Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript

[00:00:10]

>> GOOD EVENING EVERYBODY. I WOULD LIKE TO CALL THIS CITY COMMISSION WORKSHOP WEDNESDAY JANUARY 82020 TO ORDER.

I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAGA NDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.

[Item 4]

GOOD EVENING. AT ONE OF OUR RECENT MEETINGS MAYOR BROUGHT FORWARD A RESOLUTION AND LETTER RELATIVE THIS MATTER. HE WAS ASKING IF WE COULD DO A QUICK WORKSHOP SO EVERYBODY IS UP TO SPEED ON IT.

THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE HAS MADE ITS WAY THROUGH THE COUNTY'S PROCESS AND WAS PLANNED TO GO FORWARD IN EARLY JANUARY.

DUE TO THE OBJECTIONS AND THE CONCERNS RAISED BY THE CITY, IT WILL INSTEAD GO TO BROWARD LEAGUE OF CITIES TOMORROW.

THEY'VE CHANGED THAT? OK.

WELL AS OF MONDAY IT WAS HEADED TO BROWARD LEAGUE OF CITIES AND THEN IT WOULD BE PUT ON A FUTURE COUNTY AGENDA.

I WILL TELL YOU AS WE TALK ABOUT IT, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF AMENDMENTS THAT ARE UNDER DISCUSSION POTENTIALLY TO THIS ORDINANCE. THE ORDINANCE DOES A COUPLE OF THINGS. THE FIRST THING IT DOES IS RURAL RANCHES AND RURAL STATES LAND USE CATEGORIES EXCEPTIONS.

AND THAT WOULD AFFECT FOR INSTANCE THE RANCHES.

IN AREAS SUCH AS THAT UNDER THE EXISTING ORDINANCE IF THEY RECEIVE A NOTICE TO CONNECT, THEY DO NOT HAVE TO DO SO UNDER THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE THEY WOULD HAVE TO DO SO.

IT PROVIDES ANY PROPERTY OWNER WHO RECEIVES A NOTICE TO CONNECT FOR POTABLE WATER OR SANITARY SEWER BE REQUIRED TO PAY A CONNECTION CHARGE TO THE PUBLIC OR PRIVATE UTILITY.

THE PETITION COULD GO TO BROWARD COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, THE GOVERNING BODY MUNICIPALITY OR ANY OTHER ENTITY HAVING JURISDICTION. IF THE VARIANCE OR EXCEPTION IS GRANTED, IT CAN'T CONFLICT WITH ANY ORDERS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION OR ANY OTHER STATE OR LOCAL JURISDICTION. AND THE DETERMINATION THAT THE CONNECTION IS NOT REQUIRED PUBLIC INTEREST MUST BE MADE SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.

IF YOU FAIL TO CONNECT, THE PENALTY 250 FOR THE FIRST.

THEN $500 AFTER THAT. YOU COULD BE TAKE ON THE COURT STILL TO BE FORCED TO CONNECT. THE PROVISION FOR ENFORCEMENT IN INCORPORATED AND UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF THE COUNTY IS ADDRESSED IN THE INCORPORATED AREAS IT WOULD BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE MUNICIPALITY. SO AS AN EXAMPLE IF CREEK UTILITIES RAN SEWER LINES THROUGH PINE CREEK AND ISSUED A NOTICE TO CONNECT TO THOSE RESIDENTS THEY WOULD HAVE 180 DAYS TO DO SO. BUT THE ENFORCEMENT PIECE OF IT WOULD FALL ON THE CITY OF PARKLAND'S CODE ENFORCEMENT.

AND FINALLY THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE DOESN'T PROVIDE FOR ABATEMENT IN THE EVENT THAT COMPLIANCE IS NOT ACHIEVED.

AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, CITIES HAVE RAISED A LOT OF OBJECTION.

FIRST OF ALL THE CONCERN WAS IT WOULD REQUIRE PROPERTY OWNERS TO

[00:05:05]

CONNECT THAT IS NOT CONTROLLED WITHIN THE AUTHORITY OF THE MUNICIPALITIES. THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE WOULD MODIFY ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS WITH THE COST AND RESPONSIBILITY OF DOING THE ENFORCEMENT. BECAUSE OF THAT THEY FELT IT CREATED AN UNFUNDED MANDATE. IF THEY ARE THE SERVICE AREA PROVIDER, THEY CAN ISSUE THE NOTICE TO CONNECT IF THE LINE IS THERE, YOU DON'T HAVE ANY SAY OVER IT.

THEY ALSO TALKED ABOUT MUNICIPALITIES BEING REQUIRED TO ENFORCE CONNECTIONS OR CUT ENFORCEMENT WITHOUT THE MITIGATION AUTHORITY OR FUNDING. THE CODE ENFORCEMENT PROCESS THE WAY IT WORKS, IF WE WERE TO LEVY A FINE AGAINST A RESIDENT FOR FAILURE TO CONNECT AS YOU JUST HEARD IT WOULD BE $250 A DAY EVERY DAY UNTIL THEY CHOSE THE CONNECT.

YOU WOULD HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO MITIGATE THAT LIEN.

THAT'S WHAT THE ORDINANCE IS ABOUT.

I SPOKE WITH THE COUNTY ATTORNEYS OFFICE ON MONDAY.

