City Commission - Regular Meeting

Good morning. Good morning, everybody. Welcome to October 2nd, the pre-agenda meeting of the City of Lake Worth Beach. Can I have the roll call, please?

Present. All right, so seeing as how we have two of us, and I wanted to ask Mr. Perry if he would make a statement regarding the... the fines that we have been hearing about regarding the wrong day trash and veg pickups. And so I'd like to do that first. And then we can go into some questions about the agenda for Tuesday. And then if there's, I think if there's anything else that commissioners wanted to bring up, we should wait until we have, more than two of us, but I think that for the public, I know people might be tuning in specifically to hear about what's going on with the fines, because

Okay. And then we are still waiting on the data for what is the actual cost of that service.

Regarding the reprieve. And then I would like, as I said, and I know that you're getting it, Mr. Brown, the cost of service so that we don't have... Let's say the cost of service is... $50, you know, the fine could be 75. So, cause this is not supposed to be a revenue generating operation. It's supposed to be to make sure that the citizens know the right day and that it's clean and that it's green and that it's fair for somebody who lives next, you know, my neighbor puts out stuff every single week and doesn't get fined and I have to sit there and watch it. That's not very fair. That's correct

No, I know, but there's like a, what is it? No, not the budget. It's like restricted income.

Okay, good. Yeah, no, I'm looking to actually change the fee schedule going forward. So when we get that data, I'd like to look at that. Mr. Segrich, do you have anything on this?

Yeah, I thought we had said we were going to look at a repeat for August, September and October because the educational campaign has not yet launched. So there still might be some people caught up in the beginning of October.

So I think that we can do both because. I think that it'll actually work into October as well, because if we look at it, we have the cost of service. We have the cost of the fine going forward. We go back and just give a credit for anything past what we changed the fee schedule to.

Yeah, no, I just wanted, you know, when we gave direction on Tuesday, the direction was to include October as part of that reprieve. Up until the point we were able to send out a postcard mailer or some sort of heavy educational campaign. So that's what the direction was set on Tuesday.

I mean, I agree with you, Mr. Segrich. I think that we did, I do remember talking about a postcard with a QR code that brings you to the website that explains everything. And I think that's great. And I think that it's, I mean, if we have that QR code out there, it actually will draw people to the website in general. So I think that's a good thing. But as I said, if we make it so that it's X amount of money going forward and we give a credit back to anybody for anything above that, I think that it does the same thing for doing October as well as changing the fee schedule. Does that make sense?

It does. We would just need one more person to change the direction we gave on Tuesday. We can't really change what we already did because we can't vote on anything.

No, but we can clarify direction, and I think that's what we're doing. Yeah. The other thing is, and I don't know that we can do this, Elizabeth, maybe let us know. I would like to have a section on the agenda to talk about this on Tuesday. And if it isn't, I can always bring it up in my comments, but that's at the end of the meeting.

Okay. I think we can do that. Let's see. All right. Does any other staff have anything about that issue?

The negative feedback, yes, was about education and the amount of the fine. Okay. Nobody was saying don't do it. Everybody was saying it would have been nicer if you told us that you were going to go and do this at the extent that you did it, as well as $300 is fixed income. That's it. If I'm on fixed income, that really blows my budget. So those were the issues. Nobody said, don't do this. Our city is fine exactly the way it is.

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't see it. I can't see the hand. So, Mr. Brown, go ahead.

Right. And in your opinion, do you think that when we – I don't think it's going to change the – I guess my question is if we charge $300 or $100, I think that it's going to have the same effect. It's just not going to be as detrimental to somebody's budget.

Okay. And I do have a question regarding the... Let's see how to put this. The equity of zone pickup. Can you talk a little bit about why you're finding District 3 is 60% of the incidents?

Well, when you look at it, the data that we got, the first set of data that we got out of the 700 pickups, 58% of them were in Zone 3. So I just want to know, what is it about Zone 3 that we could change? We as residents of Zone 3, what are we doing that Zone 1 isn't doing on the Wednesdays that it's

No, I understand that. I don't have a problem with the zones or the days. I have a problem with one of the Wednesdays of the data that you gave us. There was 126 fines in zone three and one in zone one.

Um, let's see here. All right. Well, let's move on then to, I can't see anybody's hands up. So I don't know. Yeah. Anthony, don't put your hand up. Just talk. Cause I can't see it.

I was just going to say, I just want to underscore the outreach and the door hanger. So when we talk about it next, I'd like to know an update on that in terms of what's our timeline, when is it going to happen? Because I do understand and appreciate staff's concern that as we just continue to do these, we are racking up more and more households that we will have to deal with retroactively. And, you know, my thought on that is the sooner we get the educational campaign done, the sooner we don't have that problem. So that's where I think we need to focus right away is let's get that communicati

Okay. Tiana, is that, I guess that would probably be a PI thing. Is that going to be an issue?

