Village Council - workshop

Are we done? Okay. Yes.

Yeah. Know. Alright. You didn't really reply until, I guess we're done.

We're going to call to order this meeting of the Village Council agenda review for Monday, March 23, the final agenda review for Councilwoman Siskind, Vice Mayor Siskind, and Tom McGovern, former Vice Mayor. Take it away, Jim.

All right. Well, of course, one of the first items we have is presentation proclamations and the first one would be celebration of service and recognition of our Article and Council members. Both Vice Mayor Siskin and Councilman McGovern will be recognized and we'll have that at the kickoff and top of the meeting.

I got one of those too, but I'm still here.

He came back. And next item will be a presentation of the annual report from fire rescue by Chief O'Mearo. Okay. We'll do that. Consent agenda, of course, have minutes. If you have anything as your last final parting shot to modify and change any minutes, correct any minutes, feel free to send those to the Village Clerk's office and they'll reflect those in the final agenda. Next item on consent is a resolution twenty twenty six-sixteen ratifying the agreement FDAC, FTX, for a forestry grant. And Ms. Grok can give us a little background on it.

So, good news for this meeting. We have a grant that we've just received, and it is $50,000 with a $50,000 match. So it'll be a $100,000 for improving the tree canopy in the Wellington Environmental Preserve. So we're very excited about that.

Yeah. I'm good.

Yay. Really good. That's great. And this is $50.50 with a match?

Oh, yes. Our match is 50 and the grand is 50. We've had a lot of success with these programs. FX has been very good to us with these programs, so

we appreciate your going. I know. I mean, like

They all have names too. We have, like, an infrared photo of it too. Mhmm. There's a lot of trees. Okay. Love that. Great. Awesome. Next?

Alright. Next item is final order of denial for ordinance number twenty twenty five dash 29 Isla Carol Polo Residence And Zoning. Miss Cohen, just give us a brief summary on that.

Yes. I provided a statute that requires that when we deny a development order, we have to issue a written denial. And even though it didn't pass, we needed to actually issue the denial. So once that is approved, and it's docketed by the clerk's office, that will begin their thirty day period for filing a cert petition.

Because instead of voting it down, we just didn't approve it, which is why there was no real Exactly. Official

You have to issue a denial. We we haven't had that many situations in which we've

issued no Had to say had to make up for that. Right? Okay.

So is is this the issue of is there an issue of so of with or without prejudice here?

It would be without prejudice because the motion, I think, would

Well, and we had said that at the time.

Yeah. I think it's with prejudice. Tim, do you disagree with that?

Or let us know by tomorrow night.

Yeah. I

don't recall it being mentioned, but I don't think it was. I think it was with prejudice, because unless it's specifically motioned with or without, it's automatically with.

But specifically I thought motioned to be without. I thought that yeah,

I'll to I'll go have look back

at the motion.

I recall specifically.

And I

Okay. Technically wasn't a motion.

It was

a motion to approve that failed one to four.

Right. So I don't know that it would have been

But then there was some discussion

Cohen did have that discussion.

Just to clarify, think the discussion after, and that's why I don't think it was clear, and technically my opinion would be that not that it matters, but it would be that we didn't really address it, is that normally when you do with or without prejudice, that would assume that there was a motion for denial. I think the discussion we had afterward was that since it was a motion to approve which failed, there was no basis to do it with or without prejudice. So I think that we were silent on that.

But if we're addressing that now

You could then we can add yeah. We can we can add a

And what's trial the distinction legally for with and without prejudice? What does that impact the applicant? What does that mean?

There's a period of time that they can't

One year. They can't come back with the same request.

One year

or two years?

Two years for a land use change. There was no land use change here. It was a rezoning.

So if it's with prejudice, it's one year? Yes, sir. Okay.

And just as a side note, not directly related to this item, but as an item of upcoming attractions for those that will be here at a subsequent meeting, is that given the lack of changes to Senate Bill 180 that was approved in prior legislative session, this was an item that would have been affected by zoning and progress as far as coming back. So we will be coming back to you with basically the changes that we were initially going to try that were basically stopping that because based on what's in Senate Bill 180 and that there were no changes to allow what we were proposing as far as six eighty eight, that we won't be able to move forward with those original plans.

You'll have to approve a resolution rescinding the zoning in progress. In progress

that we adopted previously.

Is that done before this?

It'd be really unrelated to this, but it would affect it would have affected this in the future and other projects like it. But generally speaking, given that's the changes to senate bill one eighty that were contemplated by different bills did not go through, that then we would rescind our zoning in progress.

