##VIDEO ID:3qbQcFwUEis## so I'm I done did before hey I'm I should be in a clown SE getting chased by the I'm trying to see Co we can take bet so we can pull numbers and all see who would be the first one I just I thought I just seen him go that way but but yeah we're going to see who going to go first and get it from there and see how long going to be now whoever stay on the longest win the prize what what are we competing for what's the prize yeah is it worth another surgery I wouldn't say that now yeah that's right now you're right you're right so you just can't ride one time say you finished this ain't Miss like Driving Miss Daisy now no but it's gonna be it's gonna be like weekend with Bernie they're gonna TI to that bull be a corpse hanging on just flailing around it's amazing I like to see them riding get throw off man you know we uh we broke our own horses and rode all bulls and stuff man that that was a experience but I don't think I was 40 years young place should be here any second tell him we charge him law your fees and he going to get us something you talk about on 14 that all that yellow no that one was um that's my question from last time and then um honestly I'm so far behind I didn't get to go through the rest of it this time I had notes last time I don't know where they are but no that's my big one it's just that what we started talking about we just didn't finish I surprised we were looking at this one park no this is the the meeting conduct well it's not technically on the agenda so that was just attached to the other email I guess we just attach the email yeah let's see if clay will let us talk about it and then we definitely need to make sure it's listed for next time as like 3D this is what James did right well but what I'm talking about is actually under clay clay had it earlier when he talked to me about it it's under um section two of the code it's all yeah all that you ready Rael yes sir all right we will call this code review and land use committee meeting to order today is October 1st 2024 it is 5:04 pm and we will go to agenda item number two which is the minutes for approval we had time to review the the minutes and do I have a motion make a motion to approve okay second a motion have a motion and a second any discussion on the minutes um I did want to add Rafia I was reviewing the minutes um there there's a portion of the minutes where it says that I'd made the comment that we should keep five of them on at any given time was it five or was it three I I almost posited it was five I'll take a look again sir and just verify that perfect all right all right uh barring any other changes anybody else have anything all right all those in favor say I I I I Carrie all right all right we will move on to number threea chapter 14 nuisance hazards and insanitary conditions Mr stra how are you sir I'm good today um you want to kind of walk us through this I know councilman Valley had some comments he wasn't able to be here last time or were you here last I think under 146 the um parking lot maintenance is what we're still discussing yeah that's where we left off okay all right let's go there and I believe mostly it's the last sentence that you would like to change some way or one FAL form and that was the one for discussion so for clarity what um I'll just read that last uh sentence striping for parking spaces shall be maintained in accordance with the approved site plan if no site plan was approved it shall conform to the city's current parking lot guidelines SLP specifications and so my concern with this item is that because it's always referencing the current standard it's almost like a moving Target where anytime someone is redoing it it almost opens the door for it to be completely updated and that's not I don't think that's the intention no I talked to Mr Wallace A little about this one um what we're hoping is when we actually go to chapter 18 the Land Development code when we start dealing with parking spaces and what not we're just going to go with the general guidelines with fdod do you know this places have to be TW you know 12et apart or so long what are the standard guidelines for a normal parking spot and with a handicap parking spot now how you want to arrange that that's up to you but it's going to be very like minimum guidelines based off of that but as long as there was striping there previously they should be permitted to return with whatever was there because that's what they were operating under right would be my belief but a lot of these I hate to say it we we don't have site pans for a lot of these places anymore right and so or some them gotten so torn up that the striping has been gone for years and now the pement itself is crumbling and you don't really even see the outlines of where it was the the reason that this becomes a big deal and why we even would talk about any kind of standard whatsoever is is that as part of the pre-application meeting one of the things you do is you include uh planning and uh the fire department because the fire department's looking at these things in terms of access to the buildings for uh fighting fires and for responding to emergencies and if the spots aren't marked you you create a situation like a parking lot I just drove through because I turn around it in every day um where there's kind of spots you can kind of see where they were but people can't quite tell where they are and they for some reason they just kind of pinch as they go towards the end and i' I've had one day where I couldn't even get out uh but a fir truck definitely couldn't make the turn through where I went through today because again when the spots disappear people kind of are assuming where they were and guessing and they don't always make it um I don't want to turn it into a situation where we're using it to constantly update the requirements I don't want that I'm just trying to figure out a language that allow us to keep it flexible clay you have any suggestions on on that so I I share Mr Valley's concerns that the way it is written is pretty Broad but the Practical implication Mr strong brings up with the biggest maue will well pass record retention standards on many of these places that are built some never had a site plan so how do you go about effectively determining what the required level of striping is when you're doing this and nothing is wrong with saying no we expect parking lots will be maintained up to a certain standard that is absolutely within the city's prerogative but you've got to figure out what that's going to look like I mean if you if it becomes a situation where someone can't sell the property because it's in a code violation because the property's not been upgraded and the next guy wants to come in to do it they're going to change the use it's could be different Stripes you can create a big problem so I guess the real question is for this committee to tell about how much do we want to get into parking lot regulation of existing and in terms of what is on the ground or not that's the real that's really the question because you're not going to have a back to what it was stand we just don't know what it was fact we have some that predate um we have some predate ada8 in right um what we just drop that last part do we just drop that last sentence all together or that would alleviate the uncertainty there but that's not what but if you're looking to enforce that you're basically to take away the key language allow post but we could kick it over to chapter 18 is that what we're going to be what the one that you're thinking that we'll look at it eventually that's where I think or so we just kick it down to 18 and we deal with it then if that's what you want to do that's fine I just figured it'll fall under the nuisances code for for enforcement for the itself I think chapter 18 might be an appropriate place to deal with the a non-conforming use I mean nuisance standard doesn't seem like the place to deal with what's what code we should be addressing uh at any given time it seems like that's proba of the chapter 18 language I do have another comment Mr 's not here probably him about this the CRA is discussed previously the idea that what is blight in one part of the city may not really be the prime or cheap or F another poliy the discussion that they have had at the CRA on that front is effectively gone as follows historic district right around here blight it's primarily residential get downtown there is no residential so but what is the blight downtown well blight downtown is very different different than the blight you're going to see if you go out Highway 90 this way and one would argue that some of the blight out that way is radically different than if you go out to the city limits that way and so one of the discussions primarily has been should we should the CR tackle this as a different areas receive different types of discussion if ultimately what we want to do and it's not even a chapter 18 discussion at this point is we wish to address the idea of we need parking lots or vehicular Ingress egress or traversal areas within private businesses kept to a certain standard perhaps we identify that as an area of blight and let CRA take that as an initial threshold discussion um and let them do that to clean it up not to penalize and so that may be the better route than where we're seeing it right now H I kind of like the idea of maybe moving definitely moving the parking lot but if we're going to move parking lot I would almost say that maybe even fence wall and signage needs to be moved to 18 it wouldn't move the whole thing what what I was mentioning was dropping the language at the end that if no sight plan was proved it shall conform to because now you're referencing that one's just pushing you to the most current standard which isn't always reasonable um you know given some of these are historic uses and some of them don't even have parking at all and you could possibly operate a business at that point um but moving that to chapter 18 in terms of how do you address non-conforming uses what that really turns into because it's a an existing non-conformity or an existing an existing use that um may be out of compliance and doesn't have a record of its pass let's put it that way but that seems like 18 would be a way to address that whereas this nuisance ordinance we should really be talking about hey clean it up we can address how to clean it up or how what standard it bring it to in the chapter 18 discussion okay I wasn't suggesting removing the whole the whole section okay okay so you would like me go ahead and strike the last sentence and then chapter 18 or whever we do that section we'll cover that area not a problem okay I'm I'm good with that Mr Greg that okay yes all right any other areas that we need to discuss on 14 I think we actually got everything