Good morning. Tuesday, September 9th, 2025, regular border county commissioners meeting about call to order. We'll now begin with a moment of silent reflection for the first responders and members of our armed forces, followed by an invocation
by Vice Chairman Law and Commissioner Moss will lead us in the pledge. Please rise. [Music] Good morning. Please pray with me. Our heavenly father, we come to you today asking for guidance.
Oftentimes, Father, we think around this time of year of heavy hearts as the tragedy of 911 is only 48 hours away from our remembrance. Father, we ask that you hold the families and the survivors of those in the palm of your
hand. Father, we know that our world can be in chaos at times and very fragile. Father, we know that our state, our county, and our cities can also be fragile. Father, your word tells us
not to harden our hearts, but instead to soften our hearts and to let go of any anger and bitterness that we may have. Father, we ask that you guide us. We ask that you guide this commission in making rational and correct decisions to the best of our
ability. Father, we do all of this in your son's name. Amen. Amen. Amen. Special thank you to our fire rescue and our law enforcement. As the anniversary of 911 approaches, I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United
States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you all. Well, welcome everybody. Are there any additions, deletions to the agenda,
emergency items? Mr. Chairman, I would like to uh pull and reset 14A and 14B, which are the uh county attorney's contract as well as the county administrator's
contract, the addendums. Can I ask you why? Yes, sir. Uh the question was, can he ask me why? And uh Commissioner Man, I feel that anytime uh a professional enters into a employment contract
uh that is essentially a contract to ask to have a contract modified uh essentially midstream. Uh I think that that decision should have been reviewed and made at at the time of signing the contract. Secondly,
I don't believe the timing uh is appropriate. I think it should be reviewed uh at a later date. Mr. chair. Yes, I would um respectfully disagree with
that and I think this is the appropriate venue to bring any proposed addendums to the contract and I believe it's timely based on the report we were given and I look forward to having the conversation today and moving on. Mr. Chair, um I believe we also told the
uh clerk of the court that we would be handling this today. It's my understanding that that's his understanding. So, um I don't think we should deviate from that. you mentioned uh full full report and clerk of the court. Um I
just want to remind everybody that we were informed by the clerk of the court that this action did not pass audit. It was referred to a review. uh my
understanding that the state attorney uh looked at it or a representative. It was then referred to to uh law enforcement entity uh for inquiry and I
also agree that today's not the day as we should allow the uh official agency uh to review it and afford us the opportunity whichever way it goes.
That's when a decision gets made. Right now, it's clouded. I have talked with both of the individuals and uh expressed my feelings on it. Uh and I I asked them
not to move forward with this request today. Um but uh it was left on. I believe it's inappropriate for us to uh make a decision uh based on uh all that
we have been shared. You've all been given the same information. We've all heard the same information and I believe we have to respect any inquiry by law enforcement. Mr. Chair, duly noted. However, I too
spoke with um the clerk and it was indicated to me that that inquiry uh they are waiting to see what we do today to shape um more information for that. Therefore, based on their expectation,
the expectation laid out in the report and our response to said report that this would be heard today. I would um not be in favor of removing it from the agenda either either um items. Okay. So um
Mr. Chair, if I could just add, I I believe that uh anybody in a professional capacity that signs an employment contract uh understands what they're signing and to add an addendum
for this body to hear um you know, it it seems a little odd. Furthermore, uh, the county administrator's contract at Denim is under the county attorney's matters, and I I don't know why that wouldn't be under the county administrator's
matters. I get it. It's a legal item. However, in the past, it has been under the county administrator's matters. I would also point out that in January we approved an addendum to Michael Zitto's contract. So it's not out of the
realm of uh rights of this board to hear said addendums that's proposed and then make decisions based on that. In fact, I would argue that we have done it multiple times. I believe the particular item in Mr. Zitto's
contract was included in his contract. We added deferred compensation which was an extra benefit of $15,000. Okay. Well, that's my motion. Uh, chair, if you want to call it. I want to I want to hear I want to hear
this out. We need to we need to move on this and get us behind us if I don't know if it's appropriate, but maybe the clerk can give us some insight if he's willing to if he's willing to uh talk to us about this.
Any further what what's transpired in in his office or anything? Mr. Butler, would you be willing to put some clarification on this so we can move on this and get this behind us? be happy to answer any questions that
you may have. Um, you know, for for many many years, the county has had an excellent uh external audit uh that's required of all Florida counties and Florida cities by an external auditing firm. Uh when we discovered uh this particular problem, it threatened the
status of of the that series of continuous uh positive audits. So that's why we brought it to the board's attention. Uh obviously the board needs to take some action on this matter at some point. If the board does not take action, we would interpret that as as
action and we would ask to recoup the funds that have already been expended. Um as of right now, of course, we're not paying the pay progression increases because we didn't believe that there was the proper authority to hand out those increases. Um but that's why we asked
the board to make a decision on this matter one way or the other. Um as far as the question of the potential uh the criminal inquiry or um preliminary inquiry that's being conducted right now. I think any action by the board
would affect that inquiry one way or the other. And I don't speak for FDLE. I can't tell you what action they would or wouldn't take based on what the board does. But obviously anything the board does today would be taken into consideration by FDLE.
That's that's pretty clearcut for me. I I don't think we need to wait another two weeks to decide this. We need to decide if for the action by the county administrator was proper or improper. And then we can even talk about his
contract later if we don't even want to touch on the contract. But we need to put commissioners, we need to put this issue behind us and move on. We got a lot of good things happening in this county that are being overshadowed by by stuff like this that I that I can
tell you was not underhanded done underhanded in the cloak of darkness in the hour of midnight or dishonest. it just should have been brought down here to the board instead of uh being put out, you know, and being done by the
administrator himself. Um that that's what I want to solve. I'm not as concerned about the contract right now as I am putting this one issue behind us and giving it giving it some closure and moving on and doing the business of the
county instead of you know letting the the media and other folks uh bring us down. Absolutely. I you know I I couldn't agree more. Um this is a legal matter. That's why it's under the county attorney's matters and it's becoming a
political football which is ridiculous and uh you know frankly I'm very disappointed that it's become that. Well, let's just move forward. I am disappointed as well. However, if there is an inquiry, there's an inquiry
and I believe that we should respect that. I can count to three. to maintain it on the agenda and so be it. I just wanted everybody to be
aware that there was some concern and then you have had the opportunity to see that same concern. And I believe that the um I believe that Ryan Butler has uh made it clear uh that there are is a
possibility of uh two different outcomes. Uh however um as the clerk he did bring it to our attention that this did not pass the smell test on the audit would not give us a clear audit and
referred it and discussed it. Um I don't believe it's a circus. I believe it's it's due diligence and due process if you consider that a circus. uh as far as the discussion that uh people are
throwing in in opinion in uh in media official or otherwise or social media. Um I disregard that. I'm looking at the facts and the facts are that this is under review scrutiny
and I don't believe that it's appropriate for us to make a decision as a collegial body uh that it should have been done in the past. It's not being done it it's not being done without a
shroud of concern. But we see the three opposing the suggestion. I want to move on with this. So I'm none in favor of pulling it from the
And if that's the case stays on the agenda. Thank you, Mr. Chair. If there's no further changes to the agenda, I move approval of the agenda as presented. Second. All in favor? I
oppose. Motion carries unanimously. Next item is uh a presentation proclamation designating September 20th, 2025 as International Coastal Cleanup Day. And Commissioner Airman will have
the honors of presenting. Commission Airman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Where's Kendra? There she is in the back. Come on up. Good morning. Good morning. Good. Good morning. Good morning. Thanks for being here today and and uh for all
you do, for all you do for the county, for the cleanup aspect of it, for the turtle protection, and the list goes on and on because they do a lot of stuff that a lot of people don't know about. But we're going to talk about the coastal cleanup day today. I'm going to read the proclamation. Then we want to
hear what y'all have to say. All right. It's my pleasure to read a proclamation designating September 20th, 2025 as International Coastal Cleanup Day in any river county, Florida. Whereas September 20th, 2025, the 3rd
Saturday of September, is a day recognized around the world for inspiring and encouraging the act of removing debris from the environment in coastal areas to create trashfree seas. And whereas the global movement of
coastal cleanups on this day has led to the removal of over 380 million pounds of trash from critical waterways and coastal areas worldwide. And whereas Indian River County is made up of 22.4
four miles of coastline bordering not only the Atlantic Ocean but is inclusive of one inlet and an estuary of national significance, the Indian River Lagoon. And whereas in 2024, approximately 1,100
community members of Indian River County engaged in the act of service by volunteering on International Coastal Cleanup Day, removing 2,653 pounds or 36,811 pieces of debris from beaches and the
Indian River Lagoon, enhancing and helping restore these critical coastal habitats that provide economically and environmentally important functions. And whereas we join Coastal Connections and the 25 additional park champions
made up of local charities, service groups, and businesses who make the largest coastal cleanup in River County possible and successful each year. And whereas all community members are encouraged to participate in the cleanup
on this day to keep waterways and recreational areas of Indian River County clean of debris. Now therefore be proclaimed by the board of county commissioners of Indian River County, Florida that September 20th, 2025 be
recognized as International Coastal Cleanup Day in Indian River County and adopted this ninth day of September, 2025 and signed by all five county commissioners. Thank you ladies for everything you do and heading this up.
It it's a it makes a huge impact. So tell us about it. [Applause] We just want to say thank you for taking the moment to acknowledge this very important day. It's a very exciting day.
Um not just for the organization but for this community. As you heard, we have over a thousand participants every year from this community who join hands to volunteer to pick up trash, which is such an interesting task to do when we're all doing it together. But it
makes an incredible impact when we come together to pick up this trash and to beautify and uh our habitats and make them more healthy. So, it means so much that you're honoring and acknowledging this day with us. And we're really excited to have uh our own county staff
coming out and being a park champion at Treasure No, not Treasure Shores, tracking station, tracking station. Thank you. Um so, we're really excited to be once again partnering with the county as as part of this event. So, thank you very much. And I think our coastal cleanup specialist,
Gina, has another uh couple words to say as well. Just wanted to reiterate again, thank you to the commissioners for designating September 20th International Coastal Cleanup Day. We are so excited to see the impact that we will have in 2025. So, thank you again and and hopefully
we'll be able to share those results again next year. Well, thank thank you. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Nice. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you again.
I wish his mom. At this time, we'll move forward to the approval of the minutes for the regular meeting of July 1st, 2025. Who's got their own microphone? Approval.
We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All in favor? I opposed. Motion carries unanimously. And then we have the regular meeting minutes of July 15, 2025. Move approval. Second.
We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All in favor? I opposed. Motion carries unanimously. Thank you. We'll move on to uh items which uh do
not require uh any commission action. But uh this particular item, commission action uh should be noted. Uh and this is the recognition of Melissa Meisenberg. Uh she was the recipient of
the lagoon champion award and uh that was from the clean co water coalition CWC. Uh is Melissa and is Judy Okut available?
you know, I u I mentioned it a couple of weeks back during a discussion and I said, you know, that's an honor and I I did speak with Judy and uh I I appreciated the uh the bestowment of
recognition. Melissa works hard, real hard. and uh countless hours uh spending uh I mean that that is her function and but she's working very hard on the
lagoon and we're honored to know that you recognize her for her all her deeds and acts. We really appreciate it. Would you like to say a few words to me? Yes, please.
Thank you so much. So CWC began the Lagoon Champions Award to honor individuals that are working above and beyond expectations, those who are going the extra mile to help restore the lagoon. So we're pleased to honor Melissa Meisenberg. We were um with the
Lagoon Champions Award in August and so I hope all of you read about it in our newsletter. This is a little bit of a public announcement which I'm pretty shy about doing. So, but since joining the county in 2022, Melissa's really stepped up the lagoon
restoration efforts in our area. She was the architect of the lagoon restoration plan and that was adopted in 2023. And under her leadership, the county has launched the following. A largecale seaggrass restoration, 22 acres, one of
the biggest in the lagoon. She started the living docks program where pilings are wrapped with oyster mats which creates habitat for oysters which filter the water, clean it up in the lagoon. There's been oyster re uh reef
restoration with these giant concrete oyster reef balls and they help build eroded shoreline um and help restore that habitat. She's working on muck mapping to determine if muck flux is a big nutrient problem in the lagoon. And
she's really involved in committ community people, citizen science and volunteers. And that's super important because it's going to take all of us to clean up the lagoon. So in addition to those things, she's we have also brought
her some challenges and she has um taken them seriously and found solutions. So, she's our go-to. So, we were concerned about derelic vessels and they were creating a marine hazard and releasing pollutants into the
lagoon. So, Melissa's worked with local law enforcement to process and remove these vessels using uh FWC funding. I think there's two on the consent agenda today, maybe our last ones. How many have we done all together
this year? This will be four. Four this year. um excuse me. When the vessels are identified early before they sink, money is saved on the removal end. And so now, thanks to Melissa, there's a way for
citizens to report these potential derelcts as soon as they are spotted. We also started advocating for anchoring limitation zones way back with Commissioner Peter O'Brien, and Melissa's determination is finally
getting it done. So, this should help prevent vessels from becoming derelch because they're going to have to move instead of people just leaving them in place and going up north or whatever they do. Um, enforcement of over dis
overboard discharge has also been a challenge. We have the rules, they aren't enforced. So, Melissa came up with a great solution to provide a pumpout boat. And there's really only two public pumpout facilities in our county. And so in this
way, the pumpout boat can service the vessels at Anchor and be convenient for them to obey the rules. And so together with the land trust, the Clean Water Coalition was pleased to supplement the grant to help pay for this service. So
Melissa's forged relationships throughout the lagoon. She's active on the Indian River Lagoon management team. Um, she collaborates with FIT, the water management districts, Bvard Zoo, the ELC, neighboring counties. She involves
citizens, but most important, Melissa's heart is really in her job and it shows. Thank you, Melissa. [Applause]
We don't have anything to give. We just have Thank you. Well, she could hold her certificate if you wish and you want to take take a photo. And there's a couple of our board members here. A lot of our board members travel in September. So, um but a couple
people could stand up with me, but um the folks from Ottabon are here, I believe, and I don't think I've seen anyone else, but we do have uh several people away. We don't even have a board meeting in September. It's hot and everybody wants to get out of town. But can we do a photo?
Sure. Yes. Congratulations, Melissa. Thank you. We appreciate everything you do. Thank you. I couldn't do it without the help of everyone within the natural resources as the lagoon division is still quite small. Um or I can't I would be aiss to not recognize the other
departments in the county that are also helping the lagoon with septic to sewer. The utilities department, conservation, lands, parks, and wreck. They're all doing things that benefit the lagoon. So, we're all doing this together. Fantastic. Well, we appreciate you. Thank you.
Congratulations. Thank you. [Applause] Lot of good things happening. Very nice. And of course, we have the uh the event calendar. It's uh once again, thank you
staff for making it so robust. And I refer you to the website for the the full value of the event calendar. Once again, it used to be about four or five lines. Now it's many pages. So, there's a lot of great things happening uh for
Indie River residents. Uh we'll move on to the consent agenda. Um, I did want to pull uh nine Q Quebec. Is there any
other items that time again? There's no other items to be pulled. I'll be happy to move um approval as amended. Second. Second. We have a motion by Commissioner Adams, seconded by myself, and any further
discussion? All in favor? I opposed. Motion carries unanimously. Uh number nine, Q Quebec, was the Kim Kimberly Horn Associates work order. Number six, amendments. uh two for the
services related to the GID elevated storage tank rehabilitation and structural upgrade phase for uh two u and uh my only concern was that it has
elevated to a a full uh a full repaint. And when we look at full repaint, uh can go back to past discussions, uh when we had to climb the mountain to get
the word GIF put on the water tower. We have a great opportunity to enhance this as the the the term uh the terms have changed uh in the rehabilitation
and since it does require a uh a full repaint after all the structure was addressed u we have gifit identified on the eastern side and it's not on the western side.
Historically for water towers, uh there is something that is omnidirectional and uh it has also been brought up uh many times by the citizens and now we have an opportunity to place uh a a
second gifted landmark on the water tower. I just think it's it's it's appropriate. It's uh what the citizens desired from the beginning. We place it on one side
and uh again if you travel US1 you see that you're at the Gford water tower. I want I want to say that the Gford water tower is uh intrinsically uh valued by all the citizens. They, as
we all heard, how much they identify, but there was a few stories that um and one relates to a a lost individual, a young individual, and the only way that she knew where she
belonged was by the coordinates of the GFID water tower. That that got me. she was able to let law enforcement know where she belonged over the gifted water tower. We
could talk about the the the benefits, the values, and we could talk about the u the the ability to have we have antennas on there as well. It's the highest point in Gford and I believe that it would be appropriate and fair to
add uh the word Gford uh in the painting scheme as a second element so that all citizens can see that that is the Gford water tower. We certainly Sean Leki director of utilities um certainly it's something
that we can look at and evaluate. Um, I would like to point out that our other towers do not have that on there. They they are all just um identified with one name or one emblem on them. Um, but it's certainly something that we can look at and evaluate um and would be happy to
have that discussion. I think we've got an estimate um of, you know, for the wording of of Gford on the tower. Each wording would be roughly between five and $10,000. We don't have an exact estimate at this time. Um, so we can certainly look into what it would cost
to do that. Um, but did just want to point out that for instance the Rosland tower, Rosland is only on uh the the east side facing US1 on our Kings Tower. We only have the county emblem on it facing US60. Um, it's not on both sides.
So did want to point that out that the other towers within the community only have it on one side. So I I was speaking in general terms on water towers specifically of that type. You know the with with the polls. Uh you can see it from all all directions. Uh
it is also something was brought up uh many times in the community that they wanted to be able to see it as well as opposed to the passing motorists. I I I understand uh it's an ask. Mr. chair would um give you a comfort
level if we were to include in the motion for approval to go ahead and look at adding that additional cost in. Do you want that to come back or if it's below a certain threshold, would you just like them to move forward with it? I'd be happy to make whatever motion would accomplish your goal. Well,
historically the uh and again when we uh had the great debate and we were able to get the word gifted on the water tower, I believe the cost was about $8,000 uh in the painting. Now, that was
painting after it had been painted. Uh I don't believe it would be as much, but uh you want to set a not to exceed 10 and if it does, we come back for a discussion. We'll see if that works. Okay. I'll be happy to move approval of
this item with the addendum of adding Gford to the other side of the water tower um not to exceed 10 once you work it out with them and if it does to bring it back to us for further discussion. I have I have a question if I may. Um how many
uh Let me second it and then this way you can we can talk about it. I second that motion. Okay. Thank you, sir. Um, how many water towers do we have? Actually, in case in case it ends up that, you know, everybody wants it on both sides. I just
want to know what we're getting into, what road we're going down. Pardon me. Yes, Commissioner Marsh. We have total of three total with Gford. Um, so we have Rosland and we have King's Tower. Um, are the only other towers. Could be that amount times three. Uh, what's that? It could be that amount. Whatever the
amount turns out to be times three, I would argue. We don't know. Commissioner, I would argue potentially no more than two because Kings Tower only has our county logo on it. It doesn't identify uh CDP or community.
Well, maybe someone will want to see the county from the right and from the left. Seen on both sides already. Don't know. All right. Okay. Thank you. Appreciate it. If I may add a comment, please. That's who you are. I'm Howard Richards, manager of capital projects, Department
of Utilities. May I? Okay. Uh just to let you know, we are in the midst of u publicly advertising for bids uh on the Gford tower and at this time it would be a very easy ad to add that second ger
tower by just adding another pay item into the uh bid form. Um so because this is a competitive bid, we'll probably get it at the lowest price u potentially. uh whereas if we were to go back to other towers to get prices to do just the
additional uh logo, those costs will be higher. Well, I think the discussion is solely on this tower because it's going through the bidding and painting process and this wouldn't be a discussion on the other towers unless we were going through the bidding and painting process. So if it's cleaner just to add
if you haven't gone out to bid or whatever just to add that as a additional line item I'm happy to amend my emot my motion to include that to make that easier provided the chair is willing to still second that but I think
at the end of the day we just want it included to be on both sides however that needs to happen not to exceed a reasonable amount. Yes. And then I I I would amend as well. Uh it just we are we are painting
the Gford water tower. I believe that we need to leave it solely on the GFID water tower. Um again this is a great community concern. This is a a community water tower, the landmark. Um the others
do the other water towers do not have names on them. Uh they're not identified by a community and we are not in the process of repainting them at this time. Okay. So we have a motion and a second.
Any further discussion? Mr. Chair, I would just ask that they exhaust every option of funding this preferably without taxpaying dollars. We can absolutely do that. Thank you.
Thank you. Anything else? All in favor? I opposed. Motion carries unanimously. Thank you. Thank you, staff as well. Thank you. Um well,
there's nothing else being pulled from the consent agenda. We can move on to the uh constitutional office and governmental agencies. And there are none. We do have a public item. There's a public hearing. And the next item is
item 11 A1, which is 74th Avenue Property Exchange, Hawks Grove. And there are many attachments. Uh hopefully you all have had the opportunity to review and I see councelor before us.
Good morning commissioner Susan Prao, deputy county attorney on behalf of the county attorney's office. Yes. Um I was approached a little while ago by the uh public works department and they were looking to improve 74th Avenue um
because we have a new development that's possibly going in there um by GHO. Um so GHO, Sebastian River Improvement District, public works and myself all sat down at a table and we discussed that um the requirements for GHO to
improve the roadway to get to their um new proposed development is there. So what needed to happen was the alignment at that current area is a little bit off. The area of 74th Avenue from 60th up to 26th is currently paved. The area
from 26th to 33rd is not. Um, and being that Sebastian River Improvement District does have uh some right ofway there, in order to facilitate and make the road straight and not have a nice little curved road, we went ahead and entered or we're looking to enter into
an exchange agreement with Sebastian River Improvement District. Um, you will see that is one of the t the attachments here. It's a real estate exchange agreement between us and them. um in order to make this whole thing fulfilled and make them whole. You will also see that there is a deed that is attached
from excuse me that was from GHO to shred Sebastian River Improvement District to kind of bring them back. So they still have all of their right of way. Um and once they get their right their right ofway now they have it they are um they'll be exchanging with us the county so that we can have a straight
rightway from 74th and that can get paved from 26 to 33rd. Um that is a good uh benefit that we will be getting which will be great because it'll lead to a paved clean road. So, I am asking today that the board go
ahead and open the public hearing. Um, take any comments or anything from the public and move forward. And I know um so that this item has been advertised for two weeks as is required by Florida statute 125.411
in a newspaper. The advertisement dates were August 26, 2025 and September 2nd, 2025. So, we did meet with those requirements, but I'm asking that the board go ahead and move forward with approving this today so the chair can sign the agreement and we can sign the county deed in which we will be
exchanging a sliver of our rightway with shred so we can have a straight road. Do you have any does anybody have any questions of council? Seeing none, uh before I open up this public hearing, I want just want you to
be aware that I did omit the uh the public comment section for anyone that wishes to speak on any agenda item that may not be here during that agenda item. And I will afford that opportunity uh
once we conclude this hearing. So with that, this hearing is now open for public comment. Having given ample opportunity for public comment, we'll close the public hearing.
Councelor. Thank you, Commissioner. Once again, I just renew the request from staff that uh the board approve this item so that yourself as chairman can execute the exchange agreement and the deed over to shred so that we may move forward with the um correct alignment and paving of
this road. Thank you, M. Commissioners, Mr. Chair, if there's no questions or comments from the board, I'll be happy to move approval. Second. A motion by Commissioner Adams, seconded by myself. Any further discussion?
All in favor? Opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Thank you, commissioners. Thank you, councelor. Uh I again once again I did omit the opportunity. If anybody wanted to speak uh regarding any matter that's on the
agenda, uh they can do that now or they can wait for the actual item. have again written ample opportunity. We'll move on consideration of the 2025 Indian River County Comprehensive Plan
Evalue and uh appraisal report, better known as the EIR. Mr. Chair, while getting set up, what is that? So, while staff's getting set up, let me just go ahead and tee this up to get us going.
Uh, okay. if you you want to do that. I was going so uh Patrick and Ryan are going to do a presentation and then uh they'll go over the process, some of the more significant changes and then I will uh after Patrick's completed, I will go
over some addendums based on the comments received. to identify uh the organizations individuals that have provided comments and then I will tell you in the front row we have all our subject matter experts as it relates to any element in the um in the comp plan
in case there's any questions that arise. I would advise the board and the chair that you know to one of the things that I think worked well at PE the planning and zoning board meeting and what I think would serve well in this meeting is if we did it by element
the future land use element then just go each one so you can narrow the the comments specific to that element and then if somebody has a comments about another element they could come back up about that element at that appropriate time. That would be my recommendation.
And if the board's okay with that, then we can turn it over to Patrick and Ryan. Thank you for that because I I did uh promise as as we were getting so many inquiries and concerns, uh I did uh promise that we would go
element by element. Uh people do have some uh legitimate concerns that can be clarified and I think it's most appropriate to do it in that fashion. this is for the people. Uh in addition
uh I just I just want to say that this is a continuence of the hearing and that at the initial onset of the hearing there was concerns that uh the
perhaps the the PNZ did not have ample opportunity. uh the PNZ board members uh did not uh spend uh the time that was that was felt that should be spent. I have to tell you, I
want to thank the PNZ board for spending the inordinate amount of hours at the voluntary basis and rate because they did spend a lot of time
absorbing over 80 pages of information and then debated it and discussed it on this dis as a P&Z for hours. So, I just wanted to say thank you. I also want to thank all of the many citizens that have
brought some concerns to our attention. Uh some uh again uh our interpretation and some are in regards to some of the strikethroughs. So, I think it's it's
prudent on upon us to have the presentation. Uh and then as you say u I'd like you to uh add to many of the adjustments that have been made during
the process uh during the input and that the concerns that were addressed and then I would like to go element by element. Okay. Thank you. We have a staff.
Thank you Mr. Chair for the record. Acting Planning Development Services Director Ryan Sweeney and Patrick Murphy will be presenting his PowerPoint and then we'll turn it over to John to walk through some proposed changes. Good morning, commissioners. For the record, Patrick Murphy, chief of long
range planning. Uh we are here to talk about our EAR process. Um just give kind of a little oversight of this the community involvement. Um, back in March of 2023, the county initiated an RFP process to contract with a
consulting agency to help with this. Due to the undertaking of over a thousand goals, objectives, and policies to be relooked at, and Kimley Horn was awarded this contract. Uh, public engagement ensued. We had over six public workshops in the three regions of the county. The
workshops were held at 11:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. making sure to cover all folks that either worked or didn't work. And on the days that they occurred, two workshops were held at the North County Library on November 16th, 2023. Two workshops were held at the Borda County Commission Chambers on November 29th,
2023. And two workshops were held at the Intergenerational Center on December 13th, 2023. The majority of the workshops were hybrid meetings providing the opportunity to attend in person or via Zoom if folks wanted to participate from the comfort of their homes. At these meetings, Kimley Horn and county
staff explained the significance of the key plan elements and facilitated collaborative activities to seek public input. Just a recap of the public hearing process. On November 12th, 2024, a special call meeting with the board of county miss commissioners was held
whereby the county's planning consultant presented to the board the scope of the comprehensive plan analysis. The consultant discussed the possible revisions they had examined for each element. On June 26 of 2025, the earbased amendments were presented to the planning and zoning commission. On
August 12th, 2025, the earbased amendments were presented to the board, which directed staff to take the presentation back to PZC. In doing so, we met with the PCC on August 28th, 2025, and planning zoning commission recommended approval of those amendments. So, here we are today,
September 9th, 2025, and the earbased amendments are being presented to you today for your discussion. So, I'd like to go over some of the significant changes that are being proposed, some of the amendments here. Um, starting with the first element in the comprehensive plan is the future land use element.
Uh, planning staff discussed updating the RC regional commercial future land use category with the board of county commissioners back on September 10th of 2024. The board expressed their support to add the following uses to this category. multiple family residential up to eight units per acre, hotels and
motel, and institutional uses such as schools, parks, and places of worship, cultural facilities. These uses are proposed for inclusion in the RC category. In policy 1.39, this is being stricken to remove restrictions that hamper the ability to develop 300 acres
of land located west of Interstate 95 and north of State Road 60. This land is designated CI, future land use. Only a portion of these lands have been developed since the policy was implemented in 2010 as a CVS distribution center. Planning staff believe the CI designation and the
current parameters of the county's commercial zoning districts is sufficient in regulating development of this land. Sticking with future land use policy 18.1 has been stricken as the criteria spelled out in this policy has been adopted in section 915.21
of the county's LDRs. Thus, the policy has been achieved by incorporation into the zoning code. Objective 18 will be revised to state the county shall maintain LDR criteria for TND developments and by 2045 5% of new residential development occurring in
unincorporated inner county will be in traditional neighborhood design projects. Moving to the next element in the comp plan is the sanitary sub sanitary sewer sub element. Proposal is to revise policy 1.6 six, which will require connection to the county's
sanitary sewer system when a septic tank fails and the property has sewer service available to it. The current policy, as written, may be interpreted to allow septic tanks in rural areas in perpetuity. The current policy was written prior to the 2010 state health
department sewer connection rules. Also in sanitary sewer, revised policy 5.3 on the evaluation of sewer plant demands and potential expansion from the existing policy parameters to those established by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. The current
policy is also outdated in its timelines. Policy 7.1 on the limitation of septic systems is being completely removed since these criteria have been moved into chapter 2011 of the county's LDRs. Moving to the potable water sub element.
The Indian River County water supply plan discussion on page 28 of the potable water sub element, which is page 21 of your staff report, has been removed and replaced with the new water supply plan located in objective 10. Policy 2.7 in potable water is a new
element being added. It states that the countyy's utilities department shall approve potable water concurrency for new projects only when adequate water supplies and facilities are available to accommodate the demands of the new development. Policy 4.11 is also a new element. It requires the county to
implement its water conservation plan associated with its consumptive use permit. This policy was recommended by the St. John's River Water Management District. Moving to the solid waste supplement sub element. Elimination of policy 2.3 on the regulations for disposal of septage haulers since this
activity is regulated by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. In the storm water sub element policy 1.2, which establishes minimum finished floor elevations for structures in the special flood hazard area, has been revised to set all buildings above the
100-year storm event along with the appropriate freeboard protections. These elevations will now be based on the latest flood insurance rate maps and governed by engineering studies specific to the subject property. Policy 1.5 requires all major bridges to
be designed within a 100-year 3-day storm event is being revised to include provisions for constructing bridges above the 100-year flood elevation and is further regulated by the provisions of section 952.08 of the county's LDRs. Sticking in the stormwater sub element
7.9 has been added a requirement for the county to create and maintain anformational web page which provides educational materials on best management practices for agriculturally exempt properties. This was added in cooperation with the Indian River Water Conservation District.
Moving to the transportation element, policy 1.5 strikes language outlining the specific parameters of a required traffic study and instead references chapter 952 of the county's LDRs, which includes the current traffic study requirements. Policy 4.1 has added a requirement that
the MO bicycle and pedestrian plan be updated every 5 years and shall include a summary of bicycle and pedestrian improvements that have been implemented since the previous plan's updates. Housing sub element policy 1.6 removes specific review times for development
applications as these timelines are codified in detail in chapter 94 of the county's LDRs. Also in the housing sub element, we've added two new policies 8.3 and 8.4 to assist with preservation of county's historically significant housing and
coordinates with the state division of historical resources. Moving to the conservation element policy 6.4, Four, the specific analysis items that regul that relate to the land acquisition process, which is to obtain ecologically valuable land, have been
removed and readressed via the environmental bond referendum, which was adopted by resolution 2022-016. Policy 7.3, which deals with the protection of wetlands and deep water habitat, has been bolstered by the requirement of a specific permit from the county's environmental planning
staff. Policy 7.8 8 of the conservation element deals with beachfront lighting. We've added requirements for lighting to be shielded and directed downward and include requirements for the lights to be specific light sources such as LED or low pressure sodium. In addition, the policy will now require beachf facing
windows to be tinted. The next three are in the conservation element. Policy 7.11 has been stricken as the committee for a sustainable treasure coast no longer exists. Policy 10.5, shoreline stabilization, is being strengthened to further protect sea
turtle nesting habitat, enhance restoration and stabilization of sand dunes, and clarifies the use of rigid structural stabilization methods, for example, seaw walls. Policy 11.2 2 has added a requirement for certain regulated industries to submit annual reports to the state of Florida
Emergency Response Commission and to the county's Emergency Management Services staff for hazardous substances stored, used, or manufactured at a given site. Moving to the coastal management element, policies 2.1 and 2.2 to have removed specific geographic areas of the
county for the protection of shellfish propagation and harvesting and water quality standards associated with such activity. This will instead refer to the application of Florida administrative code 62-302 which actually broadens the definitions of this activity and increases the areas
of applicability of these policies in the county. We're recommending adding policy 2.13 on participation with the Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program, which is currently in the intergovernmental coordination element. It's being moved actually to Coastal because that's the
proper location for it. Policy 3.2 revises the boat facility sighting zones by regulating them with the criteria and the county's manity protection plan. Policies 3.3 through 3.7 are being removed from this element and placed in the county's land development
regulations. Also in coastal management policy 4.12 and 4.13 are being proposed as new policies to add uh the ability to utilize local funds for beach reourishment and stabilization projects and for coordination with state and federal agencies on funding such
efforts. Lastly, in the recreation and open space element, objective 9 and its following policies have been removed as the cultural council of Indian River County no longer exist. There were several other policies in the recreation open space element that are being replaced with directives outlined in the county's
parks and recreation master plan. There are no other significant changes proposed for the remaining elements which are the intergovernmental coordination element, the public schools facilities element, and the property rights element. Just a brief overview of the ear process
timeline. Um, at the conclusion of this hearing, once the BCC approves ear amendments in whichever form they do, county staff is then required to transmit the ear to Florida Commerce, which is the state land planning agency per statute 163.318, subsection 4. The
ear is also sent to the eight following state review agencies you see on your monitor above you. The state agencies have 30 days from the date they received the transmitted materials from the county to respond in writing regarding any adverse impacts to their respective areas of purview such as DOT would be
commenting on the transportation element but not necessarily on um like a potable water element. If Florida Commerce elects to formally review the ear, they shall issue a report giving us objections, recommendations, and comments regarding the amendments within 60 days after receipt. The county then
addresses any concerns received in writing from the state agencies and schedules a second public hearing before the board of county commissioners to do a final adoption via ordinance. The county then must transmit the adopting ordinance to Florida Commerce within 10 days of BCC's approval.
