WEBVTT

METADATA
Video-Count: 1
Video-1: youtube.com/watch?v=i3C_GzDbP8g

NOTE
MEETING SECTIONS:

Part 1 (Video ID: i3C_GzDbP8g):
- 00:02:13: Meeting Commences: Roll Call, Pledge, Minutes Approval
- 00:04:22: Public Comment: Bald Eagles and Sustainability Fraud
- 00:09:49: Public Comment: Stormwater Master Plan Cover-Up Accusation
- 00:13:24: Urban Forest Management Plan Update: Progress and Changes
- 00:25:57: Urban Forest Management Plan: Budget and Arborist Discussion
- 00:37:11: Motion: Using Landscape Trust Fund, Hiring Urban Forester
- 00:42:58: Discussion: Landscape Trust Fund and Stormwater Credit
- 00:50:04: Native Species and Tree Diversity Requirements Clarification
- 01:35:28: Discussing Fines, Replacement Costs, and Tree Removal
- 01:39:04: Public Works Language, Online Survey, Moon Tree Application
- 01:43:56: Urban Forestry Plan Enthusiasm, Trust Fund Protection Discussions
- 02:00:16: Line Item Funding, Budgeting, Garbage Pickup Clarifications
- 02:07:21: Budget Line Item Hierarchy, Council/City Manager Process
- 02:11:44: Approving Urban Forest Plan, Moving to Wetlands Discussion
- 02:15:41: Wetlands Discussion: State Law Preemption, Conservation Element Objectives
- 03:05:33: Continued Wetlands Discussion Motion and Adjournment
- 03:06:55: Public Comment: Measuring Sound Shockwave Launch Effects
- 03:15:20: Motion: Recommendation to Collect Launch Data and Impact
- 03:16:53: Member Reports: Indian River Lagoon Referendum, Tree Removal


Part: 1

1
00:02:13.520 --> 00:02:30.319
Chairman Mjek. >> I'm here with my microphone. >> Chairwoman Thompson >> here. >> Member Berdett >> here. >> Member Tucker. Member Miller. Member Delgado >> here. >> Member Nico >> here. >> Alternate member Young. >> Young here. Alternate member Rosa

2
00:02:30.319 --> 00:02:49.120
>> here. >> I say we have a quorum. So would you please join me in the pledge of allegiance? >> I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation

3
00:02:49.120 --> 00:03:07.280
under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. >> All righty. Next up is the approval of the minutes. I'll entertain a motion. >> Um, I'll make a motion, but I have a

4
00:03:07.280 --> 00:03:23.360
change. >> Oh, that's okay. Is there a second to her motion with a change? >> Second. >> We have a first and a second. Let's have some discussion. >> Okay. So Lori, on page four of seven in the minutes of the last paragraph,

5
00:03:23.360 --> 00:03:38.640
it says, "I spoke in favor of not using the landscape trust fund to kick off the initial urban forest management plan. I actually spoke in favor of using the landscape trust fund to kick off the

6
00:03:38.640 --> 00:04:04.000
initial urban forest management plan. That was the only thing I saw. And and by the way, good job on the minutes. That was >> Yes, >> that was an awful lot to to try to digest and pull out of the tape and you did a really really good job as usual.

7
00:04:04.000 --> 00:04:22.639
Thank you. >> Any other discussions for our minutes? Well, hearing none. All in favor say I. >> I. >> And all opposed. Passes unanimously. Moving on from the minutes.

8
00:04:22.639 --> 00:04:44.479
Petitions and requests from the public. Hello Stan. Welcome. Long time no see. Stan Johnston. Uh I show show you a picture. This is a picture outside my house of two bald

9
00:04:44.479 --> 00:05:01.440
eagles and they're perched together and they would sometimes stay overnight and this happened for a period of about five years. U and they were uh that picture was taken. I was just a few steps out of my yard. Um and uh it's just nice to

10
00:05:01.440 --> 00:05:17.759
know that we we still have some some uh wildlife around here. Uh I'm uh I want to talk to you about something that is uh not very pleasant. It's it's about this uh this poster I wrote about about

11
00:05:17.759 --> 00:05:32.240
uh Brad Parish and it says dangerous regarding money and I wrote here s sustainability fraud. So I'm I I want to talk to you about the fraud that the city of Titusville is committing regarding sustainability.

12
00:05:32.240 --> 00:05:50.000
So in 2018 2019 uh I joined a uh group in a workshop to regarding res resiliency and uh sustainability at the city of Tusville and I gave numerous presentations as a professional engineer that the city of Tyville is not

13
00:05:50.000 --> 00:06:06.479
sustainable because of the storm water master plan is not being uh implemented. And that's that's that's talking about millions and millions of dollars of not not imple not not implementing not only that but it includes the uh

14
00:06:06.479 --> 00:06:22.080
the drainage to the St. John's River in which the city does not even inspect or maintain or have maintained those uh legal positive outfalls which is illegal and it's

15
00:06:22.080 --> 00:06:38.880
against our FEMA master our FEMA flood planes and so forth. So I made that point many times and had things in writing. So in uh uh after all we had all this workshop which Mike was there also is that they presented a

16
00:06:38.880 --> 00:06:55.360
sustainability uh plan called resilient Titusville 2019 which is false. It was false because it com it it included it had omissions of everything that I said everything was all wrong. So I went to um human

17
00:06:55.360 --> 00:07:11.199
resources and complained to uh um Mr. Diero and Brad Parish about this and uh Brad Parish went ahead. He confessed to the crime. I say crime. In other words, it was fraud. In other words,

18
00:07:11.199 --> 00:07:28.880
it's fraud. This is fraud is what what the report do. So he admitted to it and um uh he agreed to go ahead and put an addendum in at the end which would be which was a affidavit of regarding of uh what I had spoken of an affidavit of the

19
00:07:28.880 --> 00:07:48.880
city of Titusville not doing its its uh due diligence to uh fund the master plan stormwater plan. So now that uh plan which was was had an addendum now it's gone. The addendum is

20
00:07:48.880 --> 00:08:04.639
gone. And the new sustainably plan by I believe was Lily here is uh has the same thing. It has the same fraud. The same fraud. We're talking about I'm not talking

21
00:08:04.639 --> 00:08:21.680
about uh uh a million or so dollars. I'm talking about millions of dollars. and fraud by the city of Titusville. And by the way, let me say this is that doesn't mean that all these uh our city managers were corrupt. It doesn't mean that.

22
00:08:21.680 --> 00:08:39.519
I say for a many for a large part is that they were never notified of it. So those who were in and I and I and to my knowledge, I believe some of the people who were in charge of the stormwater master plan did not know about it either. For example, Sean Staer in 2012.

23
00:08:39.519 --> 00:08:54.880
I met Seawn Staer who was in charge of this this uh all this storm water. And I talked to him about the master plan. He said he'd never seen it before where he's in charge as a professional engineer.

24
00:08:54.880 --> 00:09:10.800
So what was the city doing? Well, the city was doing is ignored completely. It's a big big money project. It's big money and it's millions of dollars and so uh let's not consider it. Some people knew about it, some people didn't. So, I'm just sharing with you

25
00:09:10.800 --> 00:09:30.240
this with you and I'm sharing with you right now that the sustainability report right now that you have, the city is using is fraud. I'm serious. It's fraud. And I would I would entertain any

26
00:09:30.240 --> 00:09:49.839
professional engineer who would disagree disagree with me because uh it's not the truth. So that's what you got. Any questions? >> Member Thompson. >> So the city is working on a new ma um

27
00:09:49.839 --> 00:10:08.240
storm water master plan. the study by geocentech of the existing issues. So do you anticipate that potentially the new storm water master plan when it comes out it will correct the the the past

28
00:10:08.240 --> 00:10:26.000
transgressions that I I admit you know they they have been ignored by the city but do you think that the new the new plan is going to correct the mistakes of the past? Thank you for the question, Laura Lee. And is what I see is that right now is

29
00:10:26.000 --> 00:10:41.120
that I don't believe geocentech will come and dis disagree with me because you know that what I'll do I'll report them to the board for dishonesty. So uh geocentech doing it right now is it appears to me is what the city is doing.

30
00:10:41.120 --> 00:10:56.959
It's just another cover up. It's a cover up of what city has done in the past and it's it's uh u it's not considering what I just told you about the fraud in the past. Now, not only does this fraud include this storm water

31
00:10:56.959 --> 00:11:13.040
master plan, but it also includes the freshwater management study which has dams that were constructed that are illegal. They don't have the the two dams at the senior center. They were approved by the city and St. John's River Water Management District without

32
00:11:13.040 --> 00:11:28.880
without calculations, without compensatory storage, without a survey of what it how it affects the lands that are flooded. So, we have what I'm sharing with you is is a horrible picture of the city of

33
00:11:28.880 --> 00:11:45.760
Titusville has not been doing things correctly. they're doing things incorrectly, >> but this the geo syntax, if they're doing their job correctly, should identify things that happened in the

34
00:11:45.760 --> 00:12:01.519
past and recommend measures to correct the the things that happened in the past that were wrong. >> Exactly. Exactly. In fact, >> I mean, that should be the goal of geocint right now. I mean I I

35
00:12:01.519 --> 00:12:17.600
>> you can't really do anything about what happened in the past. >> Yes, you can. >> You can fix it. >> You can recognize it. You see, right now is it appears to me the city is is is intentionally not recognizing the uh

36
00:12:17.600 --> 00:12:35.279
flooding by the the uh dams. They're not recognizing the inspection that the city did not inspect, did not maintain, and then and filed uh a a fraudulent sustainability report. That's a big deal. So, the city I think

37
00:12:35.279 --> 00:12:52.720
that that the first thing that the city should do and Geocentech do is acknowledge problems with the city that the city has right now that are not acknowledged. In other words, um this is a big deal when

38
00:12:52.720 --> 00:13:09.120
you do a budget concerning millions of dollars for the city and you don't include storm water as shown in the storm water master plan. >> It's a tremendous it's a tremendous fraud that the city is

39
00:13:09.120 --> 00:13:24.720
committing right now. And so as far as I'm concerned, Geocentech is also and Lily's in and Lily's in on it, too, because she's she didn't she didn't report it either. >> Thank you, Stan. >> Thank you. >> Appreciate it.

40
00:13:24.720 --> 00:13:41.600
>> Kane, do you have anything to do under say under petitions and request? >> Thank you. >> No, no. >> Okay, then we'll move on to the urban forest management plan. again we had a whopping total of one change I understand.

41
00:13:41.600 --> 00:13:59.040
>> So yeah and I wanted to speak to that from the last meeting and quite literally we've been working with the consultant up until or I have been emailing her up until probably 15 minutes ago. So that initial draft that's attached to your agenda has been

42
00:13:59.040 --> 00:14:16.079
that was like her first take and then we had a back and forth and then I believe she went on vacation came back Monday we've had another back and forth so it's still evolving but eventually I had to capture something for the sake of showing you what we've understood and I

43
00:14:16.079 --> 00:15:00.480
didn't I literally just finished this like 15 minutes ago but I have a little summary handout that I can pass out. >> We learned this in kindergarten. So with all the feedback of the folks

44
00:15:00.480 --> 00:15:17.680
that were in the room, I tried my best to summarize those into just general topics and then general recommendations related to those, some back and forth with the consultant, and then an overview of the staff reply. So try to

45
00:15:17.680 --> 00:15:33.360
put that in a table format. The overall general consensus was for from staff is just make it more vague language. Um remove the number and thresholds from diversity. um while still keeping the

46
00:15:33.360 --> 00:15:48.560
intent of diversity without having like a set number in the plan. Um update the native species to 75% that stayed. The storm water credit again keep it um as a

47
00:15:48.560 --> 00:16:04.639
recommendation but not a formal requirement. the policy ordinance recommendations. I have I'm still going back and forth with her on that. But in this exact moment, it's more of looking at it as an

48
00:16:04.639 --> 00:16:21.759
evaluation or an uh analysis as opposed to a recommendation. And then with the length or shortening the document, um I had also recommended that we keep the length as just shortening it wasn't going to change the intensity of the

49
00:16:21.759 --> 00:16:40.240
implementation. And for someone who also has to carry out a action plan similar to this in sustainability, it does help to have more details rather than fewer, especially in those appendices when you go back and ask yourself why was this there? What was said? And then the

50
00:16:40.240 --> 00:16:58.000
online survey we did try to push this was I believe Jason's recommendation to push out for the general public and that was still getting some traction even after the date closed. So I kept it open but I think all it all in all we

51
00:16:58.000 --> 00:17:15.439
had 10 respondents so it wasn't like a ton. So I didn't know if I wanted if you even bothered or wanted to see it or I have some printouts from that too. up to you there. A lot of it was like agreeing with they they want the plan, they like

52
00:17:15.439 --> 00:17:31.760
it as is. Um removing the diversity, as well as also having uh including fines for cutting trees, which is also in your natural resources plan. So all of those suggestions were also captured

53
00:17:31.760 --> 00:17:48.720
and we're still working on recommendations on how to put that in the plan as of right now. So that's kind of where we're at. So all that to say, the snapshot that is in your agenda packet was a freeze frame from a week ago and there's been a lot of change since then.

54
00:17:48.720 --> 00:18:05.760
>> Uh yes, Member Thompson. >> So um I think this is scheduled to go to I don't have my phone with me. I forgot it. Um I think June >> June >> June 9th. Are we still on track to get

55
00:18:05.760 --> 00:18:20.960
it to I mean I think that the TEC should have another look at it before it goes to city council if if there's additional changes that are coming and I really appreciate what you've done here because it it it it you know it takes care of a

56
00:18:20.960 --> 00:18:39.919
lot of my concerns. Um, should we push out the date that it's going to go to the city council into maybe July so that we have another chance to look at it? You could. The problem with that is only the contract

57
00:18:39.919 --> 00:18:55.919
with the consultant uh terminates. So, they won't be able to be able to present it. >> You should be able to do a no cost extension on the contract. >> We are at an extension. I have. Yeah, I submitted a six month. It was supposed to end in December and now it ends in

58
00:18:55.919 --> 00:19:09.520
June. >> How can we vote on something that we haven't seen? >> We can Well, I don't there's >> that's all I want to know. >> You could have her present it, but ask for no action at the time. She can still

59
00:19:09.520 --> 00:19:25.679
present it and not just say have presentation from all the work that has been done. But >> who's presenting what? What do we Who >> the consultant >> is presenting to whom? to council >> before we've >> given it a thumbs up. >> We could theoretically make the

60
00:19:25.679 --> 00:19:41.360
recommendation to just not tell council like we're not saying we're going to approve this right now, but here's your presentation of how it ended up so far and we're still workshopping it or you know what I'm saying? >> I don't like that. >> Okay. You don't have to >> I want to be able to have a directive to council,

61
00:19:41.360 --> 00:19:57.520
>> but I want to see what we're directing. You know, I don't think we should be putting the cart before the horse, >> right? You can you can make the direction at a later date. It's just if you want the person who did the work and making it to present it without asking

62
00:19:57.520 --> 00:20:12.799
for council to make any sort of action on it, she can still do that while under contract. Could we do a presentation session at the 5:30 council meeting on the urban forest management plan by the

63
00:20:12.799 --> 00:20:30.480
>> by the author and then we can have another month to review and vote on it. >> That's what I'm well I'm trying to clarify that in my head. So, >> are you talking about uh May 26th is the only meeting that the city council has

64
00:20:30.480 --> 00:20:46.799
for a 5:30 meeting? >> Is that what you're asking for? >> Well, yeah. I mean, if she's ready to present, it sounds like you're close, right? >> She'll present it on June 9th, the city council. But if you're asking for an additional opportunity to be presented in some form to a board, >> what I'm suggesting is that the the June

65
00:20:46.799 --> 00:21:03.280
9th city council be presented at 5:30, not at 6:30. >> There's a CRA meeting at 5:30. presentations are second meeting of the month. >> Yeah. Oh, well, I just I think it's inappropriate to send it to council before we've had a chance to thoroughly

66
00:21:03.280 --> 00:21:19.840
vet it. >> Then that would be your recommendation that they do not approve this because you don't see it cons uh complete. But either way, we won't have the consultant be on that time frame. >> So, the consultant would do a presentation to the council and say, you

67
00:21:19.840 --> 00:21:36.480
know, this is where we're at. Um, my contract's ending. I just wanted we we wanted the consultant wanted to present it to the council. However, the TEC and staff will continue to work on it before we ask for approval. That is that the

68
00:21:36.480 --> 00:21:51.200
plan? >> It doesn't necessarily have to be an approval. If if council if you want to make a recommendation to council to approve it at some point, you can do that. if you don't believe it's appropriate for them to approve anything on June 9th and basically just only just to hear the presentation from the consultant with any recommendations you

69
00:21:51.200 --> 00:22:06.080
may have as far as changes and any recommendations that we may have from staff council can consider that and just take that information as is and then that then it'll be staff will be making changes to this possibly later on if you then want to ask for council to make a

70
00:22:06.080 --> 00:22:22.159
formal adoption of any sort later on. Either way though that consultant will be completing their task u by mid June >> and we and we have the latitude to make any changes to it that we want to right >> yeah this document it's not >> not concrete I mean this is a

71
00:22:22.159 --> 00:22:38.880
essentially a policy guide for the city for budgeting purposes in the future which so you can choose and rep prioritize what you see in here as part of your recommendations to city council as part of their annual budget and so you don't if you if there's something in here you want changed, you

72
00:22:38.880 --> 00:22:54.080
could always make that recommendation that could be changed in the future as well. So, when council sees this on June 9th, it doesn't necessarily have to be the last time they see it. >> What about all the references to um the uh

73
00:22:54.080 --> 00:23:10.480
public works department? Because I know there was a lot of heartburn about that. What What's going on with that? That's one of Yeah, that's one of the staff recommendations that haven't been working back and forth with her today on was just to have a department note at

74
00:23:10.480 --> 00:23:25.760
the beginning that reads, "Public works is noted as a responsible department and serves as a standin for future urban forestry. The future urban forestry position. Potential future organizational changes such as the establishment of a parks and wreck department may further affect these

75
00:23:25.760 --> 00:23:42.640
assignments. Even with potential changes, public works should remain an essent essential partner where infrastructure interfaces with the urban forest. So it was more so saying that they're the lead right now, but if there's a different department that's spun up as a result of this, that they

76
00:23:42.640 --> 00:24:02.240
would become the lead and public works would take the secondary part. >> I sorry. So I don't see what you just read us in in this piece of paper. So >> right

77
00:24:02.240 --> 00:24:22.880
>> will we will we see a copy of >> Yeah. >> I just don't you know I don't I don't want to take the risk of presenting this to the city council and then having the public works department say we don't

78
00:24:22.880 --> 00:24:38.240
support this plan. Well, public works is going to say that they have x amount of capacity. They will say that and that is has to be said and every department will probably say that. And if you ask for

79
00:24:38.240 --> 00:24:54.960
resources to do why then something else has to give if the if there's only a finite amount of dollars and resources and staff that public works has. And also just be aware public works is actually understaffed right now. >> Yeah, we know that. So they are going to present that and state that to city

80
00:24:54.960 --> 00:25:10.640
council. It's not saying they don't support this. It's just saying that this is just a capacity issue and the council has to be aware of that. >> But the the idea of adding this sort of disclaimer in there was the intent to kind of find

81
00:25:10.640 --> 00:25:26.240
a middle ground for that or some pose some solution with that. >> Right. We we suggested that because we thought, you know, she the consultant said that most communities will have a recreation department. So we wanted to identify her to identify on here

82
00:25:26.240 --> 00:25:41.440
where those particular responsibilities would have generally fallen under that particular department if we had one. And so what when you look at it when she when we get that version from her uh we should be able to say that when we start trying to budget on an annual basis for

83
00:25:41.440 --> 00:25:57.039
any kind of additional resources that there may be a consideration to create an additional division within public works or some other department whatever that might be but just to identify that these areas are typically responsible of a recreation department which we just currently do not have. So she's

84
00:25:57.039 --> 00:26:13.039
suggesting that the only fallback right now at this point is going to be public works, but we just want to identify where that could be. We never know what might happen in the future as far as an annual budget. Maybe 10 years from now, something might be different. >> It's a starting point, I gather.