else covered but there's one I added one section to this because we just got a problem with this so we have on the east side of town we have a tree that is about to fall over on to city property it's still standing though it's still green unfort it's dead and it doesn't know it completely yet um on the very last page or page 10 page 11 is a removal for trees I'd like you to consider how I interpret our ordinance is I can only do for trees if they're already dead laying on the ground this would allow us to if we give the complaint to go in and if you can see an arborous actually has come in it's not based my opinion that yes the tree is a threat and it's basically most likely going to fall over is that the tree on behind Park not Parks but next to Park Street right there behind the painting body shop that's the one you talking about yes over in that area yes okay I thought so so technically it's on private property I can't the tree itself I can't go and actually tell the person to they need to remove it but it is going to fall over onto city right away right now another tree is holding it up that is actually over the city right away so um I know the city has barricaded that section off so people can't go through there at this point in time till we do something but also this would not be something that I would be going around this would be more of a complaint driven type of yes sir so um I have some personal experience with with this um so if uh if the city has a tree a city tree and it doesn't show signs of damage and nothing is visible but it fails during even just a normal me basically any light day and it damages a property um actually our our insurance doesn't consider that uh negligent act on the city's part and so it actually doesn't cover it and they don't believe that we have any exposure at that point because there was no evidence suggesting that the tree would pose a hazarder there you go so what happens in this because I get concerned about uh we got a lot of trees we got a lot of trees that have a lot of problems and they get very expensive to take down U essentially when we create a notice to the owner uh they have now been made aware of it technically if if it's did have a problem their insurance wouldn't cover them for any damage that was done I presume that it would fall into the same category at that point it's negligence on their part or neglect well that that actually may cover under home owners care noticed I think the insurance changed a little bit because I had a little bit dealing with that because it says and the one I got it says that if I know the tree is dead and the the next door on a SE that you need to cut your tree it falls on that left up to you you responsible for that tree your insurance covers it or does not it does not does not yeah that was my take on it as well which means that if the city's providing a notice to someone saying that's posing Hazard you know they have Aid they now have a obligation incentive well they have an they have an obligation even without anything they should be aware of their own stuff even though it's hard to tell sometimes but it is creating a um a trigger so to speak where now they've been notified if they don't do something and it has do a problem now they're going to be on the hook for for a lot more costs now with this particular property the property owner lives in Texas if I remember correctly and there's no residence there it's just a piece of property my concern is this can get very expensive very quickly in a lot of places throughout the city it could but also the bright side is a little bit of this the CRA is actually proposing a plan that will actually core go and corong with removal trees and I'm hoping that I could talk to Mr irin about this a little bit and see what they can what they actually more can provide they actually brought he actually brought forth to the CRA the last meeting a possible tree removal program a little bit more permanent and a little bit more um I'm looking for um just try to help just help the city more so I I have concerns if it doesn't have some kind of support mechanism to provide to our our residents you know we we have Crews that that trim trees before storm we have the capacity to do that we have continuing contracts with people to do tree removal so I I I feel more comfortable with this kind of action if it's tied to to a support system some way to provide either a reduced cost or some kind of other incentive to assist the homeowner as long as they grant us permission to you know to do it on their property and wave any kind of liability associated with it if they if we get that cooperation I I would feel comfortable but without it I I start to get nervous uh about the sheer volume and cost that we're going to put on people so couple of things I it's interesting I was literally sitting around the lakeyard on a front porch and tree removal and you know leaning trees and all that stuff came up literally yesterday um I'll add to that that this week it preparation for what I thought was going to be Helen or I'm sorry last week um I rented a cherry picker and actually cut down a tree that was leaning over in onto my property that I was worried was going to fall and hit uh our house because it literally had a hole that you could put your hand all the way through because a branch had fallen out and it created this cavity in the tree so the tree was diseased clearly had problems uh just renting the cherry picker and cutting it down myself uh was $400 just just that portion of it um and you know I was thankful to have my brother there to help um you know we were talking on the front porch about the cost of trees and you know every you know in this particular area of the lakeyard or right next to the lakeyard you know they cleared two trees out turned around and there was another tree that they were going to have to do so they were just like it seems to be all the time we're having this thread of trees lastly uh Mr stra as part of this the the impetus for it as the way you presented it was if it's threatening city property but it doesn't read that way and to me I would be more in favor of it if it included that condition that you know the tree located anywhere within the city but is threatening City RightWay or city property in some way because what I don't want to have happen is you know for there to be a a disagreement between neighbors and someone become Petty and go well I don't like the way that one tree looks I'm going to go call them in and have you forc to remove trees on your property that may not be threatening anybody but the property well that's why it would actually have to be an arbit it wouldn't be you calling me and said hey code enforcement I need you know look at this tree and have it removed no it doesn't work that way I need Arbor to come out there and tell me yes it is actually diseased or it is actually going to fall over in the near future it's not something that so we wouldn't do anything unless Arbor said yes it truly needs to go okay I see I see that as as 3A but are we going to compel people to pay for an Arbus to come out because I mean how much do well as far as I know we actually have the city are uses an arborus every once in a while yeah yes they reach out to yeah and I would just reach out to that person and like I said this would be a case to case basis where this would not be where I'm going out looking for trees it would have to be more of a a complaint driven right but even if it's complaint driven right and you've got two two neighbors that are Waring against each other for whatever reason and they decide I'm gonna call in a bunch of his trees that look look unsafe and now you know he's he's got you out there with an arbest going through trees that again if they don't if they threaten nobody but the property owner then what does it matter you know what I mean I understand in the case that that you cited originally right where it's threatening right away or it's threatening city property but it's technically on private property in my case I literally looked down the fence row and anything that was over the fence line got trimmed off and so now the tree sits there as a stub and it's only on their property so I again I would feel better if this included the condition that this was threatening city property or City rideway okay I don't know what yall think about that well that particular tree he's talking about is threaten the city right away if you don't do something with it then it's going to fall on the city and City going to do something either way and even though it's off the private property owner but um that is so um I've seen several of them what he was talking about like that but that one there is it's lean 180 it's ready to go anytime I agree it should be uh if the city's taking action you know the first the first line for sure is it has to c a danger to the general public I mean you can endanger yourself all day long we do one way or another but um but posing a risk to the public is a concern now what about if it's posing a risk to a neighbor's property I mean truthly if you had a tree that was green and it's just a blanket piece of property with no house you're probably not going to have insurance on the piece of property and and basically if it falls over and it hits your structure technically in their insurance not going to cover it due to the fact that long as those screen is healthy your insurance has to pay for it whoever house it falls on if I understand it correctly for remember let's also be real insurance is notorious for finding a way to not pay for anything yes amen second yeah is after to God usually you're way you person property owned the doesn't pay for it clay what is your assessment on on this addition this 14-11 I think I think it's probably ultimately going to cause us more headache than it's going to solve as my go I think we're gonna be I think we're going to be called on it both at code level and legal level add level and ultimately your level city council to adjudicate disputes that it brings about now do I think the gist of this that the city has the ability to address through our arborous trees that endanger city property City rights of away things of that nature I think we have to look at but I think it's I just not sure the way it's being the way it is presented now is not going to create some open by makers leaning towards we just that's I just remove it to be honest I mean in terms of nuisance we again if there's a a support network to handle these problems like through the CRA and other elements I mean I'd love to just pursue that route the only question Clay is how do we get people to cooperate and this might be maybe the mergency removal portion is a way to to compel cooperation on private property uh you know so that we have access to it hey if you let us