You mean that senate Bill 180 didn't pass at all? The amendments to it

did They not proposed amendments that would have allowed us to move forward with changes to six eighty eight that would have been, that currently would not be permitted under the currently adopted legislation. That's that's what we will be coming back.

Well, we can revisit that before we have to bring it up to an agenda item because I wanna have a deeper discussion about that and what that means and what we can and can't

additional changes in that bill? What did get passed?

There there were no bills tied to

That's one eighty.

No. But there were no what about any bills relative to Live Local? Weren't there some additional changes that got made there?

There were in terms of what properties would be eligible. Right.

Yeah. That doesn't impact SB

two thousand one eighty. No.

That's a different

That was limiting our ability to make any comp plan or LDR changes that were considered more burdensome or restrictive. I

just think all of that is something that everyone's going to need to be aware of because I think they made made more things eligible.

And it won't be the last time we're going be hearing about that. Think you're going be seeing that over the next few legislative sessions, so we can continue with changes to those items.

Okay.

And with this final order, in the future, this would be done the night of instead of coming back at So a later I I mean, not to beat a dead horse at all, but that night I was making a motion to deny and was stopped. Like, we could have just ended this that night. So I'm not excited to revisit this again. It should have been done that night.

Yeah. It's not something that we've done that often, and so we didn't have this prepared. And it is required to be a written denial. So I think you'll see in the future, if there is a denial, we should have something ready to go. And this is not, you know, there's no public hearing or anything like that. It's just a matter of

It was just a very intense meeting.

It was.

It was a long one.

Yeah, it was. And I

was glad when it was over. I don't want to revisit anything to do with that

at unless this there's a card on it, this is on consent. Well, but

this still brings back this issue of, are we saying that this is with or without prejudice? What is it we're trying to do here?

Well well, we can revise it and put with prejudice if that's your desire. And

I I thought the desire expressed that night was without and I think that that's gonna get us into some further

Okay. We'll have to go back and review the review the meeting.

Is That was the gist of the discussion with counsel post vote was that it was going forward without prejudice. Right. But that action was never taken, that was the conversation that counsel

Let's find out what the discussion was, because we shouldn't go back and change our answers today if we had an answer back then. I just don't remember what it was now.

But if we're now making a new motion on a final order and we want to change it, maybe this should be pulled to have a discussion so that we can

You're not going to I mean, the order has to reflect

What we actually did.

What you actually did. So it's not an opportunity to revisit what you did, it's just to memorialize

what But what we did is not deny it. So now we're denying it. All we did was a failed motion.

So I think, see, just backing up, generally speaking, outside of quasi judicial and even as we have done for years in quasi judicial items, is that generally a motion to approve that fails is equivalent to a denial. And what's happening here is that based on the fact that many jurisdictions do this, we did not do a separate motion then to deny subsequent to the failed motion to approve. And so all it does is basically you would think normally whatever the vote was to approve that failed would be the very same vote in the reverse to a motion to deny. That's normally the way it would end up happening.

And we did in fact do that at the PZAB denial of a request for a variance.

Well then, would it have to come off consent if we want to have it the same numbers? Because if it's on consent, it'll pass five-zero.

But what's being passed is just the order of denial? It's not

It doesn't have to. I'm just saying that's normally what would happen. It doesn't have to.

But is it an order of denial formal?

It's a written order denying it. You're just approving the form of the written denial.

Well, the vice mayor may want to still have her vote be the same. I don't know. Right. That's up to you.

Well, I guess the vote is the same. This is just a memorialization of what the vote was. The vote was Right. Denied four to by four to one.

Realizing that the vote was four to one, five to zero.

Right. We all agree that it was voted down Right. Five to zero. Right.

Well, it's also just to be so everyone's clear too, in terms of the statute requirement that we have to provide the notice to the applicant, but the notice has to include a citation of the applicable portions of an ordinance, rule, statute, or other legal authority for the denial. So it is more specifically outlining the reasons that the council gave in their comments as to the reason that they did not vote in favor of the motion. And that's what's identified in the order itself.

I would just like to know before tomorrow's meeting whether discussions were with or without prejudice. I don't remember what they were. Know we Yes, talked about it, but don't remember when that came

to the tapes.

One last go to the tapes for you.

It started with the tapes, it ends with the tapes.

For Tanya.

There you go. Any other questions All on this one?

No. Going to public hearings, first time public hearings, ordinance number twenty twenty six dash 10, which is the ordinance increasing counsel salary. And this is second reading.

Looks the same as last time.