85
00:26:13.039 --> 00:26:29.200
>> Okay. Could I? >> Yes, please go ahead. >> Okay. So all this is fine but we talked about the window for the budget which is either coming up or already passed sometime in May. Right.

86
00:26:29.200 --> 00:26:45.760
>> The budget process is going on now. The city manager will propose his budget in July. I believe there's a specific date. I don't recall which one. But I remember what I said last at the last meeting was we're coming very close to that point where it's it's going to be difficult

87
00:26:45.760 --> 00:27:00.720
for him to kind of squeeze in a large request into this year's budget. But even before we start budgeting and actually implementing the plan, there are three things we have to do first which will take some time and possibly the time that we necessary in order to

88
00:27:00.720 --> 00:27:18.640
get up to the year 2027 budget proposal. And that is just to remind you is the tree inventory which we got a grant for which we're going to try and process if we >> coordinator >> the coordinator identifying someone who can do that and potentially that's on someone on staff. And then the third

89
00:27:18.640 --> 00:27:34.640
person as far as grant monitoring and project monitoring. Um and then the third one was the revisions potentially to the urban forest u I'm sorry the landscape trust fund. >> No that was a fee I believe. Yeah,

90
00:27:34.640 --> 00:27:50.960
sorry. You're right. Never mind. >> So those those three things could potentially be handled internally by staff without having to increasing of the budget. So we anticipate that really to start implementing this, we have to complete those three steps according to this plan and we really won't start

91
00:27:50.960 --> 00:28:08.000
budgeting anything until fiscal year 2027 which will start in January. Until then, if you want to make a formal recommendation to city council to start setting aside budget uh a request right now into this year's budget, I just want to forewarn you that it

92
00:28:08.000 --> 00:28:22.799
might be very tight. Something else might have to give and the city manager will have to make a decision or a proposal. He may or may not accept it. But if council accepts it, your recommendation goes to them, then he's going to have to find a way to put it into the budget this year or this for

93
00:28:22.799 --> 00:28:38.960
this upcoming 2026 year um October one or sorry, the new fiscal year that he'll propose in July. It's just that something else will have to give. He'll have to tell them that something else had to be reduced, whatever that is. >> And I understand and that's where I was

94
00:28:38.960 --> 00:28:55.039
going. We don't have a placeholder for this. So therefore, it's going to be keep moving up to the next year no matter what. >> Right? >> And and so the the chain will never form

95
00:28:55.039 --> 00:29:12.720
because you don't have a placeholder that they can talk about and either move it or not. But it but it's clear that there's a placeholder. So, wouldn't it be wise budget-wise to put a placeholder now and and have them say we can't do it

96
00:29:12.720 --> 00:29:29.120
and then and then that's already on the on the budget list for next year as a as a possible. >> You're suggesting a line item. What? Z line item. >> Zero dollars. >> I was just going through the minutes from the last meeting and that's what we had talked about. You had brought it up

97
00:29:29.120 --> 00:29:46.640
actually and we discussed it and then we we dropped it. But I think I I agree with Hector's. >> We should probably consider >> using that. We we need to get it kicked off somewhere. >> Otherwise, we're behind we're behind >> and we can we can use the um the Tree City USA, you know, 2% per capita as the

98
00:29:46.640 --> 00:30:02.159
this is what what we're requesting and that that go in the budget out of the general fund to get things kicked off this year and then next year in 20 because the budget that they're talking about in July is for next January. So, it's got to get in now, not not next

99
00:30:02.159 --> 00:30:20.559
January will mean it won't happen until the January after Hector is saying that's just another that's another year lost and that's that's too much. >> So, so we can use the the landscape trust fund money from the landscape trust fund to get everything kicked off

100
00:30:20.559 --> 00:30:36.880
and get it started and get it organized. But I agree. I think he Hector has a good point. We we we asked the city manager to put it in the budget as a zero um zero dollars for this year, but then

101
00:30:36.880 --> 00:30:53.520
it's it's in the budget and he can be thinking about, you know, how we're going to fund it for next year. We may we may have to use the landscape trust fund again, but at least it's in the budget so that so that it's there looking at them every year

102
00:30:53.520 --> 00:31:13.039
and becomes part part of the budget process. >> Can I was that a Sorry. Go ahead. >> Um when I got my copy of this, I uh read it through it and um I was looking at money, thinking about money. I um uh one

103
00:31:13.039 --> 00:31:28.799
of the issues we've always had here about an arborist that there was two people that were staff members or arborists but they're so busy doing other things that they don't get time much time to do arborism. Is that the right word? I don't know. >> I'm an engineer.

104
00:31:28.799 --> 00:31:46.799
>> You commit arism. Um so um so I went and uh thought uh well I heard that this guy Jacob uh was an arborist but in the report here it doesn't call him as an arborist. It says uh development services technician. So I

105
00:31:46.799 --> 00:32:02.399
had a meeting with him and he told me that his name is misspelled. Okay. So I said so did you read it? and he said, "Well, I've know it exists and I saw it." Then you didn't catch your name

106
00:32:02.399 --> 00:32:20.159
until I showed you that his name was misspelled in it. I found two other misspellings when I read it. So, somebody may want to do a spell check. Okay. Uh but what I presented him was um uh if he doesn't have uh the time to do

107
00:32:20.159 --> 00:32:36.720
it because you're underst staffed, you're underfunded and everything. Uh, I agree with them that we need to have it in an item. We need to get it approved and then as you got this grant to do this tree thing, let's let

108
00:32:36.720 --> 00:32:53.840
the world take care of itself that if we make a plan and move forward, things may fall in place, the funding may fall in place, the place may the grant may come. Um, so I I offered to him the idea that if he he told me his credentials, he was

109
00:32:53.840 --> 00:33:11.039
a license, got a degree, he keeps his license active and so forth. So I says, "Well, what if you just did the brain work and you got an intern student to do the leg work?" So, I was thinking there's other ways

110
00:33:11.039 --> 00:33:28.399
that we can fund things and do things, but we need to put this approved and move forward as is and work out the funding. As you got this one grant, there may be more grants and more ways of getting the funding. Let's move forward on this. Put in the budget and

111
00:33:28.399 --> 00:33:45.279
fix these misspelled words. and and the idea of that maybe in the future we can get an intern arborist who's learning and going to school to be at the direction of Jacob with then would save you money but get the work done. So, I'm

112
00:33:45.279 --> 00:34:02.399
okay with slipping schedules, but if you're not committed to the program and have its timelines in like it's supposed to, like part of this year in the budget, whether you're going to put zero dollars with it or what, that we need to have it become official and a real pro a

113
00:34:02.399 --> 00:34:19.919
real legitimate program, then we can figure out what to do with time and money. So I hate to slip a year or something, but if if to slip a year before we ever do anything, that's terrible. Let's let's get it locked in and then if we have to things because we

114
00:34:19.919 --> 00:34:34.399
have fiveyear chunks, right? Five years for this chunk and five years for that chunk. So we can make adjustments in the future. So, um, that was my my idea was do you hire in turns that you could do arborous with with this guy and have him

115
00:34:34.399 --> 00:34:51.599
be the oversee of this and fix the spelling of his name? >> So, I that is an as a thought. One thing I was mentioning that this document doesn't necessarily have to be locked in stone in any form that it goes before

116
00:34:51.599 --> 00:35:09.040
council. can be a living document that you can update over time in terms of who takes what role can Jacob has the certification as an arborist but he's not the urban forester he can take parts of it and we can share parts of it and

117
00:35:09.040 --> 00:35:25.040
work toward like we are now we're currently working towards parts of these implementation plans without having a dedicated urban forester something that we're still trying to figure out um But yeah, I'm I'm I'm getting an intern. That's something that we can still take

118
00:35:25.040 --> 00:35:43.119
bites out of this plan like what you're saying and peacemail meal it. >> Well, in trying to find funds for this program long term, um since last night's meeting, the council agreed on uh um hold putting a hold on the funds for the

119
00:35:43.119 --> 00:36:00.160
feasibility uh landscape project at the different gateways. Um, initially those funds were uh not appropriated correctly just because that came out of the landscape trust fund and we realized that that those monies should be

120
00:36:00.160 --> 00:36:16.079
diverted differently. And so with that being on hold and that $78,000 available perhaps, you know, that could be used for what it's intended for to kickstart this project. >> I think we need an urban forester. I

121
00:36:16.079 --> 00:36:33.760
mean, Jacob has his own work that he that he's doing in the planning department. He I don't think he can he can't be running the forestry program and still be doing what he does as as a city planner. I mean, that's what he that's what he is. We need a dedicated

122
00:36:33.760 --> 00:36:49.760
urban forester to take a hold of the program and help us get it started. And there's $800,000 in the landscape trust fund. And so we can we can use some of that money in the landscape trust fund to hire an urban

123
00:36:49.760 --> 00:37:05.200
forester and and get this program started and you know then as time goes by we can find other funding sources. But I I don't see anything wrong with recommended to the city council that we

124
00:37:05.200 --> 00:37:20.560
take some of that money and hire an urban forester and let's get this thing going. what we said last time. Uh the motion by member Nico and seconded by myself um for the amendment was to place a request

125
00:37:20.560 --> 00:37:38.400
a line item of $100,000 to the general fund. Um member Thompson then suggested that that might be a deal breakaker for city council. Maybe perhaps a motion um entertaining using the landscape trust fund as the

126
00:37:38.400 --> 00:37:55.359
source for the first 2% per capita be requested to fund this to kick off this program starting with >> this next budget cycle. Does that make sense? >> Absolutely.

127
00:37:55.359 --> 00:38:11.440
>> You want to make another motion and Okay. Well, then I will I will make the motion then to make a line item for the uh from the landscape trust fund to kickstart off this urban forestry management plan.

128
00:38:11.440 --> 00:38:27.359
Uh these funds will be allocated hopefully to uh hire an urban forester. Um as to the actual dollar amount, I I would need some some guidance on that. Um, I only mentioned the $78,000 because that was offset last night from another

129
00:38:27.359 --> 00:38:43.119
intended project and I thought, well, that would be a good idea to use that instead of getting into the other 800,000 if that were an issue. But, um, back to my motion. Uh, >> Tree City USA recommends 2% per capita, which will put it well 2%. >> Okay.

130
00:38:43.119 --> 00:38:58.960
>> 2% of per capita is >> so using the funds from the uh, Tree City USA, the >> landscape >> landscape trust fund. >> Okay. the landscape trust fund. Uh 2% per capita >> per tree >> revenue that's made each year >> from that. >> I'll second that motion.

131
00:38:58.960 --> 00:39:14.079
>> Okay. >> Got that one figured out. >> Sorry about that. >> So that was the $2 per capita the 100,000. I think that's how that came out from the previous motion. >> That's right.

132
00:39:14.079 --> 00:39:28.960
>> Yeah. That we had at the last discussion and then >> Yeah. Laura, but but not from the general fund, just from the landscape trust fund is what you're saying. >> That's what we're saying this time. >> That's the difference. Okay. >> That's the difference. >> And yes, >> and then let's have some discussion. Yeah.

133
00:39:28.960 --> 00:39:45.520
>> Yeah. So, so the $2 per capita is just a shell game that the city plays every year by saying that they are dedicating $100,000 a year to their regular

134
00:39:45.520 --> 00:40:01.599
maintenance plan that they have to do anyway. And so this is this would be a little bit different because we would be actually dedicating $100,000 which is equal to the $2 per capita but it is actually come it it

135
00:40:01.599 --> 00:40:18.880
actually is coming from a funding source which is the landscape tree fund or land landscape trust fund. The city would still be doing the regular maintenance that they always have to do. they just won't be calling the maintenance that

136
00:40:18.880 --> 00:40:34.160
they're doing to maintain the trees in the city. They're not calling it the um um uh Tree City USA. Tree to USA would actually have a real funding source for

137
00:40:34.160 --> 00:40:49.520
the first time in history that would be coming from the landscape trust fund instead of just this shell game of saying we're spending $50,000 trimming trees and $25,000 removing trees and

138
00:40:49.520 --> 00:41:04.960
they just come up with enough items to equal the $100,000 and they turn that in every year as their $2 per capita. This would make it a separate budget item and would need a separate accounting for how how the funds would get spent. So I

139
00:41:04.960 --> 00:41:22.240
don't think they can get merged in. It shouldn't be. I know Lily. >> No, I was going to ask because the plan has a separate plan for the landscape trust fund and how that was recommended to use that money. Would you put would you sunset this at some point which in

140
00:41:22.240 --> 00:41:36.800
which you would have to find a different funding mechanism to in order to carry out the suggestions that was put in here. >> I think I think what we're looking at is just something to get started. Right now there's there's funds sitting in that fund that could be used this first

141
00:41:36.800 --> 00:41:52.800
interim year. I think following it should be done out of the general fund. That's the way other cities did it and that's the way the plan called for it. So this way there's it's a soft blow to the budget for next year because there are funds dedicated to put trees back

142
00:41:52.800 --> 00:42:08.960
into the community and we can have access to those. So to me that makes the most sense >> for Okay. So a term for a year >> sorry >> Lily. >> Yep. >> If we don't establish a line item all this is conversation

143
00:42:08.960 --> 00:42:23.359
>> right >> like it is every year. So what we need to do is establish a line item that gets funded from the source that we just talked about, >> right? >> Wait a minute. And that way it's a

144
00:42:23.359 --> 00:42:40.000
unique line item with a funding source. >> Okay? And that's how this thing is got to move forward, >> right? >> Because otherwise it's conversation. So first is establishing the line item. Okay? And we need to it has to have a

145
00:42:40.000 --> 00:42:56.680
name and then the funding source we already know what it is. That is where it's coming from and that is how it's got to show on the budget. >> Okay. >> If that doesn't happen that way it's it's conversation. >> Okay.

146
00:42:58.800 --> 00:43:15.040
>> Do you have any comments K or Mary? Since we didn't ask for cards on this topic that we're about to vote on. If you wish to make a comment, please come up. If not, we'll we'll go forward with our vote. We're not done with the landscape trust

147
00:43:15.040 --> 00:43:29.440
fund. It's just this one particular issue about the money. That's all we're talking about right now. If you're in agreement with where we are, then then that's good. >> I am in agreement. Use the landscape trust fund to get the program started.

148
00:43:29.440 --> 00:43:44.800
Yes. To hire an urban forester and get the program started. Liz said that we must have a coordinator to get started. So that's what we need. So let's use that landscape trust fund and give him a salary and get going.

149
00:43:44.800 --> 00:44:04.000
>> Okay, Mary. No. Yes. Okay. Well, any other discussion? Let's have a roll call vote, please. >> Member Young, >> yes. >> Member Berdett, >> yes. Member Delgado, >> yes.

150
00:44:04.000 --> 00:44:19.040
>> Member Nico, >> yes. >> Chairwoman Thompson, >> yes. >> Member Rosa, >> yes. >> Chairman Mek, >> yes. >> But I have an I want to hear I want to hear what everyone is voting on. We're

151
00:44:19.040 --> 00:44:35.599
voting on establishing a line item on the budget, >> right? >> Or in the budget >> for $100,000. >> And the and that is going to be funded from >> the landscape trust fund. >> Okay. We got to put >> initially. Yes, >> we got to put labels otherwise it's going to get diluted. >> Okay.

152
00:44:35.599 --> 00:44:51.760
>> Okay. So, it's got to be a straightforward thing. If we don't establish the line item, nothing happens. >> So, Lori, you can read it back to us. So, make sure >> Okay. So Lori, that's I think that's what everyone was voting on was the establishment of the line item in the

153
00:44:51.760 --> 00:45:10.560
present budget going forward that is funded by the tree fund. Everybody okay? >> All right. So your vote stands >> and Brad, >> this is for the upcoming fiscal year, correct? >> Yes. Yes.

154
00:45:10.560 --> 00:45:27.280
>> Yeah. It would be nice if I can walk them back, but that's another argument. >> We can't go back to last last summer. >> So, I have a question. >> The the the the city council workshop

155
00:45:27.280 --> 00:45:48.319
that they kept referring to last night that's coming up at the end of the month. Is that open to the public or is that a private workshop for the city council? Um, I am not certain at this point on that, but if they're planning on discussing

156
00:45:48.319 --> 00:46:07.319
any items that might come before them in future council meetings pursuant to Sunshine Law, it would be required to be public. >> So, when and where is it? >> You talking about the retreat? >> Mhm. We'll have to find out for you.