take this out we'll we'll do it uh but if you don't let us and it falls this is going to cost you well the only problem is the CRA has a finite lifetime it is it will not be around in perpetuity so it's while it's good to think okay we we'll have the support system of the CRA for the next 10 to so let me say this we have under chapter 22 I knew we had something close to this under chapter 22 we have 22-23 trees reads as follows it shall be unlawful for any person owning or controlling property that calls or permit any tree within any critical visibility Zone to remain untrimmed below a height of 8 feet above the ground or to permit any Shrubbery within a critical visibility Zone to grow to a height greater than 36 in above Gra perhaps if we're worried about falling on city right away city property or otherwise that's under visual obstructions chapter 22 is about streets sidewalks and public places perhaps um we tweak how we address trees into that area and look at it there because right now it's just under visual obstructions but I think we could probably broaden that to cover the hazards to city property rights of way pedestrian methods of travel I mean that's I mean you're ultim got have let's be very clear one of these places you're going to have an issues around the lakeyard place yeah but that's going to be a big one when you have those trees that come over the roadway oh I've got two I've got two in the back and I know how much it cost me to take out one yeah believe me they're over the alley that's not my property I'm more than happy to come to the city and say hey you know what you guys need to help me out on this one and there's plenty that aren't on my property at all that are right away that that cross onto my property that are City you know trees so I'm more than happy to come and see like hey gotta start cutting these so I again I warrant caution and including the arbar language I think is important to settle disputes but my my big thing is again as long as we provide a safe net and I want to have I'm I'm a lot more flexible but I definitely want to have some mechanism to to encourage cooperation and that's something that I see in the emergency tree removal as a potential way to almost compel cooperation but let's find a way to to encourage cooperation to to set a standard to say hey if if you let us work with you you know we'll we'll reduce it we'll help you out if not if you're not going to work with us then you know this is going to cost you one way or another I just I just worry that we're getting into HOA you know regulations that's what cities do we have ho you have a city so I struck through 1411 is there anything else you want to change in chapter 14 are you good with removing it I'm good just take it out just take it out take it out okay take it out any other discussion around 14 or any sections of 14 utilities uh I know you had notes that you wanted to discuss we I think we think we'd addressed a lot of those um there was uh where did we end up on this one with on this version with the RightWay Mowing and maintenance when you're not um when you don't have any cut throughs or driveways and things like that I remove that one section we just put that the um basically you have to mow around within 50 feet of a structure that's for human occupy and basically within 10 feet of any public ride of way including Street sideway sidewalk walks and alleys so you just basically have to keep that area clear in that area if you want I can actually um change with when it comes to deal with alleys if it's basically um developed alleys because if we we do have some areas which we do have undeveloped Alleyways so I can actually just change that word to developed Alleyways so it's undeveloped you don't have to worry about it yes sir uh Clon uh this one crosses over with the trees vine shrubs obstruction of vision and pedestrians um shouldn't we just reference them to chapter 22 yes that's where I was over this tows right back into visual obstructions under 22 23 already yeah I think that that one should just reference the existing standard uh for for what's expected would be my comment there for the last the last bullet point on that one yeah three well understand what three is saying there is it talks about obstruction of vision the addtive that's what's already there the additive is as to obstruct the actual blow or in I can't do one without the other because that one references 8 feet doesn't it chapter 22 references 8 feet specifically and it also talks about critical level so this is a broader standard but perhaps what you do is you pull out perhaps that just all falls under 22 and we just prevent people from having trees shrubs or anything on their property that would affect pedestrian or V their traffic would it be inappropriate to reference chapter 22 as part of what's here and just say hey you know for yeah I think I think we could probably do a catch all that says any other Provisions yeah I think that makes sense I think one thing that frustrates citizens is that um when we have these codes and we have we'll have language in here about trees but then it's also in 22 and then it's also in some other par random Park and that gets very hard for the public to track and because they think they found it if I find if and I do it too if I find it in one section I believe that well that's where it lives that's that's the standard and then lo and behold there's something stricter somewhere else and it gets me in trouble well I mean look at look at B the bullet point we've got 10 feet of public right away but then I think you're saying in 22 there's difference different reference eight feet so we just says well in 2223 it talks about 8 fet above the ground so not ride away that's hot yeah which should take care of any pedestrian flow it may not be great for a truck but so on subsection three you want to remove the overhanging and just that whole section and then just put in there a section reg referring back to chapter 22 correct I think you should just reference the actual what we're using as the standard um and be and we just be cautious and again this is going to catch us every now and then it's just well and then and then let's just put a a post note to to go to 22 at some point make sure that we beat it's on our list okay we're gonna get there okay I I agree I agree with that okay you good Mr I'm good with it all right anything else on 14 yes sir come up to the come up to the podium state your name for the recording there City Marshall James hurle H L Y junor Jr U I'm totally in agreeance I briefly looked over with um occupying um tents as permanent residences we've seen that and then also the utilities that you must have water and sewer um total in agreeance with that um a lot of times what we're seeing is they are stealing water from other places whe they're loaded in jugs or you know using extension cords or whatever to facilitate their um inhabitants but it definitely has created a problem with safety whether fire safety whether were out doing something sering warrant or hitting a drug house and a lot of these places are drug houses stuff like that and you've got electrical cords that are exposed and all this um so it definitely creates a problem um and then it also you know these people instead of selling drugs they probably should get a job and actually pay their electric sewer bills um but I'm in total agreement with that so just for that so um that's all I got so thank you Chief looks good I've got somewhere I got to run we got another thing going on so I would stay but it's we'll just make sure all the Peddler stuff comes to you well if we can you want to divert from that real quick and kind of give you my opinion just briefly before I leave um the pedler stuff it seems to to work the way it is I hadn't seen what what is presented or anything like that but we are able to do a little bit more background check into people that are going door too um it definitely um is concerning to our citizens when people start going door too um you know I'm sure back in the 50s 60s vacuum salesman and encyclopedia salesman and all that that was a thing but in today's society it's very much frown upon but it's still a business aspect that that can you know work but um we're able to kind of look into that individual and F them a little bit better so you it's not a child molester or burglar or somebody that's you know got a lot of pass that would we can deny that way which we only probably have two to three a year maybe at best um we don't have a whole lot of it but it does it seems to work out is 17 works for you as is is there any changes that you would like to see I haven't completely looked at it so I like I said I probably need to go in there and double check it but if it's not too far off of what we have right now it's it seems to be working that's I had one thing on on that my only concern was to make sure that um because it was referencing lists that were being maintained uh by different departments and one I just want to make sure that if we're going to require that that it's being done because that's what it's saying and then secondly that if we're saying that they have to fill out a form or an application that we have those forms and those applications readily available not hard to get y so normally they'll they'll come to City Hall they'll get the application um I'm pretty sure y'all look over and then we get sent to us we do our side of it one thing that I wouldn't mind seeing is actually giving them some type of ID card um badge yeah something that kind of they can present um the last guy we had one had one from Bay County and he's running around the piac but um something that we'll kind of verify um we had one guy selling I think it was solar panels or something and he would and we were get calls left and right on him for for what it's cheap it's already in the or is it okay 71 identification card or permit required ID ID card so and we can make those inh housee we just you know you Buel a templet you what we want on it so they need a per do the background check make sure they need come to us on she basically okay it they come over to us and we do application and finish it off yeah that be that'd be fine like I said e either way um right well I don't even care about it paying us you but okay either way so um but that's not written in thein the process of how they start so yeah I think that's probably the big issue is the ordinance doesn't make it clear where the entry point into this is okay so what what we'll do chief is we'll have a little more discussion about it and we'll just it'll it'll come back at the next meeting and then that way if we want to keep it on the planning side and they want to have us sign off off on it that we've kind of done what background we can on this person um I don't I don't you know but