So Okay. We

can discuss it tomorrow. Unless someone wants to discuss it now. If not, moving on.

Next item is ordinance number twenty twenty six dash zero eight and this will be a postponement. Staff's requesting that we postpone this to future meeting. Not date certain.

What is this? What is this?

Yeah. The Lake Worth Road Station.

Oh, in front of the school.

Which that?

In front the Panther Run That's correct. Okay.

That's We're postponing it.

We have We're gonna have a whole report on this.

We have to have an interlocal agreement in order to transfer the authority over the roadway. And we've drafted the interlocal agreement. It's been provided to the county. We're waiting for comments to come back. We have not received them yet. So we we don't want to go forward with the second reading of this ordinance.

Until we have the

local We do it together with interlocal and it happens concurrently. And

do we believe that that's coming quickly?

I don't know how quickly at this point. You know, the reality is is that I suspect based on the speed at which the county will be getting it processed since once we approve it, then they would still need to approve it at the BCC level that we, you know, may not make the end of the school year. But regardless, we're proceeding with it and bringing it back to counsel when they get back to comments. Generally speaking, I don't think there's anything that we're going to find that's going to cause us to say that we don't want that section of roadway. However, we're going through the due diligence process and clearly they're taking the time to go through the interlocal review as well.

The the county staff has said the tentative date for the BCC consideration of the interlocal would be April 29. And at that point we would have the approved ILA by both the council and the BCC and their consent to the annexation which is the other reason why we can't move forward without the county's consent on it on the annexation.

Even if we voted on this for second reading tonight, it wouldn't be effective without the interlocal.

Well, wouldn't be effective without their consent.

Yeah. We need a consent before final second reading and adoption.

Okay.

And that brings us to the regular agenda, which is the resolution twenty twenty six-fifteen, which is the resolution opposing project Tango. And before tomorrow evening, we'll have the three versions that staff's been looking at. One is the original version that was provided by the residents group that formed largely by Arden and some of the other unincorporated communities in the vicinity of Project Tango. There's the version that staff provided at the last meeting with the modifications that were suggested by Councilwoman Silvestri. And then I'm working on a third one that hopefully will be finalized before tomorrow at midday.

Yeah, before tomorrow.

No, before tomorrow. For the meeting, I can guarantee it be done before the

meeting, but

maybe you'll try and get it done sooner. And it's a little more of a wait and see rather than taking necessarily an opposition approach or opposing the project. It's a wait and see for all the specific project data that that's being provided and and basically determine then, you know, what the county would do, not necessarily coming out straight as directly in opposition because we don't know as the project has evolved. I think we're waiting to get changes in the information that's been provided to the county as far as project modifications and we don't have all that information yet.

I'd like to see that before noon though because I didn't want to read it.

That's what I was going to ask for.

Not at the moment in Not in a the blue folder.

Yes.

It can come in a blue folder, but just by noon. Right.

Well,

in email. Yes. They get

in blue, I guess.

Okay.

Alright.

Last item.

Well, last item is acceptance of the 03/10/2026 village of Washington municipal election results which we received from the supervisor of elections.

And so now this is done, this is exact, this is Sir, if recall military ballots, any other kind of ballots, post canvassing board, post everything. Okay. And then we've and and then in theory, we would never need to really do this again because now the charter change has also Mhmm. Now passed as part of this ballot.

Correct. Okay.

Unless you were functioning as your own canvassing board, which you still have the ability to do under the charter in the event the supervisor of elections, you know

Didn't have a canvassing board.

Doesn't want to

Or if we

have a special election. Right?

Well, if you recall, a prior supervisor was unwilling to act as the canvassing board, and so we did have to canvass our own elections. So if that ever occurred again, we would still be able to So canvass

the our referendum now, we have appointed them if they exist.

That's correct. If they're willing to canvass our elections, then they are they will be canvassing our elections.

Per the chart? Correct. Okay.

And then if not, it just reverts back to what it was.

Correct. We would we would convene a canvassing board and canvass the election. I do have an item when you're

Yeah, think I'm ready.

Okay. So we had some discussion concerning Grand Isles.

Was going to

ask you about that because it's not

in the book. I was wondering where we are.

You authorized the mayor to meet with us and to speak with them. We have arrived at what we believe is a reasonable settlement agreement. So currently, if you recall, there were three parcels at issue. Do you happen to have a graphic that you could pull up?

QS and E.

It was QS and That helps nobody. Let's let's since I've since QS and E.

Let let me let me try to bring this along quickly. This the e is the partial is the parcel that runs along the front of the middle school and starts up a hundred and twentieth. The portion that we need

The corner.