County staff and the planning recoming and zoning commission recommend that the board of county commissioners review the attached comprehensive plan earbased amendments, identify any additional needed changes, and direct staff to transmit the county's comprehensive plan amendments to Florida Department of Commerce for its review. That concludes
my presentation. Uh I'm going to move to county administrator who's going to speak on some of the public comments he's received and his feedback on those. Yes, Mr. Chair. Thank you, members of the board. I just want to couple things. Uh I want to talk about
public engagement real quick. Uh I think Patrick noted with we had six public workshops, four of which were virtual. We had more than three approximately 300 in-person attendees and we had numerous online or virtual attendees. Uh and they were offered at different times of the
day in all areas of the county. And then we also did a survey uh put it out there for people to take and I my recollection is it was just under 250 surveys that were received in terms of uh to receive input on local issues and concerns as
we're moving forward for this next planning period. So since the document has come out we've received a number of letters. I'll just kind of go through those and then go through the uh specific um items that I'll discuss. Uh we received a letter from the city of
Sebastian uh from the city of Felsmere. Uh we received a letter from Indian River Neighborhood Association. Actually a subsequent email by uh from u one member of the association. We received a a
letter from the Pelican Island Ottabon Society. We received a letter from St. John's Improvement District. Uh we received a letter uh from an uh one citizen who also who previously worked with others on the the former 2008 and
we received a a letter from um the Graves Brothers Company and I know many of you yesterday and over the weekend after the agenda was published received certain comments and we've spoke several with several of you yesterday. I spoke with each of you yesterday individually
and we have some uh I have an addition into the that I I'll provide it as we go through these. So based on the public comment and public and stakeholder comments, I'm going to touch first on the future land use element. Uh the proposal for objective one uh which
which reads Indian River County will have a compact and energy efficient land use pattern in an overall low density character and adequate land for util for facilities to support development. And then the next sentence was stricken which was by 2030 the overall
residential density of the unincorporated portions of Indian river county with the urban ser service area will be 1.75 units acres that was raised by two organizations. I will share that, you know, staff has concerns with the ability to enforce and comply when you
look consider that our low density residential one allows up to three units an acre. Low density 2 uh future land use categories allows up to six units an acre and transitional as a planned development project allows up to three
units an acre. Our medium density one residential uh allows up to eight units and medium density residential two allows up to 10 units. It is important also to note rural residential allows one unit an acre and agriculture future land use designations range between 1 to
five units per acre, one unit for one unit per five acres, one unit for 10 acres, and one unit for 20. So with that being the case and staff, you know, as we look at the ability to monitor and achieve that, uh we don't we don't we
don't think it's possible and it's still we have uh you still the the future land use categories set the density and then the zoning district builds upon them because multiple zoning districts could you know apply to each future land use category. So with that, uh, staff would
recommend that you still adopt that policy as proposed. Uh, we did have a concern raised about policy 1.38A4 related to set aides for public schools. Um, that's an existing policy already.
We we we have that uh uh proposed the policy 1.38 E6 building heights. the the the the original policy proposed was building heights shall be identified in the land LDR's land development regulations subject to provisions and or incentives
as may be adopted by the county in support of this policy and everything they say after this is was proposed to be stricken residential structures shall be limited to a maximum height of 35 ft while non-residential and mixeduse structures shall be limited to a maximum of 50 feet for all structures
architectural embellishments may exceed maximum height limitations by no more than 15 ft. So when this policy was adopted, this policy was put in there for the purposes that we would adopt land development regulations to codify
these all of our existing zoning district regulations make this happen. They are there in each individual one. With that being said, based on the concerns, we've come up with an alternate policy for the board's consideration that we think supports
and, you know, reinforces that the that the county is uh is going to u recognizes the height limitations and how important it is as so I'll read that. The revised policy for your consideration would be the county shall maintain building height limitations in
the land development regulations respective zoning district regulations to preserve the county's lowdensity neighborhood character and protect lowintensity commercial areas and nodes. The county may adopt provisions and or incentives that are consistent with and
in support of this policy. That would be the one based on the comments that were received over the last couple days for that one. Uh quite a few. Yeah, quite a few. Yes. So, we think that reflects the that the county's
commitment to maintaining the building height limitations in the LDRs which is in each individual zoning district uh respectively. So then there was a proposal uh Paul. Yes.
So I I I believe there's a huge amount of people here on pause an item you just mentioned. I can pause. Okay. Um, no, you don't have to pause. Um, but I want it crystal clear.
Yeah. That there are no changes to the height limitations or previous plan that has been intact for so many years.
It is 100% absolutely correct. All I think the one when when you're done sorry so all of the height limitations that exist in that were proposed in the policy back in 2008 have been adopted into the respective zoning district
regulations and our current land development regulations which would require any change to them would require two public hearings for any change to that. It's it it would there's not there's no ability to administratively amend them. It requires coming before
this board and I think the policy as we as have rewritten it. The county shall maintain building height limitations in in the land development regulations respective zoning district regulations to preserve the county's lowdensity neighborhood character and protect the low inensity commercial nodes. And what
I do believe is I believe this is completely consistent with the comments not just received you know over the last couple days but also with that was received in the public meetings. The intent was never to gut height
limitations. It just the comp plan policy and I'll use an example. I mean the the future land use I think it's 196 pages. You got to get to page 97 to find out what the land use designations are and what the density or intensity requirements are. It's very confusing
for most people and we should make it so people can clearly see it, know what the requirements are, you know, the policies, the goals, objectives and then that's what that's what the comp plan should do. as well as all that data like the report that we have here the all the
data that was done in evaluation would be an appendix to the document and it would support those changes. I think that the the concern, if I understand it, and I received a number of emails and have spoken with a number of people, is that this not be moved
from the comprehensive plan to the LDRs and I object to the future land use element. In this very first paragraph, it says a summary of the changes that are proposed and under that it says move standards out of the plan and into the
land development regulations. I I strenuously object to that. LDRs uh are determined by planning and zoning, county commission and staff. That is they're they're local. They can be changed anytime we want to change them. The comprehensive plan is filed with
Tallahassee. So, excuse me. That requires approval as amendments and then the amendments have to be filed with Tallahassee. What does that accomplish? I'll tell you. So that way the long-term standards that are highly valued by the community,
for example, this the height restrictions belong in the comprehensive plan as a protection against any quick changes that might go unnoticed by this community. And there we we have had some
complaints that this went too fast. And I was the one who said something at the last meeting that it went too fast. at PNZ. The first PNZ meeting, it was discussed for seven minutes because they didn't have time to read it. That's not to fault any of them. They were, you know, that we got a great team there. I
watched their second meeting and so can you. It it happened on August 28th. It's videotaped. It's on the county website, indian river.gov. I watched it last night. There was over an hour of discussion. Special thank you to Chip
Landers who slogged through everything, you know, line by line, which is, by the way, what I'm prepared to do today. And if I don't get the chance, send me an email and I'll send you because I, you know, I've got eight pages and it's single spaced. So, I'm, you know, I'm
I'm ready to go for the gusto here. But um you know we need to leave certain things and this is one of them must remain in the comp plan and if they don't it jeopardizes all of us the lifestyle that we have here the
community that we love. [Applause] This is a business meeting. Okay. I know somebody mentioned the word circus earlier but it is a business meeting.
Thank you all though. We appreciate your support. That's why I wanted to point it out. It needs to be maintained. And as a matter of fact, the word we can go through semantics whether it it's shall, may, might. How about
will we will. I think shall lead shall is stronger. I I I I just I want to ensure that it's it's the will of what has occurred in this county for many years.
It's been debated in finan item. A lot of people have given their all to ensure that we remain who we are, where we are, and why we are. And I give you
this. you travel over. I had the opportunity uh thank you sheriff uh to to travel in in the helicopter many times while I was in in the office and
you could see the clear difference of what Indian River is if you start from Fort Pierce and travel up to any one of the towns in Bread.
you could see what we have from thousands of feet above. You don't have to be here, but to be here is precious and we need to maintain the height limitations.
And again, I had the same concern when we had that discussion about the mall and there was a a lot of ideas that were going to be taking place and it's a special area and it's carved out
doesn't make it right. So I don't believe that we should have anything in our comp plan that suggests that there's some wiggle room for height. [Applause]
Can I ask um a question? Can Can you or somebody explain because I feel like there's some misinformation about the how the comp plan relates to LDRs, which are land development regulations, and
then how those relate to zoning. So, can somebody succinctly go through how that works? I will I will attempt. Uh, Mr. Chair, go ahead. Go ahead. I just want to clarify first of all, policy 1.38 is specifically unique to
new towns. Um, so this is the only reference in the comprehensive plan in the future land use element that that identifies a specific height. Uh, height is not identified for any of the other land uses, the L1, CI. Um, this is only specific to new towns and actually if
you read it, it says residential may be 35 and non-residential or mixed use may be 50. It's actually allowance to go above the 35 in a new town in a 4,000 acre development west of 95. Um, there
are no other references to building height in the future landing settlement. They're all in the LDRs. I I don't really care to fall on this sword. You can keep it as is, but this is specific to new tons, right? And that's fine. I just am looking at the bigger conceptual issue
of comp plan and its relation to LDRs because I feel like part of the conversation that we're getting into is if everything that's in our LDRs is also incorporated in the comp plan, then for efficiency sake, we could just get rid
of one or the other. Right. Right. So if Yeah. They serve different roles. So I want to understand what those roles are. Yes. So let me clarify a different option. Say um maybe let's think the other way. There's a policy that says the building height shall not exceed 35 countywide. However, in a low density
residential, we can actually go lower. We could cap it at 25. Um so the comp plan sets the ceiling, but the LDRs can be more restrictive. Um just like for example, land use. So L1 land use allows up to three units per acre, but we have
an RS2 which is two units per acre. We have RS3 which is three units per acre. It can be more restrictive uh within the LDRs. Um we establish a lot more definitive uh parameters like building coverage, uh setbacks, lot sizes, those
are all in the LDRs. Those would not be appropriate at the comp plan level. So yeah, so B essentially the comprehensive plan is the underlying foundation in terms of governing the use of land what what can happen and when you specifically when you're talking the
future land use element it identifies the specific you know land use designations what's their intensity and their or density and and then there's policies that you know regulate growth or or it proposes things that like the traditional neighborhood design policy
we're going to discuss later uh it proposes by X and X date the county is going to go in this direction and do this in the in the case of the traditional neighborhood design the county went through the process and then
adopted those regulations into the land development regulations because your land development regulations matter of fact if you read the statute like especially like and it's not it's not specific about um annexations but when they talk about annexations a municipal
has to assign a land development or comprehensive plan. But and until they do, the land development regulations of the county still apply because the land development regulations are the implementing mechanism to achieve the
goals and the objectives of the comprehensive plan. That's always the way it's been been set up since 1985 with the growth management act. So the land so they work in so it's a symbiotic relationship but your comp plans on the bottom and then your land development
regulations and to Brian's point you can have things that are more strict actually in your land development regulations as long as they're consistent with the comprehensive plan for instance I mean we talked to the you know there's one of the seinal land use law cases is Bvard v Snyder you know
that you had a future land use category that said you could do Uh, I think it was like four up to four units an acre. Well, that the county I think they adopted a zoning district that only allowed it two units per acre. Snyder sued. They lost because it's the county
commission's decision to determine which zoning district because that's the way you can control the growth. They weren't automatically allowed to get to the four units per acre and I I'm pretty sure it's the four units and then they asked for two. So you again the comp plans the policies the land the the land
development regulations are the implementing mechanism and what I want to add is that uh if anything you know uh keep in mind a land development regulation requires an ordinance that's two public hearings has to be advertised
the peny and the staff we can prop you know staff can propose it but it still has to go through the same process as any other applicant that wants to make a change to our land development code. Uh the the comp plan, yes, it goes through Tallahassee, but I think we all know
since 2011 that has largely been gutted with the with the eradication of the Department of Community Affairs got sent to the Florida Department of uh economic opportunity and now it's with the Florida Florida Commerce. So you the
local control is the ordinance you know that's where you have control and long and matter of fact one of the things if you recall when you're looking at site plans andor a thing that comes before the board the question becomes is it consistent with the comprehensive plan yes or no is is and then is it also
consistent with the zoning district regulations it has to be consistent with both so what we are proposing and I'm going to agree with Ryan if for I if people believe that that that policies, you know, eliminating them. Uh we could
leave it as is. I don't believe it's appropriate, but that's fine. But this is the county shall maintain building height limitations in the land development regulations, respective zoning district regulations. So for each zoning district, there's a height limitation just like there are setbacks
he was saying. So to go on to preserve the county's lowdensity neighborhood character and protect lowintensity commercial areas and nodes, the county may adopt provisions and or incentives that are consistent and in support and in support of this policy. So that anything you adopt has to be consistent
and support of that policy. So I I just want to clarify that, but I would also echo Ryan's comments. If if if the belief is that having those the residential structures limited to height 35 ft and commercial limited to maximum
50 with the architectural limitation being 15 additional feet, I if the board feels more comfortable with that uh leaving that in, you can. I just don't I don't believe it's the most appropriate place, but that it's this is a board and community decision.
Sure. So, just to follow up or go ahead. We Well, uh just again to recap uh those words, we we stated very clearly that the comprehensive plan is the foundation. Okay. and
anything in the comprehensive plan on future development uh could that's covered in LDRs has the possibility of being changed just like the comprehensive plan has the possibility that's correct we do have that that time
we can make comp plan amendments um there's amendments under yeah uh we can do that sometimes I I I don't know in all cases, but sometimes the will of the people is in
the balance of five county commissioners. And I I can see who we have and what we have today, but I don't know what we have tomorrow. And if that's the case, this could be
perceived as a an opening in the tent for the camel to get out. and and I don't feel that we should have it in the comp plan uh going up to Tallahassee for review because that's
one step closer to the tent being moved. So, let me ask my fellow commissioners then what what because we have three different language suggestions at this point. So just for clarity sake, which language suggestion
do are you guys at least that have spoken suggesting? Because I want to make sure that we're being very specific because words matter when we end up at the end of the day with this. So there's the original proposal
which was to remove it from 1.38 because it's included in the LDR. Then there's the new language revised that John just read um and I won't belabor it by reading it again. Um that just talks about keeping
it in there and being consistent. And then there's the option of just leaving it in its current existing state. So what where are we on that advocacy perspective so I understand which conversation we're having here? I I want to leave it in its current state with the numbers. with the
numbers. So the height is a number. Okay. So just leave all the numbers in. Leave it like it is. Just leave it like it is. Agreed. All right. Hey, we have consensus. Could I offer something up to the board?
Yes, sir. So with what we proposed the the revision could w because it's right now just just shall be identifi it's a standard. You could take that and submit it with this the policy statement about
maintaining building heights and then include those building all the heights that you have in the existing policy. So you're have a policy with the standards together. Would that be does that make it stronger? I believe making the policy that we're saying listen the county shall maintain
building height limitations in the land development regulations respective zoning district regulations to preserve the counties. You're saying that and then you're saying the structure residential structure shall be limited to maximum 35 feet non-residential mixed use maximum 50 feet for all structures
you know may exceed the maximum height no more than 50 architectural embellishments uh the 15t I think you have a policy and then you have the actual here's the max that strengthens the policy that work for everybody else that works yes
fabulous yes all right one down 700 to go Okay. So, but he still had more to go. I do. I do. So, we good. We got that. All right. So, just so for clarity purposes, I'll read the entire policy as that was is going to be prov revised.
The county shall maintain building height limitations in the land development regulations, respective zoning district regulations to preserve the county's lowdensity neighborhood character and protect low inensity commercial areas and nodes. Residential structures shall be limited to a maximum
height of 35 feet while non-residential and mixeduse structures shall be limited to a maximum height of 50 feet. For all structures, architectural embellishments may exceed the maximum height limitation by no more than 15 feet. Everybody
understanding get that one? We're good. Thank you, sir. Applause. Excellent. Okay. So the next one I think will be warmly received. Uh proposed policy 4.1 uh land use district
shall be located in a manner which concentrates urban uses thereby discouraging urban sprawl. It was noted by our consultants as being redundant and it was ref and it's it is referenced in other areas but staff would submit that retaining the policy is appropriate
and consistent with the expressed desires of residents who participate in the workshop workshops online ser online survey. So we would say retain the policy as written. Do not delete it. So add 4.1 back in. Leave it in. Do not do not mess with it.
Okay. Sweet. All right. We Yes. So, it makes it clear that we're not promoting urban sprawl and that we're discouraging it. Policy 4.8. When reviewing amendments to the future land use, the county shall consider the
impact of proposed amendments upon job housing balance and of the following sub areas, North Central County, and South County. And there's a couple other. So what we're saying is this is addressed in the economic development element which is going to need to be further
updated once we have the economic development strategic action plan. So we're saying delete this policy and if the language that's going to come back from the economic development action strategic plan provides you know a policy recommendation when we update the
economic development action plan we will make sure that that is it what exists in there today is consistent and that has that's a comp plan amendment that would come back before the whole community and this board because the we have we're doing the earbased amendments now but
the economic development strategic action plan which is going to impact the economic development element is not we have a draft of it right now and I would echo that that is actually the has been the intention of that economic development study was to craft
any changes to kind of build out that economic development element um and make it more robust based on today's economy and situations within the county um versus I think it was it was a it was well thought out at the time but it was
more cursory because there was just less programs in place. So just to give some comfort level that's always been the intention and the discussion on that. Um and and there is that I would agree there is that language that is addressing that currently. So similarly policy uh there was a
proposal for policy 6.9 there was a date by which to the county should adopt the regulations as it related to you know in uh uh industrial uses compatible in agricultural areas. The the proposal uh
has been tweaked. The county shall adopt regulations allowing small-scale bofuel processing plants as exist today in manufacturing facilities that provide critical components defined as products essential to the construction of the county, state, and federal transportation system as accessory uses
and designated areas designated AG2 and AG3. The equipment processing areas and transport transport facilities of accessory bofuel processing plants and manufacturing facilities shall occupy no more than 40 acres or 25% of the total
site whichever is less. Such facilities shall be subject to staff level site plan approval and shall be located at least 300 feet away from nearby residential uses. Larger larger scale bofuel processing plants and critical transportation infrastructure
manufacturing facility shall be allowed in areas designated AG1, AG2 and AG3 if approved through the special exception policy. The recommendation is to adopt the policy as proposed. And I would note following the adoption of the ear again, we have the economic development
strategic action plan coming and county staff intend to evaluate and propose because the preservation of our agricultural lands as a policy within our existing comprehensive plan and uh also looking at opportunities to create
like agricultural industrial corridors west of 95 near O for Oslo or State Road 60 to promote agricultural lands from the incursion of residential uses, promote flexibility in agricultural lands to encourage the retention of a
agricultural lands and recognize the compatibility of certain agricultural and industrial uses. So staff would recommend to adopt that policy as proposed. Proposed policy 13.3 proposes to eliminate 2018 and revise
the policy to delete uh develop criteria for annexation decision and execute interlocal agreements with the county to formulate these criteria. Staff would offer that the policy as revised retains the express desire for the county and the municipalities to engage in joint
planning and consider interlo interlocal service boundary agreements or joint planning agreements. But I would also note that chapter 171 part one municipal annexation or contraction of the floor statutes establishes the annexation prerequisites and procedures. So we
would we would again adopt the policy revisions as recommended. Uh the next would be pol uh objective 18. Uh this is one that has also been um several have brought to our attention. Revises to remove the corresponding policies that
called the county to adopt quote unquote adopt land development regulations that establish the TND traditional neighbor design zoning district. The TND regulations and criteria were adopted as section 915.21.
That was in 2012, ordinance 2012-029 of the Indian River County Code of Court ordinance. This is what I was getting at before. The policy says, "Hey, we need to go in this direction and do this." And then back in 2012, it that happened in 2008 and they got it done in 2012 and
there it is. So staff recommends just to to make sure similar to what I I attempted with the um the building heights uh to revise it as the county shall maintain and update TND
traditional neighborhood design district regulations as appropriate and then by 2045 5% of new residential developments dwelling units occurring in unincorporated Indian River County will be in traditional neighborhood design projects. Let me pause on that one
because that's that that generates some comments. I would like to just clarify that the traditional neighborhood design is currently defined. All this information is defined in our existing LDRs.
Yes, that's correct. Since 2012. Yes, that's correct. Every word that's in this comp plan right now is actually been carried forward and is in the land development regulations codified. Thank you. and and and when they wrote that, if you go back, but just by the way it was written, the policy was, "Hey, county, adopt land development
regulations that establish TND." Okay. And that's exactly what we did. Yeah. I I had a concern on this uh as well. And can we at least add a definition of what it is? I know we were striking large paragraphs um some kind of definition of what it is in the comp
plan because you're taking basically taking everything out. Well, but what we're proposing is the county shall maintain and update the traditional neighborhood design. That's the zoning district and that's now we're saying we're gonna shall maintain and update
traditional neighbor design district regulations as appropriate a lot you know different right but can can we can we define can we give a definition of what that is within the complex later I think later in the future land use element each each specific zoning or future land use designation has a
definition am I correct I mean if you don't know what it is and you're reading the comp plan how would you know what It is you'd have to look at the other better to include traditional neighborhood design as defined in whatever whatever section of the land
development regulation. Yeah. I'm talking about a sentence. Yeah. To define it. That's all. A definition. We can add the definition of a traditional neighborhood design district. So we you know so we know we're staying on track. Yeah. Fabulous. Okay. We can I mean if I have to I think
we know somebody in the community that could call up Andre Dwani and get us the the most or Peter Calthorp and get us the most precise definition that would suffice for all. Wonderful. So this is just a kind of a scrivener's
error. Uh the next one sanitary sewer sub element on paragraph one the last sentence it says wooer. Can we can we stay with the future land use for a moment? Are we doing element by element? I'm just going through ours and then we're going to go back element by element.
It is an element. Then what we're going to do is after you've addressed all of the inquiries, concerns, and staff, we're going to take a brief recess, come back, and then uh we're going to go element by
element. Yes. So, we'll have another opportunity. Okay. And I want the public to have the opportunity to be able to have their input as well. You're going to do all the elements right now. Yes. And it just these are the ones that are brought up. So we're still
addressing a number of the needs to be done by comments like you know earlier on we addressed uh this is an important action. Yes. We addressed Yeah. Like this is policy. Yes. Okay. So like this next one will be it's going to address concerns of two of our
municipal partners. Uh but the first one was in that paragraph one it says wooer sub element uh I'm not familiar with that treatment process so we'll say sewer just correct the yes to a w proposed policy 11 one new development
within and this was stricken the unincorporated portion and then what was added municipalities of Indian river shall be approved only when capacity is available either either on-site or off-site to provide needed sanitary sewer so we are proposing to actually uh
strike, you know, to to leave the policy as is, you know, get rid of the the municipalities of and and then leave the unincorporated portion in. And then, but I do recommend that we add two notes to clarify because I think both both the
city of Sebastian and the city of Fels has valid points. Um, note one, the county and city of Sebastian adopt an interlocal agreement providing for the transfer of the city of Sebastian water and wastewater system September 20th, 1995 and the county acknowledges it will
provide sanitary sewer within the corporate limits of the city of Sebastian consistent with the provisions of the ILA. I think make it clear we have an ILA to provide sanitary sewer uh and water if there's other areas there as well. And then for note two is the
city of Felsmere currently maintains its own sanitary sewer collection system and the county through an agreement treats their wastewater effluent. This agreement may be amend may be amended sorry may be amended based on the mutual
consent of both the county and the city. So it doesn't li limit the city of Felsmere and the county of revisiting that amendment to expand if they want to say listen we want you to take every over everything. But right now it recognizes the current conditions that we have. So I think that like for
instance why we're doing this is to address some of the issues that were brought up to us. So the next one would be objective uh proposed objective two the sanitary s sewer. It was revised with an updated time frame from 2020 2025 to 2045 and it
established a long range goal for 60% of all users be connected to the county sanitary sewer system versus at least 60% of all users that will be connected will be connected. So I just would like to note to the board a couple things.
one within with the 2033 man the 2030 mandate connecting sanitary uh connect requiring connection to sanitary sewer when available or the replacement of conventional septic systems with enhanced nutrient reduced on-site treatment and disposal system this 60%
may be unattainable but we do believe meaning going over it we believe the goal is important to because you got to have the goal so we should say let's let's retain the goal keep in mind it is estimated that the Public investment could be nearly 500 million to 1 billion along with a private investment of 500
million and that would be to you know collectively expand P plant capacity, build a new plant, extend sanitary lines uh and then the private cost to connect this their system their connect to the system or replace their uh uh septic
system to the convent replace their con conventional septic system. The county also is in the middle of completing its integrated water master plan. I hope many of the residents stay after because one of the items later on the agenda is an update on that inter integrated water
master plan. And then the other thing I'm going to add uh before you go on, can I ask a question? Um yes ma'am. How does this drive uh saying by 2045 when we know we have the 2030 mandate? So but the 2030 mandate is to Tallahassee. Yes. to connect
unfunded to central correct unfunded to connect where where available and people have to connect to central sewer system where not available they have to upgrade their septic systems. Uh we Sean is here we are
working on a wastewater plan for the purposes of identifying along with the integrated water master plan of trying to find out and identify. Please also be mindful in 2017 there was a Shuli report that's like that's what it's commonly referred to that identified priority
areas for areas that would impact you know the Indian River Lagoon because at the end of the day I mean when you talk about a half a billion to a billion dollars of public funds you're you're you're going to have to get with I think the board and the community is going to prioritize the areas that we connect
first and foremost or we direct our infrastructural investments in and it would be those areas that are in that Schuly report and if it and but I know that as part of the integrated water master plan that's one of the supporting documents that our current consultants are reviewing to make sure that that's
still valid because there's also the St. Sebastian River. So the point being is we're not going to be able to wholesale by 2030 go out and make that happen. I think we we've I've discussed that before. That's a that's a billion dollar investment. And so we're gonna have to
do it strategically and methodically. So we will meet the 2030, but then going on the 2030 by the 2045, we're saying by 2045, you know, let's strive for 60%. Yeah, I I understand what you're saying and it's more realistic than what we're
currently required to do, but since we're sending this to Tallahassee, do we want to acknowledge uh you know their their mandate, their their unfunded mandate that we're you know we'll strive uh you know toward that.
So and and to that point, excellent point call out and say well are they not listening? And by the way, at the uh legislative luncheon uh last week, uh Robbie Brackett mentioned this and he
said that that's it. It's 2030, not he's he said the way the thinking right now is it's not going to be moved back. So, uh I certainly have a comment on that. I think as we get closer to that I agree with you. I mean, you're being
realistic about the dollars. there's no, you know, beyond the dollars. But as we get closer to that deadline and residents start seeing a 15, 17, $20,000 bill or potential or an invoice uh or proposal, I think the there's going to be inordinate amount of pressure placed
on the legislature to maybe reassess that deadline. I might be wrong. That's just personal professional opinion. Well, perhaps just perhaps I acknowledge it. Yes. But I will add in policy 2.7 there is an addition. The county shall prioritize providing sanitary sewer to
subdivisions posing critical water quality improvements or impacts to the in Indian River Lagoon as identified in table 3.3A31. And so and then you go further policy 53, the county will comply with FD requirements for evaluating capacity and
planning for future improvements as needed to provide sanitary sewers at committed levels of service. So we have other ones even further down the the county will objective seven the county will coordinate with FDP and appropriate regulating to limit the discurs number of new septic systems per uh permitted
annually. These are other policies related to septic systems in our current that we're proposing. These are new policies that we're proposing in support of what we're saying here. I'm just saying that 60% it's if we can get to 60% that's awesome. If we can go beyond
60% you know I mean at 60% you could take a victory lap but if you go beyond that we take two but I think it's it's going to be a heavy lift when you look at the the amount of public resources that may be required let alone private resources. I'm just trying to be realistic and I think that's what we
talked about when we met met with the consultants. I've got my yearbook here where I met with them and I talked about the realistic is it attainable and so but again we're about nine months in on the integrated water master plan plan
and we also have the wa the wastewater plan that we're working or that we've actually are we completed yet or together it's all together so so I would just add that so we are recommending the that to retain that
policy as we're revising it we're eliminating it. We're just recognizing that it's the 2045 but and we are saying at least 60%. Versus establish a long range goal for 60%. We're saying at least we're saying a long range goal of 60% versus the at
least. So we're not ignoring the the no the mandate. No. uh as and I just want to reflect back to um another mandate that we were uh called to task to achieve and that
was the recycling mandate which was uh pulled back and I want to say that we were the closest in attaining the goal at some 67% uh that the goal was or the mandate was
75% and no counties achieved that and at that point they had to realize that this was an unattainable goal and a directive and we haven't heard another word about it. So I believe that that's
what's taking place with the amount of concern about septic to sewer and the conversion process and the burden on the taxpayer. uh I believe it's being well discussed
now and I in anticipated to intensify where that limitation is pailed. So before we move on to the portable water sub element, I need to address one item because in both the sanitary sewer sub element and then the portable water
sub element, it it makes reference to reuse. It makes reference to alternative water supply and many and one even we had one me uh individual talked about well nano filtration a policy that we
were saying going nano filtration which we've already accomplished is a gateway to one water which is the not which you know more commonly referred to as toilet to tap now and I I made this statement at the at the uh PNZ none of the
comments related to reuse water are related to reusing it for the purposes of portable water. It's related to re using it as reclaimed water for the purposes of irrigation. You know, you have industrial applications that can use irrigation, you know, reused water
versus portable water. So now you're reducing the amount on your portable water drain. And you also have we have golf courses that are using you want them to use you. We even want to expand our reuse system so residents don't either have to put a well or they could
just you you know they could have those purple lines and they could connect to a reuse system. So I think it's important to note that uh when we talk reuse water it's about reclaimed water and it's about using it for the purposes even in our medians and then when we talk about
alternative water supply it's like we talk about I mean there's you know there's other things that could be done long before now would I say that the community 30 40 years from now may have to address the issue about this whole whole full life cycle of water they may
but I don't think that's the discussion for this planning period in 2025. So I just want to make it clear that there is nothing in this comprehensive plan as it relates to the sanitary sewer element or the portable water element reference or
puts us on a pathway or the gateway to one water. I want to make sure that's fully clear to everybody. And uh I I would just I mean because when I mentioned alternative water you know u surface water you know reservoir there's
so many options out there you know there you know diesel plant I mean it just there's there's other things out there long before you would even look to that and I don't think we're there yet. Uh and again we rely on our coordination and working with St. John's who manages
water supply and water quality and we would continue to do that but uh at some point in time maybe the comm this community will have to address that issue but it's not ready to be addressed or looked at in 2025 or over the ne this planning horizon so I I so I just want
to say that so and move on from there noted. Thank you. So portable water sub element uh proposed policy 4.8 8 revises a requirement for all new subdivisions and project and projects of 25 or more lots to encourage uh and developers within a
quarter mile of an efflin reuse line to connect to to contact utility services to discuss the feasibilities and the the parameters uh to con to construct an effent re reuse line. Sorry about that. So we we're recommending that you adopt
the policy revision but move this to the appropriate sub element. This was pointed out by a member of PNZ. This really needs to go under natural groundwater you know to be quite honest. But we're just saying if you're within a quarter mile of a, you know, an effluent
reuse line or a re reclaim line, then you need to look at, you know, uh, the possibility of connecting to that because now you would, you're reducing the use of portable water to water lawns or to do other, you know, maybe commercial or industrial activities that
could be done with reuse water. John, why wouldn't we require that? What's that? Why wouldn't we require it? Well, I think I think the reason why they say you shall contact utilities because there may be certain parameters or there may be certain fac environmental factors
that may not make it appropriate for them. I mean would you Sean's here would you agree with that there I mean it's written that we want them to at least evaluate the feasibility to uh and to construct to that reuse line. Sean Leki, Department of Utility
Services Director. Um and part of that is too just ensuring that we have sufficient reuse to provide um to that community. We don't want to require people to connect when we don't have sufficient supply. So it's just more of a checks and balances to make sure that we have adequate supply should they meet
those requirements. And and we could always include something more restrictive if the supply becomes greater within um the LDRs. Correct. Or whatever your uh Yes. And there's a locationational issue too because not all subdivisions
are going to be proximity. So I mean there could even be like I'll just say like 60 and 58th. I mean I think we didn't run reuse lines on those. Yeah, we I mean our our reuse lines are limited in in where they are located within the county currently. So I mean that quarter mile certainly is is a
limitation we have to think about. Some communities in advance when they're doing a road they it's like it's like a fiber law. you put go put the fiber you put the line for fiber and you can go back and use it later. Put the line for reuse and then you could go back and you
know and connect to it later and then you're eliminating the public how much it's going to cost in a later date to open up the road and put a reuse line. So those are policies that we could look at you know that that would support this that we want to try to maximize whatever
you know effluent that comes out that we treat for the purposes of reuse water uh natural groundwater sub oh objective nine is proposed along with the corresponding policies 91 92 93 um and I
I I see that that didn't get completely done but in terms of but let me go through there because I apologize. And this was related to the Bin discharge if you recall.
Uh and we've accomplished that. I mean Sean, do you want to touch on that? Okay, here it is. So the policy the objective said by 2015 all reverse osmosis water treatment plants uh uh direct brin discharge into the Indian river lagoon will be eliminated
and it was proposed to be revised the county shall eliminate bin discharge from the nanopiltration water treatment process and then all the subsequent policies below regarding the you know the various locations in the south and uh the north and and the RO plants all
these have been accomplished. Yeah, I believe the county was issued a consent decree back in in in the early 2000s to to eliminate discharge direct discharge of their um nano filtration or RO system. I think they started RO nano
filtration now, but their brine um disposal was directly into the um whether it's the lagoon or into canals. And so by doing spoon bell marsh and by um creating um osprey acres, we effectively eliminated that direct
discharge. Um, so that has been met and so we're just recommending to just eliminate that alto together. Thank you, Sean. So the next be may I may ask a question about this uh
element uh policy 10.5. It says the county will monitor and participate as necessary in the city of Vero Beach's water uh supply planning process. I think we want to uh be a little um you know define that more broadly because we
have other water suppliers work with Felsmere also and any uh new water suppliers that might enter the uh the arena. I think that that's referring to the fact that the city of Vera Beach provides water to unincorporated Indian
River County primarily South Beach and I think what you're thinking of is the opposite where we provide to them. So I believe that's what the only reason we would be involved in any planning with the city of Vero Beach related to their autonomous decision on their utilities
that that they are serving our residents. Well, we we might want to plan with them just to the extent where we know what's going on, you know, in in the county. That's what that's what this I agree with this policy specifically written to related to the city of Vero Beach's service area. So that's why it
only references the city of Okay. Well, do we have a policy then where we're working with the other water suppliers? Is there another place? Well, it's us where that would belong. And then there's Felsmere. And I think with what we put out before, they've discussed a sanitary sewer if the city
of Felsmere mean. Yeah. And I and I think as Commissioner Adams was suggesting there are parts of unincorporated Indian River County that are supplied by city of Vero Beach. And this sub element is specifically addressing that we're going to be involved with the city's
planning to ensure that those areas that are within uninccorporating county are not, you know, are afforded the same opportunities as those within um the the direct service area of the city of Barrow Beach. Okay. Thank you.