157
00:46:07.839 --> 00:46:33.680
Okay. Well, back to the landscape trust fund. With regards to um the page, the first page you handed us out, Lily, in the bottom corner, you talk about storm water credit. Um and you want the TEC to clarify the rationale for the

158
00:46:33.680 --> 00:46:49.599
recommendation. Um I had mentioned Vinnie Tarantio Toronto rather um and the work that he did in India Atlantic. I just got those materials yesterday. I have not had a chance to review them, but I think that they will provide a

159
00:46:49.599 --> 00:47:04.960
good foundation for why we need to be doing like they're doing and putting swailes and rain gardens everywhere we can in the city to help control storm water. >> Yeah, I did reach out to him about giving that presentation as well. I haven't heard back yet. Okay, but that's

160
00:47:04.960 --> 00:47:19.839
that's kind of the gist of it is if we're putting in swailes and rain gardens then then we have the chance the opportunity to plant trees to increase our urban forest. And that goes hand inand with storm water and forest. And that's why I thought this was important

161
00:47:19.839 --> 00:47:36.720
because that's also why I handed this book out last week, the uh storm water to street trees program that's put out by EPA, right? and and they have a whole list in here of the benefits that trees have in storm water and not the least of

162
00:47:36.720 --> 00:47:52.400
which it reduces the throughfall because it catches on the leaves and stuff. You know, um the interception factor is is not to be ignored and we don't the way our system is structured right now for the way we're managing storm water and paying for storm water fees, it doesn't

163
00:47:52.400 --> 00:48:07.680
lend itself to to improvements of this magnitude where we could really benefit in the storm water side. and at the same side grow the shade and the canopy and increase the air quality and etc etc. So the fact that it's you guys tossed it

164
00:48:07.680 --> 00:48:25.520
aside I'm I would I would agree with making this a living document even though we didn't author it. I'm I'm a bit concerned about that in some degree because um you know it doesn't take a very a bad chemist can can really mess up a very good you know so I don't know

165
00:48:25.520 --> 00:48:42.559
that that's necessarily a good thing. I think having the plan and then working the plan is what we need to be doing. Um the plan as it's written sets us up for a fiveyear cycle where each cycle you create a new five-year outlook and a

166
00:48:42.559 --> 00:48:58.720
five-year plan and that is part of what the whole first year is going to be to develop. But I don't think thinking this is going to be a living document is the right solution. I think this is the plan and the implementation the instance of

167
00:48:58.720 --> 00:49:16.000
this document is what we need to be working on living and that's where we need an arborist and all the other people involved. So I'm I'm disappointed that you didn't consider more but I will provide that information and I hope we can get Vinnie here this summer. Um is

168
00:49:16.000 --> 00:49:33.680
there any possibility that I can zoom into our meetings when we're eating when I'm in Maine? I can I can try right now. >> Okay. >> We have the technology and I got a fiber optic to the cabin.

169
00:49:33.680 --> 00:49:48.559
So, I don't think that's going to be a problem anymore. So, >> you can watch it on YouTube and text us. >> You can watch it on YouTube anywhere. I just can't talk because >> you can text us.

170
00:49:48.559 --> 00:50:04.960
So, I guess we're going to have some cards maybe on the urban on the landscape uh management plan. >> You want to continue just >> you want to Okay, let's go back and finish talking and then we'll >> Lily on on the first one that you gave us

171
00:50:04.960 --> 00:50:21.359
uh that starts with species and native requirements on the first line. The staff reply was was fine except for one word uh at the 75 maintaining flexibility for

172
00:50:21.359 --> 00:50:39.599
appropriate non native species yet on the TEC suggested size. >> Yeah, >> it's the same it's the same number except for flexibility for select non-native >> and that would be in the remaining 25%. Hector, >> I don't know. I understand. But which

173
00:50:39.599 --> 00:50:54.960
but who who selects? >> Mhm. >> The urban forester and then us, I guess. I mean, we're the tree board. >> Okay. If if you look at the staff reply versus the TEC suggested edit.

174
00:50:54.960 --> 00:51:12.800
Okay. Uh the the the on the staff side, I have a feeling that that's where the selection is going to happen. staff's going to do the selective >> or someone in planning or someone in

175
00:51:12.800 --> 00:51:30.000
zoning or some place like that. >> I thought we came up with a an approved plant list and then it's up to the developer to choose what plants of what type go where. And as long as he meets a 75% native requirement, then that leaves

176
00:51:30.000 --> 00:51:46.960
in 25% for anything else appropriate or off the plant list. Let's say that, right? >> And and that and that approved plant list is 70 or I mean 67% native. So they've got 33% of non-native

177
00:51:46.960 --> 00:52:06.079
that are on the approved plant list to choose from. >> How much more do you need? That's more than 25%. It is not in my case it is not the percentage this 25% no matter what >> but who makes a selection

178
00:52:06.079 --> 00:52:23.119
what what is appropriate and who selects who selects the appropriate >> I guess it depend on what they're doing but it would ultimately be the urban forester who's managing the plan. So, it's like if they're planning in the park and they have to do 75% native, but

179
00:52:23.119 --> 00:52:37.440
some people want fruit trees, then they would pick which fruit trees. >> I understand the fruit trees. >> Yeah. >> Skip that. Go back to the selection of words. Okay. Uh on the suggested size,

180
00:52:37.440 --> 00:52:54.720
it says flexibility for select native species. Okay. while allowing for select non-native. That means that there is a list of select non-natives.

181
00:52:54.720 --> 00:53:10.400
>> On the other side, you have just the word appropriate and it doesn't qualify where they're coming from. >> It's amorphous, nebulous. >> Yeah. >> It's not finite. >> So, you want to change the word appropriate. >> Well, who who decides what's appropriate

182
00:53:10.400 --> 00:53:24.640
now? So, we just kick the ball down the road again. Whereas the select gets back to the list of trees that we've already identified in our urban forest. >> You cut on to where I was going. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> Okay. >> So, you want to you want to substitute

183
00:53:24.640 --> 00:53:43.119
the word select for I mean appropriate for the word select. You want to take out the word appropriate and put select. >> That's what we think. And and we're implying that select would come from the 33% of non-native trees that are in our

184
00:53:43.119 --> 00:54:00.079
landscape technical manual, >> right? >> As outlined in Maybe you can even write that in as outlined in the technical man. >> If I need a Ouija board to do this, then I fail. It's got to be clear and appropriate is a selection of the universe.

185
00:54:00.079 --> 00:54:15.280
>> That's right. It's it's >> so if that if everybody's happy with that then just know that >> that's what you're agreeing to >> and select is out of is out of the picture. >> Comment from staff >> and again I'm looking for comments from anybody.

186
00:54:15.280 --> 00:54:32.559
>> I think this for for me was it's an exercise to try and clarify what I heard that day and the reason the openness was discussed was because of fruit trees. I think the intent of this line item is just in the plan to change it from 50 to

187
00:54:32.559 --> 00:54:48.319
75 then ultimately what it's gonna end up applying as but for if you want me to change this I don't think this is going to make it into the plan is what I'm saying. >> Okay. Again it's to me it's clarity of what is

188
00:54:48.319 --> 00:55:04.720
being asked. That's all. If somebody somebody's building something, they need to know, can I just go to Lowe's and buy 25% of something? >> That's typically done with a landscape plan. They prove it with the species that's listed on the landscape plan and

189
00:55:04.720 --> 00:55:21.440
a placement of that. We review that and we verify. So there's a threshold they have to meet 50% whatever that is. >> Okay. >> 50% of those species have to be selected as native. >> And so stated. >> Yeah. And that's >> and so stated. >> Well, what this is a this is a policy. This is just a summary of your

190
00:55:21.440 --> 00:55:37.960
discussion of what you're recommending to be changed in here and this as a change in the recommendations of this plan. >> I understand >> if this is adopted then we'll make changes to the code accordingly if this is adopted. >> Okay.

191
00:55:39.359 --> 00:55:57.920
>> I just thought I'd bring it up for discussion. >> Anybody else? >> Yeah. on the species diversity requirement. Um, it said that the TEC suggested eliminating the species diversity requirement. I don't think we

192
00:55:57.920 --> 00:56:15.520
we we were not happy with the percentages. I I we have to have species diversity. I mean, you can't just plant all the same tree, but and I think you have to look at the neighborhoods where they are and

193
00:56:15.520 --> 00:56:32.720
plant the trees that are going to survive in in the soil type. Like you wouldn't, right, >> you wouldn't be planting cypress trees down on South Barn Avenue in near the well field because they wouldn't survive. But but I don't think it was our intent

194
00:56:32.720 --> 00:56:48.240
to eliminate the species diversity. We just we just weren't happy with that 10 20 30% um >> thing which has appeared numerous times in the document still. We'd like to see

195
00:56:48.240 --> 00:57:07.599
that 10 20 30% suggestion removed. >> Yeah, >> sure can. Come on up. Um, I looked it up. The 10 2030 urban forest diversity guideline originates

196
00:57:07.599 --> 00:57:23.200
from US National Arborum researcher Frank Santamore 1990 urban forestry recommendations developed in response to catastrophic losses from Dutch elm disease and similar pest outbreaks. The guideline is intended to improve urban

197
00:57:23.200 --> 00:57:40.079
forest resilience by avoiding over reliance on closely related tree taxes. Although widely adopted as an industry standard, the percentages are considered management targets rather than empirically derived scientific thresholds. So it's it's just a rule of

198
00:57:40.079 --> 00:57:57.280
thumb. The TW 10 2030 species diversity requirement in the urban forest management plan in my opinion needs to be adjusted to accommodate the role of the live oaks in providing tree canopy and supporting wildlife in Titusville. Yes, we need to plant when we get to

199
00:57:57.280 --> 00:58:14.799
planting. We need to provide diversity. We need I team always chose two different trees to plant at any given time. So, we got free live oaks, but we would have to buy the other alternative. But we always found a donation so that we would have two choices, two two

200
00:58:14.799 --> 00:58:30.559
different plantings. But southern live oaks live for two centuries and up to a thousand years old, and they can stand up to brutal winds and thrive in various soil types. A professional arborist can catch the problems before they turn into live oak diseases and save you from

201
00:58:30.559 --> 00:58:47.119
having to replace valuable live oaks. The problem is too few dedicated arborists on staff. That is the problem. So I I did some research on the various diseases that oak trees can have. Most of them are related to funguses. And over and over

202
00:58:47.119 --> 00:59:03.599
again it says a comprehensive tree health care program with an arborist uh addressing you know the pruning and and and putting sealant on the cuts and everything could practically eliminate most of their problems. So limitating

203
00:59:03.599 --> 00:59:20.640
Titusville limiting Titusville southern live oaks to 10 2030 rule of thumb is not the answer to reducing pest and disease outbreaks in this long live canopy tree. What is needed is a professional arborist or an urban forester to manage these canopies for

204
00:59:20.640 --> 00:59:36.160
the city's urban forest. So yes, keep providing diversity. Plant more than one thing in one in a given location. um but don't have as a goal to limit live oak trees in Titusville. That's

205
00:59:36.160 --> 00:59:52.960
what this 10 2030 policy is proposing proposing that they actually plant so as to limit the amount of live oaks that we already have and I do not think that's a good idea. So, thank you for listening.

206
00:59:52.960 --> 01:00:10.400
>> Thank you, K. Member Delgado, your lights on. >> Oh, sorry. I'm good. Okay. Anybody else? Anything else? Are we done with the U

207
01:00:10.400 --> 01:00:36.400
urban forest master plan? >> What do you guys want to do? >> Wait for the next version. >> You want to just table it? I need a motion. It's coming before city council whether we table it or not.

208
01:00:36.400 --> 01:00:50.880
>> Are we going to see the the um Liz's next version before it goes to the city council on the 9th or will we all see it at the same time? >> We can share it with you when we receive the version from her before it's published.

209
01:00:50.880 --> 01:01:08.720
And and then would it be advisable if we if we still see things that need to be addressed? Do you want us to come to the city council and present those or just keep quiet and

210
01:01:08.720 --> 01:01:25.520
just let Liz do a presentation and then we can work on it behind the scenes which is probably better than all of us showing up and going you didn't do this, you didn't do that and we don't like this and we don't like that. So >> I I understand you can send us comments

211
01:01:25.520 --> 01:01:41.920
in a letter or an email. >> Uh you can call us. We'd be happy to meet with you before that June 9th meeting to go over any concerns you may have or questions or you can show up at that June 9th meeting as well individually and bring your concerns or questions or suggestions to the city council.

212
01:01:41.920 --> 01:01:57.680
So outside of this meeting, we'll take whatever motions or recommendations you have as a collective body tonight and bring those to city council as representation from TEC, but it certainly doesn't prevent you from going there individually and presenting any suggestions you may have. Um, so it's

213
01:01:57.680 --> 01:02:14.000
it's we don't want to make a recommendation to you as to what to do, but that's these are your options. We would we would certainly like to take any kind of written comments from you if possible before that date >> because we would like to evaluate them and see how we can address them in any

214
01:02:14.000 --> 01:02:30.079
way. and and that would probably be a good idea if we just send their comments to you and and then you can evaluate them and you can you can say at the city council meeting, well, we got the following suggestions from the TEC and and I think that would be better than us

215
01:02:30.079 --> 01:02:45.520
showing up individually. >> What we'll do is we'll take recommendations you have formally tonight and say those are the recommendations of TC. any additional recommend any suggestions you have or comments individually on the draft that we present to you or send to you will we

216
01:02:45.520 --> 01:03:00.240
can certainly share those with city council but they will be your individual comments. Um we would like to share those with the consultant so she's prepared to be able to have some kind of answers if possible before the June 9th meeting. That would be really helpful for her.

217
01:03:00.240 --> 01:03:18.799
So I think that before we end the discussion on on the um the land the forest we should go over these two sheets of paper item by item and make sure that we're in agreement with staff's reply and the um you know the

218
01:03:18.799 --> 01:03:34.720
suggested ed edits and the consultants replies. I think I think we should go over these, you know, box by box and make sure because that's going to be the basis of um, you know, the start for what you're going to say to the

219
01:03:34.720 --> 01:03:55.280
consultant. So, I I think we should spend more time on it rather than just >> All right, >> I'm game with that >> guys, too. All right, >> so item one Yeah, we already did that one. You

220
01:03:55.280 --> 01:04:10.160
understand the difference between So, in fact, we might want to put that it's that the species are in the in the tech manual that it's select species from the tech manual. >> That's I

221
01:04:10.160 --> 01:04:26.799
trying to move on to number two after we clarify number one. It's another fishbone diagram. one then two then three. Okay. Species diversity requirement.

222
01:04:26.799 --> 01:04:42.720
We didn't. We talked about that. >> We did. And I'm I'm okay with staff's reply there. I mean, they're saying remove the thresholds in the mandatory language. So, but maintain >> the goal and importance of species diversity.

223
01:04:42.720 --> 01:05:01.039
>> Yes. consistent because it says, you know, that species diversity rank high from the community survey. So, I think this addresses all of that. >> Okay. Any other comments on that before we move on? >> Okay,

224
01:05:01.039 --> 01:05:17.920
back to storm water credit. We've got to work this in here somehow. Yeah, that one I think I actually pulled from Mary's worksheet list summary of um asking why that was included, but I wasn't super clear on the exact >> I had asked for it a couple of months

225
01:05:17.920 --> 01:05:33.760
ago. >> That's that's where I think it originated. Um and that's what prompted me to get this EPA document, you know, this on storm water trees to storm water and how beneficial they are. And I just thought combining with what what Denny did and what they showed in the COC

226
01:05:33.760 --> 01:05:49.359
meeting that um this is it's a philosophy change that we may want to adopt because it provides it the lowest cost possible way of dealing with excess storm water. >> So you're okay with leaving the storm water credit requirement in the plan as is?

227
01:05:49.359 --> 01:06:05.280
>> Yeah, I think we should leave us some kind of credit. Yeah. I don't don't know what that's going to look like yet. There are all kinds of dry swailes all over town that don't have a single tree anywhere near them. And we could there's so much opportunity where we could plant

228
01:06:05.280 --> 01:06:22.160
trees, you know, close to the dry swailes. >> It's not just the trees. >> But but you want to create more swailes, but understand that those swailes are on private property. They're not on city property. uh those that the the city of Titusville swell ordinance if I

229
01:06:22.160 --> 01:06:39.359
understand it says that you must retain a percentage of the water of your property on your property. >> Yes. >> And therefore those swells are on private property. >> So >> we're talking about in the rightway Hector. >> Okay. The swells in the rightway should

230
01:06:39.359 --> 01:06:55.280
be very clear that should be on the rightway. >> Correct. And then the tree issue is next on the right ofway >> and and the utilities issue in the >> and utilities because you don't want to be doing them where there's utilities. >> Well, there's a utility corridor that is going to happen no matter what. >> That's right.

231
01:06:55.280 --> 01:07:11.359
>> No matter what trees or no trees, it's going to happen. >> Okay. Then there's and part of it is electrical, part of it is cable now with fiber optic and and then and then water and sewer and gas.

232
01:07:11.359 --> 01:07:28.319
And so that that is part of that. But the swell issue is only on if we're only dealing on city property, then it's a different issue than what was just discussed about. There are a lot of swells in the city, but none of them have trees. None of

233
01:07:28.319 --> 01:07:45.520
them have trees because the gardeners don't like them. It's as simple as that. It's hard to do a swell mowing the lawn. It's it's just hard. And so therefore, that's part of the issue. But that's a separate issue alto together,

234
01:07:45.520 --> 01:08:03.039
you know. So which one do we want to tackle? The the public land or the or the private land? Those are not the same. >> No, they're not. But I think we can do both. I think we can do in as as defined

235
01:08:03.039 --> 01:08:20.000
in the utility lines where there aren't utilities I should say. >> Oh yeah. >> Where we have access from right away. That's the only place that they were doing it in Indian Harbor and they managed to find enough to store over a million gallons in

236
01:08:20.000 --> 01:08:36.400
relatively short order just doing half of the the available swailes that they have. Well, you know, anyway, it's it's something to be considered. I think it's it's >> I understand I'm all good for it, but it also may mean better planning for the right way. In other words, >> right,

237
01:08:36.400 --> 01:08:52.319
>> put a wider >> Yeah. >> Well, right away, >> there's another >> in order to to take care of trees. >> Exactly. To leave a place to plant trees because the way things are designed right now, you don't have we don't have enough space on private property to put

238
01:08:52.319 --> 01:09:14.159
oak trees. >> You know that, right? Yeah, >> everybody. >> Brad, how are we going to fix that? >> Yeah, I know. Even the crate murders get get a bad rep.

239
01:09:14.159 --> 01:09:28.400
>> I mean, what you're talking about always sounds it sounds to me like it's a a code change. So, whatever your recommendation is, council accept it. will look into it. >> Mary,

240
01:09:28.400 --> 01:09:46.400
please come up the microphone. >> Mary's bar Kogo. Um is she uh Lily just said that she drew that um about um the credit uh like a extra credit for uh integrating

241
01:09:46.400 --> 01:10:03.760
um you know the the storm water with um the tree planting. And my point last time was we need to put this in a separate

242
01:10:03.760 --> 01:10:23.040
uh ordinance or tech manual uh place, not in what is to be used by developers. um to um in in the tree ordinance to

243
01:10:23.040 --> 01:10:41.040
establish uh the required tree canopy area. So this is a separate thing that I I had no clue why uh she was talking about extra credit. Now maybe she's talking about

244
01:10:41.040 --> 01:10:59.840
like in the LI ordinance, something like that. that would certainly work, >> right? >> And okay, so that's the, you know, I I think what we need to avoid is to be I mean, smart, is not to mess

245
01:10:59.840 --> 01:11:16.640
with the historical tree ordinance, unless you got a real good reason for the urban forestry program. >> We're not going to mention that ordinance. >> Yeah. So, be careful about that extra credit, you know. Um, and the other

246
01:11:16.640 --> 01:11:32.480
thing I um >> I'm thinking not extra credit in the terms of they get a discount on their storm water bill. >> Oh, >> that's what I'm thinking. >> Oh, okay. See, >> but you put in a rain garden in our in our uh you know, rightway and you let us put some trees. Yeah, that's a little discount.