it it it does seem to work so and I think most of us are in the loop on who's who's actually there's not a whole lot of right we had um so I was I was one of the people that called him because my wife's on the POR dealing with some dude that I don't know what he wants but he tells one neighbor that he's there to look at water meter or something with water and then he comes at our house says he's looking at electrical and he's a guy with a Bay County permit but you know apparently there was you know it's legit somewhat legit but that's really sketch when they're telling one neighbor one thing and they're calling you and say hey there's a guy on your talking to your wife on the porch where are you and they're asking for something completely different than what they told them so again you know thankfully we're a community that can reach out to each other in those situations but the last thing we need is someone going around when people aren't home or you just just check the place out is what I thought he was doing corre right and that is possible okay well we'll uh we'll have it come back at the next meeting thank you Chief good luck all right any anything else on 14 any public comment Miss Mindy you're the only public in in the room and right away I could tell us gotcha okay that was sketch yeah all right um so we'll Chris just I guess have you bring back those final changes and we'll once over one more time at the next meeting so we'll just keep 14 on the agenda next time all right clay I know that 16 was skipped last time due to time constraints yeah you all ready to move to 16 move to 16 all right Mr ainson will you take us away on 16 so reports and regulations we talk about chapter 16 one of the things we talked about is trying to kind of fold in the old 6.5 the de facilities and making 16 a broader statement of City Properties or city facilities Parks Etc but with that the biggest thing that I wanted us to talk about the regulations of the fs again 16 you look at 1611 you have certain regulations that are fairly broke now that goes to any park playground or recreational area you bar alcohol intoxicated beverages or products skateboarding committed on in certain areas things of that nature so I think from the discussion that I would want from the C count from the committee tonight is what are the regulations we want in 1611 as it pertains to parks in general now when we get to the other parts of 16 deals with Chipley Park and the amphitheater hence my reason for saying we need to fold in all the aspects of the city um and perhaps chickley Park truly does require unique regulations because of the deed restriction or other issues but broadly you need to have one template that covers all city parks otherwise says why I was allowed to do this over here in this part but I wasn't able to do it in the L that's what we need to figure out is there a reason for a difference there what is it but more importantly what are the big things we want to establish regulations we just did the tobacco pre that something we just have but that's 1611 is the meat of this entire discussion that I think we need to get into so I'll say right off the bat I think we ought to strike K it should be onlaw of swimming are is not designated by the city council two reasons number one we've already loosened the regulations as it relates to the lakeyard in Chipley Park when it comes to swimming and quite frankly I think we should just allow swimming anywhere in the lake number two if if I'm reading this correctly nobody should be swimming at Lake stainley because we haven't designated a swimming area at Lake stainley even though there's a there's a pier and and all that and we actually to a certain extent as a city support that swimming out there with the way that that uh that structure is built so to me let's make it consistent let's just that's the only two parts that I can think of that have bodies of water and why not let everybody swim wherever swimming is swimming and they've been do it yes sir I agree with that as a concept really just about any liability I don't think there would be as long as everything is at at large and at their own risk is there any requirement personage or anything else that we'd have to follow I mean are we good well we obviously signage is the key if you're going to put this up you need to have enough signage to people and depos not just what's forent for sanction purposes but for our own protection liability I think we should have blank it it both places even same thing so are you okay with just basically removing K yes okay yes I am is there any of these others that are listed here on this on the either the screen or uh whatnot that you all want to change I know uh councilman uh Harrison had mentioned that there was a regulation about profanity in the Parks that's a okay well to me a needs to be removed as well because that is uh what I think there's Supreme Court we have some First Amendment issues with that yeah so a needs to be struck as well what about what about B clay where we we technically have kind of loosened the regulations around that well I guess that's the question is we certainly loosened in certain areas do we want to loosen in the park all together loosened elsewhere in the city but that question is should it still apply on the par I mean from a special event permit you know if people wanted to hold something down in the lakeyard and and and have a beer vendor there that's been discussed before you know why why would we not allow that as part of a special event I mean I would make it part of a special permit which is what we have now I'd prefer that it you know prefer set it there except as you know except as part of a special event permit or some whatever we need to to give people guidance on how it's regulated how to get an exemption but I I think we've had issues in the past where birthday parties you know other family gatherings have gotten completely out of control and if it happens in someone's backyard is one thing when it happens in Chipley park that's that a concern to all of us and U we know that it still happens um again the profanity I mean yes we have we have say there but um but we've also seen that get out of control and and have issues but um but again that one does have a constitutional component to it there's no there's no right to drink in a in a public park so I'm in favor of removing a and then B adding some language there that would just say accept by special event permit and then that way if it gives the the city council the ability to if they so choose issue a special event permit except as por we could in question in that permit will you put the responsibility on whoever per receiving the permit due to the security situation okay that's why we're okay with it because they have they are taking the responsibility and they're required to buy insurance in many cases yeah and I already do that when it comes a special event ific one alcohol they actually is on the agenda that it's requesting permission from the city council to even allow them to do certain things if if I know it's a violation by ordinance they actually have to we do a special request in that section asking for permission from you anyway yeah I just I think it just needs to be clarified here that we're allowed to give as a as a city council we're allowed to give an exception because to me if we leave it like it is you cannot violate your right so I think we do we do need to do that um and Chris me mean it's part of that the more the citizens know without knowing everything in the code the better we are we're off we are because there's Clarity and there's no confusion later oh you didn't tell me that you know why didn't you tell me I could do that and again some of this is just communication yes it's an ordinance but it's also how we communicate the one that always bugged me is and we're not going to change it but the organized groups I mean at what point is a you know is group of 10 kids become a group at what time is a birthday party become I'm not even sure what that means I'll be very ke it's too it bugs me it really bugs me it's like if I have a birthday with my kid and all a sudden they decide to go run to the playground do I need a special event permit for that technically by by ordinance under special events you have 10 more 10 people more that's the word group so yes so we're we we have a part a birthday party at my house there's there there could be easily 10 kids you could have 20 kids they all decide hey let's go let's go run and go play on the slide let's go run down to the lake now it's an event I have a permit I mean no one's gonna say anything about a group of kids but well what if we all go down there all a sudden then Mom and Dad are with them and now a bunch of parents I mean at some point it turns into a rally so again it's there's vagueness there I don't know what an organized group is that could mean just about anything it's always bug me well wouldn't that be the way I would interpret organized groups would be if Main Street or if any other Civic organization wants to do something within one of the parks then then that then it applies but if it's just a private if it's just a private Gathering of individuals then I don't think that that is that's the same thing no but we've had people doing reunions have to get permits to use the part we have now how I view it is this if it's a PL event is one thing as Mr valy said if it was a birthday party at the house across the work from the park all said the kids want go down that really wasn't a p of De that was just kids play but if you're actually planning a certain event to be somewhere on public property then AAL where the the meeting point is where you're occupying how many people already required right 10 or more so 10 or more so if it's if it's defined somewhere I would reference the what it where it's defined this is a good example let me say this I I before y'all get that far down I think y'all are sorting out the group aspect that's un there very well right now it's worded the use of the facilities question yall briefly just look back through 1611 where's the reference to facilities recreational facilities then you get through the rest it's not there so the use of recreational facilities but not Parks what Recreational facility do we have it's not so I I I this is one of the reasons why I think you do need to merge a lot more of the city facilities discussion into this if you do that if you think about this in the broader context of what this is going to be the intention there if you look at it although it's not at all how limited is is to basically say you don't have the disc golfers go down there and take over the lakeyard on a weekend oh they're all temporary golf holes so I think that that's the concept but that's not what this does now if we're wanting