So the okay so natural groundwater sub element proposed policy 2.5 was proposed to be revised as follows. Which policy are you on? It's it would be page 296 in your agenda packet but proposed policy 2.5 for the
now natural groundwater versus aquifer recharge sub element. Natural groundwater element proposed policy 2.5. Uh the county will promote the use of wet detention retention ponds
um for irrigation to maximize the benefit use of storm water runoff. Uh the common concern was raised that planning so staff has kind of made a couple a tweak to this. The county will require all wet
detention retention ponds where practical and feasible uh to to uh for regation to maximize the bene beneficial use of storm water runoff for irrigation because the comment was made we should take every wet retention pond and make them be available for you when the storm water
goes in there for irrigation and then there was also a discussion if I recall that well some they get so low they're it's not a feasible so that's why we're saying well hey well where it's practical and feasible was I think it was Mr. Landers that brought that up. It that's a what's practical and feasible.
That's a great suggestion. Again, then we limit the use of consumptive water to water grass. Uh and then same sub element natural groundwater. Uh we're proposing to delete policy 2.6 six uh which stated by
2011 the county shall contact contact the US Geological Survey and request an updated countywide geo hydro hydraologic survey. This is also consistent with policies conservation policy 3.8 that calls for a very similar differently
worded but similar requirement request. Uh staff is just going to note the policy is is really not relevant. Uh the St. John's red water management district is tasked is part of its one of its four core missions with water supply and water quality to uh and they are
responsible for managing evaluating and monitoring water supply and issuing consumptive use permits for portable water. I can tell you the Indian River County staff uh I personally met with the representatives on two occasions and they have indicated they would not fund
or undertake the update of the geo hydraulic hydro hydraologic survey. Uh so with that being the case there was a 2000 it would do it by 2011 and um I'll pause here. Yes. So I'd like to comment. Thank you.
um for the community. The Soil and Water Conservation District is an elected body. If you vote, you vote for them. Um hopefully. But uh at any rate, they they asked us, this was back in 2021, uh they asked the county commission to update
the 1988 hydraologic study, and that's done by USGS, which is United States Geological Survey, which is a federal agency. So we have we have one from 1988 and that's it. So it's been you know more than 40
years. We don't have one. Uh with all due respect to St. John's Water Management District um it's not the same information. Okay. They're they're regional obviously. Uh we're at the headquarters and they go they cover to
Jacksonville. The report the USGS report was just our county. Okay. It wasn't regional. It was just our county boots on ground. They were checking the wells in this county. To my knowledge, St. John's Water
Management District doesn't it's not the same information that that we get from them. And it's not I'm not the water expert. They are. They're the elected people in that area. Soil and water conservation district. the chairman.
I'm gonna read uh from his from his email uh to us about this. Which chairman? Uh this is Bob Badair who is a chairman of the soil and water conservation district. And the email that identified Yes. Thank you, sir. The email went to
all of us. Uh and I I'll read it. It gets a little complicated. I I'll just stay with me on it. All right. While there are a multitude of reasons for the study, the principal one is the more you pump, the lower uh the pressure becomes. So lowered pressure allows salt water
from the Atlantic Ocean uh saline to come into the aquifers that underline the salt water and fresh water to mix. Basically, I'll explain it very very simply. Um so we what he's saying here, I'm quoting him now. So, we don't know how
many wells are leaking, let alone how many are flowing wide open into ponds and lakes that dot the western regions just outside the urban service area along 66th Avenue when viewed by Google Earth. There are thousands of smaller
unpermitted artisian wells located throughout the county. The point is, and I'm I'm going to jump forward in it uh in his email. The point is the waste of groundwater is huge and we don't know what the amount is. A
geohhydraology study will give us that and more. For example, compounding the problem of this silent waste or loss of water from leaking wells and open wells is the fact that the more water removed
from the aquifer, the greater the saltwater intrusion and the higher the salinity of the aquifer water becomes and the greater expense for reverse osmosis. That's the process we use which directly impacts the water utility
costs. That is why the county must move forward to request an updated countywide geohhydraology study. Policy 2.36 is not outdated, nor should it be removed. So, I agreed with them in
2021. I still agree with them. They're the water experts. There are things we don't know that we should know. So, that's where we stand with that. Can I ask you mentioned reverse osmosis?
Yes, he did. Actually, I'm I'm I'm reading it. Yes. What application do we have with a reverse osmosis in the county? That would be for Sean. I'm not the water expert. No, I we we no longer use We had a
reverse osmosis plant back in many years ago, but we now employ nanoiltration. So, we no longer use reverse osmosis. It's all nano filtration. All right. Well, it could apply to that as well. That's your opinion. Well, we'll ask Sean. We have the expert
here. Well, certainly an increase in salinity in in this in the aquafer system that we were pulling from would increase perhaps chemicals and and treatment processes even in aniltration facility. Um certainly there's um you know salt water
intrusion is something that we have to monitor and pay attention to um just to ensure that our water is is being safe and and we're providing safe portable water to the system. So um where we monitor that we follow it um we're not necessarily seeing that right now. Um I
understand um Mr. Adair's concerns um but we are not the ones who manage um water availability within the county. um we treat what's available and we have to go get what we call consumptive use permit. Um so we apply to the St. John's
uh River Water Management District for those permits. They are the ones who um basically manage and issue those permits and you know they're the ones who monitor the water availability. So um it would seem like if there's an interest
in that there would be it would be through St. John's that we should be approaching that type of a step. And by the way, this is not for the community. This is not antagonistic or adversarial with St. John's River Water Management District. They were a partner last time in this 1988 study. I wasn't here, but
they were and they were a partner. So, and they could be a partner in this. And it was not prohibitively expensive to update or it wasn't in 2021. That was the last time we talked about it. And I spoke directly with two PhDs who worked for USGS and they they told me this that
St. John's could be a partner and uh you know and and they would be happy to work on this and get this information. St. John's water management district right now what our their message to us and to you to the community but to us to county commission is we need to conservation
con you know save res conserve water conserve water conserve water that's their big policy and I know I've spoken to them directly myself I thank you at your water uh management outreach uh I was seated next to several of them there were four of them there so if we're
going to conserve how are we going to conserve when as Mr. Dare's point here is the waste of groundwater is huge but we don't know what the amount is and we could know and so we could conserve better. So I think we at the very least approach them or I'd be happy to
approach them and just you know find out what the amount is. It's like you know it's like finding out what uh what it costs to add Gford you know twice on the same tower. You know you can find out Mr. Chair I believe that we've discussed this numerous times at commission meetings this specific item and have put
it to bed. Um, I would, as Commissioner Moss mentioned, the Soil and Water Conservation District is an autonomous elected body with a budget. So, if they feel that this is something that should be pursued, they certainly have the ability to do that. Um, but I would
agree that this is uh currently an outdated policy and am fine with staff's recommendations on policy 2.6. What else you got, Mr. Chair? We we we did discuss it in item. on several occasions that you're urging.
Mr. Chair, Mr. Chair, I I completely agree with Commissioner Adams. I I commend Commissioner Moss for staying this and and trying to get it done, but I think the discussions we've had in the past that the cost was around $400,000
to get this done. The St. John's people that that we've talked to numerous times and that's the they're the water authorities for this region of the state have see have no interest in that. They it's not something that they that they
they they want or or use or something they would pay for. They do a pretty good job. A lot of the problem we have in this county is with artisian flow wells. remember some of us remember in this room when citrus was king here in
Indian River County flow wells were dug for a purpose of of irrigation of of of many groves and and people's water for the house I grew up on an artisian well with a with a ariator tank and all that
sort of stuff at my house um we do need to conserve water we need to try to find out where the wells are there's a lot of these wells that probably need to be kept. They don't serve a purpose anymore that are probably running free. Some are some serve a purpose and and they can be
identified. So, um I am definitely good with uh with with with this policy. I think we need to do look follow St. John's direction to look at conservation and can keep an open mind as to what we want to do and where we want to go with this because we don't know if our you
know how long our our water is going to last due to all sorts of ecological aspects out there from sea level rise and the whole bit. Uh but I you know I trust St. St. John's River Water Management District through the state of Florida to monitor that problem because
it's a statewide problem. what affects any river county is going to affect Ocola County. It's all it's all the same. You know, we may have borders on a map, but we don't have borders when you want when you walk across the the the county line. So, u with that, I'm I'm
also I'll agree with Commissioner Adams. I'm good with that. I'll ask one more question then. Is there is there another way to get the information? Nobody wants to do USGS. So, St. John's Water Management District is telling us conservation. We need to
conserve. That's on the one hand. On the other hand, we don't know. We know that groundwater is wasted and and thank you commissioner man for making that point also, but we don't know what the amount is. So, is there another way to obtain this information? I don't think the St.
John's uh has this information, but do you is there another way to obtain it that you know of? I mean, how do we get this information? How are we supposed to conserve when we don't even know what what's being lost? We just don't know. I think when they talk conservation,
it's more it's more about using water appropriately within your own homes and conserving water and and not necessarily certainly they run a pro they run a capping program. So as as these flow wells are discovered and they are, you
know, free flowing, they do have money available to provide to the county and I know the county has at times found them and reached out to St. John's to obtain funding to cap those wells. Um they continue to run that program and that program is available. Um they do have
monitoring wells. I know St. John's has monitoring wells within the county um that they periodically check to to evaluate variety of different things including I believe saltwater intrusion is one of those that the areas that they continue to monitor. Um you know as far
as you know what additional information is is the USGS going to you know study going to entail I I can't tell you. Um, I'm not sure exactly what that study was going to do other than provide perhaps additional wells and additional points of interest um that perhaps could then
be g given to St. John's. Um, but if they're not interested in in obtaining that information, I'm not sure what value we get from it because again, as a community and as a county, we are not the ones responsible for mana managing those those water resources. How do we keep track? How do we keep track of
saltwater intrusion since that's one of the one of Mr. Adair's concerns? A variety of monitoring wells. So, we we monitor it by the county does. St. John's monitors that we don't mind. And how many how many points how do they monitor that? I you'd have to check with St. John's. I
don't know the answer to that question. All right. Okay. Thank you. our water well. I mean our Well, certainly we we constantly monitor our own water for our water source. We're taking water. Yes, he said that earlier. I just want to make sure it was clear.
Okay, we have that element addressed. So the the next one would be the storm water sub element. The proposed policy 7i is it's proposed to be seven be revised and updated. A provision was included concerning the
Indian River County property appraiser. Patrick discussed this about we're going to create a web page to uh where the property prayers would provide materials to all agricultural exempt properties. This provision is recommended be deleted. The county will create the page providing information materials to
agricultural exempt properties. So staff recommendation would be to adopt the revised policy with the deletion of quote Indian River County property repairers shall provide this material to all agricultural exempt properties at time of application or renewal from the revised policy. So the last element that
we have comments on that we received generally speaking that we'll address is the conservation element. Uh there was proposed policy 5.5. The county shall continue to accept fee inlue payments as a last alternative for mitigation of wetlands alteration
when on-site mitigation is not practicable but only when consistent with the state's uniform mitigation assessed method method and only in cases where the affected wetland is small. And then in parenthesis this is the addition less than.5
acres isolated and that now this is what was existed previous isolated disturbed and wetland isolated disturbed wetland with minimal functional value funds obtained from feloon payments will be earmarked for acquisition restoration or management of similar wetlands elderly
county so com staff's comment would be that the policy change has been referenced it has been referenced but it's like well the concern is that there it's a death by a thousand cuts that you have a larger wetland and every half acre you're going to kind of like go at
it but this actually it doesn't do that and this clarifies the size of an affected wetland that it has to be less than a half acre and it retains the other qualifying criteria that would be applicable has to be
isolated and and disturbed with minimal functional value. So it's not like taking a large 100 acre wetland and then oh we're only going to do a a half acre and then they do that and then the next one comes in oh we're going to do a halfacre and like cumulative cumulatively get it. It's no it has to
be you know and I think this language is consistent with again as it noted before the state's uniform mitigation assessment method. So that we're recommending to keep that policy adopt as revised and the last one with policy
proposed 6.4 four uh which was to amend it to remove the factors to be considered to assess and prioritize land acquisition proposals. I think we went through a very voluminous or well a very lengthy and deliberate process with the
environmental lands acquisition panel with our conservation staff and parks and wreck and where the the the committee reviewed all the factors related to how to assess and prioritize you know land for the purposes of
acquisition through the uh the bond referendum. So, and that that guide also, not only did it go through the ELAP and was discussed, you know, at at length, uh, and I would credit them and our staff for all the work that they
did, it then came back before and was presented before the board. Uh, and on December 12th of 2023 at a regular meeting, the board approved that guide. So what again this is an instance where these factors exist in the comp plan but
we have achieved what was being asked and we have it in a policy or program guide that would require this board to change. So, uh, whether you change it through the program guide or you change a compliment amendment that you have it and, uh, and it it's my recollection. I
think we've received some very good comments on it. And then I the other thing I would say is in those letters and I know you all have read them. I would just point out and like to thank the various organizations that took the time not just to provide the letters but also to where they commended the county
and on numerous instances for policies where we were advancing, you know, the the protection of certain environmental and conservation interests. Uh I could read that but it would belabor it. We will make sure all the all the letters we received are part of the public record. I've told her I'll give her clean copies because I've written on
these, but we'll make sure all the the letters and emails that we received are part of the public record. And with that, I'll return to the chair. Thank you. Um, and you've answered uh quite a bit of the concerns and
questions that we've been confronted with the inquiries. Uh however at this time uh we're going to take a brief recess and then we will continue as promised.
I didn't promise you a short meeting element by element to make sure that we've crossed the tea dot the eye and we've heard from you because you've taken the time to be here. So let's take a pre a brief recess. We'll cover it and
then we'll conclude on this element. Thank you. Thank you all. We will now be reconvening this uh hearing and uh this is a continuence of from the previous date. We've now had
some updates. We've had some discussion and we've had some address to a lot of the public inquiries. Uh but as promised, uh we need to go element by element to ensure that every thing was
covered. This is an important document that's going up to Tallahassee for review and we want it right on the first goound. So with that, we're going to turn it back over to staff. uh to go over a synopsis of each element
and and then if any member of the public has any question or the commissioners, we will address it at that element time. This way it is done directly. Thank you. I turn it over to staff once again. Thank you, Mr. Chair. U I believe we we
covered our highlights. Can I may I ask a question first because I don't know what element this is in. So, this is just a quick quick question to start. I got an email from Dan Richie and he's uh it's just two sentences, so I'll read it. He says, "As a participant
in Senator Puit's sustainable treasure coast committee years ago, I take exception with the fact they're eliminating that from the comp plan under the premise that the committee doesn't exist. The committee was never anticipated to exist after we published our report. the report is still very
much a good guiding light for the Treasure Coast area. I don't know which element that's in, but may perhaps you do. Um, which specific committee did he the uh uh sustainable treasure coast committee and I guess it was uh a strikeout and what he's saying is that
the committee was never anticipated to exist after the report. However, the report is still very much a good guiding light for the Treasure Coast area and I'm read I'm a future land use. I'm reading I'm reading his I'm reading his email that was stricken because that's not an
actual standing committee. Right. So but he's but he's saying if you if you could keep the report I guess mention of the report. Do we have the report? I mean I don't want I don't dispute anything Dan says. He's very
knowledgeable but I think if we're going to reference a report we should have laid eyes on it. at some point. That's correct. I would need I'd need the specific policy.
Hold on. I'm looking to He has a sustainable treasure coast uh committee uh in quotes. It wasn't Mr. Lie. That's in his email. Can we put Can we put a pen in that and we'll you
Yeah, that's fine. I just I just didn't want to get lost in the shuffle because I don't know which element it belongs to. Thank you. Okay. Uh Mr. Chair, what I was going to say is staff already sort of hit our highlights of the of the large the big picture changes through the various
elements uh during our PowerPoint. Um, but we're happy to sort of Well, here's what I would like to happen for the benefit of all that have taken the time to endure uh and and have their input. And while
we've had so much input uh at workshops and uh with the emails and then a review by PNZ and then additional input, we've all received that information. and information was also culminated and and
brought to the attention of the county administrator. The county administrator received many documents uh from jurisdictions as well as uh interested entities and uh which he has I I I believe he done a fine job in
addressing. At that point, we have a document that's going to Tallahassee and are all of those discussion points and changes that we discussed in each one of the elements. So therefore, as we
promised, we would go over each each one of the the elements. Okay. So, can you highlight each one of the elements? Yes. Yes. That's what I was going to say. I could happily referee. So we will start with future land use element um which in the document starts on page
four and goes through uh bear with me one second. It's one of our longer elements page 16. So the future use element would be the first element to review on a element byelement basis. So I I would again you're the chair but I would recommend that anybody
that has questions or comments about goals, objectives or policies within that specific element uh speak now and then we'll proceed accordingly into the next element. Well, I I would want confirmation that
all of we discussed and all of what and affirm that all that has been discussed here on the dis today that went back to the county administrator is in the document.
So, go ahead. based on your comments uh and the last recommend we'll give a recommendation based if there's comments from the public that you say yes that should be there we'll incorporate that in the changes prior to us finalizing it
and transmitting it to the Florida Commerce so you're stating that what we discussed and what we communicated here from the dis today is not in the document no because we presented we didn't want
to present a document that other people had not because this the document's been out there since correct November of I understand I wanted to keep that one and then things I want to make sure that those items that we deliberated debated
or otherwise is going to be connected to the document correct yes so and absent the the two that are based on the uh the comments adding Felsmere to the sanitary sewer element and then the height that if you recall one of the
addendums to the attachments to the agenda item was the uh the item called that you know public comment and that was received and then our response that's part of the the the document and we will go back based on your
comments revise those policies before we transmit it consistent with the board's direction and you may want to based on comments received from the public say well we need to do that and then we'll make note of that and we'll make sure those get revised and put in and this is
the transmitt hearing so it goes from here to Tallahassee the state reviewing agencies and then they get 30 days Tallahassee gets another 30 days and we get it back in 60 days or so and then the final adoption hearing has to occur
within they'll issue an objections recommendations comment report And then they would come back uh with that report and then we would bring it back after we addressed all the items and meaning like if they have items that we need to address and then adopt it. So everybody
this is just a transmitter. So, we'll make sure everything's in there, but it's still if if let's just say Scriber shows up and we leave out a to versus a from, we can address that a second time, but we'll make sure everything that is we presented and then whatever you might
take up if a member of the public brings forward and you say that needs to be changed, you know, or we agree with that or keep that, don't delete this, we we'll we will incorporate that in our changes before Patrick. He has 10 days from today, September 19th, it has to be
at Florida Commerce. Let me restate another way. I I consider this a task and a test and I'm striving for a good grade. So are we. Okay. I want everybody to. So I I I want
to know that the document going in is worthy of a good grade. Yes, sir. Okay. Yes, sir. Mr. Sure. We have we have good notes for what we've discussed thus far as to what we've already presented in terms of changes that were made and presented in this document as well as
additional changes. We we've got we don't have a formal vote, but we've got good uh uh just some rulings here on additional changes that will be made upon transmitt. Now, we're just seeking any any other final changes from the public. And prior to the final staff
recommendation, I'll come back and revisit the two items that we've addressed that were different than what was in the attachment that are uploaded as part of this agenda item. So, it's clear what's on the record, what those what those final two policies
will look like because those are the two that we really discussed and made tweaks and changes. Okay, let's go a different way. Element number one, future land use element. Yes. Um, so at
this point, yeah, we would open up. What are the changes? And then I'm going to ask the public if there's any concerns. So again the the as well as the board the changes that we touched on in the future land use element in the presentation were the the regional
commercial changes allowing the additional uses to the regional commercial land use as well as um removing the limitations on the 300 acre parcel west of 95. Okay, those were the big changes. There are
small tweaks throughout the document. I you you don't want me to read through every single strike through and underline? No, I mean I have I have a question. Is that okay? All right. Objective uh six. It refers to agricultural land and it does give a
number. It says at least 125,000 acres of agricultural land. I was um it's actually a series of questions. I was wondering you know what is that based on and should the number of acres retained for agriculture in the county be increased to offset expected development
in Sebastian and Felsmere? Uh also in the recent Oslo corridor study the community expressed its desire to preserve agricultural land. Are we doing that? How can we encourage small farms producing farm-to-table food for our
local community? COVID demonstrated that supply chains are tenuous at best and we might want to become more resilient and self-reliant agriculturally. So the 125,000 acres that was in you know it's
dates back to 2008 which policy it's uh objective six the future land use element on page 13. Page 13. Okay. So could you comment on that if you would the 125,000 acres and should that number be increased I guess
is what so the the objective that that preceded the changes is said in rec so just context in recognition county desire to protect agricultures by challenges and changes the county's objectives retained through 2017 at least through 2017 at
least 125,000 acres of land and unincorporated according to the United States agricultural census uh the the USDA census of agriculture in 2007 there was 157,196 acres of land of this land approximately
193 39,000 are located within the unincorporated area. So what we're saying is we're continuing with what the the projection was in 20 in 2008 when this year was written and the the camp plan was adopted that we continue to
work to retain at least 125,000 acres of land. And one of the policies I mentioned that that we were kind of to help preserve and protect and retain a land. There was that plus coming back once we have the economic development strategic action plan because we one of
the things we acknowledged was that you know to your point when we went to Ephus and we they talked about how we the census we've grown actually in the number of farms but they're smaller. So that will be become an element that we we raised it to the economic development
consultants and before the committee. Okay. What is that something we want to add at this point in time a reference to it? It's already there. That's what we're saying. That's what I'm trying to say. It was the goal was by 2017. So we're just
we're just revising it to not put a year on there, but that the objective is to retain. Are we still comfortable with that number of acres since that dates back to 2008 and we have all this development that we're expecting? We don't have it today, but we we know that we will in Sebastian
and Felsmere. So, you know, how how does that number compare to the development that's expected? I wish I had the urban service boundary report in front of me because I think they classify the number of acres specifically and I thought we were
there. I'm just I mean I'm just wondering if the number should be increased. That's all. It's just a you know pretty straightforward question given the expected development and given the community's desire to preserve agricultural land. So I don't disagree with you
Commissioner Moss but let's like I I appreciate your comment. I truly do. But the reality is people can't be forced to keep their property in agriculture if they don't want to. It's an economic thing and all we can do is provide
resources and opportunities to encourage and help them as best we can and then get out of their way so they can make as much as they can in an a operation. But there's a lot of stuff related to agg that is way beyond our control. And I
think the best we can do is make it as easy for them to continue. And I just I don't see how we protect and force more people to do stuff with their land that they have private property rights on. So
I think the way that this is structured still meets exactly the intent, leaves it open and confirms our commitment to trying to encourage and set up policies and directs us to set up policies to help a be maintained in a county. Um,
and I think that's in the future land use element where it should be. But if I could just make a statement, I feel like we've spent a special call meeting without any public comment. We've now
been here till noon without any public comment. We went through all the staff's issues. We went through John's issues based on what emails he had received, which are a lot of the same emails that we've received. If I might make a suggestion, if it pleases the chair, can
we go through each element, future land use, storm water, portable water, whatever, by opening it up to the public to come and give their comments and then under that element, we can discuss those comments, discuss the rest of our questions, have consensus on that
element, and then move on to the second element and the third element and the fourth element because I I feel like we're maxing out people's um patience with us on not being able to comment. And as fascinating as we probably find ourselves, I don't think anybody in here finds us that
fascinating. Well agreed. Thank you very much for amplifying my original intent, the commitment I made to the public that I said that we would go element by element. There seems to be a little bit
of resistance to do that. I think we can we can encapsulate each element, have the adjustments discussed, have the public who took the time to be here to be able to comment to make their
voices heard and their intent rather than scrambling about and picking and choosing and cherrypicking on what items mean the most. and and I agree. I did speak with Mr. Dan Richie.
Unfortunately, he cannot be here today. He's highly respected. He's a former PNZ member and he is involved in agriculture and has always been and he's a great guy
for resource. Unfortunately, he could not be here, but I heard him as well. Okay, I think we all have. Just just for sake I'll answer the question. So there is 502.5 square miles.
What is point our count is 502.5 square miles. 30.7% of it is agricultural. I'll need to do the math to let you know that's more than 125,000 acres. Fabulous. Goal succeeded. Thank you.
Element one. Anybody? Anybody? This would be the time for the public to come. If anybody wants to come forward, element number one, future land use element. Future land use element.
You sure this is the future land use element? Good afternoon, sir. Good day, sir. Uh Mike Johansson, citizen made the morning. Um, thank you, Mike. We're in future land use. I'm on the staff
summary, John, on page seven where we introduce policy 1.38, new town land. And I'm going to page eight of the
summary. And then I go to page nine. And I'm I'm just getting lost. So I'm hoping that you all can help it because you're you guys are smart on this and I'm not. The traditional neighborhood design that's
in introduced in sub paragraph 4 references that the design shall comply with the standards set forth in policy 18.1. That's on page nine. And on page 14, we
take and introduce policy 18.1 and redline the entire policy out. So, I'm having a hard time understanding how we're defining traditional neighborhood design somewhere. the traditional neighborhood
design. As we spoke earlier uh when Commissioner Moss raised this issue, the definition is included in the land development regulations and I think we agreed under our earlier uh conversation that we would include a definition in
18.1 that that provides that clarification and definition. Okay. So that should directly address your question. That'll re take out some of the red lines and reintroduce it. That was uh I did want to thank you earlier for resolving an issue that we collectively
had with the uh height limitations and thank you for addressing that directly head on right up front and I think everybody here thanks you as well. We sense that Richard Biolski. Um I'm I'm impressed by
between staff and the commission how smoothly this has gone so far. Maybe I'm going to get surprised in a few minutes here, but you know, years and years ago, this would have been a very rough meeting. Uh Commissioner Flesher is probably the only one sitting up there who remembers those days from that
vantage point. um particularly with regard to 18 I I'm as one of the few people who has actually taken advantage of 18.1. I'm completely comfortable with the way it's been handled here. It's in the LDRs. The the only issue I have is a
developer friend complained to me that it was terrible with the 5% uh in 2045. It was terrible to tell people what they had to do. And I said, gosh, I wish it said 100% of the projects had to be TNDs, but I think the way it's been done
is is is fine. I'm completely comfortable with that. I spent uh the last three days of last week at the uh convention of the Congress for the new urbanism, which gave me a lot of interesting insights into planning, but I told him there were two major issues
we had with new urbanism here, new and urban. Um, but other than that, uh, you know, it's we're going in the right direction here. This, like I said, I thought this was going to be ugly and contentious. I may still be surprised, but I think
everybody's done a great job of keeping it uh going smoothly. No problem with the 18.1 uh direction. I've known you a long time. I know you do not like surprises, so we're going to try to keep that in mind. Uh you
referred back to an earlier meeting when we did this many years ago. We were all a lot younger, but uh if you think that this is a crowd, it was well over 250 people and most had torches. Yeah. No, I I
it was a very warm environment. Yeah. If you and I get together and talk about it, it's like telling it's like telling war stories. But yes, but I really appreciate how this has gone today. Thank you all. We hope to keep it that way. Thank you. Uh good I would say good morning. It I
have another three minutes till it's afternoon. Uh my name is Heather Wasel. I'm an urban designer uh project manager with DBZ codeesign. I'm an Indian River County resident. I love this place. I write comp plans. I I review these things on a regular basis. This one,
honestly, I didn't come across my my uh radar until very recently when I had people reach out to me and say, "Hey, do you know what's going on with this process?" Um, so I I reviewed everything over the last couple weeks. Um, I've looked into all the um proposed
amendments. Um, first I want to say on public engagement, you had public engagement. It was very, it was done over a very short period of time and it was two years ago. Um, you know, that's really tough for people to remember. or two years ago and still feel engaged. So I think part of what I'm hearing from
people in general is that they feel like they've lost that m that they feel pulled out of the process and they're now plugging back into it. Um in the future I would say try to keep that public engagement momentum throughout the life of the project. Um so that it you really have public buyin the whole
way. Um additionally I had a really hard time finding the e amendments um on the website. I had to dig in and find them in the um in the meeting minutes to find to find the content. Um it would be helpful if that was on the comp plan
website um so that when people are interested and you know you hear hey let's um can you please look at the comp plan you know what's proposed to be amended and what the process is. I think that would really help um engender trust in the community that they have a chance
to speak about these things. Um and then I just um you know 300 people for an online survey, 200 for in person is pretty weak. Uh you know we do these things all
the time and you get a lot more people. Strategies have changed. Um and you really have to go in with a full marketing plan to how how are you going to elicit this feedback. Um it's branding, it's outreach, it's continual outreach. Just want to hit on that again that that all needs to be done
throughout the life of the project. Um but then sorry to to get to the land development regulations. Um I support moving the technical standards out of the comp plan to the land development regulations. We've heard um from staff as well, but that's that's the way to go. That keeps your vision as your
vision and your land development regulations support that vision. um the strategies that encourage infill development um it seems like those have been kind of removed or or written as
complete resolved. Um I think that still needs to happen. We need to incentivize re um infill development and maximize on the the maximize the impact we can have with the existing infrastructure in Vero. Let's infill those areas before we
develop new. Um and then regarding new towns, I think the intent is very good in in what's written in that um that section. I think requiring commercial development to be in step with the residential is is tricky and problematic in actually happening. Um the intent's
there, but I think it's really hard to regulate and it might um deter development because a developer might not be able to say, "Hey, well, once I get these 25% of the houses in, that's that will support my convenience store." Well, really the convenience store needs
the full um probably the full buildout. So, I would I would suggest that that um looks back at uh market conditions and and kind of rework that a little bit. We did a plan with Kimley Horn recently, probably at the same time that this was
happening um in Orange County that um has some very good regulations as far as how to develop u areas outside the urban service boundary in a way that gives a little bit more nuance and actually makes that development possible but in a way that is sustain um you know
growthwise sustainable and not um impacting conservation. So, um, thank you for your time and, um, sorry, one one last thing is that, you know, we're pointing all of these things at the land development regulations. Um, I don't know if there's anything in the
works to clean those up, but I think that's the next step. Um, and and that the public process really needs to engage that as well because that's you're going to hear people that think that you're trying to slide things in. Um, and you don't you don't want to do that. You want to be very transparent with that and make it possible to
develop under the regulations. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman uh Flesher and Commissioners. My name is Donna Keys. I'm a long-term resident of the uh Indian River County. I have been on the
planning and zoning commission for over 12 years, so you're all pretty familiar with me. Um, one thing there's there's two things I want to get in your mindset right now. And one is the ramifications of not
getting this in on time. There is no financial ramification for doing that. The only thing that will happen is that Tallahassee says, "Well, you can't make any comp plan changes and you can't do any resoning. There's a couple other things, but if you get it late, we're not going to beat you over the head."
So, um, Chairman Flesher was indicating that he wanted to hear back what Mr. Tanovich was talking about and the changes you're making and he's going to send it up to Tallahassee without bringing it back to
you to see again. I don't want to see that go to Tallahassee until I know exactly what he put in there about the height restrictions or what he put in there about the TNDs. I think this needs to come back for a rewrite, a reread of all the changes that have been are being
incorporated in this today. So, please don't worry about not making the time frame with Tallahassee. The ramifications of getting this wrong are a lot worse than the ramifications of getting this late. Okay? So, that's that's my number one thing. Then the number two thing, uh, George Hamner and
I have been emailing back and forth and I we talked about a lot of this and he said that the next thing that I'm going to bring before you is probably the most important thing you're going to hear today and you need to hear this. Staff, as you know, has recommended move
standards out of the plan and into the land development regulations. Well, if you move it out of the plan and only have it in the LDRs, that's backwards. The plan tells us what to put in the
LDRs. The LDRs enforce and enable our comp plan. So, if you take a policy out of the plan because it's in the LDRs, you're now taking out the reason for the LDR. And I'll tell you, your legal person is
going to have a real problem with that when she has a challenge and has nothing to back up the LDR. We need these policies to stay in the LDR. Just like number one, the height issue. If somebody comes in here 10, 20 years from now and has no history about
the sanctity of that height issue with this county, and they come in and say, "Hey, I got some great property on the on the beach and I want to put in a couple more spires. You already got two. What the heck? What's wrong with another two more?" Well, they say, "Well, we have an LDR that says you can't go over
35 ft." Well, why do we have that LDR? Well, we don't remember, but we just have it. Well, because you took it out of the comp plan. This shows no reason for having that LDR. We need the LDRs in the comp plan so that we can have support. I mean, we need the comp plan
policies in the comp plan so we can support our LDRs. So, everything you see in here that says, "Oh, we've removed the policy because it's in the LDRs." That is just absolutely ridiculous because you've taken out the reason for the LDR.
I'm getting some looks I'm getting some looks that maybe say yes, I understand. Maybe some looks that say I'm not sure. Do you have any questions on what I just said? I'm not sure. That's the camel in which I was talking about. I I can't hear you, Jay. You got You're too far away.