247
01:11:32.480 --> 01:11:47.679
>> See, that would that wouldn't be in the tree ordinance. >> No, that's why I'm saying no one's talking about that. >> Okay. Sorry. >> Don't talk about that. And then on the back page there's a specific thing you know that says create the separate urban forestry ordinance >> right >> in the future

248
01:11:47.679 --> 01:12:04.320
>> for ordinance revision concepts rather than modifying the existing tree ordinance. >> So it's it's year >> that's good at 75. I would suggest that when you're talking about the 75%

249
01:12:04.320 --> 01:12:22.080
natives, you put the word minimum before 75%. I mean, I have a native yard and I actually lost nothing. I was shocked that the

250
01:12:22.080 --> 01:12:39.199
last of the stuff came back during the freeze there. So, if you can just say minimum 75%. Then they won't have to have to be looking at um you know the the technical

251
01:12:39.199 --> 01:12:59.600
manual where you got all all these species and try to find 25% non-native. >> Yeah. So, with regards to species native requirement, we're back to that one again. In addition to select non-native

252
01:12:59.600 --> 01:13:16.040
species, as my buddy here likes to say, coming from the tech manual, we will add and recommend a minimum of 75% native. Right. >> Is everybody in agreement with that? >> Okay.

253
01:13:16.400 --> 01:13:38.760
Okay. Got that one. And then um >> I think Lily has extra copies, Mary, if you want a copy of that. >> Oh, >> now we know who's hoarding. >> Yep. He's been hanging. He's been holding out on you, Mary.

254
01:13:41.120 --> 01:14:43.280
>> We can share. So, what's your brothers? What do we do? >> Discuss. Motion. Go home. What? >> We have the back page. >> Oh, we didn't finish that. >> You're only halfway done. >> Oh, dear. Thought I was there. I don't disagree with staff's

255
01:14:43.280 --> 01:15:01.360
recommendation on this one. >> No, but you could we also add So, you're encouraging future evaluation and consideration. Could could there be um incentives also added to that

256
01:15:01.360 --> 01:15:23.360
list of stuff? So in in encourages future evaluation, consideration, comma, and incentives rather than prescriptive implementation. What what would those incentives look like?

257
01:15:23.360 --> 01:15:39.840
>> I don't know. But we have incentives in in our LIID ordinance. >> Maybe something like you suggested, Mike, a bioail planting trees and >> something like that. >> Yeah. I mean, yeah, it could be that simple. >> It sure can. >> You know, anything that gets deep deepseated roots into the ground is

258
01:15:39.840 --> 01:15:56.640
going to help water penetrate deeper and and you know, so that's also helps with carbon sequestration, which is something else we can put into our metrics. I I'd like to see the incentives put in there, too. >> Okay.

259
01:15:56.640 --> 01:16:12.560
>> That agreeable with everybody? >> Agreeable with Brad and Lily >> and Brad and Lily? >> Yeah. So, it's just future evaluation, consideration, and incentives rather than prescriptive implementation. >> And you're looking at incentives beyond

260
01:16:12.560 --> 01:17:22.800
storm water including carbon, other etc. >> Yeah. This isn't for instance. It was just off the top of my head, but I'm sure there's some other things that we can come up with. >> Okay. Next. last. Hector.

261
01:17:22.800 --> 01:17:38.679
>> Yes. The question I have on the penalties, is that during construction? Is that preconstruction? Uh, or is that the life of the where the tree is?

262
01:17:38.960 --> 01:17:55.840
I I couldn't >> Where are you? You're on a different page than us, right? >> Yeah, he moved on. >> Oh, we're not done with this. >> We're not done. Okay, I'll wait for that. >> We have one more one more block. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Which I'm okay. >> I'm I'm okay with that block, too.

263
01:17:55.840 --> 01:18:15.280
>> Yeah. I thought we had to talk about >> the length and number of recommendations. Yeah. >> Are we okay with that? We move on. >> I'm okay with that. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, >> down there. You guys okay with with Okay, then we're on to So, which side are we on now? Staff

264
01:18:15.280 --> 01:18:39.199
recommendation. >> Okay. Tree removal, enforcement, and penalties. >> I know in Tampa they like to charge you a lot for trees that you take down if you don't have permission.

265
01:18:39.199 --> 01:18:54.640
Yeah, >> most cities, >> most cities do. >> Corills, >> Florida, they make a lot of money out of it. >> So, do we not have any policy right now for >> currently uh unpermitted removal of trees goes to code enforcement. It's

266
01:18:54.640 --> 01:19:11.040
considered an irreparable fine and under section 16209 Florida statutes, we're permitted to charge up to $5,000. Um, typically, we did two of these on Monday actually at the hearing. typically uh codes recommendations to start at 5,000 and then the violator will go up

267
01:19:11.040 --> 01:19:29.280
and offer some sort of mitigating evidence if they have any. So the two cases from Monday, one resulted in a penalty of 2,500 and the other of 1,500. I was thinking of that that uh a mobile home park that was sold in uh in Tampa

268
01:19:29.280 --> 01:19:46.560
if if I recall u 18 units and when the guy bought it the first thing he did was took down 29 live oak trees and I think his bill was well over $250,000 because they charged him not just per tree but also by the size of the tree at

269
01:19:46.560 --> 01:20:03.360
that breast height and maybe we could look into doing something like that make it more penalty oriented to remove them. >> Under the statute, 5,000 is the maximum that code can um charge per violation. Uh it is kind of mixed whether or not

270
01:20:03.360 --> 01:20:19.360
code is bringing these per tree or if multiple trees are on the same property if that's one violation. I've kind of seen that go both ways. So there could be some potential in clarifying per tree counts as one violation. 5,000 saw it. >> Yeah. Each tree they're separate beings. So, >> one of the other things I've had on my

271
01:20:19.360 --> 01:20:35.679
list to start researching is also as a penalty retroactively making them apply for a permit because then the mitigation provisions would kick in. So, you know, if we get the money from the the code penalty, that money goes into general fund. You don't get any new trees planted. But if you could find a way to retroactively make them apply for the

272
01:20:35.679 --> 01:20:50.960
permit, they might then have to undertake some mitigation, replanting, something like that. >> Put the money put the money back in the tree fund. >> Should go in the tree fund immediately. makes it's a violation. >> I mean, I realize code enforcement has a

273
01:20:50.960 --> 01:21:06.640
lot to oversee within the city. Is there can be some coordination between the urban forester and code enforcement to make sure that these kinds of things are overseeing consistently because that's what I would see they're lacking. You know, >> they'll be in our tree inventory, right?

274
01:21:06.640 --> 01:21:22.400
>> We're going to have a tree inventory. If all of a sudden a tree is missing, you know, it's kind of like a star going out. Where'd it go? You know, it's >> I mean, I would look to our our new urban forester to really kind of be the lead on that and then use code enforcement as a backup. >> I concur.

275
01:21:22.400 --> 01:21:41.600
>> Yeah. >> Are you referring to a developer cutting down a tree >> without permission? Is that >> I have no idea what >> the code provisions apply to any individual in the city. developer, resident, homeowner, anybody who removes

276
01:21:41.600 --> 01:22:00.800
a tree without a permit is subject to those provisions. >> There is an exemption in Florida statutes um for actively used residential properties if the homeowner obtains a letter from a certified arborist beforehand. But other than

277
01:22:00.800 --> 01:22:15.280
that, the city is permitted to require um permits for any tree removal. Do they require permit to take down a tree on your home site? Don't think so.

278
01:22:15.280 --> 01:22:31.679
>> I I'm fairly certain the code does. Yes, >> I would certainly like to see that because they're taking them down right and left of my neighborhood. they don't have any permits, >> which is why I bring the point up to make sure that there's communication between the new urban forester and code enforcement because I'm not so sure that

279
01:22:31.679 --> 01:22:47.280
code enforcement is always looking for that or even following up when that happens. >> Yeah, I agree with Kay. I see it all over the place as far as trees coming down without permits, >> live oaks. >> Yeah.

280
01:22:47.280 --> 01:23:04.560
>> Brad, is can you clarify that please? Is there a law that says that A resident cannot must have a permit. >> Section 30-39 of the code says, "No person, organization, society, association, or corporation, or any agent or representative thereof directly

281
01:23:04.560 --> 01:23:21.280
or indirectly shall cut down, destroy, remove, or move, or effectively destroy through damaging any tree prior to the issuance of a permit by the city of Titusville, unless such removal is preempted by state or federal regulation, >> which David has already mentioned of the state preeemption on that." So, they

282
01:23:21.280 --> 01:23:36.960
would have to clarify with a letter from an arbor stating that that tree can't be removed or should be removed because of some issue related to it. They can't do that. Then they'll have to get a permit from the city. >> Does that permit need to be or the letter from the arborist need to be

283
01:23:36.960 --> 01:23:54.080
before the tree was taken down? >> Yeah, they don't have to get after. >> So, if he comes up with a letter afterwards, it's not >> Yes, the preemptions located in section 163045 Florida statutes. Um it says local government may not require a permit for pruning, trimming or removal

284
01:23:54.080 --> 01:24:08.560
of a tree on a residential property if the property owner possesses documentation from an arborist certified by the ISA or Florida licensed landscape that the tree poses an unacceptable risk to persons or property. >> Okay. >> But if the tree is healthy, they don't

285
01:24:08.560 --> 01:24:26.639
need >> they would. Yes. >> You still would need >> under section 30-39 of code of ordinances. Yes. I know. >> Okay. Well, you have a reason to go meet your neighbor again. >> Yeah. >> Well, you could imagine what our

286
01:24:26.639 --> 01:24:44.159
landscape trust fund would be today. >> Yeah. Oh, yeah. >> And so, how many of these cases a week from code enforcements do they go to legal >> like as far as the tree removal cases? >> I've been here since December and I've seen three of them.

287
01:24:44.159 --> 01:25:00.639
>> Oh, okay. >> May has owned the job. >> Yeah. Three. Yeah. Three. >> Three. Well, >> those things they they found wrong. >> Sent to legal >> sent to legal three three. >> So when your neighbor cuts down a tree

288
01:25:00.639 --> 01:25:15.760
code enforcement, they'll find them. >> Is what you're saying? >> If they find probable cause of code violation, they they may. Yes. >> Turning in my neighbors right. >> It's unfortunate you can't do it

289
01:25:15.760 --> 01:25:36.719
anonymously anymore, can you? It >> does. >> So, so how do I check to see if someone has a permit? >> I'm not sure that those are publicly posted. I think building permits are, but I'm not sure about tree removal permits. >> Yeah, it's public record. We can

290
01:25:36.719 --> 01:25:52.239
>> public records. I can >> So, you Google it or something. But we don't have that kind of capability up online. But if you have a specific property in mind, we could look up the record on that particular property to see what permits have been. >> Well, on my street, four four houses on my street cleared their trees completely

291
01:25:52.239 --> 01:26:08.400
off. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, four properties have no trees now at all on that property. Okay. So, that means somebody gave four permits for this. >> I don't know, sir. You have to ask us. Tell us what we can research those.

292
01:26:08.400 --> 01:26:22.480
Yeah. Huh? >> Do we contact code enforcement about such questions or do we contact you directly? Who who do the general public? Who should they contact? >> They call community development.

293
01:26:22.480 --> 01:26:39.360
>> Community development. Okay. >> So if your neighbors are knocking down trees, call community development. >> Yeah. You can drive. >> Did you want >> you want to continue with this or you >> I love the view of the river I have now

294
01:26:39.360 --> 01:26:55.840
because they took down all the trees. >> So, I thank them. But they're going to build a house there. >> They're going to build a mansion there and you will be able to see less of the river than than you did before they took down the existing house and all the trees.

295
01:26:55.840 --> 01:27:11.600
But we'll be able to see the sun. >> Well, it depends. If they go to the 10 or 15 story limit, then you know, it could could be later in the day. All right, let's let's get back on topic. Anything else on tree removal?

296
01:27:11.600 --> 01:27:37.440
>> I'm still trying to digest. >> Okay. member Nico, you have your light on. >> Well, I I just wanted to touch on this tree removal situation. I mean, I think it's really really important because it's going on all the time all around us and I can't imagine

297
01:27:37.440 --> 01:27:53.760
that, you know, if the landscape trust fund is not increasing exponentially, then these people aren't getting permits. And so in the new urban forestry management plan, I would really, and if I've just if I've said this already, I just want to emphasize to have some kind of process in place to

298
01:27:53.760 --> 01:28:10.159
make sure that if there are any tree removals that maybe the new urban forester would be the go-to person to communicate that. >> Let me just clarify how the urban forest trust fund works. It's not someone on a residential property or commercial property gets a permit to remove a tree, particularly if it's unsafe, and we

299
01:28:10.159 --> 01:28:25.520
issue that permit for them to remove it. >> Okay? They don't automatically go submit money into the trust fund. >> Okay. >> Uh that's just paying for a permit. >> Sure. >> If they trust fund works only when there's a development coming in and they have to clear out trees, we calculate

300
01:28:25.520 --> 01:28:42.080
what that caliber is or a DBH is whatever that measurement is. And then if they have to plant replacement trees or vegetation onto their property per landscape plan, if they are unable to accommodate that difference is what's contributed to the trust fund. that. >> So, it's not it's related to

301
01:28:42.080 --> 01:28:58.000
development. >> Correct. If I understand this, but with the ensuing development going on here, I would imagine there are a lot of trees that have been long-standing that, you know, could main could conceivably stay there if the developer didn't remove them. So, that's where we would be

302
01:28:58.000 --> 01:29:13.920
gaining more revenue in our trust fund for this. So, >> I I can't answer that. All I can say is that if they are meeting the code requirement, we have to issue a site development permit. Do you have any kind of um oversight with the the people who are removing trees, the companies that

303
01:29:13.920 --> 01:29:30.159
are removing the trees? Do we we have oversight only as far as they submit like a a developer will ask will have an engineer of record submit a a site plan to us for review and it will include uh most likely a landscape architect or an

304
01:29:30.159 --> 01:29:45.520
arborist or whoever professional they have on their staff or on their team uh to submit a landscape plan and a tree mitigation plan to us. We review that consistent with the code if they are able to make they're proposing to remove a certain number of trees or types of

305
01:29:45.520 --> 01:30:03.840
trees or size of trees and they're able to do the replacement per the landscape code to get and then get a landscape plan approved with their site plan without having to mitigate anything. That's possible. >> Okay. >> Well, I don't know that my neighbor got a permit.

306
01:30:03.840 --> 01:30:22.239
>> He said that uh he didn't want He's new. who just bought the house and he didn't want his wife digging the leaves out of the swimming pool, so he killed the trees. Member Bett, um I know the uh size of the tree has been talked about quite a

307
01:30:22.239 --> 01:30:38.159
bit with um the fines and such. Has there been any thought as to adding anything about historic value of a tree? uh such as if it's above a certain amount of age or has some sort of

308
01:30:38.159 --> 01:30:58.159
historical significance. >> So you're talking about a um a tree designated as basically a landmark, a historic landmark. Yeah. >> Right. So we do have a process for that. We do not currently have any trees that are identified on the city's local register of historic resources,

309
01:30:58.159 --> 01:31:13.520
>> but that there is a process to allow for that. >> Okay. But the the consultant is is recommending that you know you could base it on the um diameter breast height inch inches

310
01:31:13.520 --> 01:31:32.000
which would cover big huge trees and she is recommending payment into the landscape trust fund. So you know that that could be something we could work on you know. Yeah, >> because right now the the fines just go

311
01:31:32.000 --> 01:31:48.480
into the general fund. Is that right, David? >> That's my understanding. All code enforcement penalties go into the general fund. >> So where trees are concerned, we could recommend that those penalties go into the landscape trust fund. >> Yep, I would.

312
01:31:48.480 --> 01:32:05.040
>> That's a good recommendation. I see a lot of nodding heads. You you want to make that as a motion? Well, it's it's in the consultant reply in the in the top boxes. I mean, >> oh, do you want to tell them that? >> Yeah, but it's not in the code. >> It's not in the code is right.

313
01:32:05.040 --> 01:32:20.880
>> But but this this would be something that we would work on. >> It's not in the line item budget either. >> Wait, so to clarify, you're keeping the consultant's recommendation as is to put that payment into the landscape trust fund. >> Yes.

314
01:32:20.880 --> 01:32:38.239
>> Okay. >> Yes. I mean, if a tree comes down, then the recompense for it should go to the landscape trust fund. >> Right. >> Can I ask a question about that? >> Please get the microphone so you can they can hear you because they can't

315
01:32:38.239 --> 01:32:53.120
hear you outside of here. >> I have the tree ordinance in my hand. And so it says section 3039. You have to have a permit. Okay. So, my neighbor cut down two trees in the front of their house um three months ago. Can I call

316
01:32:53.120 --> 01:33:10.159
code enforcement now? How soon do you have to call code enforcement while the tree remover is there? >> The statute of limitations on trees. >> Yes, >> the statute of limitations provisions are kind of strange with code enforcement actions because they're not

317
01:33:10.159 --> 01:33:32.719
technically legal proceedings. Um, if you made a report that would then be something that code would likely with myself discuss and decide whether we want to move forward with enforcement action. >> Make a report. Indeed. >> Very good, K. Thank you.

318
01:33:32.719 --> 01:33:50.560
Next item for discussion. And there's no more on this one. >> Yes. Um, the $100 seems ridiculously low. >> The $100 We're fine. >> You know, it's 2026. >> That's peanut change these days.

319
01:33:50.560 --> 01:34:09.920
>> What would you recommend? >> $500. >> That's all. >> I would say a thousand, but >> I'm not I'm kind of confused because, you know, we just heard that you can find them up to $5,000 per tree.

320
01:34:09.920 --> 01:34:24.800
>> That's it. and and yet the consultant is only um recommending first a written warning followed by a $100 fine per tree and stop work authority. >> Thank you. >> So, is this is this for a developer

321
01:34:24.800 --> 01:34:42.880
that's doing this to a lot of trees? Um I'm not exactly sure what what's going on here. >> Can I can I make a recommendation on that? Just a suggestion that you can call out this uh recommendation in in

322
01:34:42.880 --> 01:34:58.560
the plan for the city to to look into this separate fine that's related to tree removal, >> right? >> And look at the options for that, but keep it general enough for us to be able to look at all the options for you. If you put in an actual number or specific

323
01:34:58.560 --> 01:35:14.400
fine, whatever it is, then we have to find a way to justify it if and when it comes to that time when we start looking at it. And that is what we're narrowed to. I see. >> So I I my suggestion is to recom uh call out ask council as part of this plan that we look in the future to

324
01:35:14.400 --> 01:35:30.000
call out a separate fine specific to the tree removal. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> That's my only suggestion. But obviously this TC you're good. >> That's fine. >> And a separate fine and that funds go into the landscape trust fund from those fines. But as you mentioned that those

325
01:35:30.000 --> 01:35:44.880
fines have already been determined that $2,000 for >> that what David's referring to is a general code enforcement fine. >> Okay. All right. So you know something specific to the trees, >> right? >> Yeah, that's what we're that's I think that's what the consultant suggesting. >> All right, I understand.