OK, I think the door hanger would be I think we could look at a postcard. We don't need to have people walking door to door to door. We don't have the staff for that. Anthony, do you agree?

It was it was during the citation process.

When they cite somebody, somebody leave the door hanger so that it doesn't come as a surprise later on.

Perfect. I agree with the door hanger. That makes sense. So that would come out of the door hanger then would come out of public works.

Right. Oh, that's right. And we did discuss that if it made the process a little bit slower, but it increased the education and we were okay with that. Excellent. All right. Proclamations. So, Shayla, we know that for proclamations for Tuesday, all of the ones that we have on there, has somebody coming?

Okay. And then we go to consent. Consent. Just other proclamations, the ratification of collective bargaining agreement. I wanted to thank all of those that were involved in that. I know that that is a huge undertaking and we really appreciate the work that those of you who are involved in that have done. So I know that we won't necessarily get to talk about that because it is on consent, but I did want to express gratitude for that. So William, let's talk about vacation rentals. Can you summarize what we already voted on and what we're changing specifically on Tuesday if the unfinished busine

I meant, let's start with, yeah, vacation rentals is public hearing. Sorry, public hearing A, go ahead.

And that's charging it at a commercial rate is within the ordinance that we're going to be discussing?

That transient lodging is a commercial rate? Yes. And then we consider this transient lodging and then it automatically becomes.

Okay, so let me ask this question. Why would a short-term rental differ from a long-term rental in its definition of why would that one get commercial rates and one not?

Okay. And then if I owned a hotel or a motel, I would be charged commercial rates? Okay. I'm just trying to think about how it justifies the commercial rate. And I know that Commissioner Maliga was pretty adamant about that. And I just want to make sure that that makes sense. Mr. Segrets, do you have any questions about that?

I do. I've given them to Troy for legal. So there's a number of things that I have questions on with that. So to preface this, I don't have a problem necessarily with us charging commercial rates if it's done legally, right? So there's a couple different issues. One is that when our code and fee tables were set such that they were charging transient properties, commercial rates, our definition of transient only applied to hotel, motel, or similar structures, which means just because we're going to reinterpret it, it we're adding it, we're doing it new, right? And we've never done it before. Th

Should we ask for confirmation from the attorney?

Yeah, that's one of my questions for confirmation. So that's base rates.

I'd like to hear her answer. Good morning.

So that statement when I asked, is all of this included in this ordinance?

So that's, I guess, the clarification that I need from William. If we vote yes on this on Tuesday, what exactly changes?

And so it does nothing with the- It doesn't change rates.

So the charging of the base utility rate, I think, is a legal challenge because we have to have a good reason. And thus far, the only reason presented by this commission is that potentially vacation rental owners write that off on their taxes. And I don't think that would be considered a good enough reason. The other aspect is this. The preemption... basically prevents you from enacting stuff that would create an artificial hindrance to running a vacation rental versus a normal long-term rental. And again, it comes back to what is the justification behind doing this? And so as Mr. Waters point

There's just, I know Ed has his hand up, but there is, and I will try to get it to you. I'll see if I can dig it up, that there is ordinances that the vacation rental mega companies like Airbnb and VRBO are supporting in Florida, specifically for registries. And there's other municipalities where they've done it and they've kind of been applauded by those big lobbies and agencies. So hopefully we can learn from that and really lessen our legal exposure.

Thanks, Ed. And I also, that's kind of what I asked, why I asked that question about what are we exactly voting about on Tuesday. Do you think it, without, Anthony, do you think without having the decisions about the rates and or registry that we're ready to make that decision. I mean, I can make my decision, but do you think that we're going to be in the exact same spot we were last time?

I think because hopefully the mayor will be there and we'll have five. I think we'll be able to come to a decision. For me, with this particular ordinance, As I said last time, my concerns was more on the micro units and the boarding houses and all of that language, which I thought as a group, we all agreed to all of that. And the only point of contention was the commercial rates on vacation rentals. So I'm a little bit disappointed that we're going to have to necessarily rehash all of that. I would have liked to have seen that marked up in this version that's coming forward. I will have to gi

Well, that's what I was asking. Do we have...

Step one, Tate, let's take step one, which is correct all this stuff that William and his team spent a lot of time figuring out. And then step two, let's immediately move to implement the registry and get out to bid for a partner who will help us with enforcement.

Okay. So, yeah, those are the things that we will discuss on Tuesday. I just don't... I wanted to clarify what was in the ordinance and what was not in the ordinance so that we knew exactly where we were in this process.

Yeah, none of the way I put it to people who ask me is... None of what we would call common sense regulation on short term or vacation rentals is in this ordinance. This is basically step one, just recognizing that we have them in the city. They will be allowed in the city. And then step two is, OK, how are we going to have common sense regulation on that?

Right, because we have them already. Yeah, I think that they're going away. Doesn't make sense. I live next door to one.