I'm I I apologize that I'm I'm not uncertain or unsure. Uh that's the camel I was talking about earlier. Exactly. And and I'm I'm concerned not for this board, no disrespect team. Uh you're concerned about the guys 20 years down the road who are coming from
another country. Future boards when their children are confronting the changes that were made and they can go back and say, "Well, they didn't think it was important, so I guess it was a good idea then, too." That's what's going to happen. So, we
need to maintain what we have in the so we have it in the future. And and to change an LDR, we've all done it hundreds of times. You put in an ordinance, you have a couple public hearings, you change the land development regulation. I and seriously, every planning and zoning member and
every BCC member has done this loads of time. But if you want to change the comp plan, you have to have a public hearing before PNC who makes a recommendation to the BCC. You have a public hearing before the BCC. And then it goes to
Tallahassee where a thousand more eyes are looking at this and it comes back to staff and says, "Hey, you know, some people didn't like this, we want to change that." So now it goes back to the board of county commissioners for another public hearing. And then it goes back to staff who sends it up to Tallahassee again. And then it comes
back and gets adopted. That's a heck of a lot tougher than changing an LDR. You left out one element. What people I Susan Okay. I agree. I I understand what you're trying to say, Donna, and I have the utmost respect for you as well, and
we've worked together a long time, but I think we should maybe talk about the reality of what actually sending this to Tallahassee these days looks like. And when is the last time Tallahassee
has ever kicked back a comp plan in any of recent? I mean, for the most part, I'm just being honest, since DCA was DCA, right? So, I I remember doing comp plans, which is about the time that this one was done in
2008 where it was an arduous process and you had to court DCA and you had to hold their hand and you invited them down and you walked through everything and they had to have eyes on your property and you had to have Bieber reports and traffic studies and it had to go to the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council
and they had to sign off on it. like they had approval or disapproval abilities. All the other interested agencies and organizations and cities and municipalities and even sometimes partner or neighboring counties could provide input and you had to incorporate
those and you had to listen to those. Now, it still goes to all those agencies, but after they gutted DCA and they've now t they don't even it has nothing to do with um community at all anymore. Now, it's the department of and
economic opportunity. um all those agencies it's a cursory review and they have no teeth to force because I remember when Felsmere did their comp plan amendments the first time and we had to go to Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council
and Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council had the ability to kind of shut that down. Those planning councils don't have those abilities anymore. It's it's not the same process that went on in 2008. And I'm not trying to minimize
that the state doesn't look at it, but I think it's important that we talk about the reality of what that process is because for an LDR change, yes, it's two public hearings. One um or it's two public hearings and for a comp plan, it's got to go to planning and zoning
and then to commission on a public hearing, but they're essentially the same. and from processes these days minus Tallahassee and Tallahassee is deeo doesn't even have enough staff to
review all the comp plan amendments that come to it is the is the bottom line I see what you're saying Susan however can I interrupt you please sure one minute is this okay however look at all the attention we're paying right now to a comp plan change
you would not have this if you were just changing an ordinance that's the difference and I understand what you're saying, but I would just throw out there that last time we even had a conversation about anything to do with height, like just a conversation, nothing was even proposed
in a hearing or anything else. It was a are you even interested? We are still receiving I think we are still receiving emails on that. So the public makes themselves very clear on these things and and I'm not trying to minimize your
concerns or what you're saying, but I I am trying to say that I I do believe that the comp plan should have those umbrella policies. Yes. That then get drilled down into the LDRs. Absolutely. So to imply that taking something that
exists in an LDR um out of the comp plan, you still have the policy that that falls under that creates that umbrella that allows you to have the more restrictive LDRs because it's it's a linear funnel. Correct. Right. So
I think you misunderstood me somewhere along the way. Maybe I did. I'm sorry. Because you and I are agreeing what you said is exactly right. The policy is there. We've got this master plan called a comp plan. And in that master plan, it says where we are, where we want to go,
where we're go, where how we're going to get there. And then we have a policy that says this is what we want. And then down here, we have a land development code that says this is how we're going to make that work. These are the rules to make that work. But if you take the policy out of the comp plan, you no
longer have the backup to the LDR. Well, you have the objective which the policy is based on. So the objective, why are you so interested in adding the 35 foot height back in if you think the LDR is going to support it because that's what you guys wanted us to do. So it's there. So there's more
clarity and comfort. And I I agree with that's it. There's more clarity and there's more comfort. But I don't think that anything was going to keep that hype from being enforced to begin with, Donna. But that's okay. We, you know, you and I always agree to disagree sometimes, and I respect your
opinion. That's why it's fun having conversations with you. So, the other thing I would just say is we weren't revi, we weren't deleting the whole policy. We were revising to delete standards that the were still the policy still existed. Then the other thing in
addition to about the whole DCA now Florida Commerce they didn't just get rid of the agency they deleted all the administrative rules that governed all the other agencies in the state 9J5 they don't exist anymore and those were the
requirements that everybody had to abide by in the Florida Administrative Code 9J5 and those do not exist anymore in in in in the administrative code. So there's no guiding documents or guidance or regulations as it relates to comp
plan since 2011. Well, there are some policies that have been taken out. Well, the TND, thank God. You saw that the TND was totally taken out. And you saw that the TND had to go back in. And why? Because the land
development regulations weren't supporting anything in the comp plan if you took out the TND. So, thank God you got the height right. you got the TND, right? But anything else that you see come across your this comp plan that says taken out because it's redundant in
the LDRs, that's wrong. It's not redundant in the LDRs. The policies here, the LDRs enforce it. Please don't take the policy out just because we have the LDRs because there's nothing to back up the LDRs. And I'm sure your attorney would
love to have that policy in the comp plan to back up the LDR she's having to enforce. So is just so I understand from stats perspect is there specific policies that we are proposing that to be deleted wholesale that would undermine the LDR
because you're correct the LDRs need to be consistent with the comp plan. So if there are specific policies that we are actually proposing to delete let me know what they are. Well on element number one on future land use element. Yes.
Under the future land use element. Uh the young lady was just before me was talking about the um redevelopment in in infill and that's being taken out in policy 4.4. Is that because you think all the redevelopment and infill is done? We don't need a policy for that anymore.
It's also noted it it's also included in the economic development element. See now all it says here is policies completed. I'm not sure I'm not sure redevelopment infield development is ever completed but well but that's what it says in policy
4.4 four on page 12. The policy's been completed, so we're deleting it. It has not been completed. There will be more redevelopment, more infill, redundant, redundant, redundant. And all of these I just had an attorney drop off the stuff that says redundant, redundant,
redundant, redundant. This stuff is not redundant. Land use districts shall be located in a manner which concentrates urban uses, thereby discouraging urban sprawl. Redundant or do we move that to objective one? No, because objective one doesn't say anything about urban sprawl.
We, if you recall when I went over it, we we we staff were we recommended keeping that policy. Yes. Okay, great. All the other ones that say redundant need to be looked at. So, I would like to see this come back when you've
changed when you make all the changes and let us the public see this again and let the BCC see this again so we know what's going up to Tallahassee. You're sitting there saying, "Well, yeah, Mr. Techanovich, just, you know, make sure you get it right. We want to see it's right. We want to see it come back. I
want to see the final wording on this, and I think you do, too." And gentlemen, I know it's been a rough hall. Thanks so much for everything. And ladies, forgot to Donna. Did she give you back your notes? I don't need them. Did she give you
back? It's redundant. I don't need them. Uh, I was going to say good morning, but it's good afternoon now. Uh, my name is Warren Dill. I'm the city attorney for the city of Felsmere.
I sent you Let me back up. I have with me our new city manager, Mr. Amando Martinez. Meet you. Welcome. And we have our utilities director here, Kevin. Kevin, please stand up. Thank you.
And I have my partner Jonathan Robec in case I get into a legal problem up here. Okay. So, I sent you a letter. I It went out late. It went out late because we didn't find out about 221page document
until 10 days ago. And it was only because somebody had been attending one of your meetings and heard about the changes concerning sanitary sewer and water. And that's why I'm here. I'm concerned about the land use changes. I
I I don't think it's a good idea to remove redundancy out of the comp plan. As a land use lawyer, if I were being challenged, I would want to have a two-prong sword. I'd want to have my comp plan backing up my LDRs instead of
just having to rely upon my LDRs. The comp plan is your constitution. Your LDRs are the law. It was said reverse earlier today that the LDRs were on top of the comp plan.
That's absolutely not correct. The court system and your legislature has said that the comp plan is the top of the pyramid. And if it's inconsistent with the LDR, but if it's consistent with the LDR and
inconsistent with the comp plan, it fails because the comp plan rules. I mean, that's basic law in Florida. Now, let me get to the real reason I'm here. the letter I sent you. The city is
very, very concerned about a few changes, a few words. Probably didn't make any more than six or seven word changes in the sanitary sewer element objective one
policy 1.1. Sanitary sewer element objective one policy 1.1. I'm going to I'm going to start with the policy. I usually would start with the
objective since it's prior to a policy, but I know that the county administrator has come up with note one, note two regarding policy 1.1, and I we appreciate that. That goes a long way
towards solving our problems. But let me let me elaborate on that. Our problems were that the way it was written policy 1.1.
It says new development within the unincorporated portion of that's deleted now. And he it's been added back. I'm I'm not finished. It's been added back two hours ago. It wasn't in there when I wrote the letter, but it's in there now, and we
appreciate that. We thank you very much for doing that. But your solution went on to provide a couple of notes and I don't know if the notes are footnotes or if they're part of the text
text. Well, then then they should be not a note. They should not be a note. They should be in the text. because you're going to have a legal argument someday as to whether that note when it says note was meant to be part of the text or was
it just an afterthought that we want you to be aware of this. It's not going to hurt it to take it take out the word note and just put it in the comp plan. And that's what I'm asking you to do. Do not use
the word note because it subjects the whole thing to a potential legal argument that frankly I don't know which way it would go. There is case law that supports a note put being put in by a legislative body is part of the law
and that would be the position I would be arguing. But why do I want to be in that position to have to make an argument? Just put the darn stuff in the law. Take out the word note. It's a simple little change. Just make it part of the comp plan.
Don't say note one, note two. Say it. So, could I just say, please? So, it's either it's it's really an acknowledgement and a reference to agreements that exist and that that would abide by with the city of
Sebastian and the city of Felsmere. So, that's that's really what it's we're acknowledging that these agreements exist and that we're going to comply with them. But I'm suggesting that it doesn't go far enough just to acknowledge because our agreement with you does not require you to provide sanitary sewer. It just says you would.
And that's what this says. Pardon? It just says that we treat your waste water affluent. Yes, that's right. You treat it right now today. Right. It's only it's it's only an interlocal. And interlocals are easy to change. They
don't require the public hearings like comp plans and and LDRs do. Commissioners just want to change it. We don't we we don't want to go down that road. We want it in the damn darn excuse me comp plan. Say it. You've agreed to
it. Say it. Let me get back to objective one. It says here through the time high horizon of the plan and this is new wording. New wording. The county will strive to maintain. Nice words. Which policy?
This is objective. Objective one, page 17. Under the sanitary sewer sub element. I'm sorry. Oh, I thought we were about Objective one. I thought we were page 17. We're done with future land. Well, that's part of I thought that was part of the future land use. It's a sub element of the future land use element.
If you want me to sit down, I will. Okay. I can come back. Okay. Um so anyway it says through the time horizon of the plan the county will strive to maintain what has been deleted
here which gives us pause is the fact you've deleted there will be three little words there will be sufficient capacity in the regional sanitary sewer system to accommodate
you've deleted new All new. You've deleted all new and just put in development within the urban service area, including municipalities the county
serves. If you go back and dig down in the appendix A, the definition or the term that the county serves says it means Sebastian and Orchid.
Sebastian and Orchid because you do serve them. You are their sole provider. You serve us too, but we were left off the list. You serve us because you do take our sewage.
So I'm suggesting that that provision be revised to make it clear that you're providing sewage service to Felsmere as well as Sebastian and Orchid. Also, I'm suggesting that you leave the language the way it was in the original
plan. I don't know why it was changed. There's never an explanation in in the appendix as to why they do anything. It's just done. Sometimes, let me back up. Sometimes there is an explanation. I I apologize but there was none in this case. So I would like it to say through
the time horizon of the plan the county uh there will be sufficient capacity just like it had been for the last 14 years since it for through two additions uh iterations of this that provides some
certainty to the city of Felsmere that there will be capacity for our new development. The letter I sent you touches on the fact that Felsmere is concerned, very concerned
that you may be using utilities, in particular sewage capacity to limit growth. And the way this reads, you could easily do that with this new change. And that is totally unacceptable to us. And if
that's the case, then you are pushing, the five of you are pushing the city of Felsmere into building its own sewage treatment facility, which it will do. I have nothing further to say,
Mr. Chair, may I address that? Yes, please. Um I read legal point and then I would like to Okay. I did I did read Mr. Dill's letter. I feel like uh John's proposed changes addressed at least partially um
his concerns on um I will also say that currently the county only has an interlocal with to my knowledge with the city of Felsmere to treat um certain discrete areas of of their sewage. we
have a franchise agreement with them. Um there's a lot of policy decisions that go into would go into having a more broad interlocal agreement with the city and I'm not discouraging the board from engaging in that communication. But I
would um state that it seems to me that Mr. Dill is suggesting that you make a promise to Felsmere right here in your comp plan about um what it what we will do uh whenever it it it chooses to
broaden their boundaries. And I I I caution you about that. I think the way that staff has presented it is a is a good approach. I'm gonna echo that la echo that last comment because that's exactly what's be
that uh that by doing that you are committing the county to say okay city of Felsmere you do whatever you want to do and you want to build but we're we are going to provide you water and sewer we're we're going to lock in the sewer we're going to provide it and so the
reason why the change went from we'll strive to maintain let's be mindful of the 2030 30 mandate. We have to, you know, potentially add plant capacity to just provide in our existing areas that are priority and critical to our
environment for the receiving water bodies where these septic systems are leaking. So that is going to be you're going have to prioritize. Do you one we got a mandate we got to comply but then do we add add our own mandate saying well we're going to provide sanitary
sewer because the comp plan now says you will have sufficient capacity and then moreover to expand an agreement that hasn't even been negotiated beyond the existing terms that we treat your effluent from your from your from your
uh from your from your waste your waste water. So that's the reason why we're acknowledging in the note whether it's acknowledgment a reference I don't think there should be a policy we're just acknowledging like we did with the city of Sebastian who we have a binding interlocal agreement much more forceful
that we're going to provide their wastewater and it's it's very detailed you know as I think they will come up and talk about and we we've talked about already so we don't have that same level of agreement with the city of Sebastian and then I I don't think you can I don't
think you want to bind the county to be to de facto agree that it's going to provide uh the city or any other area, you know, wastewater in advance of knowing that you have the capacity both the financial and the tech
and the technical capacity to do that. I mean, I respect the comments, but I, you know, respectfully, you know, disagree with that that it's it's in it's wrong. So you explain the change, but why the change? The why the changes? I'll say the 2030
mandate changes a lot. It places a priority on us to get properties that are within close proximity or to to receiving water body, the lagoon, the Sebastian River to get them off septic to to to kind of improve the health of
the lagoon. And that is a mandate that we have to face. And that is that would take precedence I would think over let's expand the plant so we can provide water further or waste water somewhere else at the expense of trying to
deal with all the properties that have maybe failing septic tanks. So we would want to try to get those first and foremost you know and be strategic in that. And then it's not it's not negating or saying that we're not going to do that, but it's just saying we we
got to recognize again we we've heard back when we one joint city county meetings half billion to a billion dollar public investment. That's a lot of money. And the legislature has already told us at least our our large local delegations like it's highly
unlikely you're going to see any of those funds. Even the septic to sewer conversions that we the grants that we get from now, they're 50/50 and they're really it's peace meal fashion. They're very small. It's not like they're doing a wholesale, you know, area. It's like, you know, we're focused on areas like,
you know, over in the lagoon off Wabaso, you know, I can't think of the name of the community right now. Orchid Island or anything. So, I mean, it just I just think there's not you're to her point, we would be codifying, adopting in our comp plan a commitment that I don't know
and that conflicts with other priorities that we may have by virtue of a mandate. If if I may very briefly, sorry, if I may just very briefly, there's one thing I think. Yes, thank you. Susan Praa, deputy county attorney on behalf of Indian River County. Um, I
I reviewed this letter as well from from council. Um, in fact, I spoke with the uh assistant city attorney for the city of Elsmer just briefly before this meeting to try to understand what some of the concerns were. Um, and in an effort to try to uh come to some sort of
middle ground, I will tell you that I profered to them to perhaps we could even look at something because I their I guess their concern is that we're capping them or capping their growth in some way. Um the other thing which I think would have been great if it was
brought up was uh even possible proposed language of only you know for it to if that's what we're saying that we have to approve which is I agree with everything John is saying we have to protect ourselves we have to make sure that we are able to provide we shouldn't just openly say we can provide especially with the mandate coming up but to add
something there to say only when the municipality is not providing sanitary sewer or on-site septic is not being used so that way it'll quash for example example, the city's concerns of we're stopping them from doing their own thing because if they have, as you have said,
their ability to have septic tanks on properties that are way out, lots of properties in Fels are way out and probably will have septic tanks. We would not be stopping them from any sort of development or growth with something of that put in there or um was something of the fact that if they are providing
because as I said, it sounds to me like and I haven't seen the ILA in um I was searching for it yesterday. couldn't find it. But if if they in fact are collecting their own septic and all we're doing is treating it, I mean, he just said he'd be welcome to do his own
septic. So, we are then in essence, we're not stopping any sort of growth um for them. So, I just want to make sure I put that on the record and and kind of calm those those comments and some of that that we are trying to work with them. I know at least I tried to work with them to get a
little bit of a better feeling for that concern. And I just want to put on the record too, Sean and I believe Mr. Dill and a past city manager and a uh current city council member and some of the
fellows mayor property owners have had past meetings and dialogue about sewer and water delivery, utilities delivery to properties within the city limits of Felsmere. Those conversations went on for quite some time and I think some
people changed and the situation changed with that particularly particular property but the goal and there was a lot of movement positive movement towards coming up with an agreement that would accomplish some of the goals that
Mr. Dill is um expressing some frustration about. So, I think the history has been that we're always willing to have the conversation. Um, and I would offer that I'm happy to
h connect some of the new um administration with the city to have an update on where those conversations may be stopped and to see if they can be restarted in an effective manner. But I I would have to kind of support staff
on I don't I don't think that until we have a better understanding of the policy makers of the city of Felismeir's perspective on how they want to move forward and this body's perspective that we could include that something
definitive like that in the comp plan. But I think the way that it's been crafted today should give um as much comfort as I think could be expected with the limited dialogue that's just happened recently and some of the
changes. But I would offer to the city of fellows mayor that we would be happy to fill in the new city manager and maybe reook or Sean, do you I mean you were part of those conversations and it was about capacity and service delivery
and um system expansions that would would allow for these very things to happen. Yeah. Speaking of of Felsmere and and the conversations we've had, you know, we're looking at our integrated water master plan and that's going to be key plan for us, you know, over the next 20
30 years. And in that plan, we continue to look at all of our interlocal agreements and the areas that we have to serve and ensuring that we're providing sufficient water and sewer capacity for those areas. The plan is looking at growth, where growth is happening, trying, you know, we're trying to
predict as best we can where that's going to happen. One of the things that is key for me in that plan is having a and I've I've spoken to all of you about this is having a plan that's very flexible, adaptable, and being able to as best we can understand how and when
that capacity needs to be developed. We don't want to get out too far in front of it. We don't want to have capacity, you know, so much capacity in our facilities that, you know, we're so far in front of de development that the plant's sitting, you know, at half capacity. That's not good for a plant.
and a plant wants to run at at or near full capacity. Um, you know, so you don't want to get too far out in front of that. Our plans are going to continue to look at that and be adaptable in a manner that, hey, if this development is actually happening, we get we get a lot of people um and a lot of developers
coming in and approaching us with, hey, this development is going to happen and it's going to happen and we're going to be building 1500 homes. We all know that 1500 homes aren't going to be built in a day. um that's going to take a period of time, you know, sometimes 15, 20 years to build. Our responsibility as a
utility is to make sure that we as that community continues to grow and build that we provide and have that capacity available to them. Um it may not be that on day one we have the capacity for 1500 homes, but as they continue to grow, so will we. Um and that's a commitment that
we have to make and that's that's our job is to make sure that we have that capacity as the community grows. And the the last thing I'll add is I guess this comp plan governs the land within the unincorporated county. It by
no way in any means affects land that's within the corporate limits of the city. And I'm going to use the city of Sebastian as a great example is when I look at the Graves Brother annexation, they have policies and they laid out what was the when they approved that
annexation and that development thing that they had policies that talked about septic, talked about water, but it it doesn't limit them from growing. I mean, we we're having conversations with them and the Graves brothers, you know, if you will, and the property owners on
their property and how we're going to be able to accommodate that. And that's why we noted or I can make it a reference uh or acknowledgement however but I don't think it belongs as a policy. And the last thing that I did add in there is this agreement may be amended on the
mutual consent of both party or both this county and the city to open that door if there was opportunity once we have our understanding where we are in the integrated water master plan and our capacity and our ability on what we would be able to do if Felsmere wanted to move into a direction similar to what
we have where we are the sole provider for the city of Sebastian. you know, I I just see the concern and uh we we brought in from the first element to the second element. Um I I do see uh a
perception when we don't want to look at any development plans because of the likelihood or perception that we don't have the resources the
utility delivery. So we won't look at the utility delivery because we don't have a plan. I I I just think that this is has the possibility of being a gatekeeper for those that are looking
for expansion. Not saying it whether support or not. It just I can see the perception and concern that this is a wall
without discussing. Well, if you you want that utility, you may have to pay for it. You will pay for it. It it's happening with the annexation.
Uh you'll pay for that infrastructure and we will have availability for use. Uh I remember being involved with a discussion about that with you and I and a few others. uh just explaining
is is the capacity available. Well, we did not want to include what was perceived for the expansion because we have to do other concerns. I think the perception is that
with the way it stands, you now have a wall for application. just straight up and I can understand that. But I would also say the city's comprehensive plan is what's going to govern their growth
and their decision-m but to hold it to the level in which it is that if the accountability for capacity I think it could be delivered
differently and left back to where it was. It's a board decision. Declarative statement there will be is there will be you might as well just shall ensure that sufficient capacity is available. I mean, and that's just again that shall will me,
you know, I just I just think that's tying the hands of the county in terms of the rateayers, in terms of the the planning and the infrastructure, the costs. And uh I just think I I would just exercise advise you to exercise
caution in saying that you you shall provide sufficient capacity, you know, to accommodate all development within the urban service, including municipalities the county serves. Does anybody have any
do we need a clear interlocal rem? Well, we we're we are certainly welcome to and you know I mean open up the open up the dialogue on the inter the revised or the interlocal agreement. Certainly we are like to to to Commissioner Adams
point and it was really the property that was largely annexed really I mean we're talk we were talking plants we were talk water plants sewer plants we're talking what what would be need in terms of sources for the water how are we going to do it yeah we were in the middle of that that process and we had a draft agreement and then the property
got sold and there hasn't been any continuing discussion since there's no reason why we couldn't continue the discussion looking at other properties within the city limits to provide them with that same level of comfort. Correct.
I mean, and there is there was a draft agreement for the most part and I so I don't see why we couldn't continue that discussion and have a more formal agreement if that gives them the level of comfort that is needed. Um, I think I
guess just because there's been a lot of talk about this sub element. Can somebody remind me just what is No, not that but specifically what the
language is being proposed is new development within are we we're leaving in unincorporated portion. So basically we're leaving it the same as it's currently existing.
They mixed up the subanitary sewer element. He started off in the future land use, right? And then Right. Right. We're in sanitary sewer sub element policy 1.1. Correct. Right. Okay. So, we're leaving the pol the proposal is to leave the policy
language the same as it's currently existing in the currently improved comp plan. And then just whether I think Mr. Dill was suggesting that the notes might not be the best way to incorporate,
but at this point they are listed as notes. Um, just codifying or pointing to the existing agreements with the city of Sebastian and the city of Fels. We're going to live up to what we agreed. Okay. And then we're saying the agreements may
be amended based on the mutual consent of both the county and the city. Okay. Okay. I just want to I feel like we we run around it a little bit. I wanted to make sure I was back where we started. I think we could eliminate notes and
reference acknowledgement. We can Yeah, I mean I I think there's a better way to do it. Here we are with semantics again. But when something says note, you know, well, it's kind of like the tacid reminder. I could I can remove the word note and say
and make it in take those sentences and just make it in as part of it A and B leave it mission oriented. Yes on that sounds good. No no I think the city manager for the new
city manager for Arando wants to speak. He's been standing there quite some time too. I mean, you know, go ahead. No problem. Yeah. I just wanted to say I've only been here for 5 days. I wish I would have been here for 10 days because just
in one phone call yesterday with the county administrator, we resolved like 90% of this, right? And um hopefully moving forward, the relationship between the city and the county, I have a track record of working closely with the county. These things won't even won't even come up here. I
also appreciate uh Commissioner Adams and her insight and help on this issue and I look forward to meeting all of you. So I I want to commend the county administrator and his efforts with me yesterday and I do want to acknowledge that there was a lot resolved. Thank
you. Thank you. You paid finally. Welcome. It was earlier today. Thank you so much uh for the time. Thank you so much for uh everything you're
doing for us. Uh I really appreciate it. And u I am not a voice of one person. I'm a voice of 400 people. We are a group of people
who bought 7,000 acres west of 95 that is in the opportunity zone distress citrus grow to make it our future home. We are all software engineering professionals all over the US and we are
in semi-retirement phase. I'm close to 50 and we have some of our friends and we want to make Vero Beach as our home. That is what we planned four years back and that is what we have been doing. I also met commissioner man to talk about
some of our plan and uh we are all very highly educated software engineering professors like you know west coast you know all these New York and everything and all these people we want to make this the home and uh and when we found this place of Vero Beach which is in the
right heart of the center of the Florida right on 95 NC highway 60 junction we thought hey there's a huge opportunity here. There's a huge potential here. And the corridor that 60 that connects all the way from the west coast to east
coast and the 95 and the turnpike that's an excellent location for us to be in. It's a great connectivity. But what I found over the period of last two three years is we are talking about urban sprawl. We are talking about
limiting growth. We are talking about a use and everything. And what are the country's problems today? If you see affordable housing, world is moving towards digital. There is more and more need of warehouses.
Highway 60 on the west is a great location that's going to be a a excellent spot for warehouses that can deliver all our goods online. But we are not doing anything to that effect. It was declared as an
opportunity zone to bring growth. But we are not doing as a county. We are not doing enough to bring that growth or the uh uh uh financial uh muscle power that
is needed. And uh we are uh looking at all these things. I feel that okay is this county welcoming or the city welcoming for the new people to come and make their home. So that's what um I've been I've been
thinking about did we make the right choice and and uh we are talking about limiting and making it only a use land you know this is a land that we bought to make homes build houses make retirement homes and uh making them
reducing the density making them a use and everything that will not serve the purpose of the land owners I'm not sure how much it serves for the county commissioners but these are some of the things my request is to keep this in mind is that there a lot of people
wanting to make Verov beach as a home. So can I ask a question? Sure. Which policy are you referring to or we're converting a to or we're converting something residential otherwise to a to prevent growth because I don't know that
we have done any or proposing any future land use map amendments as part of this airbased comp plan amendment process. I don't think we are adjusting any of the the the the future land use designations. Agreed, sir. There is no like what I
want is a general I mean so so you you so I'm just trying to understand. Yes, sir. So you've purchased property that's agg and you want to convert it to residential. Is that what it's not a right now? It's owned for ag2 which means you can have one unit. Yes,
it's a and then uh it is in the prime location. Now if you look at the entire 95 all the way from the north to south it's all high value properties high growth properties and uh it's on the right intersection of the 95 and 60 and
we are limiting growth and that's a excellent location for a high value growth and then you can have some uh uh very good uh community you know expensive community like what we have in Sarasota this city has This county has
so much potential and I think we are limiting the growth by uh not developing the 95 west. I just want to share my thoughts. I don't know how much of that is boundary issue. I yeah I don't see where Mr. Chairman if I may.
Yeah please. Um I did have a meeting with him and his council Pete Sweeney uh months ago and the emails that I've been receiving the last couple of days is say as you know we are it's from from over
well over a hundred people u it's a joint email cut and paste that everybody sent says I'm I'm writing as a property owner with holdings on west of I95 when then the St. John's Improvement District to express my concerns regarding the
proposed 2025 comprehensive plan earbased amendments, particularly those that would implement a new town develop framework for unincorporated egg lands in any river county. I strongly oppose these amendments. They represent a
drastic unwarranted departure from the county's extended land use policies. I I don't need to go in the rest of it. I think you just said it. We haven't changed any zoning or anything like that. Um that property out there of
course is is agriculture, but we haven't we haven't changed or even discussed anything with regards to that and I guess until that time comes. Would that be correct, sir? Yeah. I would also add I mean we were
and I know we've had com conversations with uh was it it was STRID right SJ St. John's St. Johns and and they did talk about an environment a designation, but uh the most recent I think Senate Bill 180
would prevent the county from adopting any comp plan amendment or zoning regulation that's more restrictive and burdensome, you know, in the aftermath of the most three recent hurricanes. And that date goes all the way out to October of 2027. So the rights that you
had when you purchased the property are the rights that you still have. And there's nothing that I'm aware of, you know, and I've read these voluminous documents where we are altering any land use or comprehensive, you know, hate using the word scheme, but some the
framework on the land in which you've purchased. We've not altered anything like that. Yeah. Thank you so much. I just want to make sure the voice is heard that, hey, we have to be, you know, prodevelopment, progrowth, and then that's an excellent corridor for a lot of warehouses. I just
want to, you know, uh, my voice hurt. That's all. Thank you so much. And I would, Mr. Chairman, I would add that the, you may all may have received this, but the St. John's Improvement District and their their chairman uh, Cody Estes also sent a letter in uh,
proposing strong opposition to the new town policy. And I don't know if y'all had meetings with him, but I had meetings with him last week or so and said, "Hey, we're not talking about zoning here." You know, we we this is not
the New Town policy has been in existence since 2008. Yeah. New town's been around almost 20 years, right? The new town policy is just a mechanism by which development could take place in agricultural through a plan development, but it doesn't change anything out
there. You can still develop agricultural as agricultural. So the policy we have is not changing any rights that the gentleman or as corporation has rights to on that land and you can still develop it. Yes. As agg as a new town. New towns just
provide certain thresholds. Do we have any new towns in a univer county? We do not. We do not. Oh my never have. We've never had any. No. Unbridled. But there was that all came about from subsequent from 2007.
I believe there was discussion for a DRRI that was taking place two counties down that was coming right through us and we needed our water to continue on. Was is that about correct? Would you have any recollection? Anyway, uh there
was a perception that before you leave, sir, we need your name. New towns were brought up. My name is Vanitation. And new towns were brought up regarding uh any further expansion or discussion on DRIS.
Right. And and again the again the new town policies have been in place since even before the 2008 update. But in the and we're not really changing anything. Very very minimal cleanup. And as as of the very beginning of this meeting, we're also not touching the height limitation. So, we're there's no
substantive changes to the new town policy, but thank you. And he got you got his information. Thank you. I think we're still in the future land use element. Thank you so much. Thank you. Yeah, we're still No, we're we transitioned to this second
element, but that one actually went into both arenas. My turn. You're up. You having fun yet? Um, okay. So, just so I can introduce myself, most of y'all already know me, but
my career has been 30 plus years in public health and uh I started in modern medicine and went into name. Oh, Kelly Jackson. Thank you. Sorry. Okay. Um, I started in modern medicine and have been in holistic for 23 plus years
now. And I grew up off of what I still call Lateral Lelay, which is 66th Avenue in the corner of 69th Street, which my family still lives. As a fifth generation here, my mom's family pioneered to Indian River County before it was ever even Indian River County.
So, they all lived on the island, farmed over there, boated, you know, um stuff over, railroad came in. So, I'm just trying to give a background to um like why I'm involved with what I'm doing because public health is a very very
serious crisis that we are in. And um so I just want to kind of paint the picture of like the early pioneers came they they pioneered to places because of the resources that were available. We're not honoring the resources in the sense of our God-given resources
and that we as humans are a part of that natural ecosystem is what I'm getting at. And I don't hear enough of that in this planning stuff. So what I'm getting at is our economies have not been based on basic foundational principles and
have not respected that as we've evolved. It's not so much about developing as much as it is of how we are developing because we have the rights to clean air food and water to access our natural resources to hunt, forage and fish. Um the work that I'm
doing is building local and regional food systems through the food policy council. So, it would be um you know, supporting natural concepts is what I'm getting at that I don't think that we're paying enough attention to. Going from
large a operations to small a operations is one example. Um small farms need much more support on water quality, soil quality, drainage, making sure we have the water that we need, that type of thing. The infrastructure is here. We just not have not used it in this
capacity. And we've got to figure all that out. But I'm hearing this on a regular basis. I I for the audience does not that does not realize it, you can go on Indian River County Historical Society's website, Indian River Historical Society's website. They've done an
amazing job on putting videos up and there's one um Indian River Farms is what it's called, I think, that talks about the county was drained back in the day. this was all swamp, you know, a lot of Florida was old Florida. So, it was drained and that's when this infrastructure was put in originally,
right? So, that's what we are all developing on right now. Um, I was concerned recently, I think it was actually yesterday, that someone put out as a public comment that $34 million was spent in consultation fees in the last
two years. Okay. So, right now, what's happening is the public is asking for transparency. They're asking to be involved in these decisions. So when I hear 250 surveys that people have to show up at these meetings, have three minutes to talk and all this stuff, I mean, if we if y'all
showed up at our meetings and could speak for three minutes, I'm sure it wouldn't go that well. But, uh, my point is is it's not doing the job. We're not getting the public's input. We have 170,000 plus people here. Uh, I was
teenager in the 80s here where we only had 50 something,000 people. My dad's been a businessman my here my whole life. He retired now, but I just saw everybody talking and getting things done. And now five generations later, I'm we're being pulled into this, which
is like so nerve-wracking in itself. But um I would be expecting more of like mailing things out to the community. You know, the $34 million that went out in consultation fees could have done a pretty good job at some mailouts and some real outreach to the people to get
their voices. Um, so if you can picture it, we we this is what's happening right now with the Doge and the Maja. We're going from like the medical model, the six system model food bank model. I I want to finish.
Anything that you would like to discuss uh regarding the sanitary sewer sub element? Uh, I'm just going to finish this and I have to go. I have a 2 o'clock appointment. Um, oh, sorry. would like to we're going to be going from the medical and food bank models to building our own local and
regional food systems. The big a models were not feeding our some somewhat to the community, but it degregated our um our uh so this is it ties into all of this. The land use and stuff is what I'm getting at. We have innovative options.