326
01:35:44.880 --> 01:36:00.880
>> Pull that out. Okay, >> member Bett. >> Um, it might also be good to look into, as it was said, updating the 100. Uh, but, uh, specifically looking into what

327
01:36:00.880 --> 01:36:17.040
the replacement cost for, uh, replanting whatever was removed, uh, specifically what what would cost to replace that? >> Can Can we Well, okay, this is a good question, David. Um, if we do a fine

328
01:36:17.040 --> 01:36:37.040
because they took a tree out and we tag them for $5,000, can we also require that they replace it? So, not pursuant to the um code enforcement statutes, but code enforcement statutes are meant to be

329
01:36:37.040 --> 01:36:52.239
supplemental to any other penalties that the city might wish to enforce. So, that's something we could look into. It's not prohibited, but I would have to look into specifics of how far we could go with that before it becomes outsized that you're requiring both payment for mitigation. That's right. You know,

330
01:36:52.239 --> 01:37:06.960
>> right, but maybe a balance between the removal and 5,000 that you might get into a little bit of, you know, kind of excessive fines issue there. But >> yeah, maybe put back a 6-in tree or something to to replace it and and then the fine or something. >> Yeah. And as I mentioned before, that was also kind of why I have on my list

331
01:37:06.960 --> 01:37:28.080
to look into retroactive requiring the permit because then that might require some mitigation such as that. >> That sounds good. Anybody >> any other comments on tree removal? >> Shall we go on to public works capacity? >> No, before we leave it.

332
01:37:28.080 --> 01:37:43.040
>> Okay. >> So, where are we in that? Are we are we going to do what Brad was saying? Let them uh take that out. >> Yes, >> that's a separate item. >> Yes, I think so. I think we're >> and then deal and then deal with ABCD

333
01:37:43.040 --> 01:38:00.639
stuff like we're like we're talking about. Is that what >> Yeah, that's what he suggested. Right. >> So, >> Brad, uh just an explanation for my sake. uh on the tree thing you I think you suggested that we take that aside, pull

334
01:38:00.639 --> 01:38:17.280
it out and then treat it as a separate entity. Uh my suggestion is just reiterating what the consultant's kind of alluding to here is that the you should look into a fee a fine rather a tree removal fine that is

335
01:38:17.280 --> 01:38:32.560
specific to tree removal because right now we just have a code enforcement fine was a generalized fine. >> Okay. >> Correct. But but also I think the conversation went about replacement. >> Replacement is interesting. uh you could use that as you know the cost to replace

336
01:38:32.560 --> 01:38:49.280
a tree and plant a tree could be counted for to help justify the actual fine >> right >> so as we go through and figure out what that methodology would be is but that particular fine would that could be a good means of of justifying what that is >> so so would that be also be included in this new look >> you can but I would I would recommend

337
01:38:49.280 --> 01:39:04.719
just keeping it open for us to call out a specific and we'll look at the options >> okay thank you yeah okay >> all Okay, next topic. >> Lily, has the public works director

338
01:39:04.719 --> 01:39:21.280
looked at this language that's in the green box? And is she okay with that? >> Yeah, she >> Yay. >> Good. >> Good job. >> Thank you, Sandra. >> Yes. >> And on the other side, the online

339
01:39:21.280 --> 01:39:46.080
survey. These were the comments from the survey. >> Yeah, I didn't really have suggestions or edits. I mean, some of these themes kind of baked themselves into the other line items, but I just put that in there as for your information.

340
01:39:46.080 --> 01:40:02.159
>> Has this gone to to the public for comment or is it just us comments? the comment portion of it. Has it gone out to the public? >> No, I was working on it up until 15 minutes ago. Okay. Or 15 minutes before the meeting started, excuse. Sorry.

341
01:40:02.159 --> 01:40:17.760
>> Are you planning on reaching out to the HOAs uh around the city for instance? And uh >> this plan calls for us to work with nonprofits and organizations. So it

342
01:40:17.760 --> 01:40:35.199
could so to implement the plan, we probably would be reaching out. I'm just I'm just thinking ahead. >> Yeah. >> Because >> they do control their domain of trees within their fences >> and it could affect them especially we

343
01:40:35.199 --> 01:40:53.360
go the you know the route of penalties and what have you >> to implement it the plan. I could say yes we will be reaching out to the community. >> Inclusion that that's what I was going for. Uh this list here is this um how many

344
01:40:53.360 --> 01:41:10.320
people responded to that survey? >> 10. >> 10. >> 10. >> Yeah. >> And it was a I had also warned member Miller that it was a short turnaround time. It was only up there for less than a week >> before I had to close it to be able to

345
01:41:10.320 --> 01:41:26.400
put it in to consideration for the reviews that we were looking at earlier for the actual like consultant to come back and review. But I was able to capture like the part where that's talking about I didn't read any laws or fines about cutting trees. That's how the staff recommendation made its way to

346
01:41:26.400 --> 01:41:42.080
here. But I still had to do a considerable amount of back and forth between me and the consultant. That's why it hasn't gone out yet. But I'll put this in the agenda for next tec just so the public can see it. >> Didn't we have a moon tree or are they

347
01:41:42.080 --> 01:41:58.000
over all at at um at the space center? >> What tree? >> A moon tree. >> Seeds went around the moon came back. Yeah, >> they do have >> do we >> I didn't know if there was one here in Titusville or not.

348
01:41:58.000 --> 01:42:17.920
>> What's a moon tree? and they bring it back down and they plant. >> I was just thinking if we had a historic tree that might be one of them. >> That's a national, >> right? >> We can apply as a city. >> Cool.

349
01:42:17.920 --> 01:42:34.800
>> Maybe we should. >> So, how do we do that? >> Well, >> can you please all make sure your microphones are on for discussion? Yeah, we can't hear you when you're when your microphone's not on. The people aren't.

350
01:42:34.800 --> 01:42:50.000
You might want to say that again. >> No, we're just discussing moon trees and and how these pro national program started. And these are seeds that go up to the moon and back down to earth and are planted. And I think it started in the 60s or 70s, but I'm not sure where it initiated, but I wouldn't be

351
01:42:50.000 --> 01:43:06.400
surprised >> if started here in our own little hometown that. >> Yeah, we have a couple of memorials that could use one. >> Yeah, for sure. I think that's something we can look into. Should we make a motion that we be part of the next moon launch? >> We put that recommendation in >> that we be that we participate in the

352
01:43:06.400 --> 01:43:22.560
next moon tree uh launch working on that. >> Uhhuh. I know. I heard that's where I got the idea from was Roz. >> So I guess Lily's all up on that then, right? >> I know they have it by the sacrifice.

353
01:43:22.560 --> 01:43:40.000
That's all. So, what are we going to do now that we've uh gone through our paperwork? What do you want to do with the landscape management plan, the urban forest plan? >> Now, I think we can table it until they see the next version

354
01:43:40.000 --> 01:43:56.080
because we did our job tonight and we went over all of the staff recommendations, the consultant. Um, >> unless somebody has additional comments that they want to make, I think we're done. Now,

355
01:43:56.080 --> 01:44:11.520
>> I I have just one thing I want to say. Um, and just reading the comments, I know it's a small pool of people, but it does raise an interesting point uh about the four trees. I'm looking at number three and how the resident was concerned about having those trees removed from

356
01:44:11.520 --> 01:44:26.960
her property um his or her property and it was not what she had wanted. Um I think just by having this commission and talking having this conversation and new urban forestry plan um and we're bringing more awareness to the citizens,

357
01:44:26.960 --> 01:44:42.480
our councils and staff and everybody. Um, I don't know the specifics of the situation, but my hope and my comment is is that with public works and whoever is responsible for going in and um, pruning and cleaning up these trees that they

358
01:44:42.480 --> 01:44:57.520
would take more consideration in trying to save the tree rather than just cut it down. And um I don't again I don't know the situation here but with all of our conversations and efforts right now I'm hoping that that would be the momentum our staff would would begin to take if

359
01:44:57.520 --> 01:45:19.119
that would was not happening. That's all that's all I want to say. Okay. I think we would be remiss if we did not indicate our enthusiasm for this plan. >> And I think tableabling it

360
01:45:19.119 --> 01:45:36.880
does not enhance that in any way. Um I think Brad's made it clear and we've made clear to to staff what what we like, what we want to see change, and I think we've pretty much hit them point by point already. Um, I think we're on

361
01:45:36.880 --> 01:45:52.639
the same page. So, the best thing I think to do since we are in in my line of work, I call it OBBE. We're overcome by events. We can't change the the contract timeline. We can't change the presentation timing to

362
01:45:52.639 --> 01:46:08.800
to suit us. And I think that I think we should go forward with this. It would be my my suggestion that we do and that >> and that we uh well, you still hadn't gotten up to talk about this. Did you want to make a statement before we we

363
01:46:08.800 --> 01:46:26.000
actually come to a vote or a >> Yes, I definitely recommend that you go recommend to council that this go forward. I do. I It's the best plan that we could possibly have. Yes, there's some details that could be worked out, but it's just above and beyond anything

364
01:46:26.000 --> 01:46:42.400
we ever expected. And if they will approve it and take the money from the landscape trust fund for to for a forester or an arborist to start implementing it. That's what we want you

365
01:46:42.400 --> 01:47:04.000
guys. What more could we ask for? This is it. Go for it. Please proceed. >> We just have to tell him K said so. I'm fine with that. I agree. And but um

366
01:47:04.000 --> 01:47:21.119
regarding the landscape trust fund, you know, we all know that it can be rated at any time by the city council. And so I think maybe part of our recommendation ought to be that

367
01:47:21.119 --> 01:47:37.440
the landscape trust fund money only be used for the urban forestry and to plant native plant native trees in the city. I mean otherwise another $600,000 the whole $800,000 could be gone in a

368
01:47:37.440 --> 01:47:53.440
heartbeat if if if they decide they want to do these another gateway project. Um >> I would recommend we make that as a separate motion. >> Yeah, I agree. >> But yes, so let's move forward with the

369
01:47:53.440 --> 01:48:10.639
landscape um urban landscape plan. I think it's wonderful. Um I agree with Kay. It's it's it's beyond what we expected and what a fabulous thing for our city. But I think we need to try to get some protection in

370
01:48:10.639 --> 01:48:26.639
place for the landscape trust fund too because if we're prudent with those funds, it could it could pay the salary for an urban forester for the the whole five years that you know we need to get get

371
01:48:26.639 --> 01:48:44.400
the whole plan started. So, I'm hearing two motions over there. I'm hearing one for approval of the urban forest management plan and another for utilizing the landscape trust fund. No,

372
01:48:44.400 --> 01:49:01.199
you have a bit please actor bring the words. >> I I go back to the basics. I think we should request that yes, they pass they they approve >> the plan as written with knowing that we will probably have some modifications as

373
01:49:01.199 --> 01:49:18.080
it matures a little bit. >> Right. The second part to that is the establishment of a line item in the budget by title and is funded by the urban tree fund.

374
01:49:18.080 --> 01:49:35.360
A direct funding source urban tree funds trust fund. >> You mean the landscape trust fund? >> Landscape trust fund. Whatever the right name is, it needs to be a line item that is created with that name, funded from that source

375
01:49:35.360 --> 01:49:51.920
of funding >> initially. >> Okay. Initially, >> yes. >> But if we don't get in now 28, it's going to be your next opening. We need to get in now >> and and and and ask for that line item and ask for that first funding from that

376
01:49:51.920 --> 01:50:07.520
line item. >> We already did that. when we voted on that and that was unanimous. No, but >> we did that. >> Yeah, but >> but we have to protect the landscape trust fund to keep it from being >> utilized for other things.

377
01:50:07.520 --> 01:50:22.880
>> And that is the whole idea. If we have a line item, we can money can be moved. If you don't have a line item, we can vote all we want and we will be outvoted. But if we move money, then it's up to them

378
01:50:22.880 --> 01:50:39.520
to try to go reach into that fund line item to take money out. And that is visibility that I don't think Do you believe that by tying the landscape trust fund to a dedicated line item

379
01:50:39.520 --> 01:50:55.920
that's going to appear in the budget every year, that's enough protection? >> Right now, that's I think the best we can do. Yes, that's the classical way of trying to protect funding. Now,

380
01:50:55.920 --> 01:51:12.800
whether it works or not, uh, that remains to be seen. >> So, so let me see if I got the wording right so that we can eventually get this into some kind of a motion. I understand the first one, approve the UFMP. Second is to establish a line item in

381
01:51:12.800 --> 01:51:29.119
the budget initially paid out of the landscape trust fund in the future. >> Funded from >> funded well out yes >> initially because eventually that's going to dry up. There's going to be no more lands with which to pull into that.

382
01:51:29.119 --> 01:51:45.840
So this is just an initial start >> and then every year during the budget cycle everybody everyone has a chance to say I need 100,000 or I need 150,000 or I'm going to have it a treeathon in the city

383
01:51:45.840 --> 01:52:01.920
and I'm going to grow 100 trees. So then you can replenish that fund. >> Isn't this fund being replenished annually through the tree us tree USA? No, >> no, it's not. This fund is replenished when a developer comes and knocks down trees.

384
01:52:01.920 --> 01:52:18.560
>> But can't but can't we make it so that that 2% per capita, like we talked earlier, make sure that that funding is directly funneled into the landscape trust fund from the Tree USA program. >> There is no money that comes to the TreeUSA program. It's not it doesn't

385
01:52:18.560 --> 01:52:34.719
create it doesn't generate money. >> So where is that that $100,000 that we're talking about? It's the shell game that the city plays every year by saying we use $50,000 to cut down dead trees. >> So there is we're not really bringing in

386
01:52:34.719 --> 01:52:51.119
$100,000 per capita 2% per capita per resident. >> They're counting the guys that are not that are clearing trees for the garbage truck. They're counting the guys that are pulling up the stuff that has fallen on the ground. They're and none of it is directly line item to to this. So moving forward, should we make that clear that

387
01:52:51.119 --> 01:53:07.840
that is a line item and that those funds are going to be specifically directed into the landscape trust fund and no longer be diverted or a shell item or whatever that term is. I I don't um >> just to make sure that we have longterm

388
01:53:07.840 --> 01:53:24.320
funding annually and >> but there there never was any funding for the Tree City USA. The $2 per capita >> is a recommendation. There was never any money that came in. It's not a funding source. >> So the 800,000 that sits in there now,

389
01:53:24.320 --> 01:53:42.000
>> that's separate from the $2 capital that's from fines from developers and clearcut trees. >> All right. I thought part of that was from the tree tree USA, but that's not happening. >> And maybe that's what we need to correct. >> Well, that's what we're trying to do. We're trying to protect that fund. And

390
01:53:42.000 --> 01:53:58.239
>> Hector believes that by specifically adding the line item to the budget to be funded from the landscape trust fund. That's that should protect it. >> I I disagree, but I

391
01:53:58.239 --> 01:54:13.840
>> I disagree too, but it would protect it more this year. >> What do you think would protect it? No, >> it needs to come out of the general fund, which is where the the the U consultant said, which is where Tree City USA says that's where the 100,000 supposed to come from is the general fund

392
01:54:13.840 --> 01:54:29.599
>> to be used in this fashion. >> So, that's what we need to clear up then. >> That's Yes. Exactly. >> Right. >> Nothing can happen unless you have a line item. If you do not own a line item, >> well, I think it offers more security than to not have it. For sure. So

393
01:54:29.599 --> 01:54:46.239
therefore, you you can request because it's a request that you I'm going to need this year 100,000. Then in the next budget cycle, >> it'll be for consideration. >> I request another budget, >> right? >> It's already there. So you you're reminded to bring it forward and and

394
01:54:46.239 --> 01:55:02.239
then it recycles. It's not to it's not for sure. It's not for >> that is how this game is played. But you got to have a place to put the money in, not just I want 100,000 for right someone to work trees. That doesn't work that way.

395
01:55:02.239 --> 01:55:16.400
>> No. >> So, like I said, I think we should >> But we made that motion already to to create a line item. >> Part of this part of this thing is to have council approve this. Part of this

396
01:55:16.400 --> 01:55:33.520
is to create the line item. Part of it is fund the line item from that source >> right >> and make it so that we can play in the budget cycle >> annually >> annually that is going on now

397
01:55:33.520 --> 01:55:48.480
>> whether it be from the general fund or we >> correct the tree USA fund >> call it what you want >> yeah whatever whatever it is I get it >> okay so just to give you some history you know when the the tree the landscape

398
01:55:48.480 --> 01:56:05.360
trust fund was created years ago when when the developers started clear cutting for the subdivisions and its original language said that it would be used for planting trees. Well, then the city council came along and they changed the

399
01:56:05.360 --> 01:56:23.520
language of the ordinance to include landscaping also. And so so then they started doing these gateway projects and landscaping projects around the city. None of which we can point to right now and say there's a landscape project that

400
01:56:23.520 --> 01:56:40.239
came from the landscape trust fund that's still there. >> A success. >> A success. The city has had abject failure every time at maintaining these projects once they went into the ground. And a good example are the two projects,

401
01:56:40.239 --> 01:56:57.040
the two most recent projects that the city spent $660,000 from the landscape trust fund. They wiped it out basically um on landscaping at I95 and Highway 50 and landscaping on

402
01:56:57.040 --> 01:57:14.960
I95 at Garden Street. All of which froze during I mean but before it froze it looked >> terrible because nobody came and weeded it or fertilized it or did anything maintained it in any fashion

403
01:57:14.960 --> 01:57:29.119
>> and so for water and I thought there was an irrigation plan in place for that. >> No, >> I don't even think I don't even know if they had water going to it. >> The guy with a hose. >> Yeah, >> I go by there. >> Yeah. So, it's

404
01:57:29.119 --> 01:57:45.920
it's not a good use of the money to continue doing these gateway projects, but right now there's no protection in the landscape trust fund because it has the language of it could be used for

405
01:57:45.920 --> 01:58:03.360
landscaping. And so we've the TEC has recommended that the landscaping part be removed from the ordinance and it just be um used for planting trees, but the city council has never gone along with it. So as long as that language is in

406
01:58:03.360 --> 01:58:19.679
there about it being used for landscaping, it's it's it's it's under, you know, it can be sabotaged at any time that the council chooses. I'm encouraged by last night's decision

407
01:58:19.679 --> 01:58:37.760
to to show the feasibility uh plan and so hopefully we're moving in the right direction where these funds will be appropriated correctly. >> All we did was stall it last night. >> Remember Delgado? >> Okay. But again, I go back. If you have

408
01:58:37.760 --> 01:58:54.320
a home for the money to be put in and you put it inside the budget planning process, you have a better chance because now it has a label and a home. >> Yeah. He's speaking like a senior manager, you know, program management. That's 101. You got to have That's what

409
01:58:54.320 --> 01:59:09.760
these little budget line items are that he's talking about. So, >> yeah, it it's it's clear that we need to establish a budget line item and and it's if if we're going to go forward with this. So, shall we put that one down and vote on that first and then we'll

410
01:59:09.760 --> 01:59:25.520
>> We voted on it already. >> No, not establishing a line item in the budget initially paid out of the landscape trust fund. >> Yes, we did. >> I thought we did earlier, didn't we? >> No, we specified that that the money was supposed to be set aside. >> That's what I

411
01:59:25.520 --> 01:59:41.920
>> That's what you have down. >> Okie doie. >> Well, we can be redundant. Department of redundancy department. I have a question. >> Yes, Bill. >> Uh Brad, the um when the one one garbage truck comes by and picks up my garbage

412
01:59:41.920 --> 02:00:00.560
out of my garbage can and the next day another truck comes by and picks up the leaves and limbs on the side of the road. Is that part of my gar my garbage bill? >> Who Who's paying the second truck to come and pick up leaves and limbs on the

413
02:00:00.560 --> 02:00:16.320
side of the road? Who who pays for that? I think there is a you do get a solid waste bill. >> Yes. >> Solid waste. >> It's in your bill. Yeah. >> So that's so that's not coming out of these funds or anything >> them coming picked up picking up that stuff.