Well, that and, you know, the legal argument of the grandfathered clause has been challenged. And, you know, we already know it's on shaky ground. It's not, you know, it might not survive a court challenge.

Okay. All right. And then when we look at the turf, let's talk about artificial turf. William, where are we and what exactly are we deciding on on Tuesday? Okay.

Oh, I see the highlighting part. Okay. And all of that is preempted by Florida law?

Did we, when it comes to multifamily or commercial, where are we there?

Okay. All right. Mr. Segrich, do you have questions about that?

Yeah, I've got a couple. So just one very particular question on line 211. Fill in material. What is meant by fill in material? Is that like landfill or like sand?

That's what I meant, yeah, like dirt. Yes. Okay, so you can't just pile up a whole bunch of used artificial turf to fill in a hole, essentially.

I've definitely seen it. So thank you for providing a lot of the clarity in and around the single family home, one acre or less. So that's that applicability section. It takes a little... bit to cross-reference it, but it does, I think, a good job there. My big question, so with the one acre or less single-family residential, the only question I have there is, under the permit requirements. So currently, you know, via the state rules and requirements, they're not requiring site plans. They're not requiring soil surveys. They're not requiring any of that stuff. Do we risk running afoul by havin

without a permitting process it requires a bit we wouldn't have that information but the nrcs web soil survey that's not required to meet the state statute

Understood, but that's not a Natural Resources Conservation Services Web Soil Survey.

Line 298, we're requiring a natural conservation services web soil survey. What is the purpose of that?

I understand that about large projects, but for your homeowner who only has to adhere to 10 inches per hour, I think it is, right? Yeah. That's not going to tell them that. The perk rate afterwards is what's going to tell them whether or not they've succeeded, as well as the material spec and the base material spec and so on is going to govern that, not the current existing condition of the soil. So if your soil right now drains at... 800 gallons a second or drains at 10 gallons an hour is irrelevant. Just after they install the artificial turf, it has to drain at 10 gallons per hour.

And if somebody's just putting this in between their landscape pavers, we're still going to require that?

I don't want the permitting process to be overly onerous because a lot of these installations are very simple. it's i want it in between my landscape pavers because no grass is growing there i want a putt-putt green in a small area of my backyard um you know we're i think we're over engineering a lot on the side of that question

I agree. Yeah. No, I think something like that would be prudent, right, to do because we get enough flack about our permitting process and everything and that it's overly onerous. So something like that, I would say, would be a very prudent thing to have. My other question is this. Currently, it's been stated that that currently artificial turf is allowed anywhere landscaping is not required. So I've always interpreted that meaning like currently we can have artificial turf. Is that a correct statement?

Yep. So with that, my concern is over SB 180, because whether it's, you're currently allowed to have 50 square foot or 50% of the property as artificial turf, We have now greatly limited commercial properties' ability to utilize artificial turf by adding this in. Does this, since it is currently allowed and now we are making it a lot more burdensome, are we allowed to do this by SB 180?

Okay. All right. Good? I am satisfied with that, yep.

All right. Does anybody else from staff have anything that they want to add today?

Oh, nothing. Nothing. I'm sorry. I thought you said something. I was getting some texts and people are saying we don't want the 50% decrease. And I just want to be clear that that's not what we're saying. We're saying we're going to find the cost of service. We're going to create the actual fee. Whatever is... the difference between the new fee that just covers the cost of service, as well as the administrative costs, all of the stuff that it takes to actually get this job done that in the $300, that's going to be the credit. If that's clear, does that make sense?

Let me, let me, I don't think you can say that.

Because we don't have three people here to say that. But I OK, but I'm just cautioning you about promising something. What happens if if our colleagues say no to all of that?

OK, completely understand. I just want people to be clear that what I was saying, not what everybody else is saying. And I know Mr. Perry's we're going to bring up 50 percent and whatever anybody else brings up. But I just wanted to be clear that that's where I'm going with it. So we need the cost of service. That's all I'm saying.

Yes. Yeah. I guess the only thing on the short-term rental one is I guess... I will come prepared. I'll listen to the previous meeting and come prepared with the notes on the definition changes and the text changes that we had all discussed. And I just want to ask Mr. Perry, would it be appropriate to send that to you so that it could be sent to my colleagues, or would that not be appropriate?

Okay. I will, I will, I will gather that. Um, the only other. item I had, and I know our legal team is busy, is I wanted to thank them for their clarification on the disclosure ordinance. I think it helps. My only remaining question is that we are still using the term fiscal interest or financial interest. I think we need to define that. Because $10 can be a financial interest and it's still quite nebulous.

All right. Well, let's take that conversation offline just because I don't know.

Well, no, I'm just bringing it up because I had sent the email back a while ago and I just want to make sure that it continues to be on the radar screen because I think the longer we go without actually having an opinion on that is the longer we risk not properly disclosing.

Okay. All right. And then last but not least, because we have one minute left, Mr. Sword, do we have anything going on with leisure services in the city this weekend?