to do more than that that's great so the question is is this something where we talk about the use of any City Facility by a group of 10 or more requires a permit through the special event or through some type of permit with the city well then you just to eliminate that all together and make it all about that perfect because this a to be sponsored by the council the manager or the parks and rec department so Kobe right now can sign off on a group going down there apparently so parks for wct yeah we can't I can't tell me who the parks direct we actually already do that with special events if it doesn't require City council's approval then the city manager signs off for me but that's done special event per this is an entirely separate animal the way it stops and we don't even have a Parks or X Department to deal with I want to throw another one at you that's me you you said the disc offer was coming down and taking it over we say they can't remove things doesn't say anything about them bringing stuff in doesn't mean they it doesn't even say they can't bring in a whole Golf Course set up and set it up doesn't say you can't set up bouncy houses on our playgrounds and Parks we say they can't remove things we don't say they can't set things up right what if it's only for one person I want my one kid very entitled child to just go up and down last live by himself so that's the that becomes so I think that's why you have to look at it as a broader discussion um and I think that's probably if we could slide on down a little bit and look at chip Park to further that discussion there um I would just note I think that list the 2001 list there probably has been inated but then we get to the Chipley Park stuff then you definitely have ination so my thought my thought is all of this needs to be I don't I don't unless someone can can make a compelling argument otherwise I say we remove the carve outs for Chipley Park and the Chipley Park Amphitheater and we say this is our list of facilities or facilities that shall be maintained by the city manager and city council I don't know if you make that into a resolution clay so it's a little bit easier to maintain well I think you could do that under 1620 that's where I was going to call your attention to actually when we go down here so you know I think there may be some debate about the Antiquated nature of this U but I would say this 1620 deals the council May adopt additional rules and regulations regarding use of Lake Deputy act in the lakeyard course it's the only time see lakeyard used it should be check with far a violation of said rules when properly published that be consider violation of the code that's your catchup we add it by resolution in my opinion you could address 1616 through 1619 through a resolution pertaining the use of Chip Department it requires us to Pro proper notice but not have it be part of this ordinance so if you wanted separate regulations for the lakeyard do it in the form that's already Allowed by 1620 but why are Vehicles horses swimming motorboats so specific that they need to be part of the code not part of the resolution but to to me to me they're not like I I don't want Vehicles driving anywhere within our Parks except on designated Road agreed so so pull that out and make it apply everywhere right and and like we've we've already kind of discussed swimming so just make swimming Vehicles is to operate a vehicle or Park you already have parks parking is banned everywhere but again I think all of this is served to special event per I can recall I'm sure M I'm sure Dr Mindy will Tod you will Greg I think you will Chris you probably can from your I remember during the actual stock Festival they had vehicles that be in lak I remember they having antique cars yep and this would have been in effect since 1977 and so clearly they're Viola that ORD that's but we never said anything yeah that's right that's right oh I wasn't going to bring up the current L I was I was going to I was going to get us past the statue limitations on all this Chris but yes if we want to be clear that's a point where we should permit it under the special events permitting aspect of the use of our facilities yeah because right now it is unlawful except an areas specifically designated by the C so the best argument we have is when we give that permit we're designating a specific area but that's you're not completely wrong so so I I'm in agreeance that that we should we should add as councilman Valley suggested a a line about not adding stuff to parks and setting things up without permission just like we prohibit the use of removal um I agree that construction of any temporary I think that we should we should pull out the Chipley Park and Amphitheater just cut them and we can do that as CL you suggested via VIA resolution I think we should just have a list of all of our city parks that's maintained via resolution and then these rules apply to this list and then that way it's it's consistent it's fair it's it's easy to to digest and understand yeah and then we could say that the city and I would say take that 1620 and make it broader the city May on a Case by casee basis provide additional regulations which we properly notice shall be a violation of the code for any or All City Parks so you don't have to do it to and you say any or all intentional you can do it to one do it to two you can do it all it doesn't matter it's up to you um I'm not g to spend a lot of time talk about the park EMP theater discussion because frankly this is consistent with what we already talked about at 6.5 about what we want do with the other facilities so um but I would know you do also have no alcoholic beverages are permitted in that area that's a hold over that did not get cleaned up clean up so I'm I'm in favor because everybody you know growing up here my whole life everybody calls it the lakeyard I understand that it is Tech CH Chipley Park but I kind of feel like we should recognize it as the lakeart because everybody calls it the lakeart faly so so I've looked into this I would love Dr M's thoughts on this is it your thought Dr Mindy that the term Chipley Park was always intended to apply to everything inside Circle Drive or was it a portion of it because I could make an argument both ways based on what I've I think Clay is going beyond that to the to the properties around it as well well I'm saying I mean is Chipley Park basically Circle Drive yeah inward or is it just a portion of because when you look at it there's been different areas designated as that I I don't know that people have always considered the EMP theater Chipley Park is it the EMP theater at Chipley Park I mean those are questions and so I think that I think there's probably a a naming convention we could discuss if this kills want to take that up to look at it I mean I don't think we want to have the lakeyard at chipy Park so to speak you know like you have these college football naming conventions for stadiums but perhaps you look at designating something of that nature if you want to clean it up because it is definitely a question Lakey's more General I mean that's broad but again I I would be willing to bet that if you were to do some sort of double blind survey most people wouldn't know that it's technically Chipley Park they would know it as a lake that's right tradition people and I didn't know Park was tradition wise they would say the lakeyard everybody know the elders the middle age the old age the wh the blacks the red the blues everybody say the Lake yard that's the identification well but next sure I mean and that's that's no different than Highway 90 is Nelson it's also Old Spanish Trail like it's got five different names as well so I I just I would like to see it if if to Clay's point if we have an opportunity maybe we should incorporate some actual official nomenclature and names into this and and recognize it what everybody calls it as the lakeyard very begin you say to part we refer I would my view is a little different I think that I think that the lakeyard isn't just what's from the road in I think the lakeyard is a broader area that extends to all the home fronts that Encompass it Chipley Park you mean Chipley Park yeah because that's going become the problem you say that but Chipley Park is is a defined boundary that's within the sidewalks and excluding you know specific properties but to me the lakeyard is a broad geographic area and Chipley Park is a specific and well- defined parcel lakeyard is Broad see I I I don't I don't in my mind when when people say the lakeyard it does not extend beyond the inner ring of circle drop I agree with that I Circle Drive a Circle Drive I think most people drive is its own thing but I think that's even a third thing that's not that doesn't mean that the other two aren't correct but see to me exclusive to to me when whenever you say the lakeyard everybody's brain goes to that immediate area right there around the lake where's christas Reflections in the lakeyard will you drive around Circle Drive to visit around the lakeyard I I I would say if you ask if you ask people who live on Circle Drive and you did the Family Feud style show people this map you see that where do they live I think most of them you're going to get Circle Drive around the lake you're you will ultimately get to lakeyard but it'll be down towards the back end I may be wrong but I don't think most of say they live on the lakeyard they live around the lake they live on Circle Drive that being said none of them are going to say across from Park take that for I would just say that would be and so it's it's it is probably something we do want to think about how we style it but I I don't think yeah I don't I don't know how you we can solve this just take a survey when they get down they just say hey where are you I'm at the lakeyard that's what they gonna say they're gonna say I'm at the lakeyard you said chipet Park where is that that's what they gonna say yeah I do say that it does help preserve our history and remember the legacy of what I mean without that name I think we we have so many people would remember CH well I I please don't misunderstand me I'm not saying we pitched the name chiple Park but I think we should also in the code recognize that it is very much within the the common vernacular of defc Springs as I believe what he's suggesting is that if you don't use lakeyard somewhere in this and you talking about Chipley Park somebody's gonna say how was I to know that I was violating the law protecting Chipley Park I was in the lakeyard so I just kind of call that out yeah I I can I think we can there you go so uh clay do we also at this point kind of what we talked about earlier with kind of removing the Ampitheater section and removing chip Park Lake I I would leave the Ampitheater but I would you leave the