There's things that are coming in that we've called disruptive. So the tides have turned and I would like to see that um you got a lot of intelligence within your own community. We don't need the consultants. You need the the voice of the people to be more involved in your
decision-m is what I'm getting at. I don't care what subject you're talking about. Thank you. And and we had that because you attended uh the workshops as well. You you were there. Yeah. And I'm trying to develop a farm, you know, almost four years now as a beginning farmer, fifth generation here.
and I'm not getting the cooperation. And we appreciate your input. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else? Hi there. My name is Lisa Surski and I'm grateful for another opportunity to stand before you. I want to thank uh
Miss Jackson for everything she just said. I'm also a fifth generation Indian River County native and I stand before you as uh not only a resident but I'm also honoring my family who worked for this county for 30 decades or sorry
three decades 40 decades and I'm sorry four decades. I'm nervous. I am also a busy woman. I run two businesses. I have three jobs. I'm in between all of that trying to make my opinion and my comment today. my head spinning. I don't know
policies. I don't write revisions. I don't do any of this stuff. I don't I can't say that I've read the thousands and thousands of pages regarding all of these different uh parts and pieces to our county. But that doesn't mean my opinion doesn't matter. And I think I'm
here to represent a lot of people who probably have similar opinions who cannot be here and who cannot read all of this, who can't even wrap their head around it if they did read it. So, um I'm going to just read a couple things that I've that I've written down and
that I've skimmed through um when it comes to uh I guess the topic that we're talking about, which is land use. Um if I'm not mistaken, the first thing that I read, um in appendix A says the vision to maintain and promote the small town
character of Indian River County as a lowdensity, lowrise in Green County. I'm going to stop right there. if that's still our vision as a fifth generation native here. I don't see our small town character anymore. I don't. So, I'm going to just leave it
at that as that vision statement if that is still our vision. Uh underneath that, our goal land development inver county will occur in orderly and controlled manner uh and ensure balanced growth that optimizes the potential economic development. All I'm going to say is we
need to be more mindful of our land use when it comes to nature. The species we share this environment with. I'm wearing a green shirt that says nature lover. Might not be appropriate for a meeting like this today. It's a little casual, but I'm going to say I stand here to
speak for the wildlife who cannot speak for their habitat, for their homes. Okay? When it comes to land use, I don't know what's written in this. It's too much to read. It's not my job to read it, but it is my opinion to say that I
don't like what I'm seeing when it comes to a lot of the development in the land use, which has to do with housing, which I guess housing isn't necessarily this topic, but housing happens on land. We don't need thousands upon thousands of homes. And and whatever I'm reading
about the the new town, I guess you said this has been written in since 2008. Why Why do we need something called a new town? We have towns. Why can't we keep what we have and be mindful about the development in those areas? I again I don't know what I'm really saying when
it comes to the wording but new town I will highlight I see you shaking your head like yeah you don't know what you're talking about but I will say I will say that what I've highlighted I understand yes okay that when it comes to new towns we're talking approximately 2,500
residential units that's that's not good. We have homes in this town that are for rent, for sale that are not affordable already. We don't need affordable housing in the sense of big huge uh I don't know, developments of of
these cookie cutter homes that rip out every single tree, then plant non-native trees in those in those environments. We don't need more of that. We need affordable housing and we need people's uh wages to be better so we can afford to live in the houses that most people probably want to live in. A neighborhood
like the one I grew up in which is now being completely changed. So I don't have revisions. All I can do is speak on behalf of what I see. And I don't like what I see. I guess that's all I can
say. Uh I will say again I don't have time today either to be here for this whole thing. I really wish I could. I wish I really could wrap my head around this whole document, this whole uh ear report. I will say I'm in support of whatever the tortoise alliance is going
to say when it comes to their revision. And the tortoises are on the land, so it has to do with land. I'm going to say I support what they have to say. I would say also that the last time I was here, I understood that this hadn't been updated or revised in nearly 20 years, 15 plus, 17 years, whatever you want to
call it. That's a long time. If we have soil and water and all these different divisions that specialize in these different topics that are in this report, I really hope that we can be more up and up on visiting these subjects a little bit more often because
I know that everybody else here sees we've developed really quickly and really a lot in the last 10 years plus. So to me, it would make sense that these are things that we look at more often. So, we're not here on a day like this looking at a whole bunch of different
elements that seem like we needed to be, you know, checking in to all these different things for many years by now. So, again, I I can just speak on the things that I see as a citizen, not as somebody to be able to rewrite things,
but I just hope that some of those opinions can be understood and maybe be mindful when we're making revisions. Then again, my stand is for the wildlife and for protecting as much land as we can. And really our native plants too
need to be incorporated and all that. And when it comes to land in our roadways, I hope that as somebody said in this last meeting that we can use some more native plants, uh when it comes to some of the county roadways, um it's going to protect our water use, etc. when it comes to our roadways and
land use, uh for all that as well. So, ma'am, we uh appreciate your thoughts and well agreed regarding uh the concept of new new towns. Uh we do not have a new town in in New River County. I heard that. But it sounds like there's
potential for that to happen. And to me, it's just words. It's language. I get it. There's policies and all these things, but to me, I don't like what I read. New town. We have towns. We have plenty of towns in Indian River County that need to uh we need to be doing the
best we can to protect who lives here already and the land and the water and the soil and all these different entities. Why aren't we focusing on making what we already have the best that we can and protect I think what most people either that were born here love or the people that
have come to move here besides maybe the other gentleman that spoke and has other goals here. But if you're from here and you came here to live here for a small town feel I want to protect that and I think many other people do. So, uh, the new town thing
scares me because we're talking about a lot of units in one piece of land, which does include, uh, making a new town because you're talking about thousands and thousands of people. So, it's just wording. I don't get it, but I don't
like it. And that's all I can say. So, thank you. So to tie this back to land use and piggyback on what she just said, we have to expand that lens of conservation. We are a part of that. It's called healthy
ecosystems. We cannot keep focusing on wildlife while the humans are getting cancer on kidney dialysis. It makes no sense. You have to go back to foundational principles of clean air, food, and water. We need access to non-toxic natural resources. so we can
hunt, forge, and fish. That's what I'm bringing it back to. Back when I grew up here, people grew food all over town. People, you know, had you've got the cottage food industry that people can make $250,000 a year. Doesn't matter what part of town they're living in. They can do that through the cottage
food law. They can grow food vertically on their condo patio if they want to. We've got these technologies in where they can grow food wherever they want. So, we're developing in a way to where we we are just cookie cutting, you know, we're we're dividing. We're It's not It
doesn't work. That's why I'm bringing it back to the land use. It's it's a much deeper issue and we have the God-given rights for that and this needs to be taken more seriously. This is like she said, it's very overwhelming. The I'm a simple living person and when I'm having
a hard time living in my hometown, fifth generation later, I'm I'm having a hard time living a simple life. That's a problem and that's what you are creating support. Thank you. Um I apologize. I want to say one thing
that I did highlight because I did skim through a very small portion of this ear report and something that I just don't think we're very uh honest with is in the new town. Um, let's see. This is
policy 1.37, section E, I guess. I don't know. No new town shall be approved without finding that the new town as approved. I know we don't have a new town yet, but as approved will have no adverse impact on natural resources. I think we've already
made a big impact on our natural resources when it comes to the development that we already see here. I want to make sure that that's something we can maybe have in writing that we're just more mindful of our natural resources as she's saying with the water, with the everything. We need to
we need to go back to the basics uh but protect the things that we all need to survive. And yes, I I hear you that we don't have a new town, but we have large amounts of development happening and huge amounts
of housing development. And I know for a fact, and I know that's what the gopher tortoise alliance will talk about, is we're messing with the natural resources and those animals that live on those lands. So, it might not be something that has to do with a new town yet, but
I hope that there's something in this maybe already written that I just don't am not aware about uh that we can be more mindful to our natural resources and to the wildlife when it comes to building just large developments in general. I don't know what that number needs to be, but it's not we're not talking little neighborhoods like we
grew up in. We're talking about multiple homes in, you know, large numbers. It might not meet the whatever your new town number is, but we're we're destroying land and it's affecting things. So, thank you.
Thank you. I just wanted to say a couple more things so the public so the public understands. It's called food forest. I paid $2,000 for this. We'll create another element for you. We will have there's time for you to
discuss this at the end of the meeting at later on. Uh you have an opportunity to speak, right? But what I'm saying is you're not letting the public know that there's other things out there. That's what they're not seeing. This native is a bunch of bullshacka, too. It's beyond
any river county. We've got a lot of cultures in this country we're going to learn from. It's here. We're not just growing tomatoes and bell peppers. There's a lot of herbs. There's a lot of plants that we're going to learn. I sense so there there is a lot that's happening
on a large level and the public needs to know that. Thank you. Hi everybody. Um my name is Jerrya Jones uh with the Gopher Tortoise Alliance. We meet at 204414th Avenue. Um I came in here today with like a game plan of what
I was going to say, but it's completely derailed. And I just have to say that um first of all, I really appreciate that y'all have taken the time to go through this line by line because my understanding of this comp plan process is so much greater than it was when I
walked in here today. Um granted, it's been four hours. I know none of everybody probably feels the same, but it has been really helpful to see these points illuminated and broken down step by step. So, thank you for that. and thank you for speaking up about keeping
um the harder rules in there that some of them that were going to be taken out. So, I'm kind of narrowing things down to what I wanted to say today. Um I just want to re-emphasize that I agree and I believe a lot of the people who I've received messages from agree that to do
the comp plan without also doing the LDR is faulty. Um, I want to know from the county when if and when we can do a revision similar, maybe not to this level, but I mean a line by line, it is
important and it hasn't been updated in a long time. When can we actually look at the LDR and get some public input on that because I realize the the exemption I came in to talk today about is exemption um 927.06 in the LDR and y'all aren't talking
about the LDR today. I get it and you're everybody wants to go home, but I want to know when is the right time for us to bring this back up and go, "Hey guys, okay, the comp plan, we got it. This is done. I know it's the biggest thing on your agenda right now. Can we talk about
this exemption? Can we talk about making some some adjustments to the LDR?" So, tell me when and like what's the best way for me to get in front of you about this so that I can shorten my comments and we can go home. Yeah. So after the comp plan so from here once we once the comp plan is
transmitted let me say that and it comes back you know 75 days then you know it's then we have like 180 days to get it back to them won't take that long but once we get once it's adopted and then our job is to go out and try to work to implement it.
Okay. So that that would be the time that anything that's changed that affects just like we did here when there were statutory changes, we had to make sure the comp plan was in compliance with the statutory changes. We needed subsequently do the the same that any
changes in the comp plan are we make our LDRs consistent with the comp plan and that would be the time. Okay. So just to make sure I heard you correctly in SE was it 75 to 180 days what was the the after the comp plan submitted and you get it back and that's
done then you guys we could approach maybe contact you again about starting to address some of the LDR things that are now going to be set in play by changes made to the comp plan. I don't know but I don't I don't know if you've heard any significant conservation policy changes
you related to habitat protection or anything like that that so if you have stuff that if you look in the conservation element and you have stuff that you say well where's this policy or you brought up the one the 927.06 LDR may make that list. You know, Ryan's
currently, he's the assistant director, the acting director. Provide it to him and then we'll start looking, you know, at keeping a file to move on with those. Okay, great. I just wanted to make sure that it is like in the record that we're going to do it again and go through that
process and just hopefully um be able to work with you guys on that. Okay, thank you for hearing me. I know I jumped the elements. It's technically conservation element, but I just followed the trend. Okay, thank you.
Is there any other comment on this element? No. Okay. I think it's about land. I'm intending to speak about land. You're in wastewater now. We don't We don't know where we are. Yeah. Yeah. Sanitary sewer sub element.
I prepared to be under three minutes. You want me to roll or say? I I can't hear. You speak up. Sorry about that. Thank you for being here. Thank you for everyone for being here. I just want to get it back on track. I got you. I I'm not I'm I couldn't work
out whether this was under land or conservation. I did plan to be under three. Conservation is eight elements up. If you want to talk about land conservation, yeah, the turtle turtle thing might have derailed you, but okay.
This is this is about specifically about land use that allows for clearing of land without any surveying for environmental efforts under one acre. That's conservation. Okay. L
Mr. chair again that they're referring to specific exemptions for lane clearing and tree removal on lots that are less than 1 acre in the land development regulations. Nothing that we're going to touch today in the I mean, let me rephrase that and in my professional opinion, nothing that we're going to touch today in the conservation element
is going to get anywhere near to that granular level. That's that's an LDR amendment review. Correct. So perhaps to make it a little clearer for the the kinds lady, the same rules that we kind of John went
over for the gopher tortoise alliance would be the opportunity to look at the LDRs um on the on the clearing issue that you were potentially going to raise. So um and I think that they have some of the same concerns. So maybe there's some
shared resources of conversation you guys can have to move that forward with more advocacy behind it. They have the ability to submit their own text amendment at any given time. So for me
councilman good afternoon Mr. Chair uh commissioners staff I'm going to be very brief. Okay. Um, I just want to say a couple of things and I've written them down to make sure that they come out correctly. Um, so the city of Sebastian, you know, we wrote a letter because
there was something in that that concerned us, right? And that those concerns has been addressed. So, and you guys are going to be voting on that today. So, we would ask for your support. But the city of Sebastian supports the county staff proposed
amendments to the uh sanitary shore sub element policy 1-1. eliminating municipalities and going back to unincorporated. Um the city also supports the additional language that clarifies the county's
commitment to the 1995 uh interlocal agreement provided um commitment to the 1995 interlocal agreement to provide sanitary sewer to the city of Sebastian. Um, so you know, we we really appreciate John
and the staff looking at this and actually coming up with this language and assisting us with this because that was going to be very detrimental to our city. We felt like we were probably being singled out based on that because there's not many other communities that have that agreement and we've had this perpetual agreement since 1995 and the
county is now going to be honoring that. So, and um also for the people that are here, we're going to be having a ribbon cutting in the CRA in Sebastian for sanitary sewer going in tomorrow at 1:00. So, the commissioners will be there, the city representatives will be
there. So, anybody wants to come by and be a part of that, please come by. So, and I think um M did you have anything? So, I think that's it for me. Unless you have any questions for me, we appreciate y'all and we hope that you um support that amendment.
No. And personally I I want to thank uh the cooperation the uh communication that has taken place and allowing the opportunity for the change to be made so that it was seamless and we appreciate the relationship.
Absolutely great relationship. Thank you guys so much. Yeah. Um I have also have a city manager here. The mayor was here earlier so he had to go back to work. So thank you. Somebody's got to be at the barn. I know, right? All right. Well, thank you.
Is there any further comment on sanitary or we're going to move on? Um, I'm being urged for a break. So, I will honor that. We will take a brief recess. Thank you. I said we were in the pot.
How can I get more potable water? Thank you. Next. Yes. I haven't checked off as we're covering the one The meeting will now be called back to order. We have councel on portable water.
We'll now move on to portable water sub element. Anybody wish to speak on behalf of potable water? I think we We covered a few changes in the very beginning. Yes, sir.
And they're duly noted and will be applied. Is there anybody here wishing to speak on behalf of potable water? No. Anybody here from the board?
Okay, we've knocked that one out. Let's go to solid waste sub elements. It's 51 on your notes. I told you it was going to move quickly. Any administrator, you have anything on solid waste? No, sir.
question question on solid waste. Uh solid waste. Yes sir. Um with regard to uh policy 4.2 uh and that is the SWID shall evaluate the need for and level of service required from the customer convenience
centers. Um but it's marked as completed. So, I don't know that it's completed really because if we're moving to universal collection um policy uh 4.2, it's on page 28 policy 4.2.
So, I don't know. Are we ever going to look at that? Yeah, I mean after universal collection has come to be. Good point. Uh uh once again we did uh assess and evaluate um and it is marked
completed because we had gone over a series of assessments on the convenience centers as well as uh there was talk uh six years ago about eliminating two of
the the three the two and leaving three and having it a five uh is was was left where it was at. Uh we did make some changes at the uh convenience centers.
Uh yes, agreed that uh with the universal application. We will have a an understanding to see if they are being utilized. But I believe that the assessment was completed and changes
were made for the convenience centers. Okay. So again, you this seemed kind of You're right. But also I like we're done with it. We're not going to evaluate it. And I think you'd want to I know we're keeping it. I totally got that. But you would think at some
point in the future, no, not too distant future, after full full implementation and everyone's comfortable with the level of service of universal collection that you might want to go back and re-evaluate this here. We're just we're just taking it out. You know, it's you
know, it's gone. So that's that's all all I'm wondering. Is there a controlling SWID policy or it's not like transportation planning where you do a policy update every sub couple of years, but is there a SWID
policy that says that we will reook at convenience centers and their effectiveness every so many years? What was it like at Was it a year or two years, Sean? Yeah. I mean, as part of the as part of
going to Universal, you know, we did agree that the convenience centers would not be something that we'd be looking at currently. It's not to say that we wouldn't be looking at that again in the future. And maybe we just leave that part of it. I mean, to commissioners Moss perspective, maybe we leave that second sentence in there that we'll
continue to evaluate. Need foreign level of service required. We could leave that in. I I think we should do by 2030 or something like that, which is about halfway contract. Yeah. And I think it would be worthwhile to leave something in there about that. Okay. Good job. The needs have changed
and uh again the dependency on the re uh on the convenience centers has ch changed uh and may change drastically with universal. Uh but by the same token uh that'll have to be evaluated because it's the only place where people can
drop off certain items that they they cannot place in their universal pickup. So we may have to alter that. So I think it it would be best served for the public to leave that in there
uh to uh so it's o open not closed out. We did have a tremendous assessment on it but again things are changing. So would the board be fine with by 2030 which is the halfway mark of the contract the SWID shall evaluate the
need for and the level of service required from the C customer convenience center. I I am I'm I think that best best serves the public as they are again many of our residents are dependent upon the convenience
cent's existence. However, uh if there's no utility purpose, so perhaps maybe leaving it in there for an assessment value in the future would be most appropriate. Commissioner Moss. Yep, that's fine with me. By 2030,
Commissioner Adams, fine with me. Just make a note. In five years, you're going to have to update compl. No notes. Okay, Mr. Chairman. Yes, just since I'm the
one going to be making these edits and transmitting this, I want to make sure I'm clear. We're leaving this policy completely intact and just changing the year. Well, no, we're we're striking the first provision of it and just going to the second by 20. The SWID shall evaluate
the need and a level and the level of service required from the customer convenience center. Got it. We're striking all of the first sentence and the first half of the second sentence, only leaving the second half of the second. And we'll meet jointly to go over all of our That's the point of the final adoption
hearing as well to make sure. Anything else? That's great. We can move on. Let's move on to natural groundwater sub element. Any
inquiry question on natural groundwater? Welcome, Dr. Baker. Thank you. Thank you. I'm uh Richard Baker, board chair of the Pelican Island Autobon Society, and I'd like to thank you very much for keeping this county really nice with the height limits.
Thank you. I think there's only three or four counties in the state that have this and most of them don't. And it's I think if you have to live in Florida, Indian River County is probably the best place to live. And I'm so happy here. And uh
it's due to I think the the height's the limit. I don't want to go into more, but one of the things that I I was want to talk about our drinking water and I don't know if this fits the groundwater fits into our drinking water because we get our drinking water from our groundwater.
And so we are utilizing this our drinking water. We're concerned about it having enough and you're figuring out what the future is on it and all everything. But 65% of our drinking water is going on
lawns. That jumps up to 88% in the summertime. That's in our county. So most of our drinking water is going out for the lawns. And the reason it is is that we're putting down all this sod.
And the sod that we're putting down has 2 in roots. Only 2 in. So you have a lot of evaporation every day, especially with this heat or heating up all the time. It heats up that first inches. Native plants. And you we've got native
ground covers here, too. Beautiful ones. And you don't have to mow them so much. You can if you want. And you don't have to. They have 12 in roots, so they they're getting water from down here. If you don't water for a week, they can still survive. But if you don't water for a week, some some people feel that
their lawns that they they have to water. So, we've got a serious drinking water problem coming up. We're not going to have enough water. You're talking about reuse water and all that. Uh, so I think if you if you can get us to
be more concerned in our county, we'll be leading the way in Florida. We can restrict some of the sod that we have in our lawns. I think now you're requiring 50% the lawns to be put in sod. I'm not sure exactly how that fits in here, but
I would like to see sod reduced down to 15% that we only require 15 or we only want 15% of your lawn because there's a lot of natives out there. We're losing our birds. We're losing our gopher tortoises. We're losing our butterflies uh because of all the chemicals that are
coming in and and and getting rid of the trees. That's kind of another issue. If you put trees in in your yard, you're you're uh you're not wasting all that water that the trees absorb some hold that water for a bit and it drains down instead of just running into the lagoon
or into a canal. So the more trees we can plant, the better off we are. And and we do have I think regulations here that for one or two trees on a yard, but what people are doing frequently is they're putting in a tree because required and then they're yanking it out and put a palm in.
A palm is not a tree. although Florida calls it it's one of our it's the tree is the palm tree or something. Uh uh but it's a grass and as a pal as a palm grows it gets smaller and smaller
and smaller and the trunk wise you see these spindly things up there now. Uh but a tree when it grows gets bigger and bigger and bigger. So it's in a totally different plant grouping. Uh and so I would
like this discourage palm trees and encourage native trees. And the native trees do so much. They're they're actually will help our butterflies. They'll help our bees. They'll help our uh our uh birds too and
other animals that we have because we're losing these animals uh for the heat. And it'll help cool the planet. If every eight million well, how many we got? 8 billion people on the earth. If everybody planted a tree, we could probably take care of this uh global warming that we have here, the heating
up of the planet. So, I don't know if you can put that into the comp plan, the encouraging this and then we can work down more details to how we do it and and stuff later, but I think this is our opportunity. You know, trees give us
oxygen. We need we need water, too. And uh so we don't want to waste the water we got. Uh, and that's all I got to say. Thanks. Thank you, Doc. Good enough. Appreciate it. Storm water.
Um, I I have a question. The natural uh groundwater. Are we up to that point? Yeah. Okay. Um, and actually it um relates to what Dr. Baker was just saying. uh policy 3.3 and I'm just quoting uh
require that new developments install a minimum of 50% water conserving u material as specified in the landscape ordinance but it's changing it said um I'm not sure I'm pronouncing this properly but it said zircape
zeroscape I'm zircape zeroscape is replaced by Florida landscape so you we took out the zeroscape Could you could you please address that? I'm just not sure what that change means. They're the same thing. Yes, I was going to say it used to be called zeroscaping years
ago, using native plants um for low water consumption. Exactly what Dr. Baker is referring to. And I think now the industry standard is to refer to it as Florida native plantings. Well, it's just it's just the nomenclature that has changed, not not the content.
Correct. Just the nomenclature. Okay. Thank you. Got that one knocked out. All right. Um, storm water sub element. Was there any changes?
Chip Landers. Just a question regarding 1.2 which we brought up earlier. Um, and I'm sorry I wasn't here at the beginning, so it may have already been addressed. Part two under storm water is page 304. Thank you. Yep. Sorry. Um, we struck out the 6 in
above flood level and 18 in. And there was a question that I had as to we received a discount for flood insurance in the county by building above certain levels and has that changed or where is that at?
So the freeboard documents or the freeboard requirements would be in again in the LDRs. We don't these uh and I won't overstep my bounds if somebody from uh stormwater wants to jump in but um these are too specific in the compound. They need to that if you see
uh on the first sentence at the end it says any required appropriate freeboard protection. We don't want to we don't want to handcuff ourselves to very specific freeboard requirements in the comprehensive plan. So right now for example AE has a minimum of 6 in A is 18 above the crown
of the road. Um this is a more fluid uh policy that is geared towards a number of different um sources. Does that is that acceptable though from the people who establish those credits for the flood
insurance because it's going to become a huge factor in our area. So AI Javeed, Dr. Javeed is our flood plan administrator, public works director. He can comment on that. Okay. Did you get the question? Ai, I I did.
Okay. Just make sure. Good afternoon, commissioners. Good afternoon, Doc. Ai Jave, public works director. Just to be to able to answer the question, we are looking at base flood elevations requirements or the 100-year flood elevation requirements for our
buildings. So that's one of the intent for new development. Obviously for existing development, we are also trying to tighten up some of our flood plane regulations to be able to address some of the the flooding concerns that have been going on. So we are looking into it
and you would staff is hoping that we would be bringing some of the the amendments to land development regulations and policies in coming months. So right now staff is working with the consultant and we're also working with FEMA staff to basically
look at our existing policies and regulations and see what we can bring back to the commission for final approval and breasting moving forward. So but so in your professional opinion by leaving any required appropriate
freeboard protection that opens up our residents you know as when firm and national flood insurance program is looking at it that will afford them any benefits that they provide to for flood insurance.
That is correct. Thank you, sir. Anything else? Good afternoon, sir. Uh Tim Glover. I'm president of Friends of St. Sebastian River, and I'm looking at um policy 2.4. I'm trying to
understand it. it I I don't think it's written quite properly, but uh I believe what it is referring to is an outdated uh Florida statute having to do with storm water. The uh the updated statute they approved in June of 2024. It's
373.4131 and it's outlined in the environmental resource permit applicants handbook volume 1 section 8 which was effective June 28th 2024. So I I it appears that the county's land development regulations uh refer to these outdated
statutes as well. So I think that probably needs to be reviewed. Thank you. So for the interest of us trying to correctify this because this was started in 2023 and was and the legislative session was going on while this was
being reviewed for statutory changes. Do can you tell us what it would be helpful if what in 2.4 is not consistent? I mean we can go back and check it and get the information but if you can tell if you know what it is by off the top of your uh I can't state the reg it's I know the
new regulation is much more comprehensive so uh 373.4131 4131. Correct. Okay. Yes. Anyone else? Anything from the board?
Just one question on uh policy uh 3.4. The county shall consider establishing a stormwater utility to fund maintenance and improvement. And so it did say by 2012. That's a strikeout and now it says 2030. Um my question is is this I would didn't
know why it was here. This has not come up during my tenure since 2020. We haven't talked about it. So wondering what do you know what the history of it is? Did a previous uh commission. So well so actually if you recall Kylie has been meeting with you all on the
stormwater master plan. That's so this is the the county is developing a stormwater master plan. Well, stormwater utility generally like when the city of Vera Beach uh voted on that, that's usually a separate fund. So, so in that stormwater master plan,
if you recall, they didn't recommended immediately, but they identified it as a potential funding source to fund storm water management improvements. So, what this is saying by 2030, the sound the county, it doesn't say shall establish, shall consider establishing. It could be
anytime before 2030. Yeah. Well, I I don't mind considering it if everybody wants to consider it, but um I was just wondering what the history of it was because this was it's been in there a long time. Yeah. And I I don't think we've done a storm water master plan. So, that's one of the things that we've done last Kylie
and her team have done. And and the reason why we have not and when we spoke with the consultants is I think it's really predicated upon what happens in Tallahassee. I mean if they fundamentally alter the property tax you know in property tax reform fundamentally alter your revenue sources
you we may have to become a fee based you know government and that to you got to handle storm water if we're going to protect the environment you know otherwise all those those pollutants are going to go into the the canals and that's going to go into the lagoon and we're kind of defeating everything else
that we do. So it is identified as a potential funding source and that the draft stormwater master plan that'll be presented I think what like next meeting is it the 23rd we'll be bringing the storm water management plan we need to probably make sure that that master says management.
Yes. Yes. And um as John was mentioning ultimately whether or not we need to establish a utility will be dependent upon what happens in terms of a lot of our requirements from the BMAP perspective. Yeah. specifically as well.
We want to lock ourselves in. We want you all to have flexibility when the need comes. If you think it's merited, then you can make that decision. Okay, sounds good. Um, can you refresh my memory on something else? Uh, policy 7.9 that had to do with the property
appraiser. Did we say we were going to We did check with him. Yeah, John mentioned that one in his So, you're going to check. Yes, we're going to strike that middle sentence. Okay. Thank you. That's it. Thank you. I might just squeeze in that uh trees
actually uh slow down storm water problems too. So it delays the water getting on getting out there. Yeah. Transportation element. No, I don't think transportation element. Anything. Ryan's been here all morning.
Brian's got it all under control. All under control. I have I have one thing. If everybody else is already gone, our transportation has uh transportation well admired. Yes. Award-winning.
It's wonderful. um removing traffic impact study requirements in favor of referring to county code. Um I'm not in favor of that. I county code um I think we definitely need the traffic impact
studies and especially because traffic comes up repeatedly not only in our day-to-day experience in our emails but also in the in the studies that we've done. you know, the urban service boundary study, you may recall, that came up very high as a concern. Traffic,
uh, too much traffic. So, I think I would not want to relinguish, uh, traffic impact studies in favor of, uh, county code given the concern of the community with traffic.
Mr. Mr. Chairman, the policy that we have here in front of us uh would still require traffic impact studies, but it refers back to chapter 952, which has specific parameters that the study must abide by as opposed to this language that's in the policy, which is a little outdated. It was based on the old way of
looking at studies. Now, we have a new way to look at uh the additional intersections in in the way that the traffic disperses throughout the traffic network. And that's all identified in chapter 952, which this uh policy that we're amending is going to refer back to. So, traffic studies still work.
Still required. Yes. Are required. And it almost sounds like um that this would actually be more in line with what Commissioner Moss wants to see from expanding those traffic studies and areas being studied. Um so,
I think Commissioner Mosh will actually get more of what you want with the suggested change. Yes, that's great. Thank you for explaining. Thank you. Anything else? Moving on to economic development.
Just to remind the board that this element will come back individually once we have an economic development strategic action plan to make sure there's consistency between the two. So, uh, I will just share you share that with you. But they did out they did strike through some outdated language
already. It was like there's two two pages where they talk about 2007208. Nothing on economic development at this point. We will bring bring something back specific. We are proposing to do these
simple strikethroughs to eliminate the the dates and then just kind of ident update the update the dates but other than that we will bring back once we have an economic development strategic action plan. It would be a separate comp plan amendment but focused on the economic development.
Very well capital improvements element Mr. I'm sure there's no real substantive changes in this particular element. What is that? Uh the I I actually I I ticked back. Sorry, I skipped over. We Yes, we should
be in. Oh, no. It is it goes to conservation and capital improvements is on page 45. Mr. Sure. While they're looking at that, the one thing I want to say is, and I had it highlighted the uh based on the comment that was made about the uh
infill development, uh is you currently have policy 1.2, it does say discussed in other policies similar to what we did earlier. If it provides a little bit more comfort for the community, we could leave that
policy in place. It's not, you know, even though it may be discussed in another element because this is housing and this does, this is a big issue for the county. The county shall encourage infill development by providing structure infrastructure to infill areas, removing blighting influences,
stabilizing neighborhood, and providing private developers with information regarding available funding. It's it's at the board's desire if you want to leave that in since that was an expressed concern. And I don't think it's in conflict. And again, we will address it as I mentioned
before in the economic development element because it's something that came up in the meetings and the public feedback. We go with that board side. Yeah, sounds fine. Oh, that was Did you say that was 1 1.2?
1.2 on page 2574. Yeah, this is under housing. Um because 2.2 is a similar situation. Um what is what was uh stricken was quotes all of this residentially designated land is
located within the urban service area. So that we don't need to I don't know that I don't know that we need to strike that out then since our estimated population growth can be accommodated within the existing
urban service area. We don't uh it's 2.2 oh 2.2 2.2.2 Yeah, I'm hired 1.2 as well. So, it might be it might be similar in that. So, but in this case, most most of the development community or or people even
a person where they're going to look to find out what they can do in their future land use is going to be in the future land use element rather not so much in the housing element because this is talking about the density. I mean, it we're talking, you know,
mobile. Well, that's okay. But just to be consistent, I mean, if we're changing if we're leaving 1.2, leave 2.2. Anything else? I No, I uh anything else in housing? You got Excuse me. You ready?
So, board's discretion is to leave that policy unstricken or leave it say 2.2 or one um 1.2 I said I believe that was a yes I'm sorry but then on 2.2 and maybe with
from the Ahack perspective you could what was stricken was um quotes all of this residentially designated land is located within the urban service area and I don't see the need to strike that since our estimated population growth can be accommodated within the existing
for housing and 2.2 two. It's on page for 258 of the Well, I'm looking at policy 2.2 on page 48. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yeah. The second sentence says all of this residentially designated land is looking in the urban because there's a lot of other stuff
that's struck through in that policy. That's where I was confused. I was like and housing. Yeah, that entirety of that policy is struck through. So I guess I don't really understand Commissioner Moss what
if it's all struck through. So do you want that particular sentence added back in or I mean I didn't think we needed to strike it because it's all this that's struck and this you're talking about that second
sentence it's in red that's in the strike through. Yeah. So you want to leave No, just just that sentence. Just that sentence. No, I wasn't talking about the entire So what we will leave in back so Patrick's listening is all of this residentially designated land is located
within the urban service boundary. This is the proposal s area where adequate infrastructure is available to accommodate a wide variety of housing types. Uh I think you could probably stop there. I don't think you need to go to including mobile homes. Well, no. Farm worker housing. Housing for very
low, low and moderate income households, groups homes, and foster facilities and then stop it there. Is that what you're proposing, ma'am? Yes. Why? What? Yeah. Why are you going to take mo mobile home modula homes out? Well, why? No, I'm just asking
Commissioner Moss why she wants that included. I just want to be sure that we're stating that we expect that the population growth can be accommodated within the existing urban service area. That's that's my main concern. Oh, you know because that is our
expectation. Well, then why don't we just say that that's what kind of thing? Expectation. Shorter. That's a projection at this point. It's more than an expectation. It's a projection. Would that be a better word?
Do you want a policy basically acknowledging what we found in the in the USP study? think she's getting that there's adequate land within the existing urban service area to to accommodate growth through the planning horizon. That's a good
urban service boundary studies language. We can do that as a separate policy. We can do that. Yes. I was good with the first sentence. Okay. It's not 2.2. No, it'll be separate.
We have housing covered. Anybody else wishing chip was here fast? And I'm not sure where it fits into this, but uh the question been raised regarding and it's probably going to come up in the PD meeting that we're
going to have. I just wanted for for clarification that there was a the set aside of the 20 acres in the PDS was strictly for schools and the issue was raised a they don't haven't used
them b couldn't we set that aside for workforce housing because those are the teachers that need you know near those subdivisions. So I I don't know where that ties in but that was the question that I raised. Why can't we use it for something else? Either after a certain period of time or if the school doesn't
want it, say I don't want it and we can use it for something else and specifically workforce housing because the land's free. I would tell you we're working on that right discuss working on that right now. It would definitely be a PD discussion
compound. Okay. Moving on to conservation. Page conservation is on uh 92. 52 52 is the beginning of conservation. You got a different book. Oh. Oh, you're right. You're right. I'm
sorry. Apparently you guys one you guys got 52. 52. Yeah. Right. 52. Yes. 52. Page 52. You see that number? What it says there? 92. You see 92. Good thing you weren't reading my notes. You got a different
Yeah, I got the deluxe. He's got the matrix. The matrix. And John, again, you want to reiterate the Well, just that you highlighted already about the the.5 acre. We've already we've already handled that part.
