anyone from the public like to speak on this? Anyone with their hand raised? All right. Thank you so much public input. It's closed Any other discussion here madam clerk mayor Jones?

All right. Our next item is item 13C is in Charlie. Mr. Benton.

All right. We have a motion by Councilman Nunn, and I'll second. Mr. Dodd.

Okay. I just want to make sure it's clear. We're not approving $75,000 of our reserves to be spent. We're approving $36,171 of our reserves to be spent. I understand the bookkeeping game is played, but we're not going to reduce our reserves by $75,000. We're going to reduce our reserves by $37,000. You are correct.

Okay, I just don't want people out there to hear us say we're spending $75,000 of our reserves for a car. We're spending $37,000 of our reserves for a car, and we're being reimbursed. Hopefully we're setting up some type of a receivable on this to an insurance company. We're going to book the money back for the cash, and then we're going to play these games, but we're really only reducing our reserves by $37,000.

I mean, if we try to explain the accounting process, we would mess everybody's brain up. But just the reality of it is we're only spending 37,000 of our reserves. What? How much are we spending on reserves? Yes. Just kidding. All right. Anything else?

Is there anyone from the public who would like to speak on this item? Anyone with their hand raised? All right. Thank you so much public input. It's closed Any more deliberation from us hearing none madam clerk Yes Yes Yes Yes Thank you. City attorney matters.

I would like to make a request to have a special meeting workshop October 14th at 5 p.m. for septic to sewer. Okay. Anybody else? Any questions?

That's on the same day as our regular meeting, right, at 5? Yes, sir. That regular meeting is loaded up pretty heavy, isn't it?

It's the only one we have for October, so.

You know, I mean, I've only got. One more meeting involved in this. You got two more. I'll keep reminding you. What's the other one?

You know what I would like to think about doing? This septic to sewer thing is blowing up so big. There was a meeting by the Sebastian River Friendly Group. at the library night before last in which they are proposing and actively pursuing getting grants for septic to sewer. There's a whole bunch of misconceptions about what this is. I mean, if you read the social media on septic to sewer, nobody out there in social media even thinks it's been talked about or thought about by the city of Sebastian. I would like to see us make that a special meeting that is just for Septic to Sewer and give mor

Halloween. Well, I mean, here it is. If people don't want to show up to that meeting, then. Quit putting this garbage on Facebook and on Nextdoor. The conversation turns very septic very fast. I'm sorry. Once I'm no longer on the council, I'll drop down that rabbit hole and start addressing it directly on those platforms. Don't do it. I would like to see a separate meeting.

If you need a motion that says schedule a special meeting as you can, in order to get legality so you don't have to wait to have a meeting for us to schedule the meeting, then I think Chris made a notion a minute ago. He can modify that motion to say schedule a special meeting related to this topic when you can arrange it or something.

What he said. Oh, yeah, schedule a special meeting as available by the county and work with us, and you can schedule the date. And I'll second that.

And as long as we have a quorum. Yeah. Yes, I mean, I'll make sure.

And now, would you personally invite, and I know you can find them, would you personally invite the people in leadership in the Audubon Society, any River County Taxpayer Association, any River County Property Owners Association, the Friends of the San Sebastian River, personally invite them?

irna sebastian what neighborhood association is there a sebastian there's no sebastian association oh no we don't want to invite property no no no no invite them all invite them all but i'm saying these four groups are the ones that are all they're all talking about it they're all having all these meetings and one of them is actually talking about going out and and and going out and god bless them for getting grant money i'm not issuing about that i'm just saying that This is a governmental program that needs to be handled through a centralized process or it won't ever work. We've had this con

Oh, I'll work on that. Send the leaders of these groups a special invitation. I'm sending this direct to you. Bam, bam, bam, bam. And they can choose not to show up if they want to.

Well, they're going to do that anyway, choose to show up or not. But let's see what the city clerk has. I'm not done.

I don't want to have people come back later and say I didn't know about it.

Why don't you just make it all five agree to you, and then they can make it in to sign it. But as long as they all agree to a proclamation, That solves, I think, what you're looking for without forcing them to come to the office to sign the paper right then as long as it gets signed before.

Yeah, as long as they get a copy. I think all council members should sign off on those types of proclamations before. They should be able to say yes or no before it comes up here. And every council member, if one says no, then it doesn't come.

Yeah. I'm good with that. Who are the requests coming from?

What kind of response rate are you getting to your letters?

Okay. Is the assumption going to be that if they don't return the letter, that that's an opt-out?

I'm trying to remember because when this whole thing first started, I thought the council passed maybe not a resolution, but the council indicated that it's required that they connect. They don't connect, it's a code violation and we will send code and we will begin to

Because I know we've got grant money, but there's still going to be some cost to each individual who connects. Because we couldn't get them to waive impact fees and change the structure, so our grant won't pay impact fees.

That's not a requirement of the county. My brother's got sewer and no water.

There's property on Indian River Drive that's connected to the sewer but not connected to water because they won't run water lines there.

So you're saying there's people on any river drive who have the availability of county water but have chosen not to connect to it. Correct. Yes, sir. And the county will not connect them to a sanitary system if they haven't connected to water. Correct.

Just be gone. But they can put a meter on your well. They could. And charge you for sewer. They're not going to do that, though. And it's a legal thing to do. All I'm saying is that our objective here, and once again, I'll argue this, although our objective here has always been to get rid of those septic tanks. And if there's anybody who, because of their own personal decisions, have made that difficult, then they still fall outside the legal requirement. They've got a year they must connect. Now, that doesn't necessarily mean they have the availability of water, and we're telling them the leg

Yeah, I mean you're saying the same thing I am. It's not acceptable for you to not have your septic tank remediated and removed because you've chosen not to connect to water. That's not an acceptable excuse. Okay. Yes, sir. And we're still going to go through the code process in that. Okay. All right. I'm fine with that. I just go back to what has been done like in Roseland and other places where the county has gone through and, you know, 40% of the people said no, so they just, it just died because of that. Even though they had the same legal requirement to do it, it just died. Okay.

All right. Thank you so much. Mr. Dodd. No, sir. All right. Thank you so much. Miss Matthews. I'm good All right Mr. McPartland? I'm good. Mr. Jones? I'm good. Mr. Nunn? I'm good. Okay, thank you. Then we are adjourned.