THEY SAID THERE IS DISCUSSION GOING ON TO THE DELETING THE RURAL RANCHES AND RURAL ESTATES EXCEPTION WHICH WOULD CERTAINLY HELP MANY OF OUR RESIDENTS. THERE IS ALSO DISCUSSION OF GOING IN AND DEFINING SERVICE AREAS IN MORE DETAIL WHICH MIGHT HAVE SOME AFFECT ON THE ORDINANCE.

THAT'S WHERE IT'S AT. THE ONLY THING I WANT TO GET BEING REPRESENTED TO THE LEAGUE OF CITIES, IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS, CONCERNS OR IF WE WANT TO TAKE A POSITION WHERE WE STAND ON IT BECAUSE WHEN THE PRESENTATION COMES FORWARD, I

CAN BRING THOSE QUESTIONS UP. >> IN THE PAST THE CITY HAS ALWAYS BEEN OPPOSED TO THESE KIND OF RESOLUTIONS.

THAT WAS NOT THE SITUATION WHEN THE RESIDENTS PURCHASED THE PROPERTY. HISTORICALLY THAT HAS BEEN OUR POSITION WE HAVE OPPOSED THESE THINGS AND THINK THE AREAS THE WAY THEY WERE SHOULD BE GRANDFATHERED IN IN THESE

SITUATIONS. >> A COUPLE OF THINGS.

FIRST OF ALL, WHAT IS THE COUNTY DOING RELATIVE TO THE PEOPLE IN TERMS OF GETTING THE WORD OUT AND HOW THEY COULD HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THOSE HOUSEHOLDS, ARE THEY DOING

ANYTHING TO PUSH THIS OUT THERE? >> THIS IS GOING THROUGH NORMAL PROCESS. IT WILL BE ADVERTISED AS AN ORDINANCE, THAT TYPE OF THING. I'M NOT AWARE OF ANYTHING BEYOND THAT. ARE YOU?

>> SO SECONDARY, IN TERMS OF THE ENFORCEMENT ASPECTS OF THAT, WHEN YOU ARE REQUIRED BY YOUR COUNTY ORDINANCE TO ENFORCE THESE KINDS OF THINGS, ARE THEY LOOKING OVER YOUR SHOULDER RELATIVE TO THAT CODE ENFORCEMENT OR HOW DOES HA ALL

WORK? >> THERE ARE A COUPLE OF GRAY AREAS IN THIS ORDINANCE. SOME OF THESE ARE GRAY AREAS THAT EXIST IN THE EXISTING CODE. ONE OF THEM IS IN THE EVENT THE CITY EVEN THOUGH WE WOULD BE CHARGED WITH ENFORCING THE ORDINANCE IF WE CHOSE NOT TO DO SO.

IT IS NOT CURRENTLY CONTEMPLATED THERE WOULD BE SANCTIONS BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT COULDN'T CHANGE TOMORROW.

>> RELATIVE TO THAT ENFORCEMENT, THESE FINES THAT ARE BEING LEVIED ARE GOING INTO WHICH COFFER.

WHILE WE WOULD BE CHARGED WITH ENFORCEMENT AND LEVYING THE

[00:10:03]

FINE, THEY ARE NOT GIVING ANY ABILITY TO MITIGATE FINES.

ONE OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT I THOUGHT WAS INTERESTING AND IT EXIST IN THE CURRENT TO SOME DEGREE IN THE CURRENT ORDINANCE IS THE WAY THIS IS BEING AMENDED, THEY ARE CREDITING A VARIANCE PROCESS THAT COULD GO THROUGH BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, GO THROUGH MUNICIPALITY.

ISSUE A VARIANCE TO A RESIDENT WOULD THE UTILITY HONOR THAT?

>> IS THERE NOT LEGISLATION ON A STATE LEVEL THAT IS IMPACTFUL ON

THIS ONE? >> IS THERE I VARIETY OF STUFF GOING ON OUT THERE RELATIVE TO WATER, RELATIVE TO SEWER AND SEPTIC TO SEWER. OBVIOUSLY SESSION DOESN'T START UNTIL NEXT WEEK SO IT'S EARLY TO SEE WHAT IS GOING TO MOVE.

THIS IS A HOT BUTTON ISSUE FOR BOTH YOUR COUNTY AND STATE LEGISLATURE. SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT HAVE OCCURRED IN RECENT MONTHS HAVE PROBABLY EXACERBATED THAT.

YOU DO HAVE BILLS THAT WOULD LEAD TO MORE REGULATION BASED ON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE BLUE-GREEN ALGAE TASK FORCE.

SO IS THERE I LOT OF MOVING PIECES ON THIS YES, SIR.

NOT NECESSARILY ON THE PIECE OF WHO IS IN CHARGE OF ENFORCING IT WHICH IS WHAT THIS PRIMARILY ADDRESSES BUT THERE ARE A LOT OF

MOVING PIECES. >> IS ANYBODY UP HERE IN FAVOR OF THIS ORDINANCE? BEFORE WE GET INTO THE WEEDS I WANT TO BE CLEAR SO THAT WOULD BE YOUR DIRECTION.

>> THANK YOU. THAT WAS WHAT I WANTED TO SAY.

I DON'T BELIEVE IN FORCING THIS ON ANYBODY.

>> DO YOU HAVE THE INFORMATION YOU NEED FOR YOUR MEETING?

>> YES DO I, THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER COMMENTS.

>> MOTION TO TO JUNE. >> SECOND.

>> EVERYONE IN FAVOR? ANYONE OPPOSED? MEETING IS ADJOURNED. SEE YOU IN A FEW

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.