Yes. in policy 5.5 to me and same it's just it's it's it's not eliminating it's just clarifying what a small wetland is. It's 0.5 acres and then that it's isolate it's still isolated. It's a disturbed wetland with
minimal functional value. It's not the idea of trying to take a big a larger wetland and then do halfacre increments to kind of bypass the policy. I see Miss Beth down there. She can. It's your understanding as well.
Yes. Wonderful. Anything else? Some conservation. What? Have one uh objective five and this is a quote. There will be no net loss of the natural functions and values of wetlands
or deep water habitats in any river county. And what was added was to the greatest extent possible. And before I just I guess it just ended there. I don't know. I don't have it in front of me in my book. These are from my notes. But um I you know I don't know. I I I
hate hedging like that to the greatest extent possible. I mean you know either you know either you're doing it or you're not doing it. I don't uh I I would just leave it the way it was. That's all. The way it was before said through 2020.
So we sit right. Right. Right. Yeah. I'm just sorry about that one phrase. Yeah. Just the phrase. That's all. Just the phrase. So you would prefer a period after. Right. Just leave out to the greatest extent possible. That's all.
That's the That's the only change. I don't necessarily disagree that that should be the goal, but I am a little concerned that if we lock into no net no um net loss
and then something beyond our control happens, does it give us enough room to maneuver within that very finite statement? I think language that has worked before is where
it's, you know, practical and feasible. So in other words, there's a study that would be involved to demonstrate that, you know, that it's when you say the greatest extending possible where it's practical and feasible. That's one of the ones we used earlier. So they would have to demonstrate it and
it's a little bit more clear than saying to the greatest extent possible. Okay. Yeah, that's better. I think Yeah, that's that's an improvement. Could you could you could you repeat that please? Commissioner Adams were practical and feasible. Well, in the sense that if it's beyond
our control then it's is it practical or feasible for that matter or practical? If I may Kylie's here or Yeah. I mean, I believe that part of the reason that this is worded in the way that it is is because we do allow for mitigation and the way that the
mitigation banking works may result in a potential change in that particular value. But then also there are natural changes that can occur in wetlands that may also change their functional value as well. So we wouldn't want to be um put into a
corner with that if that makes sense. Does a suggested um language change, Commissioner Moss, give you some clarity? Okay. Yeah. Did you guys got that? Is that good with the board as a whole?
I saw five nodding. Okay. Okay. Okay. Chairman, may I really quick um 12.4 four uh is there was a comment that was made. I'm not sure if it's been corrected yet, but that should refer to
the ELAP and not the CAC. We got that one. Thank you. Yeah, I had that one previous. Anything else on conservation? And again, I apologize if this was discussed earlier because I don't see the turtle people here anymore or the tortoise people here. But on 7.10, it
talked about the county establishing land for relocation of the displaced tortoises. Uh to my knowledge, we haven't done that. And um there's is cons potentially conservation land already available for that but it's
um we've already lost the one facility and I don't know where the next one is going to be uh for the relocation of them but um I would think we'd have some land out there that is a fit for them to go to otherwise
um because it's what is it? It's like 8 to 10 grand a turtle now to move them. Yeah. They're they're very expensive turtles. But I mean for you know and I speaking way out there but I mean we spent $5 million to give to the sections
to not develop their land. Is that land possible to be used too? It's a question. That's all I'm saying. But I mean it it was in here and we haven't done anything to establish it. So should it even be in there then? Which
one is this? 710 on page 59. I was back at 12. Yeah, I'd be happy to address that. Mitigation. I'd be happy to address that. Commissioners Beth Powell, parks,
recreation, and conservation director. Can you hear me, Joe? Okay. Um, Indian River County has actually uh relocated gopher tortoises onto conservation areas, albeit we did not set up uh or establish a recipient site. The
parameters for setting up recipient sites are extremely difficult. We looked at doing that at both North Sebastian Conservation Area and West uh Wabasa Scrub Conservation Area. We did successfully relocate uh probably about 80 tortoises from the lost tree
development with their cooperation under a humane relocation effort where the recipient site was not required. Some of the restrictions that we have with regard to uh relocation sites have to do with uh the current occupancy uh of
tortoises on existing sites. We've been managing these conservation areas for 25 years. Many of them are in very good condition and we do have a lot of scrub habitat which has a lower density of uh gopher tortoises as compared to the larger pine flatwoods that you would see
in the St. Sebastian River State Park. There are opportunities to do relocations on our new acquisitions as we start to uh do uh some of our either fee simple or uh some of our easements. And what we're looking at is strengthening the language in those
conservation easement agreements. uh so that we have the opportunity to reserve and or use uh future uh mitigation credits that might be allowed under gopher tortoise recipient sites. Again, uh the county has worked toward these
ends. Unfortunately, the sites were not neither adequate or um didn't have the capacity necessary to make it cost effective to do that. If I if I can answer or explain anything else in that regard, I'm trying to follow along. Uh, you
know, it's it's um I guess inflation for turtles now. It used to be like a grand a turtle to move them, but now it's 8 to 10 grand a turtle. And you have land owners who in one case I know of a $40,000 lot and it's going to be 40 grand plus to move the turtles. So, it's
not it's a lot that you can't build on. Yeah. Unless you want to double your price. So it but if there's a place to move them and I think the cost factor is going to not only prohibit
um any any growth affordable or or affordable component of housing. It it also uh may compel others to begin the process that we so desired to eradicate so many
years ago. that was taking place with with the disappearing burrows. No. And I I would I want to move to I grew up. No, it's going to be so outpriced that it's going to you know what are you going to do? Things will happen
hopefully with what's so many years ago. So the either way and then the the tortoise will become perald. Well hopefully we come up with a solution at a lower cost. Yeah. With this policy it would allow
the county uh staff particularly environmental lands program to develop policies and also look at sites for the possibility of developing recipient sites and then we would bring that back to the board as part of the agreement. If we did establish a recipient site on
FIA owned land, fe simple owned land that the county was managing, we could set whatever parameters that we wanted to in accordance with the FWC guidelines to perhaps give a discount or something like that for residents. Uh we pay the same recipient site fee as everyone
else. We have uh currently a gopher tortoise permit for uh Hobart uh ball fields. The cost is currently $6,000 uh a tortoise. So we do understand that it's a financial impact turtle and FWC has made provisions for single
family lot owners so that there's a way to make that somewhat more accessible. But I do understand that the cost is very high and we're looking with our new environmental land bond to uh potentially acquire land and we can certainly um bring that that information
back to the board as those acquisitions are happening. Yeah. a land maybe a land owner could get a scholarship for the turtle to be moved and through the land. Once again, we have these scholarship for turtles. U no, but we have these conservation
sites. It just makes so far greater sense just to have our mitigation done on or the mitigation done on conservation sites. I
mean, the intention is to conserve. No. Yep. We'll certainly do our best. Uh the sites that we currently have are not suitable for receiving tortoises. Uh but uh our future sites as we're looking at those doing our environmental uh
reports, we can certainly look at the suitability of habitats uh for gopher tortoise recipient uh sites or uh managing for tortoises. Many times the properties that we purchase are already in good fairly good condition. So we're
enhancing those areas which allows the na native top you know port tortoise population to grow. And so, uh, that's one of the restrictions that you have in order for it to be financially feasible to set up the recipient site. You need enough capacity to make it worth your
while. It's a very expensive process. We looked with uh, an environmental consulting firm to do the initial assessment at North Sebastian, and we already had a very high uh, percentage of gopher tortoises at that particular location. So, quite a few in Sebastian.
All right. Thank you, Mr. Flanders. We can move on to coastal management. I have I have a couple um on coastal. Thank you, sir. Kylie, when what where's the manity
protection plan? I mean, I know it's theision hadn't been approved. We've got it, but we need to establish it in this document. What are we What's the status? So, the county has a manity protection plan. Staff are aware that an update is
needed. We have been in continuous consultation with FWC regarding potential updates and what they reference as addendums that are needed in order to bring our plan into more current times since it is a 2006 plan.
And ultimately we are working through the speed zone changes with FWC and once that process is over we're going to be coming forward with an addendum to that plan. So FWC intends to vote on the
speed zone changes approximately in February of 2026. Yeah. The first meeting that's on the 23rd of this month I think for the speed zones. Yes. So the kickoff meeting is that date. It'll be held here in the commission chambers and that will
initiate the speed zone process and then we'll we're doing the local rule review committee. Thank you all for your nominations and the local rule review committee will submit a report to FWC and um that will be considered when they ultimately vote on those provisions in
February. And again FWC has actually requested that we wait to add to do an addendum to our existing plan until that happens. Okay. So, Mr. Administrator, I guess we can still submit this because some of this stuff
is relevant to that manity protection plan being adopted along with the speed zones and well, to be clear, we already have a manity protection plan and that we currently utilize from 2006. We just need to do an addendum to make it more
current. Okay. We were actually hold off on it. We were asked to hold off um by FWC because we were asked to hold off on updating it by FWC. Okay. Correct.
Okay. Because I don't have a whole lot of questions on this. I think just that like I like the the the manity pressure plans have boat facilities, sighting zones and baseline criteria. That's all good stuff. Um a lot of stuff
was taken out which should have probably go in the LDR. some of some of it. And I haven't really identified which ones could probably stay in here, but as long as as it long as I don't know if it's as big as the water
thing or the sewer thing, but it's pretty big deal. But I think most of this probably does need to go in the LDRs with regards to changes. Ryan, am I correct? saying it needs to go in there because it's
intertwined with a lot of state stuff, a lot of laws, things like that. It's not a whole lot of changes that can be directly made without somebody's authority in regards to that. So,
that's really all the question that I had is is um I don't know this It's good stuff. It may have to be reviewed again once we get through all these hoops, you know, as to what we're
as to where we're going to go and what we need to do with it. But we got a lot of the manity plan needs to be done. This the ILAS need to be put in place. The the you know the speed zones need to be established. All things we're working on,
all that stuff. So, okay. I don't have any changes per se. I just think we need to this is one we may have to come back and look at next year. I I agree with you on referencing things. I had some uh some a few things like that of policy
7.8 that we could um reference the you know derelic vessel ordinance that has to do with 7.8 has to do with the county shall establish formal procedures ital mitigation strategy to address the removal of marine debris. So, you know,
we've we've done it with that derelic vessel, right? So, doing a pretty good job about that. Yeah. I mean, yeah, we've done it. So, I would shouldn't we put that in there? I mean, including boats abandoned in the
Indian River Lagoon. Would you specifically wanted to say Derik? No, I leave it. Leave Leave what's there. Just add it that that we've, you know, No, no. I mean, leave what's there, but just reference, I guess, is a better word. I'm sorry. reference the derelik vessel uh ordinance that that we
have. We've established formal procedures already. Correct. Correct. Yeah. So maybe we need to say the county shall maintain procedures. Yeah. In in what? In accordance with
well in its local mitigation strategy to address the removal of marine debris including boats abandoned in the Indian River. Good catch. I think maintain what you need. And then there were actually two more like that. Objective nine could be
jungle. We have a jungle trail manual that's not mentioned. And number nine is uh see if I can find it here. Objective nine is uh adverse impacts will be minimized to the historic integrity of roads,
sites or structures deemed historically or archaeologically significant in Indian River County. So that's boy that's a great description of Jungle Trail. So you know we already have is it called the jungle trail manual? Is that is that the name of it? So I is
there a way like to tie things together so you're not just reading this and this policy ma'am with all I'm sorry it's not just about it's roads sites or structures so this is saying no you know adverse impacts will be minimized to the historic integrity of roads sites and
structures deemed historically archaeologically significant so I understand what you're saying but more objecting to anything that's there I'm I'm talking about just referencing the fact that we do have the jungle trail manual I didn't know about it myself until not that long ago you
know so if you're taking the have to read all this. It's just nice to have it there. You call it cross referencing. Um I believe we could reference it in policy 9.6 and just state that um you know we
recognize and will continue to um utilize the jungle trail management plan and then we will develop management plans for the other roads. That way it's consistent with the other historic roads that we have acknowledged. Oh okay. Well that yeah that that one's will develop
uh 9.6 try we already have that's why I was saying right I just think if we can say we we can develop and maintain and sure yeah and maintain the and existing jungle trail management plan.
And then I had um objective 12 uh and this was we did this recently the anchoring limitation areas. Um, let me see if I can go to that 12. Uh, oh yeah, bo v bo v bo v bo bo bo bo bo bo bo bo bo bo bo bo bo bo bo bo bo bo bo bo bo bo bo bo bo bo bo bo bo bo bo bo bo boating and safety uh law enforcement.
So and and again it's just a matter of referencing it. Yeah, you crossed out I the paragraphs I don't you know crossing out fine but um you know we we did do something on that voting safety and law and law enforcement. I mean that
anchoring limitation area is that's certainly law enforcement. So acknowledge water and again it's just a matter of cross referencing. I'm not I'm not changing anything you have here. It's just that we know we've done work in the in in all of these areas and I just
think there might be a way to uh to say that. So acknowledge have it there the ALA ordinance that we've established on behalf of the municipalities in objective 12. Yeah. How, however, however you want to say it, just a way of acknowledging it,
way of of including it. Um, what I did have one actual question though. This is objective six and it has to do with hurricane evacuation. It says, uh, through 2040, any river county will maintain an estimated evacuation time of 12 hours or less for
a category 3 hurricane. And that's the same amount of time as there was given back in 2008. And you know there's been there's been development. So is that still you know given the rapid increase in population development
is like is is that still adequate time? I don't know how it was calculated in the first place. I don't I don't know what the formula is. So I'm asking if it's still enough time evacuation time for a c for a category three.
I'm not sure I can answer that or but I will say when you think of that we're actually expanding routes by with the widening of 510 and into 512 that's going to increase the evacuation times on the north the
north barrier islands or yeah north barrier islands I remember no they're not redoing the bridge though coastal element is normally 12 hours to try to get everybody off the barrier island. Yeah. As best as
Yeah. And the and the the bridge isn't changing. I know we're doing a lot of work on 510, but the bridge isn't changing, is it? I don't think so. Does the 12 hours s 12 hours? So, this was back in 2008. You know, this number, I don't know what it should be. You're saying
12 hours applies to barrier islands only getting from barrier to Maine. I think I I think I would you would probably want to ask Dave Johnson on this. I don't know if that's changed, but I think it used to be this one was 12 hours. Nim said time to go. You had 12 hours to get off. They kind of
barrier island. So what we can verify the time if does it just apply from barrier to mainland? Yeah, there's no way you can move the whole county in 12 hours, but you can get people off so in 12 hours. All right, that was the last question I
had on that element. Thank you. That's all. That's it. Well, to the next element. We can move on. Yes, sir. Your recreation and open space element. Anyone have anything regarding
recreation? from the DAS. Nobody from the public. I I have a question. Um on policy 1.1, the county hereby adopts a level of service standard of 6.614
is crossed out. Uh recreation acres per thousand permanent population and then plus weighted seasonal population is crossed out. But then there's a note that refers to uh the NRPA standard of
uh 3.13 acres per 10,000 population. And my question is just why because as a county we place a high value on both open space and recreational space uh even more so since COVID. Uh so I you
know I wasn't sure why we were going with a a national standards that is lesser uh than our own standard right now. I believe that this standard would actually be higher because right now the NRPA um is stating uh three acres per
10,000 and we would be stating four acres per 10,000. uh and I believe when I was talking with the consultants the weighted seasonal population was difficult for us to identify uh so instead of trying to
co-mingle who is a seasonal resident we just include all residents in the unincorporated area I I have excuse me I have down uh 614 is crossed out correct so that's but the NPA standard you know
that's per thousand and the NPA standard is 3.1 13 acres per thousand. So, the NRPA is lower. The four is actually now going to be inserted. It's underlined. It just wasn't colored correctly in your document. Um, but four is now being inserted into
the language as four acres for 10,000 permanent res. She's asking is is four acres if we're currently at am I is four is four still less than six. It is, but it's more than 3.13. Exactly. That's what the notes there to reference. Okay. Right. because the population
before included the seasonal weighted. So you were adding a seasonal weighted that was difficult to identify. So now you're just using the unincorporated residents, permanent residents year round. So you're I believe when the consultant did the calculations, the four would be the same equivalent as the
six if you remove the weighted seasonal population. And Ryan will have to tell me if I'm my that was my understanding when I was looking at at the changes that were made. And so we're not trying to pinpoint seasonal residents anymore. We wouldn't be using
that as a measure. All right. I It just doesn't sound It doesn't sound right to me. I mean, I don't know why we're crossing out plus weighted seasonal population because we know we have a large population swing. So why would we not want to
more measurable objective or policy? Um I'm sorry. What? this is a much more measurable policy to go by set, you know, definitive population and definitive acreage. Um, but yeah, it's kind of statistically the same if if
that makes any sense. Um, four is the LOS proposed. Okay. All right. Four equals 6. Is that with a seasonal population? All right. Four equals six. It's new
map. Common core. Good work. Recreation officer. Anything else? We've covered recreation and open space, intergovernmental
coordination element. I think that was touched upon uh a few times early today. microphones. I would just in the ice I would just like to point out because I know the comment was brought up as it relates to
um city of Felsmere and I I don't remember it then but now the the two policy 2.7 the county shall warranted coordinate with local municipalities to assess the financial operational viability of consolidating otherwise revising existing or revising established utility service areas. The
the resulting assessment will be presented to the board for considerations. part of this the county will review its interlocal agreements for provision of utility services. I think this kind of somewhat addresses another in a sense you the concerns that were raised that we're willing to meet.
This is saying we're going to he picked up a compliment on that. Public school facilities element. My gosh. Nothing from the board. No major changes. Nothing from the public.
property rights element. Yeah, Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to clarify in the property rights element, the striketh through underline you see right here is not actually new. This is actually was adopted in a previous year, but it for some reason it wasn't inserted into the comp plan. When I was
doing the staff report, I caught that this was actually missed previously by staff actually inserting it into the comp plan, but this already was approved exactly how it's written in a previous year. It just didn't get inserted. Was omitted somehow. So, it repeated. I'm putting it now. I'm putting it back
in. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. And with that and our review and then it went up to Tallahassee and came back and got one. Yeah, something happened there. Thanks for catching it.
All right. Well, thank you. All right. That that concludes the uh the element review. Can we do you you wanted to repeat all of this? Summarize everything.
We've actually You know what? Let's No. Uh now that we've done that uh we now have a product that needs changes. What is the timeline when this has to be submitted? So what I I'm not going to disagree with
um what you know the city attorney you know or actually I think it was Miss uh Donna huh Donna Keys Keys yes Keys she said about I don't think it applies to zoning amendments. It applies only to comp plan amendments. So right if you want us to take all these changes
and come back with one final document just so everybody that to reflect all the changes based on we can do that. We'll notify you we could you're just opening it up to this whole thing again. So I'm just cautioning you where we can
take it and provide you all a copy of it prior to us sending it up. Let me ask the chair a question. Yeah, because I'm I'm not looking to make another meeting like this and tear apart each element and having another staff review and say we we we missed this. We
got that. Hopefully that first sentence is never stated that we got it all. It's a home run. We heard you. We adjusted and it's in print and it's going up to Tallahassee. I think that's what we
need. We need a a c cotification confirmation and then it's it's off to Tallahassee. So, and I would also submit to the board, remember this is the transmitt. Let's just let's just say we miss
something. We will continue to review when the when the the actual adoption comes back. If we miss something, I know somebody will get up and tell us that that but we will correct that. But I don't I'm pretty confident between this planning staff, myself reviewing this
with all the changes, the notes that we've taken, we'll also work with the county attorney's office, we will make sure and our subject matter experts have been sitting here at various times as it related to their elements. We will make sure that this gets done correctly.
Like I said, I think we're all shooting to be the valadictorians of the E process that's going up to Tallahassee. Okay. I'm not a 60enter. I wanted 100%. That's what they deserve.
How long is it going to take you guys to make these changes? I mean, reasonably. I locked myself in my room about two days. So, would it do we have another do we would it be reasonable to include this on the September 23rd?
I don't know if we're going to have the turnaround. You could add it mean Oh, but no, we would need to have it. So, it could be So, well, I mean, typically the agenda items are due tomorrow. Oh, never mind. But if you do it today, if you can get
done, if we can do it by I'm not trying to lock you until I know you have other things to do. You don't want to do the pressure thing if something slips up. No, I was just thinking that way everybody could get eyes on it and there was some comfort level and then it still gave you time to transmit, but that's not going
to work. So never mind with my idea. If I may, I'm sorry. I think the issue is too we're bound by Florida statute. It literally says under subsection 163.3184, the local governing transp transmitt or proposed plan or amendment. each local
governing body proposing a plan or plan amendment specified in paragraph 2C, which this is shall, that's not may or negotiable. That's a shall um transmit the complete proposed comprehensive plan or plan amendments to reviewing agencies within 10 working days after the first
public hearing. So, unless we're wanting to continue the public hearing, again, it needs to be transmitted within 10 days from today. I just want to put that out there because I somewhere in my head I had October 10th. I think I'm just sorry. Make sure that's clear before we get off on that other side view. Never mind.
Thank you. So, we would have to continue the public meeting today or you could in order to contaminate otherwise we can um staff can make all the appropriate changes
uh disseminate it if there's any challenge we could have a special call meeting tomorrow morning. I mean or whenever it needs to be. So I think in order to continue it you would have to specify the meeting date and time now. Yes. It would have to be a date and time
certain or the alternative and I can and maybe Jennifer can you know or you could adopt it with the recommended changes you know that have come up throughout the I mean we if you want us to go through them all
but we've got most of them that you've received in a document form and then the other ones are ones that we came through as we went element by element bearing the time constraint we're in a dilemma unless we extend this meeting once again. Um,
if we've just gone over the changes, we have confirmation that staff heard and responded. I don't I don't foresee us having
anything less than an imperfect product. You heard it all. It's here. It's on video and audio. I'm I'm confident we can accommodate. I I am confident. I I I have that confidence. So, if that's the case, why not just
move forward? Commissioners, me can vote today. I can't give up my USGS. I'm sorry. We respect that. I thank you. You've been on that for many years. I've been I've been working hard on it.
We've all Yeah. I think they're going to get you a team jacket. So, you know, I just can't give it up. You know, a little like the president with the US where she is. So, we're not going to take another look at it to go ahead and transmit it. Um, that's the pleasure of the board at
this point. whatever whatever majority I mean you know we have to at one point we have to put our complete trust and faith in what staff heard what they're doing and for the greater
good of the citizens I I think they're capable I think so I need to know from the board if you wish to see this once Again, keep in mind, Mr. Chair, it's a fluid
document and we can make changes and I think we heard the date of October one several times. Yes, that's why we have the meeting today to kind of expedite it by just giving everybody an opportunity to ensure that
we all don't leave today and say, well, you know, we should have done. Okay. Is everybody confident? Mr. Mr. Chairman, I can I ask one more question? Yes. Yeah, we we can do that and I'm for that. But if we do find something that
we all missed, we can come back and change it and reset and submit that. Correct. Yes, there will be a final adoption here as well. Are you ready to transmit? You could transmit to us individually. We could read it. If we read it and find something, we can bring it back at the
next meeting or meeting of September. Well, see, when we transmit this to the state and all the reviewing agencies, they're going to review that, but they're also going to review once we get their comments back, the final adoption that you have to do that really puts it in place.
Yes. I mean, we're going to see the document between it, but by the time it's looked at, finished, done, if there is a change to make, we can make a change. And they're going to re they're either going to request changes or sign off on it. So, I'm okay with it.
It is a modified tennis match. They'll make their recommendations and then that'll travel to us and we'll make the appropriate changes if necessary and then it's duly adopted. Correct. Correct. Yes. Okay. I think I heard consensus.
Public hearing is now closed. Okay. Commissioners, we have a document before us or the works of a document. Staff needs a recommendation. Chair, I'd be happy to move of the ear
transmitt transmitt um with the changes as described incorporated. Second. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All in favor? I
opposed. Opposed. But with thanks to the staff and the board. The understanding that the USGS is Okay. So, um, your EA motion passes 4 to
one with Commissioner Moss dissenting. Next, counselor. Yes. Um, this is a public notice item and I did want to point out that um, you know, when we enter these items into Granicus, we're on pretty tight uh,
timelines and sometimes as they go through the review process in Granicus, there's some tweaks that are made. Um, there is a little bit of a tweak to the title that I'm going to read to you from what is in the board item, but it's not really substantive. So, I'm going to um
on next on the Tuesday, September 23rd, uh their board is going to hear and consider the adoption of an ordinance which is titled an ordinance of the board of county commissioners of Indian River County amending chapter 400 of the Indian River County Code with respect to
contractor categories by modifying modifying and deleting certain definitions of skills requiring a competency card. Updating insurance requirements for state and local contractors and exempt trades. Updating
suspension or revocation of registration, hearing appeals, and establishing a prerequisite for actions against a registered contract, providing for severability, providing for codification, and providing for an
effective date. I will also note that we have attached to this board item a proposed ordinance which again may be tweaked a little bit um before it it reaches you on September 23rd. But we did want to make what we have available
to the public and it will be publicly noticed in Florida at uh in the paper and also uploaded onto our website. Thank you. We can now move on the utility services.
That's item 13 I1 and that is modification of description of the footnotes to Indian River County Department of Utility Services the rate schedule. Good afternoon commissioners. It's been a it's been a long day so we'll try to to try to make
this quick. Um, really it's just a reminder of of a few quick things. Um, I've got with me Brian Beavers who is our finance director. Um, I'm going to actually turn it over to him to kind of go through this real quick. Hello. Good afternoon. Uh, before you is
a resolution to modify our October 21, 2025 rate structure to adjust some footnotes and some line descriptions in there. no changes to the actual proposed rates for October 1, 2025.
As some background, um about a year ago, this board approved a rate increase for utilities. Um from 1999 to 2019, the utilities did not
adjust its rates. That's approximately 20 years. Uh the outcome of that was we ended up with the lowest rates in the Treasure Coast. Um we made some minor adjustments more along the lines of CPI adjustments between 2020 and 2024.
And in summary, between 1999 to 2024, our utility rates went up over that 25 year period a cumulative of 12%. As a comparative, the national average for water and wastewater utility rates
for that same 25-year period went up 210% cumulatively. So, we were very far behind. Um, this board took the necessary steps to uh implement a rate increase that was approximately a year
ago and we are doing it in two steps. The first step was a rate increase on January 1 of 2025 that increased our average customer bill from $5067 to $6044.
So that's a $9.77 per month increase on average. The second step will occur on October 1, 2025. And those rates will increase our average customer bill from the $6044
up to $67.70, an additional $7.26 per month for our average customer. This is just a simple reminder that rate is that rate increase is coming up on October one. So, uh, after the second
rate increase goes into effect, this utility will still have the lowest rates on the Treasure Coast. So, it was a very dramatic, um, amount that we were behind and this rate is doing something to catch that up. Repeat that. We'll still have the
lowest rates on the Treasure Coast. We're still the lowest. Um, but we're here today to request approval to modify the rate descriptions and footnotes of our October 1, 2025 rate
schedule. No changes to the rates, just the footnotes and the descriptions. And that is to better clarify the intent and purpose of each rate application. So following is a brief description of the changes that are being requested.
First is to modify the descriptions for the water and sewer volutric charges to better explain the highest tier charge rates is for consumption greater than 12,000 gallons per month. Second is to add a footnote for the deposit section to clarify the timing
related to the refunding of deposits. Next is to modify the descriptions for the service connections charges to clarify the distinction of force main versus gravity main sewer connections. Next is to add a footnote for the sewer
service connection section to clarify the cost obligation of the property owner versus Indian River County utilities related to gravity main sewer service connections. And then finally is to add a footnote for the service line
extensions section to clarify the application of the charge is made if the property owner has not paid for the previous service line ex extension through an assessment. So it's a lot of just minor tweaks that
were adding footnotes or changing a line description. In summary, uh, included as part of this agenda is a resolution to enact these requested changes. We're recommending that the board approved the attached resolution to modify the descriptions
and footnotes of the utilities rates and fee charge schedule that's effective October 1, 2025 to better clarify the intent of how each rate is to be applied. And and I and if I can just one thing just to clarify that the rates that
we're talking about is an average home owner that uses about 4,000 gallons of water per month and it is for water and sewer. So if they are on just water, those rates are going to be, you know, different than what you're what he what
he quoted slightly. That's the why. What's that? Why are we here? Why? What's that? Why? Why? I I I heard the explanation, but I didn't hear the the what? Why? Why are
we I mean, we we're hearing that it's for clarification. It's footnote adjustment. Uh is there a bigger picture for the why? No, I mean we this is just a reminder that last year when you all um
voted to raise or to to change the rates um that it was a two-year implementation that you know we started in in January of 2025 and that there was also at the time an approval for a second rate increase in October which is coming up in in October one of 2025.
As a result of that, we have to adjust the rate the rate book to accommodate those changes so that when people look up the information online, the rate the rate book is basically a booklet that identifies what those rates are. We have to adjust that to to be what they would
come October 1st. In addition, all we're doing is clarifying some of those rates and what they mean in accordance with some of the standards within our within our county ores. For instance, one of the footnotes um that that clarifies
that there's a $50 deposit, right? Well, it's actually a $40 deposit for uh water and I think an $80 deposit for for sewer. Those are slightly going up October one, but it clarifies that after 24 months of on-time payments, those um
are are refundable. that's in our ordinance and we're just putting a footnote in there to let people know if they're looking at that rate book that that's that's what they can do. Um so it's just clarifying some things associated with those um by adding footnotes to it. The
average rate payer that's looking at you said 4,000 gallons. So that's just the average rateayer who uses approximately 4,000 gallons. the numbers that that Brian quoted were was an average, you know, and so if you're using approximately 4,000 gallons, you
would expect come October one your bill to go up from about $60 per month to approximately $67 per month. Correct. Is the Y. Okay. Any questions?
Anybody from the public? Waits on the commission. Approve staff recommendation. Second. We have a motion by Commissioner Airman, seconded by Commissioner Adams. Any further discussion? All in favor? I.
Opposed? Motion carried unanimously. Now move on to the next utility item. Department of Utility Services, Integrative Water Management, uh, master plan, Q4 update to Indian
River County Board of County Commissioners. And again, commissioners Sean Leki, um, director of Indian River County Department of Utility Services, and with me is Howard Richards, our capital projects manager. And we're here to give you, as you guys recall, um, as we
embarked in this integrated water master plan, we had agreed that we would provide you with quarterly updates on kind of where we are and and what what has been happening and current uh, current status of that. And so, um, I think previously we had our contractor
um, HDR come and provide the light latest update. However, Howard is going to to take it from here and provide the update. So, I'm going to turn it over to Howard. Thank you, Sean. Again, Howard Richards, manager of capital projects, Department of Utilities.
When the board approved the integrated water master plan in September of last year, it was agreed that we would come back to the board at the six-month mark to giveformational updates and quarterly thereafter. This is our second update to the board and or the first quarterly
update since the last update on May 6 of this year. So, you thought he was going to be here earlier. Okay, thank you. Okay, so why are we here today? Well, the last master plan was conducted over
20 years ago um in 2004. Over that period, uh we've seen population growth within the county. Um we're the utility department is seeing a dynamic regulatory horizon. Uh our infrastructure is aging and there is
uncertainty in resources. Uh so the board uh engaged HDR to assist the department in developing an integrated water master plan. Now why do we call it integrated? Um the reason for that is
that we are doing one plan to cover um water wastewater and reuse. Uh it involves uh alignment of objectives uh and coordination of activities as well as um
as well as a common methodology being used by HDR. Uh so the department working with HDR came up with eight primary objectives for the integrated water master plan ranging
from a projection of the future demand for services water wastewater and reuse services to developing a 20-year capital improvement plan defining the investment that we have to make within our utilities to meet those future demands.
Um so the HDR approach uh is intended to be uh prioritized, adoptable and affordable. It is based on EPA's integrated master planning framework for water and wastewater
utilities and it involves six major tasks uh to ensure that the plan is complete. starting with building division uh to evaluate in current conditions and systems and continually from the get-go throughout the plan is
to engage the public and I'll talk uh some more about that in in a second uh evaluate alternative uh solutions based on the gap between the future state vision and current uh conditions. develop the options uh the solutions and
the timing for those which is actually building out the CIP over 12 years and implementing the measures uh uh implementing the solutions and measure success. So a major outcome of the integrated water master plan will be a
set of KPIs that will use to monitor how the plan as we implement it is delivering benefits. So we the board approved in September of last year. We kicked off the meeting in
October and currently we're projecting to complete this uh project um around July of next year which puts us at around the 22 month mark to complete uh to complete everything. We're currently about midway through.
We're in the 11th month currently. Um so the update is what have we accomplished since the last meeting in in May of this year. We've began the early campaign to seek stakeholder input. We held five
small groupoup stakeholder meetings, three public meetings and one virtual meetings. So we try to use multiple media uh to write to reach as many stakeholders as possible. and our five small group stakeholder meetings include
uh IRC other IRC departments as well. The purpose is to gauge what's important to the stakeholders, educate them on why we're doing this plan, and to lay the groundwork for continual feedback
throughout the planning cycle. And I'll talk a little bit more about some of the input that we got from the public meetings. Uh also the HDR team is working on uh future projection for demand for service. Well, when doing
master planning, uh they're taking both a 20-year and a 50-year uh look into the future, recognizing that when you look that far in the future, everything is variable. So, one of the things they're they're trying to conceptualize right now is what the future service area
boundaries could look like. So, they've developed both a 20-year uh conceptual boundary and a 50-year conceptual boundary for both water and wastewater. And that's what it looks like here. And again, this is just in conceptual form right now. This is going to be used when
developing demand forecasts and spatial analysis for that uh forecast. Uh they're also looking at into the future that we may need other sources of um water to make drinking water. So these are five options that they're currently
looking at. Uh also what they're doing is performing uh an evaluation of the current performance of the plants treatment plants both water and wastewater by looking at approximately five year five years of historical
operating data. And the idea behind this is to look at uh how the plant is going to be able to perform to meet future demands and where we may need to make investments in either improving uh efficiency or improving capacity of the
plants. Also they're working on completing the condition assessments of the plant. Uh completing demand and flow projections. As I mentioned earlier, uh we've held uh the HDR has held brainstorming session
with staff about what are some of the options for making improvements to our water and wastewater system. And they're currently spending quite a bit of effort today building out the hydraulic model, which I'll speak to next. and they're doing a risk assessment of all our
assets and summarizing the outreach efforts and and input collected. So, let me just touch on the uh outreach effort and then I'll get into my next slide after this. Uh what came out of these public meetings are 10 themes that we
heard from the public that is important to them that will help to inform the criteria used for evaluating and pri prioritizing projects. And uh they're shown in the purple box here the the 10
evaluation um prioritization criteria. But what the takeaway from this slide is is how they align with the board's five strategic goals. So when when the master plan is developed, just know that it is going to be aligned with what the board
says are their strategic goals. So lastly, when the board approved the master plan, it was also agreed that we the board approved a 30% contingency. You've already authorized us to use that
condition uh those contingency but you wanted us to come back and give a report on how we're using the contingency and this is the first um need we have identified so far and it has to do with developing the hydraulic model for the sewer system. The sewer system had uh
hydraulic model had not not been updated since 2015. At the time it was developed to do static runs. But for master planning we need to do what is called EPS extended period simulations. So we can look more
dynamically at how the system may perform to determine where improvements need to be made. So that concludes my presentation and thank you for your time and I'm happy to answer any questions.