To do the roundabout is Correct.

The corner.

Right. The corner.

The other pieces are further up the road and then down in between Village Park and Grand Isles and the middle school. Right. There's a one

We have a map coming up.

He's got There we go.

Okay. Right. So for purposes of this agreement, we're

forgetting this agreement. E is here, and then one of them is here.

You can click on it, Jonathan, and highlight it.

Tim.

Tim beat you

to it. That's

E1.

What And These are some others.

Just stay on E1, if you can. For purposes of this agreement, we're not addressing Q and S. We're only addressing a portion the portion of E1 that we need for the roundabout, plus the portion of E1 that is adjacent to Lake Worth Road and wraps around the commercial center. So I have revised the complaint to remove the other two parcels. We're dealing only with E 1. Yep. So we've agreed

We're jumping ahead here again. We've we've lost clarity. The complaint that miss Cohen is referring to that none of you all have seen is the best way to resolve this. Now after multiple meetings with the lawyer and the association folks is going to be to file a lawsuit that they are going to then agree to accept service of that we are going to then settle by agreement. There's going to be a settlement that is then gonna handle all of the things that missus Cohen is about to tell you. But that's the Right. The jump ahead. When

she's referring

to a lawsuit, a lawsuit's gonna be the vehicle for doing that.

I believe I did provide a copy of the complaint to counsel, but I emailed it out, I think. So I revise the complaint just to address the portion of Track E1 that we're discussing. They would accept service of the complaint. As part of our one hundred and twentieth roundabout improvements, we would install curbing and gutter along Lake Worth Road between

Isle View Drive and Isle Drive.

And Isles Drive. If they needed a drainage easement, we would give them a drainage easement. I don't know that they will. And then we've agreed to pay legal fees in the amount of $25,000 If there's any issue with South Florida Water Management District, we've agreed not to interfere with their permit with South Florida Water Management District, and Jonathan doesn't believe that that will be impacted. So that is the agreement.

There was enough money budgeted for the improvements to the curb and gutter that that $25,000 will be covered in that budget. So it's not something that wasn't budgeted.

I wasn't in the meeting, but this sounds crazy. I thought we at one point we said, hey, we've been maintaining this forever, we'll just take it. And now how did we get here?

Okay. So so here's how we got here. So the the fact of the matter is this. There was an agreement some time ago with a prior lawyer for the Grand Isles and some prior Grand Isles board members that called for this curbing portion, the curb and gutter portion that miss Cohen is referring to now. And that arrangement was going was what was going to lead to the trade of this.

We were gonna do the curb and gutter. The whole thing was going to end. We then got into this larger discussion with a new lawyer about these three potential easements. This one, the one that then runs up a Hundred And twentieth towards Village Park, and then the one that runs down the backside of Village Park and along the Grand Isle's North buffer. Those three it was hoped that there could be some grand settlement that would involve all three of them.

Put this all to bed. They had a series of of demands, wishes, thoughts, desires for payments, different kinds of things. And I said to them quickly on our behalf that we're not really concerned about those other easements that we're not using or doing anything with or anything at all. So if they don't wanna discuss that or be reasonable about that, more power to them, we'll move on. We don't care right now.

And nobody wants to prejudice their position, us or them. This piece is the piece that we need to have to do the roundabout. They had been promised for a long time, even before council level involvement, that they that the curb and guttering along the front there that is gonna further stop people from parking or doing anything along Lake Worth Road vis a vis dismissal or drop off times for Polo Park would get done. In this ongoing discussion, they then had a series of other things that they would have liked, including curbing and guttering all of Isleview Drive, which can't be done without raising the road, increasing the slope, all kinds of different things. We explained to them that that's not going to happen.

Their frustration is that still to this day, even with the traffic light, even with the attenuators that they have placed all along the entryway there, that they have cars literally parking in the afternoon in the middle of the road going in both directions while parents wait there to to pick up their kids. We have assured them that PBSO and school police would be taking a new and much more vigilant look at that. So then we come back to the fact that we need e. And we need e quickly. So yes, we could take it.

We could potentially take it by eminent domain. We could do any number of things. If we do it by eminent domain, we have to pay them a reasonable part, and we have to pay them their attorney's fees.

That's an

option we're not doing. So the fastest, easiest, quickest, cheapest, and the way that gets the roundabout under construction most expeditiously is this plan. K.

So at the end of the meeting, that was the best solution

that was Yes. Agreed And they have agreed.

By all parties.