Ampitheater in the sense that Civic Center in chah Auditorium are also going into this section because it's a structure it's a facility for so we are going to call call those out yes yes okay so those are going well we may merge that what we may do is we may into City facilities City Park City facilities Roman numeral one Roman numeral 2 is kind of m space okay if y'all are fine with that because there's really no distinction right now between what happens in the cfic center and theall Brotherhood in your code there may be in your room so are besides the Hall of Brotherhood besides the Civic Center are there any other facilities that we need to list outside of I'm not talking about Parks I pack Koval or any of the others I'm talking about outside of those two are there any others right now we don't lease or R any out do we kab technically have the Gazebo I remember at one point we had to get a special permission to allow people to use the Gazebo remember we put that in the we had we had a person when mcnight was still on we had somebody that wanted to use the Gazebo but they didn't want to rent the chiako building and we yeah remember see see but I I I think I think the way we probably should have handled it back then God Rest dark who would never have agreed to this because I tried to talk to about anything I'll ask this one Kobe if I want to go St building and I only want to rent the first floor can I do so moment what if I want to rent the second floor on I don't see where it's prohibited right now right now nobody's ever done that corre at all likelihood but I could right now we rent all or a portion of the shopability the Gazebo should have been treated as a portion of that and the rent will apply to a portion of that facility Dr M I know did not agree with that whatsoever because his position as I recall it to be was we shouldn't rent a portion of the facility I understand that but the way that got reconciled was we'll rent the Gazebo and it's not part of the facility but we shouldn't rent out just a portion of the Sho building I remember the building you can have multiple events in there at one time we don't partition at all was to facilate uses yep grou like have a meeting in a small room upstairs in so I think we just to as that and the associated grounds and out buildings I think that would be the easiest thing I mean I would think let me say this I would not think while we may not wish to rent the downstairs interior in the porch separately I don't know that something would stop us from renting the porch out back oh again my my purpose behind that was we're we're revising the code is there any other besides the Hall of Brotherhood and besides Pro probably not I don't believe so's one unless we're not going to get into running out the city hall want add com the porch okay where you can use a bathroom so I think because there's bathrooms associated with the uses I think that that is the consideration to look at with the Hol Brotherhood the second floor is gonna have its own bathrooms the downstairs gonna have its own bathrooms so they can be split up the porch you're gonna have a bunch of people you got to have bathrooms no they can go over to the uh the amphitheater bathrooms that are always open that's I mean you're supposed to provide facilities where that are accessible and and accommodating to the location you're not supposed to based on the nature of there Tech we get what the law actually requires somebody says they want to do a photo shoot on the back porch of Stock Building the city's going to make people start Renning it out for that purpose I don't want to rent out the inside I want the porch for 30 minutes to do a photo shoot you are not going to be required to provide bathrooms through that photo not for that but generally speaking where I mean how many times are they going asked to rent for something that small they're just going walk what I what I am getting at is not that it can't happen because we had it Happ with the Gazebo it certainly can I think it is the facilities and their Associated grounds out building structures Etc we will make it a Brer and that's handled in your application not in your ordinance that doesn't need to be in our ordinance in my op and what we've already usually tell the people that come in and say they well we want to take a photo shoot on the back of the porch what we tell them is okay that's fine but if someone rents the building yeah it's basically you you can't do it there at that point time because now it's being rented out so it's when it comes to the Theo behind it and so forth you can use it because it's on public ground but if it's being rented you can't use it at that point in time and we do the same thing with or the amphitheater y'all can go do you know little stuff there if you want to but if it's being rented sorry you have to leave and let people actually paying for it use the facility yeah but we will allow people to rent just a I think we can be reasonable can I mean typically like if someone comes the mayor and I have the ability to weigh those feeds with something like 30 minutes because typically I'm pretty positive to look at the application but our minimum is four hours right so someone only needs an hour and our minimum is four they're going to charge them whatever it is for stock ability for four hours which I think is $250 something like that so we do that discretion sometimes on what it is and what it purpose is serving but I mean yeah so I know Clay stepped out but I do do just want to make sure that we clean clean up the like waiver of fees and all of that stuff clay you have a plan for cleaning up like the waiver of fees prohibitions the respons we're match all that together okay for everything and make it very clear it's part of the process that applies in fact we had pretty good detailed notes when we took that up about mono okay so I feel very good about being able to handle that one all right any anything else we'll just kind of next month have Clay bring back the first first Mr Greg you good with that I'm good with that one any public comment good okay all right we have checked off uh 3B chapter 16 so and we can briefly touch 17 if y'all would like me to start on unless yall at the point of dinner evening fatigue that you want touch on it real quick broadly I have the same position Chief does the issues with it are not what it is there's some just minor cleanup verbage stylage of some stylistic things I say that the point of entry how do you get into getting the permit that kind of thing is critical um we've already talked about what is and is not included in pedaling soliciting canvasing your person to person contact on public streets it's public areas what we're doing door contact of private residences Apartments rooms rotels or lodgings and not businesses so the question we need to ask we do have contact by telephone which something we Le in there for General State protection other be a to do much about it but the real question there is do we wish to include solicitation business to business business it's going be a B2B restriction if it is not that's fine it's not there now but now is your chance to add but if we do we need to talk about what the logistics are about are we going to site people around eliminate stand of all our parking lot to me I will say this I've thought about this I've looked at it a couple different ways and ultimately that's a simp trespass issue between the property owner and who's sting it so what you saying letting them make the C if if yeah and I I'll give you my example it occur it occurred to me and I'll use as an example on one of my properties got a food truck to rent some property on one of my properties good renter people seem to like them food's good and go by there on a Saturday night where part of the building is rented out to an interior tenant and there's another food truck set up right there who's that are they on my property well I so and so thee tenant can they be out there I knew what I was going to get I was to get that call Monday morning from the person who already rinsed part of the parking lot why'd you let them come I didn't so I had to have that argument so I've dealt but I guess I hadn't thought about it in the pedders OR solicitation sense until I and obviously we don't regulate food trucks and so I had not I just the two were separate issues in my mind because of that preemption but would it have been reasonable for me to pick up the phone and call Chris call Chief Hurley and say this guy doesn't have a peders get them off my property I have every right to do that on my own why bring it under the city's per I just don't think you do and I think all we're doing when we add that in is opening the door to becoming a police force for private for private disputes and I always say stay out of private civil dispute civil matters stay away from us so to me I don't know that it makes a lot of sense but that is 172 that is one of those questions is do we wish to expand the scope of our ped Solis ke I I would say no um I see the Peddler's portion as protecting private citizens people who are uh maybe can't take care of themselves people who are more vulnerable a business by its very definition is is capable and and you know theoretically funded uh and they can handle their own simple manage as much as possible hours of operation I think we mentioned once before we still do at 5:00 p.m. to 9:00 a.m. being blackout hours cannot pedal during those times I agree and understand this is not for people going door to door looking for boats this is somebody who is specifically offering to sell Goods services or merchandise or to seek information or donations um so broadly you know political is excluded um I think that's a pretty good time I I would suggest you don't need to close the morning hour into 8 I just don't think it makes sense to that 8 to 9 put it at 9 I mean some people say well at 8: a.m. businesses open at eight at the same time you're trying to dissuade some of this conduct and if that's what the goal is nine makes more sense um same reason why it doesn't make sense to allow it to go till six certain times of year maybe but at the same time if you're trying to dissuade this and not have this be the primary form you're good um I will need to clean up 1774 with the pedaling from Vehicles is restricted um I do believe I have some opportunity to clean that up to make it consistent with State preemption on boot trucks okay um outside of that we get down to the list issue of 175 but what we really need to do is Chris Chief and I need to sit down and talk about how we want introduction in this to be and how we want to build out any of these lists I would highly discourage um even having a list to know because right now the whole point of 175 if you look at this whole point of a in the maintaining of that