Give a good update. Thank you. Not a single question aboard. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, we could. A brief break is being requested and we'll be done.
Now be called back to order. And the next item is county attorney matters and that's item 14A alpha which is the addendum for the county attorney employment agreement. Councelor, thank you Mr. Chairman and thank you to
the board for the opportunity to address this issue. Um, before I kind of jump into my contract addendum item, I did want to point out that I did circulate an updated version last Friday to you, which did not change anything
substantive substantively in the language that I'm proposing in my addendum, but did correct a few scriers errors. Um, the other thing is that um, this agenda item is intended to cover my contract. Um, I have brought an item,
the next item to cover Mr. Tanich's contract addendum that he's requesting. Uh, and I just think that in fairness to him, it's better to let him directly address that there. Our contracts are very similar. They're not exactly the same and we're
at different places in our employment relationship with you. So, commissioners, I'm approaching my year anniversary with Indian River County, which is September 16th, and I have brought this item to formally ask you to grant me a progressive pay
increase and to clarify that I am entitled to receive it annually as part of my contract. Under the county's administrative manual, all employees are entitled to an annual progressive pay increase, which is based on satisfactory performance.
In section five of my three-year contract, which is a section that is called the administrative manual section, it states that I am entitled to all the rights, responsibilities, and benefits that all employees receive in the administrative
manual except for the disciplinary procedure. The progressive pay increase is a right and benefit provided to all employees at Indian River Ca County who stay with the organization to reward
them for longevity and good performance. Like the recent salary study that you did, it is a tool for you as the employer to attract and retain a qualified workforce and to remain competitive in the job market.
It is my opinion that the spirit and intent of the language of my contract is to grant me the same progressive pay increase that is available to other county employees. However, it came to my attention that the clerk of court who serves as an
auditor for county funds disagrees with my opinion. the the clerk never contacted me directly to discuss his concerns about the issue, but as soon as I heard about them, I picked up the phone and I called him. The the clerk welcomed my call and
we had a productive conversation. He pointed out that there is specific language in the language of other employment agreements for other contract employees that more clearly spells out the right to the progressive pay increase. And there is also a policy in
the administrative manual that lays out a formal evaluation process to trigger the progressive pay increase. I think the clerk has made some good points and he agreed that I would bring this item today to clarify my contract as well as
the county administrator's contract and to provide for a formal annual approval process for the board for a progressive pay increase if you are inclined to give it to me. And I just want to say that I respect the clerk's auditor function.
I think it's critical to have checks and balances and the Florida Constitution and our state statutes have set up the clerk as a separate constitutional officer to perform that function. That's what Clerk Butler is doing. And I know
that there are normally tensions and differences between the constitutional officers, but I think ideally we should be working together when possible as partners to have better government and be more transparent. And that is certainly the spirit in which I approach
those constitutional officers. Despite the clerk's opinion, I still think that my initial interpretation of the spirit and intent of my contract is reasonable. But I welcomed the opportunity today to resolve any doubt
doubts or ambiguities. As for the administrative policy that exists to evaluate other county employees as written, it doesn't make sense to directly apply it to me. That process contemplates a single supervisor
writing an evaluation for an employee, sitting down with that employee to go over it, to discuss it, and it gives the employee an appeal right if he or she does not agree with the evaluation or whether they should have should or should not have been granted the
progressive pay increase. Obviously, this is not possible for me. I have no single supervisor who can evaluate me and grant me a progressive pay increase. and there is no option for me to appeal a denial. So the reality is that even though my
contract grants me all the rights and benefits as all the other employees in the administrative manual, I'm simply a little bit different as a county officer. When the county presented me with the proposed three-year employment agreement
a year ago, for whatever reason, you as the board did not see fit to create a formal evaluation process for me. I have learned that historically the county administrator and county attorney had annual contracts and that this
annual process uh provided both parties to annually evaluate whether to continue the employment relationship and to adjust compensation. Um, I think that simply now that now that we're transitioning to three-year
contracts, I suspect there's a little bit of an oversight going on where these three-year contracts is not really catching up with an ability for you to go through some sort of annual process with your uh, county officers.
However, it doesn't make sense to me that the board would intentionally have a system where the employees under my direction, including the contract employees under my direction, would have an annual salary progression and a chance to advance, but that I would not
I don't think this is the board in this is the board's intent, but you can correct me if I'm wrong about that. I am here today to provide you with an opportunity to formally evaluate my performance in the sunshine on my year anniversary and to determine if my
performance is satisfactory and if so to decide whether I am entitled to a progressive pay increase. I welcome your feedback on that. Since I have started as county attorney, as I promised in my interview, I provide
you with a written weekly update. I also meet with all of you frequently and now I provide you with a formal quarterly updates for you to provide feedback for me. However, if if the board would like to have a more formal
process to evaluate me annually, I welcome that and I'm agreeable. If the board approves this contract addendum, the annual pay increase could be approved by a simple board item or if the board wishes, you can create a more
formal evaluation process. Now is the time for us to discuss this and I welcome your thoughts. So, just in closing, I want to ask um that the board approve the attached addendum to my county attorney
employment agreement and also approve an annual progression pay increase for me upon my September 6th employment anniversary. That is my requested uh proposal to you. Thank you, councelor.
Okay. Looks like you want me to start off. I'll start off. I thought you made a noise. I've read this numerous times and I read this initially when this came to our attention about
the progressive pay increase. When I first read this, under item six under the county administrators contract, the county provides employees with a number of benefits that are set forth in the Any River County Administrator policy manual. These rights and benefits
are available to the county administrator on the same terms that are available to full-time regular non-contract employees. Yours says yours says the same. It just mentions the county attorney. It it does. Mine's in a separate section, but John has similar language.
The same, but it's the same thing. I'll be honest with you, I don't know why when I first read it, I didn't see it as an annual progressive pay increase. Probably because exactly what you said is how do we evaluate the same
way you evaluate Susan and Chris and Nadia and Dr. Moore and the rest of the crew down there. Um, I haven't come up with an idea yet of a formal of a formal thing. There's people
out there that are obviously going to say, "Well, you you pay your county attorney 200,000 a year plus the raise would be two and a half%." Correct. Is that is that that's the progressive pay increase that
we give to employees is 2.5%. Okay. So all employees get that along with the general wage increase. I mean I guess if their evaluation is successful am I correct? Okay. Yes.
So this year we're planning roughly a round of 4% increase or so something like that I guess. So you're Y'all are also entitled to that. You're entitled to that. We're focused on yours right now.
I didn't see it at the beginning. I think I think you could make a argument for both as to what those benefits are. And I guess it's in the administrative policy manual. I know that
that that deputy administrator ZTO, Chris, Susan, uh were evaluated by y'all and they get this and they're contract employees, correct? Yes. Okay. Um
am I correct in saying Nancy doesn't have a contract yet? She does not have a contract. She's requested one and but yes, she does get the two and a half%. Okay, get that too. Um,
honestly, I'm I'm kind of still on the fence about this just because of the salary that you get because it's always been different. And I'll I didn't look at Jason Brown's former contract um yet. I probably should have,
but maybe I can defer that to to Commissioner Adams or Commissioner Flesher as to whether this was done. I'm sure it said similar language, but I haven't looked at it and I apologize for that. So, I'm kind of
I'd like to hear from my fellow commissioners. I'm I'm still on the fence about it to be completely honest with you, whether it's the right thing to do right now. Um, you know, with the our county folks, with our sheriff's
office, I just I'm just I'm still up in the air about it. So, that's all I'll say for now. I'm going to add some more later. So, I'd like to hear what y'all have to say. Mr. Chair, thank you. And with respect
to the county attorney's contract, today being the 9th of September, she is working within a contract that she signed last year. She is not, we have not yet approved
the next segment of that. In other words, she has not completed an annual appraisal. Not that one exists. She suggested earlier that perhaps we uh design one which I think is a great idea annually.
Um so having said that I think the next contract addendum with her after her completion date of her first year perhaps could include the progressive
pay. But right now, you're working under a contract that she agreed with and we agreed with that did not include aggressive pay. Not for some type of incident occurred
did it occur. It appears that it occurs that now we would put it in. In other words, it appears that uh her issue would not have come up. Maybe
it would have. Don't know. Um, but it's currently not in the contract and I'll wait to hear from you, sir. Thank you. U, you you just touched on something that I
I wanted to express that if it wasn't for the audit, we would have been done with the agenda today. Okay, these are the last two items. These items were brought to our the county administrator's item was brought
to our attention through the audit after dispersement after there was no approval. And again, the county attorney uh contacted me um and said, "I'm throwing something
on the agenda." and I I I paused a moment. We didn't re reach your anniversary date and but it's coming up is what she responded. Then I looked at it and
yes, the contract does speak of benefits, but it doesn't speak of the salary. There's a difference between salary and benefit. And I I I feel that coupled with that
and what we're going through to try to make the best for those who are making far less, extremely far less, and had the
inability to meet that expectation. I think that the the timing on this is absolutely off schedule. It's just not good timing. It's not
making 200 over $200,000 and we're here. We're going to make an adjustment to ensure that we have a little more. I think we have to focus in on the other needs well before we start adjusting
this the contract that you signed and I don't think that this is this is the day as as I said earlier um I I wish that it was not on the agenda but that did not get accomplished it is
on the agenda so I I'm not on the fence at all. I don't believe that it's appropriate at this time to readjust the contract, the elements of the contract, and give a
progressive pay increase. Thank you. Well, maybe I'm looking at this from a different perspective. Um, first I've heard um my fellow commissioners mention that they don't
want to have to have this discussion today because of some of the budget discussions that are going on and how can we talk about somebody that makes $200,000 when those discussions are happening? But I would remind you
that the sheriff makes well over $200,000 as the lead administrator of his agency. I believe this proposed increase wouldn't come come close to that. Unless
I'm wrong, but I believe it's over two well over $200,000. We we don't decide on the sheriff's salary. We don't decide on the sheriff's salary, but he also oversees an agency and an administrative position, and that
is what Jennifer and um John do as well. I had the opportunity to speak to um the clerk and he indicated that the external auditors are always looking for
what authority can make decisions and what is the documentation. In this case, he indicated that the BOCC is the authority for the decision making related to this and that admittedly the
documentation is ambiguous to what that process should be. So I think that today what we are being asked truly is do we believe that the attorney
in this case that is the item before us like every other employee in the organization should be able to avail themselves of an anniversary increase because while we continue to call it a pay progression it's an anniversary
increase that every other employee in this organization gets and since much has been made about the report I just want to go through that a little bit because I think it's
very important that we are clear and that words matter. So both contracts state that the rights and benefits a both contracts say that the rights and benefits afforded to other employees
are afforded to the administrator and the attorney that is in their contract and the organizationallywide anniversary pay is afforded to other employees. I believe that that is a right afforded to them. But let's
consider that it's a benefit. The auditor points out that AM501.1 it lists benefits available to county employees and the report relies on this benefit
not being listed. However, what the policy actually says is number one, all benefits provided are described in documents which are maintained in the HR department. And then number two, it says
summary listing of primary benefits and lists out certain benefits. It's easy to see that this was intended to be a summary and not an inclusive list. This policy was put in place in 2017 and does not include all benefits.
Even today, earlier in this meeting, we approved a tuition reimbursement benefit that is just one example of a benefit that has been enacted that is not included in the summary list to which he points. The auditor then states that pay progression, i.e. anniversary increases
are not contained in that policy. And I have, as I have pointed out, there are several policies not included or listed in 501.1. But let's go with his interpretation. In the findings, the auditor says even
if it was considered a benefit or a right in AM304.5 304.1 section 5, approval of a pay progression increase is contingent upon satisfactory performance.
I would say that this has been met considering their continued employment. If they were not performing, we would have fired them. That's a right that we have and we can do it any day of the week. We don't have to we just have to have three of us that agree to that. So,
however, the auditor indicates that even with that threshold being met, policy 302.1 states that performance appraisal should be completed prior to the annual pay increase. I think it's very important for my fellow
commissioners to know that that um policy 304.1 does not reference at any place policy 302.1 in any way. However, let's look at 302 and see what it says.
Policy 302, a policy enacted in 1993, states that the performance appraisal should be completed and speaks to how this should be done. Upon reading the policy, it is obvious that there is no process to afford to the administrator
or the attorney to be able to adhere to the requirements of the performance appraisal policy. For instance, number nine under 302.1 states that the per performance appraisal shall be reviewed during a private uninterrupted meeting
between the supervisor and the employee. And that works for other employees because they have one supervisor. However, in this case, the supervisor is an entity, the BOCC, which is comprised of five people who cannot meet with anyone together in
private because it's against the law. Therefore, we could never meet that requirement. Further, number 11 states, if an employee doesn't agree with the appraisal, they can avail themselves of the grievance process. However, per the contract, the grievance process does not
apply to the county attorney or the administrator. Therefore, I don't believe it was ever the intent for section 302 to apply. It was always to rely on the language of satisfactory performance in 304 and the existence of continued employment
implies satisfactory employment. Not to mention the quarterly updates that can arguably be considered public performance evaluation whose written documentation is the improved minutes of the board meetings. especially considering during several of those
evaluations he was assigned letter grades by commissioners. So I think everybody was well within their rights on the interpretation. It's always been my understanding that they would receive this as a benefit that everybody else would receive. If not,
you start creating compression issues. And you guys have talked a lot about compression and wanting to avoid compression. If you do not allow an employee to continue to move up the ladder based on longevity, you will create those compression
issues. I don't think this was anything other than that. It was a misinterpretation and ambiguous ambiguous contract language that we are here today to ask simply to clarify. We can do that very simply because the
language is already included in other contract employees contracts. Um, Miss Schuler has given some language and that is very very similar to what is included in um, Deputy Administrator ZTO's
contract. Um, and this is something that's afforded to all employees. And I think that we can all agree that it should be afforded to our two top employees. And that was always the intention and that the expectation moving forward I would
say would be that it would be codified by the board of county commissioners similar to the language in other contracts where it's codified as a supervisor. So if we want to codify that as a supervisor it's going to have to come to a public meeting. We can't have private a private group meeting about
it. So the findings exactly the findings clearly state and this is the findings from the report the issue of pay number one the issue of pay progression should be addressed by the board on September 9th
which is what we're doing. An addendum to the contract should be approved by the board before pay progression can be paid. And I would ask that that addendum be crafted similar to what um attorney
Scheler has indicated in hers, which is very similar to language already existing in Mr. ZTO's contract for consistency with the clarification that it should come to the board for ratification and that we should approve the
anniversary pay prior to the anniversary date so that we um so that they can avail themselves of the same benefits that everybody else in this agency can avail themselves of. And that would be my suggestion specific to
Miss Schuler's contract is that we include that addendum and provide that clarifying language per the audit report. Thank you. That was that was very thorough and uh and I I agree with what you said. Thank you for laying it out so
clearly. Um to add a few thoughts of my own with regard to the timing of this. Um, I didn't think it should be delayed at all. I mean, the clerk was critical of the human resources director that's under conclusions and recommendations.
Number one, human resources needs to process payroll audit information requests in a reasonable amount of time. The six week delay in providing information was excessive. So, six weeks is excessive. So, you know, we got right on this as soon as we possibly could. We
added it to the very next meeting. And I certainly didn't want to delay it. Um it wasn't clear that he wanted to to delay it, but I don't know why he would want to delay in one thing and not another. And that's where it starts to get political. And I I don't like that. This is a legal matter. It was the contract
was unclear and we need to just handle it um as such. Uh no one had bad intent. Um it just it should have been clarified sooner, but it wasn't. So, we're taking care of it now, but as far as I can see,
and we need to decide, by the way, on the evaluations, we're doing it quarterly and publicly. And if we So, if we add another annual evaluation, that's like five evaluations a year. I mean, you know, how many evaluations do you want to have, you know? I mean really we
should decide how many of how many times we want to evaluate uh these two individuals and uh at what intervals you know would would be reasonable if you want to do it you know you know six every six months if you want to do it quarterly but if you're
doing it quarterly I don't think you need to add that fifth um you know it just becomes too much and you know as you pointed out uh they could be fired at any time so it's uh this is not um you know not something that we you have
to wait for you know I have to wait a year uh you know to to evaluate and and proceed. It's just it's not like that. And if anybody's hanging his or her hat on this administrative policy manual I couldn't believe this. Have you ever
really taken a look at this? Uh you know so functions of this manual was written on or applied here on June 1st 1989. The county administrator's letter is from, God bless him, uh, James E.
Chandler on May 9th, 1989. The functions of the manual are signed off by BCC Chairman Gary Wheeler on 591 1989. I mean, you know, some of these things it's like, you know, really, um,
you know, probably whoseever Bailey wick this is, uh, if it's human resources or whoever should be looking at this, I mean, let's by all means update it because boy, I sure wouldn't want to be hanging my head on something. I think you pointed out some other uh uh
sections of it that were quite uh dated and possibly there are outdated things in here. Not just dated outdated potentially. There are far more new newer uh documents and again one uh that the
county administrator presented I believe was 23 213. Now if you look at there it's four four pages. I've got them right here. I can show them to you. And most of it is very old. A little bit of it has been updated. Are you done? Yes, sir. Thank you.
Of course. Okay. County administrator showed me the document from 2013. I I believe it was uh 2012. Um and that that had Joe Bar's name on
it. Okay. It did not have Mr. Chandler's name on it. Um, Mr. Chanley's been long gone from the office. Um, I I think we're interpreting a few things here that um,
again, I I see you have a few different interpretations, but in essence, this is a document. I did happen to call upon one of the previous county administrators and um he advised that that was a
changing document that was part of the contract. So I look at the contract and his contract changed and uh I I was here when his contract changed and in addition he brought up another another
point. He says there are certain elements here that are not present. Uh as a matter of fact when I believe he had um and how valued the comment was
was when his license was suspended. Okay, I gave it away. He no longer took a car allowance. He said that was part of the plan. but was not part of the plan was the
progressive pay. Okay, there is a cost of living. I think we're mixing terms uh again because all employees got their cost of living uh and their progressive
pay is evaluated uh uh through satisfaction. Y'all didn't want to talk about any evaluation for the only the two employees that work for this commission
and nobody wanted to talk about it. Well, if it was bad, then you don't definitely don't want to talk about it. So, that compels us to either have a positive evaluation or none at all.
That's what that tells me. That's what I read that we can't air dirty laundry here. We can't talk about negativity. So, let's make it flowery. If it's flowery, it's going to be a positive result. And they automatically would get
that if that was the case. But that is an interpretation, okay? An interpretation of what's written here. And it does speak of benefit, not of salary. It does not speak of the progressive salary. It
does not speak of the evaluation. And again, a lot of this, somebody brought it up, was the fact that we used to have one-year contracts. Now we have three-year contracts. And maybe that wasn't adjusted, but should have been
adjusted, and there should have been consideration. And we have no mechanism to evaluate for the progression. I believe the intent was for those who are making far less that need to be uh
brought together as an employment incentive. An employment incentive is to encourage folks to stay with us. Okay. The two employees that work for this board already have the incentive.
It's called a contract. The other employees don't have that kind of type of contract. If I go across the way to all the employees that are working on the floor, I if I ask them about their contract, what what do you
have inst in instill to keep you here? They don't have a contract. What they do have is an agreement and the protection they have is a positive valuation. So they get the progressive pay increase
and the cost of living increase. I think we're uh we're a little off base here in applying so much energy into uh what the progressive pay is, if it's
a benefit or if it's a salary. And in addition, I I don't think it's appropriate uh to change policies uh on on the fly so that we can get this progressive pay intact.
So then how do you if there's not other contract employees, if contract employees are not afforded this benefit, then how do you explain the other contract employees that have this language within there? I would ask and
again I would remind the commission that the question before us today all that stuff is just and and agreeably arguably the stuff that I said is just all talk at the end of the day. Do we
believe and do we want to afford the attorney the same rights and benefits that every single other employee in this organization receives? Yes or no?
And if so, because it was always my understanding that they would receive that irregardless of what has happened in the past because those were different contracts. If so, what is the process by which we want to do that? And I would say that
there's already clear and concise language and other contracts to make that happen. And all we need to do is pull that language out and make it very clear in these other
contracts that that was the intention and that will directly address the findings found and the direction that we're be being asked to made make in the report number four. So that's really all that's at the task at hand today
in my opinion. You're comparing the the other employees who do have contracts. Uh were you aware of those contracts? Was I aware? They came to the board. In fact, I no those those contracts but I I
understand but the contracts are an agreement with the county administrator. They're not not an agreement with us. Correct. But to claim that there's contract employees is not or that that is not included in contract employees
language is not accurate. The contracts that the county administrator and I I show you we we did not go through the massive search for county administrator that we did for any
other employee here. Okay? We did not go through that process. We did not go through that process for any other employee here with the exception of the the attorney. Uh it was uh all of us here went through that process and that
process there was a contract. That contract was reviewed and moved forward. Um to point it out now that it's not in there that again well you've been hired.
you've been hired uh by a contract that you had ample opportunity to review and your signature is on it. I don't think that we can compare the other contracts agreements because quite frankly a few
years ago there were none. These are all contracts that the county administrator made and yes um submitted to us. Uh, but there was an opportunity for a
negotiation for both of these contracts that never took place until it was picked up by an audit. Okay. I just I just think that what we we're doing is we're getting out uh the gauze
for the wound and we're not we're not looking at the contract. We're not looking at the agreement. We're not looking at what we signed. We're not looking at uh what's fair and equal for other employees. And well uh you know uh
your interpretation as I heard your your your intent was to afford us the opportunity. I don't know I I don't know how you anybody knows our intent. Okay. Um, they were looked at, they were signed, agreed
upon, and the office was set. I I just I I just think that we're here to to gauze the wound. Well, I respect your I respect your position and I respect that, you know, that is how you feel about it. Um, I
also respect that perhaps I feel differently. So, in an effort to move this along, you know, it's been a long day, I would make a motion that we include the addendum as presented to the county
attorney's contract. Um, and that that will be approved. It will be on approval of the board. And if you want to take the same language out of Mr. Zto's contract that clearly says in year two and three of the
contract or whatever. I don't know if that needs to be done. I'm fine with the addendum as written, but my motion would be to approve the addendum and on a yearly basis it would be approved by the commission. Second. Mr. Adams, let me ask you a question on
that. Um, yes, I got Mike's contract right shows. Additionally, the deputy shall be eligible to receive an anniversary increase in years two and three of this agreement subject to the total discretion of the county administrator. That's what
does the language for this need to go into Jennifer's contract? I would think so. My motion is to include the attorney shall receive a progression pay increase annually as provided in the
Indian River County Administrative policy manual section AM304.15 upon approval by the board of county commissioners. Effective. Well, it would be it would be effective on her anniversary. It's just next week.
Which is next week. and by approval today would it would provide the clarification needed um for the auditor to move that forward. And the and and the second part of my request is that you approve the annual
pay progression because you find my sat uh performance satisfactory. But if you wanted to create some sort of other evaluation process for me to obtain that. No, I'm I'm very I don't know.
The evaluative process is a very difficult part. I used to do evaluations of my crews when I was with fire rescue. I would do evaluations. We were under union contract. We still had to do evaluations. I understand the process of how we do evaluations for everybody here
in the county. I understand that. I don't know of a good mechanism yet. I think we're doing it, but we do have the right to bring it up anytime if you're not doing a good job. So, I I I don't I don't I haven't quite figured if that's relevant or that's just a waste of time
to do that yet. I got to say though, the reason that we're even discussing this on your contract was because the county administrator
also thinks he's entitled to it and he came to you for that question. That's why we're here. We wouldn't have probably caught it. we probably wouldn't even have this this convers this conversation.
What I think needs to happen and what I think is happening is that we should never ever have a self-initiated pay raise done internally by either you
or the county administrator. It should be done always in front of the board of county commissioners. Always the transparent should be there. There should be no there should be no more of that. Um I guess we have to take these one at a
time and we can I'll talk more about that when we get to the administrator's portion of the contract. But that's that's kind of where I'm in a little bit of turmoil about this is is
is we wouldn't be here if if if he didn't question. I'm not saying that was wrong because nothing in my opinion of this whole process was dishonest under the darkness of midnight or anything else. I'm just saying we wouldn't be here and apparently we're finding out that
you can't make an argument for it. So, we need to place it in the in the contract. It needs to be clear. It needs to be transparent just like everything we do. again, no more none of self-initiated pay raises or anything of that nature.
And I'll talk more about that in a minute. again. So, to get this and to move this on, I don't, you know, I don't know where we're going with this, but I I would,
as long as we can make this clear and transparent and never do this again on anything else, any other compensation that's out there, car allowance, any sort of medical benefit, as long as
we do this transparent and above board we we gota we got to move on. So the the question is whether you know are we going to pass it or not. I
don't think there's any thing that I I think it's in there. I think it's not. I'm still don't I'm not an attorney. You tell me it is. you're the attorney. May I just other people I've had both heard both
sides. They some say yes, some say it's questionable. So, um I'll just I'll just leave it at that. I guess a motion and a and a with respect to that motion, how can you approve this without
an evaluation being done unless we're going to do the evaluation here? That's one question. The second question is we currently have five contract employees in this agency. Three in the attorney's office and two
in the administrator's office. In the last year, those respective contracts, those other three people have come before this board, approved either by the attorney or the county administrator and sent to us. I find it
hard to believe that the two that have approved three other contract employees all the sudden realize that they're not included in the progressive pay. Again, not for a recent incident did
this come up. I go back to they're currently working under current contracts that they agreed upon. You may hear later that uh Mr. Tatanic had talked to the previous admin uh previous county attorney and suggested
that this be included in his contract. But the fact is this is business. They signed the terms and conditions of their contract. Those are the contracts that we're working under today, not future contracts today. So I would ask everyone
to keep that in mind as well. And with respect to Mr. Zto's contract he that went through John that came to us Susan prod and Chris Hicks those contracts went through Miss Schuler and came to us at some point would the
attorney and the administrator realize in those respective contracts that hey they've get this performance pay but it's not in mine. It seems like it
didn't dawn on either one of them until the audit and here we are today discussing existing contracts, not future contracts. You know, um I heard uh commission say we we got to go one way the other
because um we got to make sure it doesn't happen in the future. I'll argue that whatever decision is being made today, it's going to happen in the future. It's going to happen in the future.
We've already heard there are some people without contracts that are yearning for contracts. So now this is going to start the box cars. Okay, the train is going to get long.
It's not just about one decision or one element of a contract that something was omitted. That's what we hear. That's what we're being told
that we didn't keep up to date on the paperwork. The paperwork was signed a year ago, less than a year ago. How unupdate
would that actually be? And once again, this is not this is going to happen again and again, okay? It's not just about two employees. So I I just want you to pause and think
for a minute that again if it wasn't for the audit these two items would not be here. It now is reflected as a result and looking to repair what is perceived
as a bad opinion in the past which was recently signed in a contract. it now needs to be updated. I don't think it's appropriate fair will not support it in any way, shape or form on this item,
but I just wanted to bring it out about we got to make sure this isn't going to happen again. It's going to happen again. Mr. Chair, may I make a statement? May I address this please? Part of the conversation. Well, first,
um, Commissioner Earman was struggling with a process. Um, I have suggested in my board item that it can be just a simple board approval that comes to you on a board item or we can have a more robust annual evaluation. Um, I do also
want to point out that I can't speak for John, but I've spent the first year in this office trying to improve the working conditions for my employees to try to provide them with more training opportunities, more
opportunities to advance. And it was in that spirit that I brought uh Susan Praau's contract uh up update to the board to try to make her salary more competitive. I know that um you know
John Takanich did that for Mike Zto also. Um so when we talk about there's such a big difference and disparity in the top employees and these other contract employees that's rapidly changing.
So, I think compression is a real issue. Um, and I'm interested to hear that some of the commissioners are of the opinion that John and I are not entitled to progress like the
employees under our direction. You point out progression and um compression and it's rapidly changing. you're here a year. Um, that contract was signed less than a
year ago. I I I I don't I I can't embrace rapidly. Okay. I I I just can't me personally. uh maybe another term it it may be affected
but when you look at your salary and your deputy salary I think there's plenty of room in between and that is when we identify compression when it's so close that the promotion
the promotion is not worth the salary or the commotion is not worth getting paid for so I don't believe that it's rapidly changing. I I think that's a little well we'll
above reach and you can characterize Mr. Zto's addendum better than I Yeah. I mean what I would say is uh number one uh Mr. ZTO's contract did come before the board because I recommended a three-year three-year
contract and the 2.5% pay progression was initially included in in the contract previous to me, the one-year contract. So, I carried it forward. I didn't change I just alls I did was add made I felt it was appropriate that he
have a three-year contract. And and in my particular case to her point is, you know, I know If if I'm taking the same G GWI as everybody else is, Mr. Zto is, and then he gets 2.5%, it's going to add up and
it's going to catch up. And then in this particular year, you know, if we talk about the GWI, you know, I I had the administration, you know, all the administrators only take 4% when employees got uh the directors got 6%
and the manager 7 and a half% exempt and then the rank and file got basically 15% notwithstanding the 10%. So I mean it does catch up again. So it does add to the pay compression.
cost of living increase this year. What's that? Did you get a cost of living increase this year? I got a general wage increase this year. I did not. But you did not. No, I I I came in September. My contract um
provides that I get a general wage increase in October of this year. I was actually given that increase, but when I recognized I was getting it, I went to HR and I told Suzanne I was not entitled to it. So, um I will be entitled to a
general wage increase if the board approves one in your next budget. Right. And so you will get a general and and county administrator, you you got one, right? Yes. You got it. You got the race. Okay. And
then the progressive raise is again non-contract employees, they get a progressive raise to encourage them to stay. That's that's what it's about to keep
them elevated. And you have a contract that keeps you here to stay because there's clawbacks. we have to distribute some funds to if you know we decide that the relationship is different. Correct.
Correct. And then to to just you asked about the difference before but I will tell you 90% of the employees if you recall have property rights and 14th amendment due protections. That's right. Contract employees do not and the employees. Um I I think yours is far more
significant. And you have that's what the purpose of the contract was. And if it wasn't in the contract, I I I believe today um it was not in the contract. So now we want to change the contract and then we want
to award the progressive pay. Nope, that's not No, that's accurate. It's it's included. It's implied in the contract. What we're doing is providing clarification language as the auditor requested.
That's what the addendum does. That's your interpretation. Correct. Again, you have to look at what the wording was and for who it to applied for and it did not apply to the county administrator nor the county attorney.
It did not. So you don't consider pay progression a right or benefit afforded other employees? No, I did. It does. Well, then their contract says they get all rights and benefits afforded other employees. Rights and benefits are not salary.
So you don't consider pay progression a right or benefit? No. No. No. Okay. No. What do you consider it? Salary. And you don't consider salary a right by showing up to work by right. You
receive a salary. Some people don't show up for work. A salary is a right. You're going to It's just salary and benefits. How many of us have heard the term salary and benefit? Well, we could split hairs all day.
Salary and benefit package. There is a clear line between salary and benefit. So if something speaks of benefit and rights, uh it does not speak of salaries and benefits. Salary and rights and progress
a progressive increase is a salary increase. I I just Okay. Well, beyond that, again, it's open for interpretation. Certainly, but I would argue that I don't think the shoe fits. I would argue that um
salary any type of pay is a right that you're afforded for performance. they are still employed satisfying because they are performing satisfactory employment. And at the end of the day, you guys are
making a lot about contracts um being amended um which we do on every single commission agenda. We amend contracts constantly. whatever all sorts of
different kinds of contracts. We are the ones that that that have the duty to ensure that our contracts are clear and transparent to Commissioner Erman's point and that is what this
motion will do. It provides the clarification and the transparency that that is a right and benefit afforded to them. Even if you don't agree that it's our right or a benefit that it was it is the intention to do
that and this codifies that moving forward prior to her anniversary. Mr. Chair, with respect to Commissioner Adams, uh she just said that we amend contracts all the time. We do not amend
employment contracts all the time. We only have five. You're absolutely right. We have we have contracts that uh come before us. Sometimes they put them in consent agenda. They don't belong in cons consent agenda because it needs to be it
should be openly discussed. Sometimes it's a matter of impact, financial impact on the agreement. Sometimes it's a matter of uh delivery. I I I get it. And most times the uh the
provider the or the vendor is the one that wants to amend the contract because they can't make the freight. Well, the last thing I'll say on this is at the January 8th meeting on consent through
the county administrator was an addendum to an existing contract for an existing employee that added a whole new thing to the contract, a whole new addendum. So, it's not outside of the realm. And
this was this was an existing contract that we amended, correct? Or that we signed off on the administrator amend amending. So it's not outside the realm for us to do that.
Um, and we just did that in January. But the other thing that I would say is if this was a a problem for any commissioner, any one of us could have put something on the agenda. That's true. At any time we can bring
our own items. In fact, Commissioner Lure generally is the one that brings an item related to the reviews of the administrator and the attorney. So there's nothing that precludes us from bringing that. And there's nothing to this point that has precluded us from bringing that. So if it was a concern of
a commissioner that there was this misinterpretation or something out there that was lingering, any one of you guys could have brought it. But here we are today and I've made the motion that's been seconded. That's after the It's because again
a horse got out of the barn. No horses got out of the barn. Horse got out of the barn. That's that's what the audit is called. Um regardless of whether the horse was wild or the horse had had permission authority, the horse is out of the barn. So now we put
things on the agenda to I think it's very disingenuous that any one of us could have put it on the agenda. Hark, this policy is not correct. Well, you could bring it on the agenda
to address it. I I I understand that. But it was brought on the agenda today because a horse got out of its stable. That's why we're here today. Again, I just want to remind had it not
been for the actions of the auditor, neither of these items would be here. So now we are compelled to make a decision based on, you know, it's like getting stopped on a traffic stop.