Yes. And they have agreed that they will accept service of the lawsuit, and they have agreed that in the time while this is being we have to finalize a document that needs to be attached to the complaint. And they have agreed. And I think Ms. Cohen, at this point in time, is working with them so that this lawsuit can be filed, they can accept service, and we can settle this lawsuit, God willing, prior to the swaying in of the new council. That this would be all done, and we would be commencing with the construction of the roundabout in the very shortest amount of time possible.

I should mention that it's subject to it's been approved basically following our meeting. It was approved by some of the board members. It is subject to a formal approval by their board, and that meeting is happening on Wednesday.

As in the day after tomorrow?

Correct. I expect them to approve it. And, you know, while if we pursued 95.361, there would be no fee award, we also might incur fees ourselves. And so this is the most economical way to achieve The

problem with the statutory road is that they're not going to agree

Mhmm.

To that way of doing it. So first and foremost, we're going to be delayed at a minimum months. And in those months, while we won't pay any of their attorney's fees, we will pay ours

Mhmm.

Which we will not be getting back.

Right.

And so in the interest of getting this done, which is what I think you all charged me to do, that's how we come to this. This may be imperfect but livable and most expeditious solution.

It is the most expeditious and most will allow us to proceed with the project as fast as possible. I think limits our exposure to the greatest extent possible. The only other option we have absent this process and absent any legal route is to look at a redesign which still allow us to make up some time but it's still not the fastest and we don't know what that cost is. Could be more, it could be less, but

And not the best design.

Why have we not walked back on the item we took off last time to approve the construction of

the We will do that pending the result of this discussion right now because we don't want to walk that on if there was still potentially

to put that back on the

agenda So because want to get it passed and

as soon as that's done we can move forward and

not wait.

So we're putting that back now?

We would walk that on this evening, that's for tomorrow evening, that's correct.

Yeah, we took off last time to put it back so we can actually move forward.

So that'll come back as whatever B and then acceptance will be C.

That's a regular agenda item?

We can make it a regular, it could be on consent.

Okay, put it on consent.

Just gonna approve of the contract. What what I want Okay. To make sure happens

that's happened once to many in the past that everything is checked and rechecked, T's are crossed, I's are dotted. We don't come back a year from now and say, oops, something went wrong.

Well, agreed. And in that time, of course, the roundabout will be built. So that would be problematic. But we've but so that is that is what we, mister Barnes, miss Cohen, and I, on our behalf, like best about this option. Right? The best part about this option option is that we could go down the statutory. Right? Right? And then we could win. They could potentially appeal. It could take right? Them agreeing to a settlement, which they have already agreed to.

Is that in writing?

It will be.

It's in writing That by email.

Settlement sort of waives all of that.

But subject to the challenge order

a lawsuit that you settled.

And that was the key, that it's a friendly suit that they would accept service of. Otherwise, there would be no guarantee, and at which point, no guarantee of that.

And I've already prepared the motion for consent judgment and the consent judgment. GREGORY I will also be preparing just a little settlement

Did file the lawsuit today? No. We're waiting for the sorry.

GREGORY I had to revise the right. It had to be revised. And I need to forward it to them so that they can review the changes that I've made. So Right.

But we were were also waiting for

Yes. A sketch and description.

Right. Okay. And and so but, again, going back to miss Antunya's point, it is critical that we're going to get that in the next couple of days. We're going file this. They're going to agree to the settlement. Have what is this? Twenty days. We're going to wrap this in a bow in twenty days.

It's ready to go. We're waiting for the sketch and legal. And I'm going to put together just because there are certain terms that I'm not going to put in the actual final judgment. Those will be just part of the settlement agreement. It's so weird that we

have to do a lawsuit to get

to a settlement agreement. Why can't we just have an agreement written up that

Well, because they can't convey the property without a vote of their members. And so in order for it to be there needs to be a judgment ordering them to ordering that determining that title has vested in us.

The Board will consent to a judgment.

I'm sorry? The Board

will consent to a judgment.

Yes. Okay.

Without requiring a vote of the membership. Right.

That takes forever.

So that will be added, the construction contract approval will be added as consent item 7D.

Okay. Good job. Thank you. Anything else on this agenda? We could drag it out for the sake of the people who would like to make their last meeting go longer.

We could, but unfortunately I have nothing else.

Okay. I'm glad I had a conflict and I get to hand that roundabout off to you, so good job.

You really do.

I am. I know. I really do. I'm really glad you got

to do

that to me. If there's nothing else from anybody, then we are adjourned. It was I mean, take us off the air.

On with that Zoom, like, two hours. Where's the