414
02:00:16.320 --> 02:00:37.360
>> Yeah. Even if it's your neighbor's trees yard waste being part of that fund coming out of that fund. >> That's right. So, what is the process for approaching the city manager and asking to have this line item added to

415
02:00:37.360 --> 02:00:54.480
this year's budget? Do we do it under petitions and requests at a city council meeting? At the next city council meeting, >> you can, but you're as a recommending body to city council collectively, you can make a motion and make a recommendation directly to city council

416
02:00:54.480 --> 02:01:11.040
>> who the city manager works for. And so will that be on the agenda at the next city council meeting and then we need to go and speak in favor of it. >> Well, this is your recommendation as far as this urban forest plan, right? Helping implement it. So, we would roll all of these recommendations into that

417
02:01:11.040 --> 02:01:27.760
agenda item that will go before city council on June 9th when the presentation is given to them. So guys, it's really really important that you come to the city council meeting on June 9th to support the urban forestry plan and to support

418
02:01:27.760 --> 02:01:41.199
>> the funding of >> the funding of the of the urban forestry plan by by creating a line item in the city's budget. >> Right. >> Did the motion that we passed actually

419
02:01:41.199 --> 02:01:58.960
use the words line item? What I jotted down was motion to request from city council to make a line item from landscape trust fund two 2% per capita. >> Okay, this one's different. >> Yeah, maybe we need to take out the 2%

420
02:01:58.960 --> 02:02:17.119
cap because we ti we tied it to the um the treement the tree USA thing. I think we need to separate >> minimum. That was just a minimum. >> That was a minimum. I think we need to take that part out. Can we can we do a redo or how how do we

421
02:02:17.119 --> 02:02:32.880
do this? >> Who made that motion and who made the second? If we want to undo that >> made to revisit a past motion, you'll have to unanimously vote to do so. >> Member Nico and then my Jack seconded. >> Okay. Figures. >> So, do we all want to go back and make a

422
02:02:32.880 --> 02:02:48.400
motion to to revisit this? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> All in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Nay. Okay. It's unanimous. We're going back. And then what you just reopened is you can either vote yes or no on that same motion. So if you would like to change

423
02:02:48.400 --> 02:03:04.800
it, you now have this motion repending before you I would recommend voting it down and then proposing the new motion that you would like. >> Or why not just make a amended motion. >> Just vote it down. Start over. All right. >> Vote it down to make it clean. Yeah. >> All right. Somebody make a motion. >> I make a motion.

424
02:03:04.800 --> 02:03:19.599
>> The question's pending before you right now. So it would you would just do a roll call depending the motion roll at the moment. >> All right. We'll do a roll call vote, please. Lori >> member Young. >> No. >> Yes. >> Say no. >> Say no to vote it down. You want to vote

425
02:03:19.599 --> 02:03:35.760
it down. You want to vote no, don't you? >> No. >> Member Berdett. >> No. >> Member Delgado. >> Say no. >> St. Eller. >> No. >> Member Nico. >> No. >> Vice Chairwoman Thompson.

426
02:03:35.760 --> 02:03:50.239
>> No. >> Member Rosa. >> No. >> Chairman Mek. >> No. Okay. So, now we're back to ground zero again, right? All right. So, we want to establish a line item in the budget paid out of initially paid out of

427
02:03:50.239 --> 02:04:06.080
the landscape fun >> permanently paid for. As long as that money's there, it should be permanent. >> Don't say initially. >> Well, what happens when the money goes dry? When that fund goes dry, >> about that when it happens. >> Yes. If we can if we can convince them

428
02:04:06.080 --> 02:04:22.000
not if we can convince the council not to squander the landscape trust fund on gateway landscaping shrubbery >> right >> and flowers something

429
02:04:22.000 --> 02:04:39.599
>> the urban forest master plan actually has a landscape trust fund expenditure policy it's going to create the policy so I don't I'm Not sure that you need to know. >> It's a question of how to initially fund it. Right. Right now, the city manager

430
02:04:39.599 --> 02:04:55.199
in in June, July, August, they're going to be setting the budget for next year. >> We're not in that process yet, which means come next year, there's no money set aside for the forester. And then the next line item budget would be again this year, this time next year. And so

431
02:04:55.199 --> 02:05:10.480
2028 is what we would be starting. So that's why we're wanting this particular one to put be put in now so that it gets in the process and the funds from it or that will fund it are funds that are already sitting in the landscape trust fund. They're there for this very purpose.

432
02:05:10.480 --> 02:05:25.440
>> Yes. To use the landscape trust fund for an urban forester or arborist to get this thing started. Yes. >> For whatever is needed for the for the plan. >> Yeah. Whatever is needed. And and the money would come from the landscape

433
02:05:25.440 --> 02:05:42.560
trust fund. And so it doesn't there's this it should be easy for the city manager to approve it because there's $800,000 sitting there. It could it could last for several years and and then and then when the money starts getting low then we start

434
02:05:42.560 --> 02:05:59.199
figuring out you know h where we'll get more money from. >> Right? So not only we want to use that money for the forester or arborist but we want to use it to plant trees. And there are also grants that the same grant that we got the urban forest management plan gives grants for trees.

435
02:05:59.199 --> 02:06:15.599
And we know Lily is really good at getting grants and so but yes, let's use the $800,000 for the forester arborist slash and tree planting and then if it runs out then we get some grant money from Lily. Lily's good at grants.

436
02:06:15.599 --> 02:06:32.560
>> Well, the the landscape trust fund is going to give us the ability to go after grants because we have matching funding. >> Amen. Okay. And there's good metrics in the in the uh urban forest management plan that will allow us to to follow this through so that we know whether we >> it's a responsible use of the landscape

437
02:06:32.560 --> 02:06:46.639
trust fund >> and and and also planting canopy trees will last for beyond our lifetimes. Whereas using the landscape trust fund

438
02:06:46.639 --> 02:07:04.639
to plant shrubs next to the road, we're lucky if they last a year. So it's it's a lot better use of the money. >> Hector, I see you. >> Question. >> In the city, who creates the line items

439
02:07:04.639 --> 02:07:21.920
for budget? Is it the department? Is it uh the council? Is it the city manager? >> Well, I mean >> the what's the hierarchy? >> I mean the finance department is the one that manages. >> Yeah. I'm coming down the bottom and I and and I need to go up

440
02:07:21.920 --> 02:07:37.520
>> to >> So So who do I see first if I wanted to put in for a line item to be to be even considered by the by the city manager? >> Are you I'm sorry. Sorry. Are you asking directly to speak to someone at city hall or are you talking about

441
02:07:37.520 --> 02:07:53.920
collectively as an commission making a recommendation that goes to council? >> No, no, that goes to council, >> right? >> Okay. If should council say yeah okay uh you can put in >> then the city manager will have to direct his staff to do that.

442
02:07:53.920 --> 02:08:09.440
>> Okay, >> that that's so council makes it that call and makes that direction to the city manager. So the city manager will have a staff that will create that account. >> Council, city manager. >> If if that's what you're asking, >> it goes first to council and then council to city manager.

443
02:08:09.440 --> 02:08:22.960
>> Okay. >> Yeah. Whatever the approval or the recommend the direction is from city council is what the city manager will have to implement, >> right? >> Yeah. I'm just trying to get the >> the drive-thru. What's the drive-thru to get there? >> The bonefish diagram.

444
02:08:22.960 --> 02:08:39.199
>> Yeah. Who eventually who do we see >> step by step? The council is where we go. >> Besides council, >> we got to go to the next council. >> Yeah. Go to the next council meeting. >> Okay. Thank you. >> So, we need a motion. >> So, we need a motion to establish a line

445
02:08:39.199 --> 02:08:54.639
item in the budget to pay out of the to pay for it out of the landscape. Excuse me. And he established a line item in the budget for the urban forest management plan and been funded out of the landscape trust fund. That's what I need a motion for. >> That's what we need.

446
02:08:54.639 --> 02:09:11.119
>> So, go for it. >> You making the motion. >> No, you made you made the first motion. >> Okay. >> Um, so I Yes. We formally would like to make a line item uh in the budget uh to fund the urban forestry management plan

447
02:09:11.119 --> 02:09:27.960
through the uh landscape trust fund. >> Perfect. >> Got that. Second. >> Second. >> Thank you. >> Got that one. I did. Again, just to be consistently inconsistent.

448
02:09:28.560 --> 02:09:44.639
Any other discussion? Let's have a roll call vote on this, please. >> Member Berdett, >> yes. >> Member Young, >> yes. >> Member Delgado, >> yes. >> Member Rosa, >> yes. >> Vice Chairwoman Thompson, >> yes. >> Member Nico, >> yes. >> Chairman Mek,

449
02:09:44.639 --> 02:10:01.679
>> yes. I should have also added that with the recommendation that Tree City USA >> No, don't no >> that starts with a Okay, >> it's clean the way. >> All right. >> All right. So, how does anybody want to

450
02:10:01.679 --> 02:10:18.159
recommend the urban forest master plan? >> I'm I'm waiting for a motion. Okay. I move that we recommend >> I move we recommend the application and implementation of the present form of

451
02:10:18.159 --> 02:10:35.840
the urban the um urban forest management plan with corrections in the future and right now for the city council to establish it and make it real. >> Is that the right wording? >> Works for me. >> Second. Before you make your mo your

452
02:10:35.840 --> 02:10:51.920
vote on that, we will take what we collectively heard from you and try to summarize that and present that to city council. >> Yeah. >> So I I know there are some concerns and changes you wanted to see. We'll try to present that and make sure that it's in the >> we're trusting you

453
02:10:51.920 --> 02:11:08.079
>> what we can put in there based on the consultant's recommendations because she's going to make the call as to what she thinks is appropriate to present to city council. >> Right. >> Right. So with some of our input, but obviously we'll try and relay what we can the message from you to city council at our presentation.

454
02:11:08.079 --> 02:11:28.960
>> Okay. >> Your formal recommendations by motion will definitely bring for city council as written. >> Sure. >> Okay. Any discussion? Last chance. Let's have a roll call vote. Lori, please. >> Vice Chairwoman Thompson.

455
02:11:28.960 --> 02:11:44.880
>> Yes. Member Young, >> yes. >> Member Rosa, >> yes. >> Member Delgado, >> yes. >> Member Berdett, >> yes. >> Member Nico, >> yes. >> Chairman Mek, >> yes. >> Okay, that's encouraging. This is a wonderful plan

456
02:11:44.880 --> 02:12:01.280
>> and it's a it's a hell of a goal and I hope we can implement it with gusto. I'm looking forward to it. So, thank you. >> Now, no, we have wetlands to finish up. Yes. >> Basketball game starts in

457
02:12:01.280 --> 02:12:18.360
>> 20 no. Mary drove all the way from Coco just to >> just to help us finish up with our >> wetland the last two days. >> Oh yes. >> Roing. >> Yes. Well, we have more wetlands now to deal with.

458
02:12:24.239 --> 02:12:39.840
>> So, we've only got eight pages to go through. Okay. Can I um I know it's getting late. Do you want to like set a little time limit? Like >> I'd like we can get done with it. I'd

459
02:12:39.840 --> 02:12:54.400
love to be done with it because I'd like to tell the city council that we spent four extra meetings >> in January, February, March, and April. >> We will not get done with it. >> There's no way. What we're talking about tonight is just the stuff that's in red

460
02:12:54.400 --> 02:13:13.040
on on the last few pages of our agenda. >> No, >> no, >> no. I It's something brand new. >> Oh, okay. >> Yeah. >> Um Okay. So, um if if if you want uh how how much time do you want to give

461
02:13:13.040 --> 02:13:28.920
to this? >> Like um >> I'm willing to go to 8:30 and see where we are. >> Let's we Is that what you want to do? Go to >> Let's get started. Yeah. >> All right. Do you have the handouts? All right,

462
02:13:34.079 --> 02:14:19.760
that's it. Let's get to work. still have to look. >> This is what she sent an email, I believe. >> If you've seen her email, then you've seen this. Yes. >> Oh, I don't have that one.

463
02:14:19.760 --> 02:14:46.920
>> Well, here. Pass it down. Just >> the whole take it as it >> I get to keep. Is this what she sent? >> What did she send before? >> Have that one. This one I haven't seen.

464
02:14:48.880 --> 02:15:10.239
>> I think Kevin doesn't have the whole package. And I don't think >> I got one. >> Yeah, >> I got two. I ended up with two of these. >> I don't need these. >> I don't know if that helps.

465
02:15:10.239 --> 02:15:41.520
You should have three things. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. That's the single one. >> I know. >> I have those and a couple of binders. >> Binder clips. Hey Brad.

466
02:15:41.520 --> 02:16:29.599
>> Okay. All right. Okay, so here's the deal. Um Lily um found out some information um

467
02:16:29.599 --> 02:16:46.080
yesterday and um she found out that there is a state law um that uh preempts um the the city from uh requiring

468
02:16:46.080 --> 02:17:02.479
um that a an applicant for devel development project. Um have a permit for uh or you know approved consultation

469
02:17:02.479 --> 02:17:19.040
um for listed species. Um, and these last two papers I need to discuss um because not being an attorney um with

470
02:17:19.040 --> 02:17:35.760
um David, Brad, and Lily. So, what I would like um to to um ask you is do you mind if we just postpone this until I get some legal guidance?

471
02:17:35.760 --> 02:17:54.160
And then also there's certain uh policies that we're going to go through and if I spot one that um kind of um is dependent on this um

472
02:17:54.160 --> 02:18:11.760
preeemption um then um I'll discuss that one. So we'll so so we'll do most of this um and um for just to make this very clear the

473
02:18:11.760 --> 02:18:27.599
reason we we're going to start here with a um you know staple paper uh which is conservation element objective 1.1 natural resources is because this is the place in the

474
02:18:27.599 --> 02:18:45.040
conservation element where um the language is that we will work with entities to support acquisition of wetlands and we would not be going into this particular

475
02:18:45.040 --> 02:19:00.880
um objective if it weren't for that. But that is part of the natural resources plan and that's um what we're tasked to do is uh put in some language about wetlands. So in order to put in the language about

476
02:19:00.880 --> 02:19:16.080
wetlands, I mean in order to support um in order to support entities um that could acquire our large wetland system.

477
02:19:16.080 --> 02:19:30.960
Um, we need to change um the focus of um the land acquisition policies in objective

478
02:19:30.960 --> 02:19:48.080
1.1 from all um listed species focus to environmentally endangered land um focus and uh the protection of wildlife. So,

479
02:19:48.080 --> 02:20:07.120
um, if you can read the first, um, part that's marked up. I We went through most of this last time, >> right? >> It's to ensure the preservation of environmentally endangered land and the protection of wildlife,

480
02:20:07.120 --> 02:20:22.240
particularly threatened and endangered species. Identify and conserve important natural resources and essential habitat were economically and environmentally feasible to prevent adverse alterations

481
02:20:22.240 --> 02:20:38.479
to this these areas. Does that sound reasonable? >> Mhm. >> Yeah, I liked it. >> Okay. Now, here's the one um that Lily had to look into. Um

482
02:20:38.479 --> 02:20:55.920
this policy 1.1 says identify state and federal listed wildlife species habitat potential wildlife habitat and sites of listed species shall be depicted on a map by 2012 which will indicate the presence of

483
02:20:55.920 --> 02:21:11.680
state and federal listed wildlife species as per data you know provided by FWC and uh fish and wildlife service. I'm sure that never happened. >> Uh I don't think that ever happened. Is that correct? >> I don't think it did.

484
02:21:11.680 --> 02:21:28.080
>> And it's beyond its suspense state by about what 13 years, 14 years. if if if it if it hasn't happened. Um and we know that Fish and Wildlife Service

485
02:21:28.080 --> 02:21:44.399
um has a way of um identifying um the habitat and presence of uh listed species very well.

486
02:21:44.399 --> 02:22:00.640
And um I don't see the point in keeping it in the comp plan. And to top it off, the 2040 plan got rid of this U policy as well. >> Okay.

487
02:22:00.640 --> 02:22:17.520
>> And so Lily was going to look into it and since it didn't happen, that's my recommendation. I don't know how you feel about it, but if they haven't created a map, which they're supposed to create by 2012, and now we have agencies

488
02:22:17.520 --> 02:22:35.840
which have all this information, why should Titusville be creating this map? >> Yeah, >> I concur. >> Does that sound reasonable? >> That sounds good. Next. >> All right. >> Looks like 113.

489
02:22:35.840 --> 02:23:01.280
>> Okay. What this um policy 1.1.3 um did was um says that we'll cooperate with state in acquiring and conserving environmentally endangered land to be preserved through acquisition andor regulations.

490
02:23:01.280 --> 02:23:17.040
What was missing is and also with Bvard County, right? in the Bvard County um it uh their program is the EEL program and um I don't know if you caught it

491
02:23:17.040 --> 02:23:33.840
last time when Jason was talking about the um selection and management committee of the Yel program going to the uh 405 MR property that is the Lieberman property

492
02:23:33.840 --> 02:23:48.880
that's what the county's looking getting >> Mhm. >> where they were going to have these eight apartment buildings and um destroy 5.42

493
02:23:48.880 --> 02:24:05.439
acres of uh a wetland rated eight, which was noted by the mayor and probably the highest that they'd seen. It was a about 120 acre wetman.

494
02:24:05.439 --> 02:24:21.840
So >> anyway, I don't you I assume you want to add with Bvard County >> before you leave that >> talking about the map. You said the map is available. So who in the city is

495
02:24:21.840 --> 02:24:37.520
responsible for getting that map? >> They Oh, the what? >> If we get rid of it, somebody's got to >> Okay. No, that map has not been created by the city. >> No, I understand it. But we're gonna have what FWC is going to give it to us, right?