Can could we take public comment and then vote on this? I'll let you know when we're going to do that. Uh, thank you. We could call the question. It It's like getting stopped on a traffic stop and getting, you know, and
then getting a ticket. Okay, you deserve the ticket, but is it is it time to renew your license? Is it time to uh maybe perhaps make another decision?
Is it time to have a vehicle inspection? No, it's time to get the ticket. Okay, that's it. And that's that was the process that was there. We kind of, okay, in the beginning of the meeting, I
said, let's pull those off. You all want to talk about it. So, now it's forcing a decision while something's being looked at. I I I just I said it. I didn't want to be accused of delay by the clerk.
By what? By the clerk. I didn't want to be accused of delay. He's already accusing human resources of delaying. The six week delay in providing information was excessive. It says it right there. Right. Well, I didn't want to be accused of
delay. Maybe you don't care. No, we already are. Okay. No, we're taking care of it now. As soon as you're done, I'd like to take public comment and vote on it. No, that that's that's not the way it works. Actually, it is. It's called calling the question. And actually, you we would take a vote to call the question.
Okay. That's parliamentary procedure. You want this? You want us You want to stop? I would just like to take public comment and vote on this. Just temper your expectations. Surprised. Any other comments?
Well, I appreciate everybody's input on this and I and I told you like I said, I didn't really know where we're going this. I think timing was was terrible on all our parts. The
county administrator in reference to his contract, which allowed Jennifer to realize that she appears to think she's entitled to it. He did come to us. Commissioner Adams is correct. We had
the opportunity to make it more transparent. We failed. I failed as the commissioner. I should have gone back and looked at the contract and said, "Commissioners, you know, maybe we were all approached by the county administrator is uh you know, what do y'all think?"
That would have been the time to do it. And then we then we got in the the predicament that we're in, which which I'm I'm really over with at this point in time. Um it would be disingenuous of me, I think,
now to say that I approved it then when you told me and I don't approve it now, but when we if we're going to talk about yours separate, there's there's some additional things I want to talk about with reference county administrator, but
the fact that I've gave it my blessing. I don't know if I can I would not be compelled to change it. It was my was my initial um point when we were told about this. We've had the opportunity. I as a commissioner failed. I didn't bring it
forward, but none of us did. And I guess when it all comes down to it, it it part of if there if you want to lay the blame on why they're in this predicament, part of it's our fault. That that we didn't that we didn't bring
that that we didn't bring what forward. The county administrator tal told us privately, each one of us separately. I assume he told you. He told me. And I said, "Okay, yeah. Yeah, you you're entitled to it. I I I I believe you." I didn't go back and
check his contract and read it. When I did finally read it, it kind of struck me kind of weird. Again, what Commissioner Fleer said, is there different in benefits? Is there different in salary? I think you can make an argument either way, but but uh I just want you to know how I feel with
regards that I'm not blaming you. I'm not blaming I'm blaming myself for not doing for not going back and checking it. and I'm I'm willing to to to move on and let's put this behind us and let's let's get over it. How can you blame yourself if you presumed that the administrator was
going to bring that before the board? It should have gone before the board. And I guarantee as long as I'm here and this will never happen again. And I would almost say we put that in or somehow let the county attorney and the county administrator know that there will be no more self-initiated payraises
without it coming before the board. This will never happen again as long as I'm here till 2028. We'll see what goes on after that. But if I'm here after that, then it still ain't going to happen.
So I think we commissioners, I think we need to move on. Um or we just need to move on. The city needs to move on. Time is terrible, but we'll worry about that later. When you
say the timing is terrible, the timing being terrible is was not brought on by this board. Tim timing is terrible with with the budget with what what Sheriff Flowers just accused us of and everything else
which is totally I think improper and not uh it's not how I perceive how government how this government's always worked. We've been amicable with each other, but here or there, we've got to take care of our own. We've got to
decide what we're going to do about this matter, this before us right now, and we need to move on and we can address that tomorrow. So, so be client. Okay.
Well, with that, is there anybody in the audience that wishes to uh make statements? Yeah, you're one of the few. There's There's two of you now. Okay. Uh yes, Tom Sullivan, 4186,
uh West 16 Square. Um I kind of it's a sticky wicket. I think everybody will agree to that. I kind of don't like the way it escaped and got publicized and and the way it got projected in the papers. I think there was a lot of uh
critique of people who meant no harm. Um I I Joe, I think you know I was a basketball coach. I worked at four different institutions under different contracts and the iron workers. Okay. All right. So, so you know you have to read your I always had a lawyer read my contract and even when a lawyer
read the contract. Okay. The wordage would always be difficult. I can see how the confusion occurred there. Benefit means a lot of different things. Obviously, right now I'm seeing it mean something completely different to her and you. Um I will say this. I remember
when we first brought up this idea. you I think you brought it up Mr. law about acting as trustees and meeting uh what was that four times a year and I enjoyed that. I actually come to those to see how we're progressing and everybody seems happy, you know, we're happy with
the success now. So therefore, a year goes by, two years goes by and all of a sudden they the contracts start getting read and someone reads and says, "Oh," they say, "Oh, that should mean this. I agree that can happen." And it did happen. Okay. And so I I think that
we're kind of, you know, making a mountain out of a moldill. Um in terms of where the employee is accepted and told that their bene their benefit to the organization
is good in our case sort of stems from the by the annual the evaluations that occur quarterly. Now, when we get to the contract part, Joe, which I think I'm sorry, m Mr. Flasher, which we were
talking about, uh, my contracts, if I got fired, okay, I got $600,000. I don't know if these guys when they get fired, I don't know what the deal is there. So, when you talk about a contract, you you're mentioning it, Mr.
Mr. life as if they're guaranteed, you know, $600,000. In reality, I think you're only guaranteed uh yeah, a severance package. So, I don't I don't judge that contract in the context
that you judge it. You see what I'm saying? If someone offered me to go to a school and said, "We're going to give you a contract." And all of a sudden, yeah, it's a it's a five-year contract, but if we fire you, now if they fire me with cause, that's one thing. But they fire me without cause, okay, they're
only going to pay me another two weeks. I don't know if I would accept that contract. So, my point is a three-year contract means I I is means something different to me than it does to them, just as I think benefits means something
different to, you know, Sue, than it does to you. I I just think we I've been very happy with them. You know, I come, you know, I come to enough of these things I watch and I know you all have been happy. No one said anything bad about them. And I think the
interpretation of the of the contract is something that that's going to happen. I I agree with you know Mr. Airman like you know they went to enough people and no one threw up a red flag and said wait a minute you know and and then to come
about like I don't know who this guy is. I'm reading the paper and at the end of the article he says we're not going to press charges. I mean that's where that that's where this has come to now where I you know nobody did anything that
wrong but this is what people read and the end of this that huh says that about pressing charges I don't I don't know about uh Yeah, it does say that. I'm trying to find it.
Okay. Is that it? Uh, I just got to get my paper in order here. Okay, here we go. Okay, but you No, here we go. This is This is annoying to me. Okay. Uh uh
would any of you had known about it had a county resident with public records affectionado a part-time political operative mentions his name not CCD uh my name in his August uh 20th email? Will the state attorney's office which
received a copy of the order report from Hansley launch an investigation into me into this mess? For what it's worth, Butler, a former state prosecutor, doesn't believe there was any criminal intent, especially since Tasich sought legal advice from But when I I'm reading
this, I'm going, he doesn't believe there was any criminal intent. Now, doesn't it say that anybody wasn't was pressing charges or not pressing charges? I just Oh, no, no, no. But it does, but but the implication.
Yeah, sure. you know, and I'm saying I I I agree with Mr. Airman. I think they've done a good job. Maybe there was misunderstandings here. And and and Mr. Blur, I I I know how you feel about this. I watched you when you arguing
about the uh medical examiner, you know, which, you know, I'm just saying I I can't The other thing I I didn't understand a little bit. I don't understand where um the police chief's salary comes into this. I'm not worried about numbers. I'm just This isn't a
numbers thing at all. What it is is a misinterpretation of a word and then it led to uh this type of situation where they were compensated or soon to be compensated and then it came to be did we do this in the right order? And now we can say, well, now we know what the
right order is, but we also know that if you're not happy with them, they're gone. in four weeks. So that knocked out my, you know, a little bit of what you were saying. Sorry. But that anyway, that was my opinion. Thank you, Mr. S.
Don't fire me. Good afternoon. Jeff Andrews, county resident. I'm the gentleman you didn't mention in that article. Uh, as we all know from Friday's press conference, the sheriff did answer a question that he will not comment on an ongoing criminal
investigation. So, we'll see what happens there. Very interesting some of the words though that were said by the county attorney right here in her opening presentation, which seemed to have escaped all of you.
Says she's been transparent. For members of the press and everybody here, the commission knows. Please do a public records request for all emails between Jeff Vandros and the county attorney for the last six months. Can't get her payubs. Can't get her days off. The list goes on
and on and on. No transparency. None. Public record. See if she gives it to you. I'm I'm uh assembling a 25count public record lawsuit that you all be served with shortly. Let's also look at a couple things she
said. She looked at this contract. She's your county attorney. Now, the contract's no good. Less than a year, the county attorney signed a contract that she doesn't like.
I I would have to wonder what else she signed on behalf of this commission that may not be good. I know the Kolkata docs isn't really going so well. It's another thing. Um, something else I do want to point out. I'm not an attorney, but however, she
said something in the very beginning which is interesting. She changed her agenda item. I don't know if anybody caught that. She said now, not only are we talking about an addendum to give her more money, she wants her evaluation done today. That
was not publicly noticed. This agenda item is null and void. the public should have been noticed that they could come and comment on this evaluation which took place today. She said that in her opener. This is null and void this agenda item.
But again, our county attorney, I would say this too that some commissioners who are bent on, you know, just really want to spend money. I say this to all of you who may vote yes to this, even though it's not a valid
agenda item anymore. I dare you to pay it out of your own pockets. Don't use municipal money. If you feel that good about it, don't use tax dollars to pay for it. Take it out of your own pockets. I know that'll never happen,
but take it out of your own pockets. We also learned something that so now we're getting double dip raises. Cost of living raises coming in October, but we now win another one. So, we're going to double dip raises. Where does it end?
Where does it end? How can any of you consciously vote that this is a good thing? And no, it would have never made the public eye had I not sent you all that email. Little addendum to that. I asked for
those communications months ago. Public records requests, never got them. I asked for them again the same day I asked Ryan Butler's office weeks ago. Still haven't gotten it. Ryan Butler's office hours.
Why? because overnight on I believe May 21st there was a quid proquo put in email that hey I'll say your contract is legally valid
but remember mine's coming too in September. That's exactly what it says. All right. Um am I my time up sir? No. Okay. Um no. So there's a green. I think I have that.
The other thing we're the other thing we're looking at here again from her own opening is she likes some part of the policy, but she doesn't like another. So she doesn't have to do evaluations, but she wants the money.
Nobody's brought that up either. And here's just one little thing, and I'll say again, I'm not an attorney. I have a wall full of cool diplomas, though. I'm not an attorney, but let's look at this. Do you know who does evaluations by their five bosses? The school district.
The school district does it for their employees. Nobody could do any kind of legal research on that. Called across the street essentially. They're all public record. Every um every school board member writes an evaluation.
This is not recreating the wheel. It's just um give me my money. I don't deserve it. give it to me anyway. All this pointed out, make a careful decision before you vote.
And if you do vote yes, just tell the community instead of just saying a I, whatever, say I don't care. Thank you, Mr. Chair. May I address that? Certainly, councelor.
I just want to state that the um my staff report that went into Granicus has the following recommendation. The county attorney respectfully requests that the board approve the attached addendum to the county attorney agreement and also approve an annual progression pay
increase for the county attorney upon her September 6, 2025 employment anniversary. So, I disagree with Mr. Andrew's um conclusion that somehow this is not a valid item. I will
also say that from July until today, Mr. Andros has made 87 public records requests to our office. We have completed 23 of them. We've
given him 19 special service fee estimates and we have uh 45 that are are actively being worked on. The the issue that we're having with Mr. Andros is he's taken the position that he should be entitled to thousands and thousands of
records but never have to pay a special service fee. But that can get worked out in our in our um I hope we don't have a lawsuit, but if you if he's hellbent on doing that, we'll that'll get worked out. But to suggest that my office is not willing to fulfill a public records
request is completely wrong. May I respond since I'm being attacked as a member of the public which is not part of this? No. How dare she? May I respond? You just put my credibility on the lines. No.
Would you like a response to that? I I think Mr. Andros has had his say. You guys had had just engaged um you know I'm reading another document that was just brought up and
Mr. Andrews I I mean I mean just to say I I don't I don't want this to be I mean you've just said that you're preparing documents for a lawsuit. Yes, sir. I have no other choice. When a
municipality or governing body according to chapter 119 does not supply you the records, you have no other choice. What What am I supposed to do? And just for some clarification, some of the records request she's talking about
involve the $34 million in consulting spending that the county does not want to release to the general public. members of the media, anybody looking, request what Jeff Andros has requested. See if they give it to you. It's all in
black and white. I did not come here to get attacked, but the county attorney brought up transparency, so let's be transparent. Thank you, Mr. Angel. I just want to read something here,
maybe can shed some light. Uh this is uh Suzanne Bole responding. This is an email. This public record. Good morning, John and Jennifer. HR will proceed with John's retroactive
adjustments as noted. Please forward since there will be no performance evaluation to trigger HR HR and to make the adjustment as is the case with other county employees,
Susan and Chris. If each of you could email me when you attain the anniversary date for your pay progressive in progression increase, we will process the increase using the
email as the supporting documentation. Why are we here? The horse is out. She was wrong. The decision was made. You want her fired? She was wrong. The human resources. Who said that? I said it.
Well, I have no capacity to do that. Well, you're you're talking like you do. I have no No, I'm not. I mean, she's the one responsible for this. If you look at the conclusions and recommendations, number two, in fact, she's even the
clerk calls her the last line of defense. you know, she should have caught this. So, if we're going to make such a thing of it, um I I think it's inadvisable. It's not our It's not our place. You don't like to hear bad things. That's That's your challenge. Can I comment?
I'm telling you bad things. Okay. And you don't like to hear them. That's your prerogative. We've already told her we don't like to hear dirty laundry. I have to tell you this is a transparent form of government.
We are. We owe it to the public. Again, this is a big challenge here. Since there's none, just do it. I don't want hell fired. It's ill advised, but the process is already intact. So, why are we talking
about it today to see? Well, let's do it. Now, this was already agreed upon. Okay, I did talk with John and I agree that his conclusion uh that he is entitled to the pay progression, his
conclusion likewise, I have similar language in section five of my contract that entitles me to be to the same benefits labeled benefits for salary
um as other exempt employees except for outlined exceptions. Okay. Uh these these are documents that were transpired in between the individuals as
this went forward. Like I said, you may find it discomforting or you might find it inappropriate or you might find it that someone like myself would want that person terminated. That's not the action. We have no right and authority
to do that. Okay, if that's your interpretation, as we're working on so many different interpretations today, then maybe you want to bring that forward. But my personally, that's not my intent. My intent is that there's paper and
documentation with conversations about this all along and we didn't have those conversations. Mr. Chair, my intent is to have made a motion an hour ago and have it voted on. And that's good. And I appreciate your expectation that we'll call the
question, but there has been ensuing request that the public be heard and the public was and there's nobody else and the public was heard and then now a comment was made and I want to clarify it. Okay. Okay. Sure.
Just didn't know if we have to if the meeting goes. It's only 10 minutes to five. We still have plenty of time. Vote to extend it, right? So, we will have to vote at some point. Sure. Sure. Well, can Mr. Mr. Chair, I just want to
make one quick comment before this vote because I think in all fairness to, you know, I know the human resources director, there's a comment about she copied everybody on the email and I recommended that she do that because the public records request from the clerk's
office went to payroll specialists and not to the director. In the future, I would hope that would go through the administration or the director. As soon as she found out about this, I think the clerk can verify within 6 minutes she provided all the information. I think it was seven actually 7 minutes she
provided all the information that was requested. She was not aware of this. The human resources director, the payroll specialist received it and she has subsequently spoken with her payroll staff.
I just want to clarify that. Okay. And that relates to this email. How it was a reference to the the item number in ter the part of the report that talks about human resources needs to process payroll information requests
in a reasonable amount of time. The six week delay was excessive. Yes, we agree. And the human resources director has taken action to make sure that's been rectified. Well, I only got this uh subsequent to a
p public records request that all of us were sent. That's how I got that document as well. That's related to all these other agenda item. Excuse me. That's that's related to the next agenda item. No, I I understand that.
But there's something about an agreement. somebody's reminded that um you know you're entitled to it. You're entitled to it and I remind you that
my anniversary date is coming. That was by the county attorney. So, um I was accused of engaging in a quidd proquo and and and I No, Mr. Andros said that. Yeah, but you said it.
No. And I deny that. I've played out my reasoning why I thought my contract interpretation was reasonable. I've explained to you the expectations I had coming on board here as your employee and and what I think is fair, what makes sense to me, and what is a fair reading
of my contract. Respectfully, you do not agree because I'm listening to you, and that's what we're here to talk about. But I don't agree that anything uh wrong or ill intent intended
occurred. There could have been a a different approach if this was brought up um w without without the audit, without the review, without the inquiry, and without all of this and having it to be an
agenda item. Perhaps you're correct. Okay. But all of that in mind enshrouds us with got to get the gauze pad out. It's not about the money. It's about the action. It's about
obligation to the community. Transparency as we're making other decisions that are uh quite frankly a lot more impactful. Um, it it just it's the procedure in which this all happened and
I I don't know what to say. It's it it's a box car at best. Okay. I That's my interpretation. Everybody's got a different interpretation today. I have to put it on the calendar.
Interpretation day, but we'll see how that goes. Chelsea, you have anything else? No, I do not. Okay. I just Is is there anybody else? Okay, we have a motion by
Commissioner Adams, seconded by Commissioner Moss to move forward with the county attorney's request. Correct. Any further discussion? All in favor?
I opposed. I motion carries 3 to two with vice chairman law and myself opposing. Mr. chair, members of the board, uh, as the county attorney indicated, she was
going to turn the item related to me over over to me for presentation. Um, I I think a lot of the same comments apply. I will say that, you know, as I read my contract and just to provide timeline for the board, the 17th of
April that the timeline has been called into question. The 17th of April was my anniversary increase and on the first pay period or paycheck following that. Um, I noticed that I didn't receive the 2.5% increase. I contacted the board
that that's May 9th. I contacted not the board but I contacted you know spoke with Suzanne Bole human resources director uh and we both agreed that I would seek you know the county attorney's opinion on this and whatever
it was it was where I was going to go with it. I I did that and then uh that week I spoke with each of you and informed you advised you. provided two pieces of paper, the section that had the
annual compensation, the additional benefits, and then the progressive pay increase policy. And uh had any member objected or said that this is was wrong, uh I would have put it on the agenda. Uh hindsight, I I
don't disagree with what Commissioner Earman has said, you know, as it relates to process-wise. Uh it would have been better to have brought this before the board. Uh but you know in all instances you know this was documented in email
that was by purpose. There was no conversations that were not in written form uh because this was done there's no attempt to conceal this. This was done in transparently. And at this point, I think you've we've
kind of discussed a lot of what goes into this. Um, I mean, I I certainly believe, you know, based on what's happened, my integrity has been called into question. My character has been maligned. But notwithstanding that,
that's not from the board. U, I'm respectfully requesting that the board approve my progressive pay increase. uh because I do and I operated on the assumption that after I read the
contract and it was clear to me uh my interpretation that you know that the right and benefits that were available to other employees were available to me. And so with that, I am requesting the board to approve uh the the
recommendation by the county attorney, which I think it also applies applies to the retroactivity component, which would suffice the board uh or the the clerk's concerns once he raised it. uh and I
have nothing but respect for the clerk of court and his position and uh and concerning this matter and but I think this resolves the issue and I believe I merit the 2 and a half% and u increase
as every other employee does consider approval of the contract. So my recommendation is to ask for approval of the contracted addendum as presented by the county attorney wi wi which has the
the beginning on the April 17, 2024 and every year thereafter. And the one thing I would say because I know it's been and I'll just leave this at this the additional benefits section it doesn't specifically say one individual section
of the administrative policy manual. says the county provides employees with a number of benefits that are set forth in the Indian River County Administrative Policy Manual doesn't narrow it down to one specific policy. It says the the manual, "These rights
and benefits are available to the county minister in the same terms and conditions they are to full-time regular non-contract employees. If it would have said this specific policy, we would not be here today. And like I said, hindsight, I agree with comments that have been made. it'd be better. And then
I know the comment has come up about evaluation and I would like to remind the board that uh I brought I offered in my contract negotiation and I have the email here from between my Dylan and myself. The board shall review and
evaluate the county administrator performance during each anniversary of the term of this agreement. Said review and evaluation shall be in accordance with specific criteria jointly uh developed jointly by the board and the county administrator. And I put in parenthesis, Dylan, the FCCMA has
developed a sample manager administrator evaluation that I would prevent present to the board for consideration. And he responded by not including that and saying that he wanted to speak about it. And when we spoke about it, he shared with me what he discussed with you that
uh you can fire the administrator any anytime you're not happy with him. You know, your performance evaluation is every two weeks or every two meetings a month. So I just you know in fairness I have always believed that that's a good instrument that you can do that because
that gives you individually and collectively an opportunity to fairly assess a year's performance. So with that I'll I'll return to the chairman again respectfully requesting that you approve the the addendum presented by the county administrator
I mean by the uh county attorney. Mr. Mr. Chairman, I may How much have you received to date from your from aggressive? Yeah, the number that was reported, I think it was in correspondence was like
$15,000, but I think the clerk's report narrows it down to it was $6,500, $5206 in retroactive pay. And then there's been with the adjustments there was a subsequent amount of about $2,000 since.
Okay. So that's what so 6520 and roughly $2,000 you've received a date for that. Yes. as of right but since this came up you know the clerk had called and I didn't hesitate and agreed and he sus
you know we put the payback at the the rate that was that existed prior to he suspended any further payments until whatever was decided today um well since we voted for the county
attorney to get the progressive pay increase I I would tell you I would vote for your increase on a couple of conditions. First of all, this never happens again. No
self-initiated pay raises by either one of you. None. Not unless it comes before the board. I don't know. You know, I I I think this is a rarity. I don't think it'll happen again, but it better never happen again. The next thing is, Mr.
Administrator, I think because We didn't do it in front of the board and I think you're as guilty as we are for not bringing it to the board. I personally think the 6,500 and the $2,000 should be should be repaid back to the county and we start your
progressive pay increase October 1st and then on your well then on your anniversary day or or of April either one. um only because we wouldn't be here today had this not
come up. And I think we were I think you were equally as fault as as we are for not not bringing it before the board even though you did bring it to us individually. So that's why I say I would vote to give you the the pay increase, but I think prior to this
date, whatever money you collect, it should come back to the county. I'll say that and see how you all feel about that. Mr. Chair, Mr. Vice Chair, you know, it's it's
needs to be said that the administrator has been an administrator in some capacity for many years prior to coming to Indian River County in April of 2023. We don't need to hear the conversation between the administrator and Dylan.
What Dylan says is clouding the issue. Dylan, for those that don't know, is our former county attorney. administrator is well equipped to sign a contract, which he did in April of 2023.
To have uh the ability today is really uh somewhat embarrassing in light of everything else to ask for not only uh the dollars uh retroactive.
uh this was not brought before this body April of 2024 for its normal evaluation or 2.5%. One of the most uh disturbing things that I've heard
or I should say haven't heard is I'm sorry. We have not heard that. We have heard quote um in hindsight in hindsight there's never been apology to this board.
We're owed an apology. No way about it or shape about it. We're owed an apology because we wouldn't be here have not been in hindsight or oversight
of whatnot. administrator brought a contract before us in January. We didn't hear about for his deputy administrator which included something very similar to this. We didn't hear
this April of 2024 when his when his annual evaluation came up. It didn't come before this body that oh by the way uh my progressive pay we would like to I would like to handle that. Instead
there is a discussion electronically from the administrator to the human resources director saying I didn't get my progressive pay. I feel like I'm entitled to it considering this this and this. Obama,
I'll run it by the commissioners. You've mentioned a a horse and a barn. This is clearly the cart before the horse. He's not a brand new administrator, friends. He's been in this business,
high level business for over 30 years. But yet, we have not received an apology. I'll yield to the chair. I don't know if apology is where I would go.
I mean, took an action he thought was right. It was wrong. Not everybody sees it that way. Um, I will say that uh I was shown a document
and county administrator said, "I think I'm entitled to this." And I said, "No, you may argue." I said, "No, that has another county administrator's
name on it." And again, the argument you heard something about benefits. It had nothing about progressive pay. He said, "Well, I think I'm entitled."
And the next time I heard about it was as a reflection from a conversation from the auditor. Bless you. That's my recollection. I didn't hear anything about a approval process,
a negotiation, a decision, a conversation, approval. None of that happened. And that's all I'm going to say. It didn't happen. Thank you. I I
there's no sense to to the labor of this. Commissioner Earman. Um would that make you feel more comfortable and transparent moving this forward if it was effective today versus retroactive?
Absolutely. I I I think it should and then subsequent to come to the board again and then subsequently on on the anniversary date provided it comes to the board moving forward. Yes. Okay. I can I
I could support that. Um, I would just provide some clarification that I've heard up here today. If any commissioner, and I will reiterate what I said under Jennifer's item, if any commissioner
had indicated that this was a problem in their one-on-one briefing, I guarantee you based on the political climate in this county and on this commission dis,
it would have been put on an agenda. and and you guys can say otherwise, but with with the way everything has been put on the agendas from the quarterly reviews to everything else,
I find it difficult to believe that if a commissioner has had raised a question, it wasn't on an agenda. And I'll just leave it with that. But Commissioner Earman, if if that gives you some level of comfort, I I can support that.
Yes. Um Commissioner Adams, I just wanted to say that um when it would have been on this agenda because look at the timing. This is the very next meeting from when we were notified. So
no, no, no. When the conversation occurred in May, if a commissioner had said to the administrator that they didn't agree based on the political climate of this board,
it would have been on an agenda. And I firmly believe that. I I I don't agree because somebody shows you a piece of paper that says, "I think I'm entitled to this." No, that's somebody else's name and it doesn't apply. That sounds like
a non-aggree. Now, it goes back if it goes back to me. Okay. Well, I think it's my turn to speak. No, no, I'm I'm actually speaking right now. Thank you. Um I don't know if you heard because the microphone maybe I can get a little
closer. If that's the case about the notice and well that was notice. It didn't fit but no one knew that it was actually
going to be a dispersement. It was actually going through because nobody was aware of all of this happening until it happened. It's not true. I advised every I gave you even I gave you this sheet with the
progressive and I advised you that it was happening even in my email last so you you're here to state today that full transparency I will notify each commissioner will notify did you and I did were you notified that he was getting a pay increase
I'm going to ask you yeah he he told me that about this pay increase and I said Okay. No, wait. Specifically, did he tell you that he was getting this pay increase? He told me I don't know if he said those
exact words, but he told me that he was getting a pay what I'm pointing at. I'm going to ask entitled to a pay increase. Vice chairman, did did did he tell you he's getting the pay increase? Not in those terms. There was a conversation revolving around Mike Zto that I recall and it was something to
the effect of what Mike got and it was a very at the end of a conversation uh of our weekly meeting or oneonone meetings. It was at the end of that and I did not think anything about it.
I was not told. You were told. I was told all the commissioners were told I I mean I wasn't sitting in the meeting. No no how you can't say that because I was alone with him. Okay, I get it. You were alone with him and so you can say whatever. It's called
hearsay and oh what I'm saying is called hearsay too I suppose but at the same time I am just this needs to be moved on. This is just drama for the sake. No no no no no no. I'm just saying that
it was not confirmed and I don't want anybody to be I don't want the public to believe that this was discussed and everybody gave the nod. There was no bobbleheads here. So you had a discussion and I said no that doesn't apply to you
about handed it right back. The next time I heard about it was when the auditor came in. I don't I don't think that that's I have nothing to lose or gain by that. I'm just telling the truth. That's fine. That's totally fine. Thank you, Commissioner Moss.
It smells like a setup because it is a setup. And when I started this matter, when I made my first comment, I said I hope that we are evaluating the legalities of it because
that's always where we should be, the legalities, not get into and make it a political football. And that's what it's become. And I feel like we're all participating in some kind of kabuki dance. And you know, it's becoming to it's to the point
of being absurd. I mean, it just is, sir. This is absurd. And uh and if that I agree, I would support uh Commissioner Man and what he said, and I think Commissioner Adams also supports it if I understood it correctly. Correct.
All right. Thank you. And that's all I have to say. So, we have Mr. Chairman, I have one other question, sir. Do we need to update the administrative manual? Yes, I think that I think we have a good
reason to make that a priority. So, with this kind of stuff, if Mr. Chairman, if I I'll be glad to make the motion. And your motion is My motion is to approve the county administrator
for the progressive pay increase effective today, I guess. effective today with the stipulation that any funds that he's received prior to this date be returned
back to the county and that no more addition no none no self what's the word I'm looking for help me out here no self um initiated initi thank you no
selfinitiated payraises shall be done ever again by he nor the county attorney. Does your motion include retroactivity? No. No, it's it'll start effective October
one, but not go back to not start. No, it's not going to go back to his anniversary date is it's not going to go back to a April effective today. Right. Effective today moving forward. No retroactivity, right? John's is not going back to
April. John starts won't it'll start today, but it it's not retroactive now. How does it start today if his anniversary is not today? I guess it get it not till April, right? Be
it was in April. That's correct. When it was done in May, really, but yes, I'll second that. So, so what the date is when in April when his anniversary is up. Jennifer gets hers on September 16th, I
guess, right? He gets his starting effective today, but he won't get it till his anniversary date, April. How does that work? So, he starting today, moving forward for this current year, and then you can prate it
and then and then on his anniversary from here on out, right? So, he does get the money starting today. Clear. Is that what your your motion is? No, I I'm looking it it'll we approve it
as of today. Approve. I guess it'll be He won't He won't get retroactive. He's not going to get back to April. It'll start now. So, I guess in April of Well, then it's not out of
26. he would only getif. So it's prrated between now and April. In April, it would pick back up with the anniversary date and move forward, but it would come before us for codification and approval.
Correct. Okay, that's the motion as I understand it. And that was my second. Yeah, he didn't get anything. The money he's already received has he has to pay it back. the money he's received.
Are you saying it's starting this pay period? Just what Commissioner Adams, she said it better than I can. You said it pretty good. Right. Your motion. That's my motion. Second.
That's my second. Any further discussion? All in favor? I public comment. You're right. I did forward the opportunity for that discussion.
Thank you. Um, quick question on this one. What is the threshold for the county administrator to get terminated? I've watched every one of the evaluation meetings. Problem, problem, problem,
problem. Now, with this motion, which is interesting, you're saying he doesn't deserve the retroactive raise. That's something to think about. He doesn't deserve the retroactive raise.
Something I want to clarify from that great email. He clearly states he will notify the commissioners. However, if you look at the timestamps he already put in for the raise. He did it before he even thought
about notifying the commissioners. It's in writing. Commissioner man, one thing I got to say that I have a problem with. You say it's never going to happen again on your watch, but you know what will happen? They just won't do email anymore. That's that's that's the problem there.
We'll deal with that. In light of I would hope not. In light of the public, the media, I'm making a public records request right now in front of you. I would like all communications whether on personal devices, business devices, whatever between the county attorney, county
administrator for the last two weeks weeks in reference to this topic. Now, here's the fun part about this. If it comes back that it doesn't exist and in this investigation subpoenas are given, just want to put out there that's a misdemeanor for withholding public records. So, I just made a very valid
request. But I would like to know I'd like an answer to this question. What is the threshold where the county administrator has to finally atone for what he's done to this county? Do we do we have a ceiling? Because as of today, there's no
ceiling. Second question I would like an answer to to everybody who's going to vote, you know, saying everybody's doing a good job. Is the county going to pay for any kind of criminal defense for either one of those as this investigation occurs?
Does anybody want to answer that for the record? Is the county going to pay? Crickets. Huh? Are you saying I'm under criminal investigation? Uh, it came up like I said earlier. on saying it. I'll repeat what I said. On Friday,
during a press conference, Sheriff Eric Flowers was asked a question by a member of the media. He replied with, "I will not comment on an ongoing criminal investigation. It's public." Jeff, I let me clear let me clear that up for you,
please. According to the clerk of the court who's a former prosecutor and been in touch with the FDLE, it's a preliminary inquiry to see if any criminal activity was there. I wouldn't call it a criminal activity.
I would say that sensationalization by the sheriff and I think it was uncalled for. If there is criminal activity and and Mr. containage did something criminal, he gets fired right away.
Okay. But will we take because of that? But he is innocent until proven guilty. And I, as a commissioner, have no reason to believe that he did anything dishonest. Was it not the best decision? No. But it wasn't done in the darkness
of night or under the or under the cloak of darkness. It was just a bad call at a bad time. So, I put that in my bank. I don't want to see him make any more bad calls. I don't think he will because as far as I'm concerned, he's a consmate
professional. I don't think it'll happen again. My take on it. If you want to talk further, we can talk privately. I appreciate that. I just want to know if this commission, while it's an inquiry, whatever term we're using here, will pay for any kind of legal advice
for your two employees. Will my tax dollars pay for any type of legal legal advice? I would say no. Absolutely not. I would say no. Absolutely not. Right. We don't. His contract doesn't include uh criminal defense. Thank you. I appreciate that,
Commissioner. Like I said, everybody, um, keep in mind the raise was going through and it was done in the dark of night. It was done between 8:00 p.m. and 8:19 a.m. That's timestamped. And it was already through. and he said he will let
you know after he did it. Thank you. Okay. So the motion and a second and no further discussion and all in favor I opposed. Motion carries 3 to two with vice
chairman law and myself dissenting. With that, seeing no other business, uh I Well, we do have an opportunity for public comment on any item that's not on the agenda if you wish to speak.
Stay here for your item. All right. Well, tomorrow uh we'll all be convening for the uh budget workshop at 501
uh the budget hearing right here at 501. 5015 501 right here in these chambers. We look forward to seeing you then. Anything have any anybody have anything further?
Seeing none, this meeting's adjourned.