list is to say these people don't have to get a permit why not just wave the fee for a group getting a permit but make them get a permit why not have them come in and apply and get a permit and right now the council is the sole judge of whether an organization is a true charity or truly a not a nonprofit corporation I don't I've never seen the council have to make that adjudication and I sure hope they never have to while I'm sitting up here you because what is a true charity charity I can give you a definition of charity we can look it up Miriam Webster I can give you the black Law Dictionary definition what's the true here and what's a nonprofit do we mean a not for-profit are distinctions by the way between nonprofits and not for profits so is every not for profit a nonprofit it's to me 175 we would be much better off identifying that Charities and nonprofit or not for profits to you prer corporations are eligible for either a discounted fee for this or something of that nature or give it to them for free but still make them go through the same application process okay but if we do that understand we're we're 175 is compelling Charities and nonprofits if we take your suggested changes when they want to go solicit for donations right sell Goods or so at that point why wouldn't it be covered under chapter 12 licenses permits and tax ation why would we just move this at that point to to there if we're going to change this almost to a licensing scheme well you already have a permitting scheme it already exists the entire chapter is a permitting scheme right now the entire chapter 17 you go down 176 you get to the application for permit and then it talks about the problem I and and that's certainly fine if that's where y'all want to go with this but what I would say is I do think it works the way it is I think we need to have the cards I think that needs to be the case my problem with 175 is we're requiring we're being required as the city council to maintain a list of Charities nonprofits representatives of whom are allowed to go do this without purpure identification CS well how are we establishing the list first off it's silent as that we're required to maintain it then it says we have to post the list at both the clerk's office and the police office we've never done that I can find no record since 1986 where that has ever occurred may have once but no not certainly since the time I can count then it goes into anybody not listed has to make an application not to the manager not of the police chief or the code but to the city council setting forth the nature and then the council becomes a sole judge of whether we approve it I cannot in almost 20 years recall ever seeing this be brought before the city council effectively so yeah theater theater's basically been braking the law as well and then says an appropriate officer shall provide the chief of police the date time and method which they intend to use to solicit funds so e let's get let's just say we did everything right we get to e this is my problem 175 you're not going to get a permit but you still got to come tell the chief of police that time and Method you intend to use and what you intend to do so Dr Anderson here is going to call James I'm gonna do this this this this James says huh why why are you calling me why I'm supposed to call and tell you first off if she did it she has complied with the ordinance now what if hurle is like I don't like that he has no check or balance he's not they're not required to get a permit have to inform him they provide him that information is informational only and so to me that becomes a situation where what we are better off doing is either well defining a registry and simply saying when you come apply for that first permit if you want to apply for a standing exemption or a standing ending permit that will exist and we renew it year over-ear and do it on a yearly basis or something of that nature yeah yes we are talking about more like your licensing but that makes much more sense than what we have now what we have now just absolutely makes no sense in the way we do it right abely yes so two things so but the licensing doesn't allow pedaling because this is really about the door-to-door nature of it we don't have any buses this includes pedal includes the same thing but licensing doesn't not this is permitting of ped well but the thing is if we moved it into licensing we still have the same issue yeah no no it cannot be covered under licensing it can be a licensing scheme when I say licensing do we want to make this a standing license for those businesses that's beyond just the specific permitted short duration event okay gotcha and there's one other thing on there on this one I just want to keep keep an eye on allall in terms of what the intention why they wrote it what they were trying to do they were trying to again protect people from uh especially vulnerable people from door to-door activities which is why hey we don't want to punish nonprofits in our churches because I'm thinking they were really focused on churches for this um we don't want to punish them but we don't want people just go and do whatever so we need to have a couple of controls where at least they give us a heads up the thing is if we just do the ID card I mean how many ID cards are we have to do if everyone member of the church that's going to be participating in something is going to have an ID I mean that's going to be a nightmare well so let's be clear throughout this whole thing I do think there's a very well well drafted portion of this it is an ID card or a permit I think you could issue a standing permit to a nonprofit organization and just say that nonprofit organizations that intend to do it may apply on an annual basis for all activities covered under them and give them you know that one but make had their burden come to us guys and I'm good with that I just don't want it to be I don't want to lose all side of it and get too loose where we're not doing any protection in any any relation no and I think and all I'm all I'm really so boxing on at this point is 175 that we're not following this as a charity and not for profits so how do we regulate it at all I mean if we're not careful the rules swallows itself off so those are the big issues I see there ultimately the rest of that if you have a method of Entry that goes back to your method of Entry how do you come to this we address this I think everything else we have is pretty solid but i' certainly welcome you know the aggressive pan handling I'm actually very good with the way that style we may be we may even want to tighten that up more but it's actually still very consistent with other state regulations for what I've said I again I I think about it from if I put on my hat as a you know as someone that helps and runs a nonprofit I just kind of think it's it's silly whether whether I'm a nonprofit you know like like the theater or whether I'm a a nonprofit like Miss Mindy or a church I just think it's silly for them have to come tell the city or get a permit from the city to do what we would in in almost 100% of the cases we would just allow him to do I we're talking about is doing a one time to where you're not coming back every time and not calling the chief every time because it's pointless but I'm saying I think that that's even Sil I think you saying don't even require it at all yeah I think then you open up anyone can call themselves a church at that point and come do whatever they want to and I and I will say this I think that's the reason why I said the city will maintain this list and make the determination but that would be the question how do you verify who's doing what okay but again we're we're talking about extreme outliers at this point but that's what it was no I mean it was written for it was written for the the the Peddlers it was written for people that are going door too selling stuff or or standing maybe at the intersections how they sometimes with your bucket asking for the money you know for a charity event or something when they com comes through I actually think it would be nice that they actually have to get a permit from the um chief of the police so that we know one that one they they are a chable event a church or something we have we to confirm that they are who they are and that um we know what they're doing so example we know all our buddy that likes to go asking around town especially downtown and goes even house to house well the only thing stopping him from doing it legally would be to say it's like well I'm collecting from my church would you give me $10 like really use $20 how about $50 you got $50 on you now he calls himself a church what are you going to do what's your process because without it I think what he's saying is without it in there the simple fact is you site him you're you're citing him at that point but if he doesn't have the ID card or the permit he says well that's because I'm exempt and if you read the way it's written now it's far broader than churches it is but you can see the intent at least I think I can see the we used to have this with people coming to the selling or I mean as AI all and that was well you know what it's funny you mention that because I can remember as a as a kid for school for different School functions selling candy bars and selling all the various little stuff and there were times when Mom would drive me around pine Shores or drive me around the lakeyard and and we would go door to door well I Chief's not here so I'm allowed to say it I get harassed by a young in our neighborhood every single time somebody's got to sell cie dough cookie dough now it's cookie dough it's cookie dough candy bars and everything else let me tell you let me tell you he's an aggressive one there I gotta go to people I know you're gonna be on the list little Max early I'll call him out I'll put himot is J James now and his other two never had but now Max now he is he is he's got it down he' have been a pro at that era yeah he could put on he could put on Sears about it now and he'd be proud to hear me say it talking about James's middle son yeah I told J like man I got shook down by your son he's like was he carrying a weapon I said no he's just a good sales me he said good good I I just again I I think it's crazy for us to to make all of these very various nonprofits or Charities that constantly have to register or register every year one more thing administratively I've got to keep up with at the theater along with the Department of Agriculture that that regulates this very thing do they do they not yes there it's already it's already technically regulated from that point so why can't we just say as as long as you're register with the IRS and the Florida Department of Agriculture you're exempt so that person is have to produce that City know