496
02:24:37.520 --> 02:24:51.680
>> Or somebody that >> What you need to do is um you need to go on on uh the internet and um find the uh

497
02:24:51.680 --> 02:25:07.520
site of the Jacksonville office of the um US Fish and Wildlife Service. And they use a consultant um that is well that is or a company that

498
02:25:07.520 --> 02:25:22.560
is helping them implement their um their program which uh identifies listed species, federal listed species.

499
02:25:22.560 --> 02:25:40.319
It says what to do about it and um then it goes into the consultation process. But but all this is handled by Fish and Wildlife Service. And you could I found out when I went on

500
02:25:40.319 --> 02:25:56.160
um that uh site um the one that the consultants handle, it it's um pretty easy to find. um that um

501
02:25:56.160 --> 02:26:12.640
you they give some like uh slideshows and videos. You could yourself put in a practice file. Um and and they give directions on how to do this,

502
02:26:12.640 --> 02:26:30.319
a shape file for the entire city of Titusville. and it would come back with a li the list of all the uh species that were federally listed

503
02:26:30.319 --> 02:26:47.680
and um I I've had some major computer problems and burner problems lately and um I'm not as savvy with some of this computer stuff as some of you but you

504
02:26:47.680 --> 02:27:03.680
you can find out that information and um you know I I could um email Lily and she could send it, you know, out about if you're

505
02:27:03.680 --> 02:27:17.520
interested in finding out what kind of listed species are here in Titusville, they got it. It's just that the city doesn't. >> I I I appreciate that. and how you used to work with those at work before. But

506
02:27:17.520 --> 02:27:36.399
who in the city looks into that? >> Our department would most likely be doing it. >> Okay. But do you do it today? >> Can we do it today? >> No. Do you do it today? >> I don't recall a map of this nature. >> Okay. >> But this is information that is open

507
02:27:36.399 --> 02:27:52.399
source and available. >> No, it is open source. It's always been FWC and the Army Corps of Engineer and others provide this information. It is just that you know 1.1.1 gets taken out and and so my my question

508
02:27:52.399 --> 02:28:09.840
is how is this used in a piece of land that I'm going to buy? Uh, and the city's going to permit me to buy, you know, to do something on that land. And

509
02:28:09.840 --> 02:28:27.920
do we look for blue jays? Do we look for gopher turtles? Do we look for >> we we look for an environmental report from their from the developer from the when we receive an application for a development >> and that that where did where does that

510
02:28:27.920 --> 02:28:43.280
come from? >> The applicant. So is FWC provided or somebody like that? >> They the consultant that is for what I mentioned earlier when you get a site plan from an engineer record they'll have a subconsultant or someone on a team to do the landscaping and tree

511
02:28:43.280 --> 02:28:57.920
mitigation. They'll also have other consultants or specialists okay >> that are biologists environmental specialists. They have to provide their own reports as well. Basically using information that is open source that is available records that they can search and by site visit.

512
02:28:57.920 --> 02:29:15.439
>> Okay. So, so you are dependent on them providing you that information from a laundry list of requirements for the property. >> That's correct. >> Okay. >> All right. Thank you. >> Back to 1.1.3. >> Yeah.

513
02:29:15.439 --> 02:29:36.080
>> Okay. Shall we include Bard County as who we work with? >> Okay. >> Absolutely. >> All right. 1.1.3.1. We made some changes. Well, um just um continuing on with uh Hector's um

514
02:29:36.080 --> 02:29:53.040
comments, I don't know if the city would be interested in um using the um US Fish and Wildlife uh software. Um it it would be a test item. you go under ecos B

515
02:29:53.040 --> 02:30:10.479
um and and finding out what species listed species federal listed species are in Titusville >> we do that yeah so depending on the project we will verify the information is provided to us >> okay have you done it for the whole city though I mean because it said >> in other words have we done this

516
02:30:10.479 --> 02:30:26.880
>> map of the whole city >> have we done this map is what you're asking for based on this policy or this objective >> yeah I mean using not your data, but um like would you be interested in doing the whole whole city to find out for

517
02:30:26.880 --> 02:30:42.560
example um are there uh scrub jays here in the city um using um you know a shape file the city of Titusville >> that well I mean we do that when we get a sight specific request

518
02:30:42.560 --> 02:30:58.080
>> sight specific only okay okay it looks like they but if anybody body here um you know wants to um try a little bit larger parcel um how about if I send you an email with

519
02:30:58.080 --> 02:31:19.040
the information and you can send it out. >> Okay. >> Okay. So um strategy 1.1.3.1 um okay so these are the environmentally endangered lands that we're talking about. Mhm.

520
02:31:19.040 --> 02:31:37.040
>> And we had a discussion um how to word number two. Number one's a state and federal list of wildlife and estuary life species habitat. Number two is um you wanted wetlands five acres or greater in size.

521
02:31:37.040 --> 02:31:51.200
That was your request. And um Bethanne wanted to say um something about their respective watersheds. I don't know how you think this sounds,

522
02:31:51.200 --> 02:32:09.840
but basically it's what I did with your two recommendations is put them together. Wetlands 5 acres or greater in size and crucial adjoining portions of their respective watersheds. Does that sound reasonable for

523
02:32:09.840 --> 02:32:28.560
Okay. And then we're following the same language that they had natural legs that that's what they that's what the comp plan says now. >> Mhm. >> Now um you know you can see

524
02:32:28.560 --> 02:32:46.399
the new four, five, and six >> and new seven. the David pointed out that um there really wasn't a good definition of um critical habitat in the um in in the definition section of the

525
02:32:46.399 --> 02:33:02.479
LDRs. So um in number seven it says um critical or essential habitats. critical habitat has a a a special

526
02:33:02.479 --> 02:33:21.040
meaning with regard to um listed species and um essential habitat is something that they need but for example critical habitat has not been um determined for the Florida scrubj

527
02:33:21.040 --> 02:33:41.200
and um I don't think uh you know the gold tortoise is not a federally listed species in the eastern part of the United States only in the western part. And um on that number seven, uh Lily had

528
02:33:41.200 --> 02:33:58.080
found out that the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council um no longer uh retains their role as a clearing house um for information about listed species. that tells you how old

529
02:33:58.080 --> 02:34:15.600
this information is, how long it's been since it's even been looked at. >> So, seven would now say if you think it's okay, um, critical or essential habitats for state and federally listed species

530
02:34:15.600 --> 02:34:34.800
and lands providing habitat connectivity because that is really important. >> Yes, it is. especially with regard to the scrub j. They only fly so far. Um, okay. So, here's a definition from the LDR is critical habitat, threatened

531
02:34:34.800 --> 02:34:51.760
or endangered species, stated function. Well, that's a very poor thing. So, that's why I included essential habitat. >> That sounds good. And then that and number seven said and habit um we were

532
02:34:51.760 --> 02:35:09.200
talking about habitat corridors and um you had mentioned the Florida wildlife corridor. Well, it turns out that um that's a little west of uh most of Titusville

533
02:35:09.200 --> 02:35:24.080
and so >> but it has been in our sites for annexation in the past. So don't count that out. So I'm putting habitat connectivity instead of Florida wildlife corridor. >> That's a lot more general. It includes a

534
02:35:24.080 --> 02:35:42.120
lot more specifically calling. >> Correct. >> Does that sound reasonable? >> Yeah. >> If you have any objection, you you better let me know. >> Okay. No.

535
02:35:47.359 --> 02:36:04.800
this policy um you know 1.1.5 the owner slashdeveloper of development instead of that um should be property is that's a correction made in the 2040 plan

536
02:36:04.800 --> 02:36:22.160
which I really went through with a fine tooth comb try to you know see what because the 2040 plan with regard to the list of species is is a good document for sure. Um

537
02:36:22.160 --> 02:36:44.160
now what I did in 1.1.6 Six was try to get it simplified and move the part

538
02:36:44.160 --> 02:37:04.920
about um the environmental value of of the land being prioritized even where public use may be limited or inappropriate. I move that down to 1.1.6.2.

539
02:37:05.840 --> 02:37:24.399
And then this um po policy is the one that David had um pointed out that in the first sentence it says the city shall purchase.

540
02:37:24.399 --> 02:37:42.000
Um and and uh we need um also to make sure that purchase is one thing

541
02:37:42.000 --> 02:38:00.479
and we we need to um identify alternate methods of conserving the lands. Um in in another in another sentence because

542
02:38:00.479 --> 02:38:20.319
um you know easements um uh you know land donation um transfer of development rights, purchase of development right you know those those are um you know not the

543
02:38:20.319 --> 02:38:35.280
purchase. Um, I don't I don't know if when I look at this, I don't know if we need the word acquisition there, but if you can just read through and David can read through and see if he

544
02:38:35.280 --> 02:38:51.439
thinks this sounds halfway decent. This was not easy to do. >> I think it looks great, Mary. >> Yeah, I liked it a lot. >> And it does have acquisition in there already. Yeah, >> it is redundant, but it doesn't matter.

545
02:38:51.439 --> 02:39:08.560
>> I could get rid of acquisition. Um, you know, okay, so David, you got the city shall purchase. Um, should we get rid of acquisition down in the second line from the um from the

546
02:39:08.560 --> 02:39:29.120
end? >> You made it clear in the first sentence, >> right? purchase properties identified as environmentally >> endangered lands. >> So having it in there again is redundant. >> Um yeah, I'm not sure about acquisition.

547
02:39:29.120 --> 02:39:43.920
One of the things that just strikes me as I'm looking at it now is um the way it was kind of split up. It looks like the directive is to purchase only property whereas I think before the way it was written was it also included purchase of easements, purchase of

548
02:39:43.920 --> 02:39:59.280
transfer of development rights. um which kind of is still included, but I I would suggest moving purchase of easements into the purchase language as well. Um in addition to I think as it's written

549
02:39:59.280 --> 02:40:19.040
now, it speaks kind of to the city granting them. Do we purchase the easement or um could I mean is there any other way getting that or um

550
02:40:19.040 --> 02:40:34.240
the city could purchase easements, the city could be donated easements can obtain a easement right just like it could full property rights. >> Oh, so it would just be feasible properties, easements, comma and so

551
02:40:34.240 --> 02:40:52.319
forth. easements generic not I think yeah that would work I agree with that one that would work >> let me get a pencil here >> I think acquisition is okay because that infers you can acquire the property several other ways without purchasing it so that kind of secures

552
02:40:52.319 --> 02:41:09.040
>> this was really difficult to figure out I got to say any comments would be greatly appreciated and then we'll what what I'll do after all this is run this by you know, um Brad, um David and Lily,

553
02:41:09.040 --> 02:41:25.040
and you know, they'll massage it again. But, um >> it it also might be clear rather than having both unencumbered land donation and mitigation land donation to just have land donation. >> Okay.

554
02:41:25.040 --> 02:41:45.200
Okay, that sounds good. Okay, I got that. Okay. So that second sentence, protection of environmentally endangered land can be Oh, wait. First of all, it said the city shall also consider alternate methods of conserving these

555
02:41:45.200 --> 02:42:00.960
lands because that's important. I remember um it was about probably about six years ago that there was a a property um

556
02:42:00.960 --> 02:42:19.120
that had the a person, you know, um was getting older and wanted to donate to the city. Well, the city wouldn't take it. uh you know actually um and the EO

557
02:42:19.120 --> 02:42:37.840
program was interested in this too. Um and they didn't have the money at that time. So the city would have to take it for maybe a year or two and maintain it and

558
02:42:37.840 --> 02:42:53.439
um then the eel program would have the money to um maintain it and could you know uh assume it as one of their properties. Well,

559
02:42:53.439 --> 02:43:09.760
um the city did not want to to um spend any money on um maintaining this property. So, but it was a one that could have been donated, you know,

560
02:43:09.760 --> 02:43:28.399
and so um and what city shall protection of environment danger land can be accomplished through in that second sense I got acquisition

561
02:43:28.399 --> 02:43:47.760
easements. Maybe I shouldn't should I put acquisition or just get rid of acquisition? Maybe it's confusing because we're we discussed purchase in the first sentence. >> Well, I don't think acquisition

562
02:43:47.760 --> 02:44:02.720
necessarily requires expenditure of funds. You can acquire it through other means such as donation, >> leave it, acquisition, easements, >> land donation, transfer of development rights, purchase

563
02:44:02.720 --> 02:44:18.800
of development, right, and other planning tools. Does that sound good? And like I said, I move that um sentence about um you know it is said that you know

564
02:44:18.800 --> 02:44:36.319
selection criteria to be used in determining these properties shall place greater weight on the selection of lands which appear on the inventories of endangered or threatened species. Even though public use uh and recreation may not be appropriate. I kind of took that

565
02:44:36.319 --> 02:44:54.720
thought and put it in strategy 1 point 1.6.2 to um environmental value shall be prioritized even where public use may be limited or inappropriate. And that is the

566
02:44:54.720 --> 02:45:11.720
philosophy of the EEL program. It's it's the environmental value first and public land um as appropri I mean public use as appropriate. So,

567
02:45:15.040 --> 02:45:32.160
>> and suddenly we're on page three. >> Wait a minute. We got uh you might be on page three, but we got the we got >> Are you trying to find the language for 1.1.6.2? I'm saying um that what I did was the

568
02:45:32.160 --> 02:45:48.720
protection of instead of land um it says priority shall be given to the acquisition and protection of land which are which >> which I would recommend just to say priority shall be given to lands which are identified as environmentally

569
02:45:48.720 --> 02:46:04.399
endangered and skip the acquis given to the acquisition and protection of lands part. Why would you want to take that >> out >> out? >> Because I think that's assumed when you say are environmentally endangered. That's the whole reason for this

570
02:46:04.399 --> 02:46:25.279
>> strategy. Leave acquisition or protection in there. >> Wait a minute. Where where are you? Which policy are you on? >> 116. >> Probably should go to the acquisition. >> So what what now John? Well, the acquisition is what's

571
02:46:25.279 --> 02:46:40.800
confusing for me in this sentence just because it's you're saying that they acquired it in some other way besides purchasing. It doesn't. So, I would say priority sh I understand the protection part. Priority shall be given >> okay >> to lands protected that are identified

572
02:46:40.800 --> 02:46:56.160
as environmentally endangered because you don't know how you're acquiring that land whether it's purchase or don donation. say acquisition, but acquis acquisition can cover buying it or getting it donated or

573
02:46:56.160 --> 02:47:14.120
>> okay any variety of of these things that we talked about in 1.1.6. >> Maybe that's what we're I thought we were talking about that John's talking about the last sense. Maybe we don't need that acquisition because

574
02:47:14.399 --> 02:47:30.960
um >> regardless of how you acquire it, you want to still protect >> of environmentally endangered lands can also be accomplished through put the word also in there. Also be accomplished

575
02:47:30.960 --> 02:47:47.760
through and then get rid of acquisition because these are the ways that you would acquire it. is land donation um basically or I don't know

576
02:47:47.760 --> 02:48:03.359
>> it shouldn't really matter how we acquired the land it should just be protected because it has been identified as environmentally endangered >> so anyway it's splicing >> I like to acquire and protect actually I think that makes a lot of sense

577
02:48:03.359 --> 02:48:20.000
>> the the reason you want to put priority on the acquisition position is so it just doesn't linger in there. It doesn't linger on and nothing happens. >> Right. >> Wait, I can hear you. >> It's a budget issue. >> All that is is a budget issue. You

578
02:48:20.000 --> 02:48:35.040
prioritize the acquisition of lands that are endangered. You don't put it on the back burner. You don't put it anywhere else on your budget list. You prioritize it. >> I agree. So that's a budget line

579
02:48:35.040 --> 02:48:53.279
>> that says you're not going to your your buying of endangered land has to have a priority >> over some other stuff. >> Yeah. That's in 1.16.2. Yeah. >> Okay. So we're talking about two things

580
02:48:53.279 --> 02:49:12.680
at the moment. 1.1.6 I think. Um, and then it's that last sentence in 1.1.6, the protection of environmentally endangered lands.

581
02:49:17.520 --> 02:49:37.840
Can >> I'm fine with having >> I'm fine with position there. Yeah, it's >> I don't think you can say it enough times. >> Okay. Okay. So, that kind of summarizes these two >> That's right. >> sentences.

582
02:49:37.840 --> 02:49:55.040
>> I'll tell you what, when we'll run this by staff and see what if they like it, we'll just leave it as as you had it. The protection of

583
02:49:55.040 --> 02:50:10.640
um environmentally endangered lands can be accomplished through acquisition easements, land donation, transfer development rights, purchase of development rights, and other planning tools. And we'll see what they say because

584
02:50:10.640 --> 02:50:26.560
>> right, >> you know, you got to make sure you got it right. You can't just rush through things, right? Well, you could use an article the word 'the' in front of acquisition so that it's through the acquisition easements and so forth.

585
02:50:26.560 --> 02:50:44.720
That's the only edit I would make there. >> Well, you also need of if you add the as a >> Yes. >> Okay. I'll tell you what. Well, we'll have something for you to vote on

586
02:50:44.720 --> 02:51:02.080
after I run this by staff. Okay, >> next time. Okay, so now we're on 1.1.7, even though you thought you might be on page three.

587
02:51:02.080 --> 02:51:26.720
Um, this is a this is one. Um, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. because it says where acquisition of identified wildlife habitat is not fiscally possible any public or private

588
02:51:26.720 --> 02:51:41.600
use of such land greater than three acres in an area shall require a management plant. Th this is the old language um separ. But what this means is

589
02:51:41.600 --> 02:51:59.640
if somebody owns some land and they got um you know gopher tortoise they're going to do nothing with the burrows or possibly they had have um scrub jays on it.

590
02:51:59.760 --> 02:52:16.160
What this says any private use of such land I mean it's their land and yet the city is asking them to to create a management plan that is a city requirement it is not awc

591
02:52:16.160 --> 02:52:34.960
requirement um so that is um Lily I know you looked into what did you find? >> Yeah, I think this is when our conversation about that preeemption

592
02:52:34.960 --> 02:52:51.760
started happening that the management plan happens between the property owner and the regulating agency for the most part with that post 2012 um state law on the

593
02:52:51.760 --> 02:53:07.600
like for permitting purposes when we when we talked. >> Okay. So I I know the management plan is um something that um must be a city

594
02:53:07.600 --> 02:53:23.279
requirement and that um FWC um recognizes that the city has its requirements. Um, this one I suggest you just

595
02:53:23.279 --> 02:53:41.520
um sit on and wait until we discuss this law. >> Um, I'll discuss it with >> David, >> you know, the proper people. >> Okay. >> Especially somebody who knows the more

596
02:53:41.520 --> 02:54:17.920
legal stuff. Oh yeah. And then um then I moved strategy 1.1.7.1 into the end of that policy 1.1.7. You'll see it's crossed out there. What did I do?