that's what I'm saying how would City know yeah but you can you can look that should can't you look that stuff up well is it possible you could register with the city every year we don't do it every year I think what we said is it could be an ongoing yeah I mean it could be a standing a registration it could be a one-time registration that exists you know effectively in perpetuity I mean that's what this list was meant to create the problem is the burdens on the city not the applicant that that is my problem my problem is not that you can't have a standing list it's just right now we're required to create that list and then if anybody wants to be added to that list they have to come up with the city council who's going to determine whether they're acceptable I think You' take it down and say look this is well I'm I'm okay with if if I can register once and I'm I'm automatically renewed or it's issued in perpetuity until I cease operation it's not something that again I've got to deal with every year like I've got to deal with the Department of a and do and all these other entities that I've already got to deal with so so assuming you do that let's take a step further is there an incentive for us as the city to allow that for all charitable not for-profit religious Civic fraternal organizations or only those that are based within our city limits they it in the scouts that's a National Organization right they have a chapter based on National Organization but the CH the local chapter would be do they have their own registration I guess my question would be this that's what you would have to that's what we need to think about because I would say I think from Chris's perspective and the chief's perspective it's one thing when it's the First Methodist Church and func springs do it it's another thing when a GU standing at the intersection of 331 and 90 with 10 people doing it where are you I'm the third Methodist Church of Aly Georgia really why are you hearing the fun because we heard y'all are wide open on this kind of stuff what what's the one that they do every once in a while with the firefighters with the boots and I've seen them do it down here one time yeah 9331 so I would suggest this the O the purpose when you look at the list the purpose of that it just says per who who which may be permitted to solicit funds within the city now I assume the intention there was always those or those organizations within the city that allowed to do it but it's not word it that way so I would suggest that perhaps you treat you split it into two different situations and is what you are well within your authority to give local vendor preference that your local churches Civic organizations and whether you want it in defunc or whether you just want it within Walton County you can go as broad as the county But ultimately there would be a benefit to saying all right we're going to keep we're going to let you come and apply but at the same time what if a group that is a you know let take the church from South wal to come up here let take it doesn't have a branch in the v now we may know them we may not but certainly if they wanted to come up here and do that they should have the right to ask for application um I think that makes a lot of sense but then you know what you don't want though is to make it a Battleground where you're being told to kick people out for the benefit of your locals but if there's somebody that's not geographically located close enough to GC for to really matter having them apply every year they want to come in and do something for every event probably makes a lot more sense for our protection because you don't know who you're dealing that's going to be one of the C and I was going to say we already mentioned the schools so you know someone the school district does doesn't sanction each one individually they're not each individual corporations but we have schools within the city limits but we have that are part of a broader Community which is the Bon County School District I don't think any of our local churches would show up try with pitch fors and watching me say this they show the pitch fors that Destiny Worship Center for example of a group that is not that has a branch in South W has a branch PR does not have a have a location here if they did something in the SE I don't think would view them as somebody who should not be entitled to be on that standing list um you talk about Civic organizations well if one quanas club is why wouldn't your other quanis clubs I mean in those kind of situations I don't know that it's a countywide is not acceptable but I think that is something you do need to think about is where do we draw the lines every organization because right now it conceivably be every single not the profit in the world would be able to come in at outstanding registry and perpetuity makes more sense to I think to make that a benefit for local businesses they already here y agree if you wanted to go that route you could I think the point here had been to give people the option of if you go door to door versus set up booth and But ultimately you know those are the kind of those are the big things I want try to think about and I think this is so I said I know I said that 20 minutes ago that this would be relatively quick this was more meant to be food for thought for you of problems I see with the ordinance the ordinance function works it is really getting right down to 175 how we deal with that list in that perty process and that's the entry here so so you're going you're going to bring us back I'll work up something based on what I've heard here and I give you a few options I give you a and C y'all tell me I want D and we'll do it how about that e all right I'll get you ABCDE e yes sir M watch toer oh oh gota I mean if it was a affiliate located within the City would clean that up yeah I question are you not every time they do EV well right now they don't have to because say we we already make them do that for special events so why not do with this per Main Street has to do a Main Street um Merry Christmas every year they do that right but that's because that's because they're closing down a public so but in this case they're using the public streets to solicit charity I think is what he's trying to say so well if they're doing it on public right property now they're sing at Walmart we've already declared that's just or or if they're going door to door right what I would say is I think the answer to that is what we're saying here is this is a for local charitable organizations a one-time registry to allow them to function as a p rather than having to do it repeatedly we maintain that list anybody the theater uh for defunc uh even I mean even Boy Scout that's more sporadic than the true special I like the idea of someone always having apply for per this if I'm driving down the road and I see a group standing near by the have their buckets out without me stopping to find out if they have already pre-registered somewhere or know what church they are I don't know but if they've already did a permit and I can just call the you know dispatch hey we got a group over here do they have a permit and they say yeah they got a permit then we know without having to stop and hey do you have your permit right but again they're they're on public they're on public property at that point yes only I'm only talking about people on public property or going door to door and that's what I'm going to have to put my mind to Is How We Do the notification because right now they have to call the chief and tell him that's not necessarily effective so what I would say is it's probably more consistent with a we're going to give you the one-time registration but we're going to make our local businesses that have this standing registration submit some documentation for their specific campaign fundraiser Etc because that's what they're supposed to be doing right now let's be very clear but I think that is without actually having to apply for a permit again I I to me to me there's a distinction between someone that is that is setting up in the on the highways and byways or going door too to me that that's that's one one thing that to me 17 is trying to address those scenarios and there's a distinction between that and for defunc or uh the Florida shiaka which has an established presence like especially the shiaka which has a building that we operate out of we never go door to door the most well then you you don't need it let's be like you don't need it but if you choose to go door too that's what this is addressed right but I might go business to business in other words that's notoh yeah that's not prohibitive or I might I might send them a letter asking them because at one point that we did that yearly we there's no that's not part of us okay it is literally personto person solicitation on public streets thorough fairs Etc uh or it is you know and it breaks it down very clearly we're not going to get outside of that's why I ask do we want to do a business business do or if you're going private residence to private residence or lodging hotel rooms nothing's even stopping you go business to business at this point okay right yeah no so that's not the issue I think we can make this work okay any any other discussion all right we will move on from 17 uh we will go to number four of the committee priority list is are there any changes updates to the committee priority list I think we're locked in right where we are for right now based on what I have theore District form based code yeah like I mean I'd like to get the signage at some point soon but let's go ahead and finish up some of the other ones and then um there is some zoning that I think we need to address sooner than later based on development patterns that we're seeing specifically parking uh for uh residential uses U we're starting to see some issues there I think we need to address pretty soon why don't why don't you give Mr Wallace and ask us to stick that back at the front of one of these code reviews some Land Development code discussion because it last to okay sheet anything else move on to tracking sheet so we will probably we will probably push 15 and 12 at this point to are we gonna have a have a meeting in December I think we should okay so we'll push 15 and 12 Mr rapael if you will update that to reflect and then that way we can continue working on the three that we already have on our plate does that sound good to everybody any other comments on that I think it's good to have one short one and one long one going at the same time so we can feel some satisfaction every now and then right yeah we we cleared we got two that all right so I will open the floor up to Citizen comments going once going twice sold all right we will call this meeting adjourned thank youall thank you Mr Greg you brother