597
02:54:17.920 --> 02:54:40.479
Oh, I got it in two places. Well, one of them's going to have to go if we get rid of 1.1.7, which I was what I thought we would do. Okay, we'll see.

598
02:54:40.479 --> 02:55:04.880
But if we do then the that one strategy on the next page one point 1 1.7.1. Oh, I know what I did. Sorry. Um, I changed this policy 1.1.7.

599
02:55:04.880 --> 02:55:20.560
Forget what I said about it. I changed it to make sense to me. >> Yeah. >> I got rid of the management plan requirement. >> Right. Right. >> Yeah.

600
02:55:20.560 --> 02:55:40.880
>> And I used the wording from the 2040 plan, no less, which staff worked hard on. >> Okay. So, they got rid of the stuff about the management plan, uh, you know, for any use of public or

601
02:55:40.880 --> 02:56:00.800
private property greater than three acres. And >> yeah, but you struck out the three acres. Yeah, I I got rid of I I because I um Okay, it says

602
02:56:00.800 --> 02:56:17.760
where acquisition of identified wildlife habitat is not fiscally possible. Any public or private use of such land shall be designed to minimize harm to the state and federal listed wildlife species in its habitat.

603
02:56:17.760 --> 02:56:32.160
So it doesn't it doesn't matter what size it is. If it if it's good wildlife habitat, >> the site plan should be designed to minimize harm plan harm. >> This needs to be discussed with staff

604
02:56:32.160 --> 02:56:50.000
because any public or private use um is is just um not clear. So, we'll have that little conversation.

605
02:56:50.000 --> 02:57:07.040
>> Also, with this one, I'm not entirely sure what work it's doing because the take, which is very broadly defined in federal law, harassment, harm, killing of any listed species, is already illegal at any extent. So, I mean, it's illegal to do any of this. So,

606
02:57:07.040 --> 02:57:23.600
minimizing harm is you're just arriving where the law already places you. Wait, what? >> Need to reduce some words. >> It's Yes, exactly. >> What

607
02:57:23.600 --> 02:57:41.439
do you have a a suggestion for that? >> I don't at the moment. It's something I want to >> discuss through. Yeah, that's just my initial impression looking at it is I'm not sure what work it's really doing because it's already federally and statewide illegal to do any harm to any

608
02:57:41.439 --> 02:57:55.600
of these species. >> So will >> So the only benefit that it had was dealing with a a management plan which we're saying we don't really want or need. >> So >> So that will be discussed that that'll

609
02:57:55.600 --> 02:58:13.439
be an item to discuss. See, this is why we're lucky we got an attorney now. >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Very thankful. >> Yeah. >> We appreciate you. >> Yes, we do. For sure. Um and then policy

610
02:58:13.439 --> 02:58:28.399
1.1.8, they had a couple different abbreviations for Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, which handles the gopher tortoise. Um, you know, it used to they they used to

611
02:58:28.399 --> 02:58:45.760
have a longer one, FFWC, but they they always go by FWC. So, since um >> that's what they got on their trucks, >> you'll see, you know, >> right on the door. >> I'll have to see if that abbreviation is

612
02:58:45.760 --> 02:59:14.399
what they want. Um because um in the we'll just see what abbreviation they want. I'll put a big question mark. Okay. >> Yeah. Because you could use it in

613
02:59:14.399 --> 02:59:33.840
1.1.8.1. rather than spelling out all those words for FWC. >> All right. 1.1.8.1 is TBD. That's what we got to discuss this law, which I'm so glad Lily found

614
02:59:33.840 --> 02:59:55.840
exactly where it was. But this is um interesting. the the thought is that we're going to that city is going to um you know cooperate with um the FWC like for the gopher tortoise and

615
02:59:55.840 --> 03:00:19.040
um fish and wildlife service. Um and then there's some um strategies you know um and first of all the policy 1.1.8 8 says the

616
03:00:19.040 --> 03:00:34.080
study will work cooperatively with US Fish and Wildlife Service and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Committ Commission to protect and promote the recovery of species designated by these agencies as listed wildlife species.

617
03:00:34.080 --> 03:00:56.319
Very good. That's very good. And then um strategy 1.1.8.1 8.1 is going to have to be discussed and then strategy 1.1.8.2

618
03:00:56.319 --> 03:01:13.200
they said he shall consult with these agencies for technical consultation as appropriate. Well, I just put as appropriate because, you know,

619
03:01:13.200 --> 03:01:34.399
not sure when they would use that, but and then the last one, strategy 1.1.8.3 is really um interesting. Okay. The city shall cooperate with these agencies in locating potential

620
03:01:34.399 --> 03:01:49.600
introduction sites for the designated species. And you all wanted to get rid of on existing conservation lands. Well, it turns out FWC for the gopher tortoise, they are not

621
03:01:49.600 --> 03:02:05.920
just demanding that you know the introduction site be on conservation land. It can be on private land as well. There's all kinds of private >> land owners that >> love love to get money for relocating tortoises.

622
03:02:05.920 --> 03:02:23.760
>> But is the city supposed to be doing some acquisition for these lands? And the city could also be m doing their own mitigation. >> They could create their own mitigation bank for gopher tortoises or scrub trees. So we so we um so

623
03:02:23.760 --> 03:02:47.680
you know you were correct in in uh allowing the potential introduction sites to be not only on the conservation land but also on the private land. >> Next 1.1.9. So 1.1.9,

624
03:02:47.680 --> 03:03:13.359
if you're getting rid of the management plans up in >> 1.1.7, why do you need 1.1.9? >> Thank you, Brad. >> Thank you.

625
03:03:13.359 --> 03:03:36.160
Um, how about if I put a big question mark? Did to be discussed? Oh, it's getting late. It's a good thing we only have one more thing to do. It looks like

626
03:03:36.160 --> 03:03:55.680
I'll put a question mark on one point 1.9. Okay. >> Discuss it. 1.1.10. The city shall protect existing natural reservations. It says anyway,

627
03:03:55.680 --> 03:04:13.520
something's wrong with that. Including recreation and publicly protected conservation lands according to the strategies sub force in the recreation and open space element. That's a mistake. You don't want um the recreation element

628
03:04:13.520 --> 03:04:29.279
um telling you what to do with these environmentally sensitive lands. These are for uh protecting environmentally valuable

629
03:04:29.279 --> 03:04:49.720
lands, not for soccer fields. And I looked at the recreation open space element and I thought that was really an inappropriate policy. >> Okay. >> Mhm. >> 1.1.10.

630
03:04:49.920 --> 03:05:06.880
Um this is something that they uh also have in the county plan. Um it's just that there's no good place to put this language. So they put it in

631
03:05:06.880 --> 03:05:33.439
uh this particular under this particular objective. >> Okay. >> Okay. I'm going to make a suggestion that we do not go on to the next objective because we have done enough

632
03:05:33.439 --> 03:05:48.880
and we're really going to get into some complicated stuff with the next conservation. Um >> really complicated. >> Yeah, I mean the wetlands the wetlands u part of the conservation element

633
03:05:48.880 --> 03:06:07.120
>> of course. So to be continued. >> Okay, >> we're making progress. >> Need a motion to move the wetlands discussion to the next meeting. >> I move that we continue the wetlands

634
03:06:07.120 --> 03:06:23.279
discussion at the next meeting. >> Okay. >> And thank you, Mary. This is this is fabulous. This is really really good work. Um, it fits right into, you know, what we're trying to do with the 405 wetlands right now. I mean, it actually

635
03:06:23.279 --> 03:06:38.960
gives it meaning. Thank you. >> Is there a second? >> And I second that motion. >> Okay. So, we got a motion and a second. Any further discussion? >> All in favor say I.

636
03:06:38.960 --> 03:06:55.760
>> I. Any opposed? Passes unanimously. Good. On to new business. Seems we don't have any new business. >> Not today. Petitions and requests from the public.

637
03:06:55.760 --> 03:07:15.359
>> No. Good. Everybody's good. All right. >> Do you want to petition? >> I ask Lily to send out uh a notification to all of you >> on the work that has been done at Cape Canaveral. Uh the city of Cape Canaveral >> in measuring noise. Yes sir.

638
03:07:15.359 --> 03:07:30.800
>> And I think you all got it. >> Yeah, I did. >> And I did that so that we could at least have a dialogue as to we are the only city that faces the launch pads. >> They don't. >> We are the only cities that get the

639
03:07:30.800 --> 03:07:48.640
shock wave. They don't. But yet they're having Rollins College come in and take measurements. Well, because the citizens are worried. Did they choose Rollins as an impartial organization? >> Okay. >> FIT I mean FT

640
03:07:48.640 --> 03:08:05.439
Florida Tech changed it. >> For whatever reason Rollins College Rollins College is involved with >> they won the bid. >> They won the bid for the city of Cape Canaveral. So, my take on that was to perhaps you guys may want to think about

641
03:08:05.439 --> 03:08:22.479
trying to get some measurements put out throughout the city. We have tall buildings, 10 stories, plenty of them. We also we also have bookend bridges. >> Yep. >> That we can do that. And we have open

642
03:08:22.479 --> 03:08:38.000
areas looking at the river so we can see the shock wave coming. >> Oh, yeah. And so that will give us a good base as to what we're going to see at the end of 2026. >> And here >> it's not going to be 27. So here's

643
03:08:38.000 --> 03:08:54.560
here's the schedule, guys. 2027, we're going to have Artemis 3, but I have a feeling that depending how it goes on May 19th in Bokhica >> with the new Starship >> version three. >> Yeah.

644
03:08:54.560 --> 03:09:08.960
If it goes well, there'll be some acceleration of manufacturing that is going to come here to try to get some version of Starship off on the pad at 39A,

645
03:09:08.960 --> 03:09:27.120
>> which is coming ready. And so we need to be able to lay out some kind of plan to measure locally what is the effect of that sound shock wave to our citizens.

646
03:09:27.120 --> 03:09:42.399
So that that was my purpose of doing that. Now it it was only information is from it it came from the today newspaper who was giving them some credit for worrying about it. But at the end of the day, we're the

647
03:09:42.399 --> 03:09:59.439
only ones that are right across the platforms. No one else. So think about it and and see if we want to promote perhaps uh some kind of process or method or financing or going to council and said,

648
03:09:59.439 --> 03:10:15.680
"Hey, would you guys be attuned to setting some measurements around the city both by the river and inland, maybe west of 95 also, uh and and start getting some data because there'll be there'll be plenty of small launches

649
03:10:15.680 --> 03:10:31.200
available between now And then >> yes, >> the two big ones are going to be at the tail end of the year. >> The Do you know how much um the city of Cape Canaveral had to had to pay Rollins to do the study? >> I heard it was 15,000. >> That's cheap.

650
03:10:31.200 --> 03:10:47.680
>> Yeah, it was cheap. >> That's cheap. >> Yeah, it wasn't much at all. >> And I can tell you that we have citizens that are very concerned. >> Absolutely. They already have pictures falling off the walls and >> cracks and windows breaking and things are happening already. So,

651
03:10:47.680 --> 03:11:03.359
>> you ain't seen nothing yet. >> 15,000 is cheap to set up these monitors. >> And so, like I said, this just to get a dialogue among us and see what we want to take to council if we want to take anything. >> Did every anyone look at the >> I think we should.

652
03:11:03.359 --> 03:11:19.760
>> Do we have a copy of the proposal >> lawsuit the actual lawsuits from the people in Texas? Well, we would have to go to >> Brad Brad sent that over. I don't know if anybody >> we would have to go to the city of Cape Canaveral and as and >> because I called Rand Collins today this morning. I called them trying to get a

653
03:11:19.760 --> 03:11:34.640
hold of the professor was written in that article. >> Yeah. Right. >> And I couldn't get a hold of him. So I left a message on answering machine to please call me about this because I lived next door to I didn't say I lived in Cape Canaveral. I said, "I live, you

654
03:11:34.640 --> 03:11:50.560
know, next door to the launchpad, as close as can be, and can you call me?" And that was this morning. So, I hadn't heard anything back. >> In fairness, that, you know, he might be doing something else, but >> uh I don't know if maybe Lily can look

655
03:11:50.560 --> 03:12:08.319
into uh the sustainability person at Cape Canaveral and and see. >> Yeah. Can we get a copy of their proposal? >> If we know what their hardware is, we can >> is probably involved in this, isn't it? So maybe maybe you can find out for us what's what's going on. I'm I'm really

656
03:12:08.319 --> 03:12:26.080
after I I read that report on we had seen on the round table the issue of sonic disturbance from starship before at least plotted um and then taking measurements that had happened out in Bokeh Chica which of course haven't

657
03:12:26.080 --> 03:12:42.560
happened here yet and the question is if you applied the sonic and seismic uh data that was collected there to here how would we fare >> exactly >> and and that's a really big unknown The two pylons holding up the Max Brewer Bridge are facing that that launchpad.

658
03:12:42.560 --> 03:12:56.960
They will take the full front on brunt of of any seismic shock that comes through. So will the other 10-story buildings that are that are on the water. And there's very well there's no very little trees between us and them. >> Very speak of.

659
03:12:56.960 --> 03:13:12.960
>> Yeah. To attenuate that in any way. So that might be something that the city would really want to consider getting a study done. maybe having a grant to find out where we're going because >> the FAA may have grants for that. >> Yeah, >> you can see that seismic shock coming

660
03:13:12.960 --> 03:13:29.760
across the river if it's calm. I I had a group of kayakers out during the John Glenn shuttle launch and we were sitting due east of Hallover Canal and the river was like a sheet of glass that day and you could see the waves coming towards

661
03:13:29.760 --> 03:13:45.439
our kayaks and then we were going like this. I mean there there there literally is a a big shock wave with those with those launches. >> So who here lives on the river? Anybody here live on the river besides me? >> You live on the river?

662
03:13:45.439 --> 03:13:59.200
>> I do. >> I'm a block away. >> You're a block away. Now see when they took down the trees across the street from me. >> Now I feel everything. >> Sure. >> Before that the trees blocked that house and trees blocked. >> Of course. And so now when that launch

663
03:13:59.200 --> 03:14:16.880
came the other week or the last month, yeah, there was a hundred people across the street in that lot, >> but I could feel the the dishes shake in our house. >> They were not tall enough. >> Huh? >> They were not tall enough. You need >> You need taller people to block the

664
03:14:16.880 --> 03:14:32.960
sound. Yeah. >> Did everybody get the lawsuit, the actual lawsuit in Texas, though, that describe all of the complaints from the people who are suing? Did you see? >> I read through it. I I didn't see anything. >> You didn't? Okay. Well, I was reading through it and people are describing the actual impact of these,

665
03:14:32.960 --> 03:14:49.760
>> right? >> So, I thought this really sets the precedent and lays the ground for us uh to to fight this or to make sure it doesn't happen. >> I believe we owe it to the citizens to at least look into it and and if we all agree to promote some kind of study uh

666
03:14:49.760 --> 03:15:04.880
on the possible effects because this is just the beginning of launching the big rockets, guys. This is not a one and done, >> right? >> Okay. And so you're you're looking at a series of launches that are going to be growing throughout next year, especially

667
03:15:04.880 --> 03:15:20.640
if they are successful >> with the Starship >> and not to mention the other two Artemis that are coming along. So, so that we have possibilities, >> but we need to start measuring. >> Hector, that sounds an awful lot like a motion.

668
03:15:20.640 --> 03:15:34.880
>> Why don't you make it one second? >> You want a motion? I'll second it >> and then we can go forward. >> Make a motion that uh we look into the physibility of obtaining data. >> So this is a recommendation to council. >> It's a recommendation to council

669
03:15:34.880 --> 03:15:52.160
uh to look at uh collecting data throughout the city uh in uh when the launches are taking place >> and what the impact of the city. >> Seismic and sonic. >> Seismic and sonic. Yes. >> Okay. >> Absolutely. And I second because my

670
03:15:52.160 --> 03:16:07.840
house is there. >> We'll come stand behind your house. >> You'll stand behind my house. >> Behind it? >> Oh, then you can stand in the place of property. That's >> I just don't want to be one of the people in front. >> Gasoline contamination. >> Oh dear. >> What is >> that?

671
03:16:07.840 --> 03:16:24.479
>> Okay. So, we have a motion in a second. >> Gasoline. There used to be a gas station. >> Member Rosen. >> Nobody can build. >> We have a second. Yep. All in favor. Okay. All right. >> Thank you guys. >> Any other discussions? >> That's the only new item I have. Need a roll call. >> I need a roll call vote. Yes. This is a

672
03:16:24.479 --> 03:16:39.840
recommendation of council. All right. >> Yes. Recommendation. >> All right. Lori. >> Member Young. >> Yes. >> Member Berdett. >> Yes. >> Member Member Delgado. >> Yes. >> Vice Chairwoman Thompson. >> Yes. >> Member Rosa. >> Yes. >> Member Nico. >> Yes.

673
03:16:39.840 --> 03:16:53.840
>> Chairman Majuk. >> Yes. I always go last. >> Well, that was a good start to member reports. Thank you. Anybody else care to have a report? >> Yes, Laura Lee, please.

674
03:16:53.840 --> 03:17:12.319
>> So, um, on May 19th, which is next Tuesday, um, the city c I mean the county commission is going to be discussing, um, the, uh, save our Indian River Lagoon um, referendum, you know, to extend the half penny sales tax for

675
03:17:12.319 --> 03:17:27.840
another 10 years. So, if you're not doing anything, it's a it's a morning meeting. Um the agenda is not up yet so I don't know e I don't have an estimation of what time but we need we need bodies in the

676
03:17:27.840 --> 03:17:43.520
room to support um extending the half penny sales tax. I'm pretty sure that it's going to go through but to have a lot of support there would would would you know make it look even better. So that that's coming up next Tuesday

677
03:17:43.520 --> 03:17:58.960
>> at this at the county commission meeting. >> Excellent. member Rosa. Uh >> yes. Um I'm glad we shed some light on the um the the permitting for tree removal. It's something that's been on my mind for 10 years. I've been watching I've known about it and just seen a

678
03:17:58.960 --> 03:18:16.800
blind eye turn. So K, thank you for acknowledging that I'm glad you're on board. >> Anybody else? >> Nothing to report. That brings us to future agenda items. H >> more wetlands.

679
03:18:16.800 --> 03:18:36.000
>> More wetlands. Well, yeah, we I already know wetlands are coming back. So is I guess the UFMP is done. So that won't be coming back. >> Vinnie did respond as we were sitting in this meeting. He said he's out of the country and then won't be coming back. He's looking at like after August.

680
03:18:36.000 --> 03:18:50.239
>> Oh, that far. Oh, wow. Okay. >> Okay. >> So, >> won't be doing it next month. >> Not be next month. No. All right. >> Who was that? >> Vinnie Toronto.

681
03:18:50.239 --> 03:19:07.600
He did the presentation to the uh sorrel citizens oversight committee about adding swailes to the city of Indian Harbor Beach. And the thing that that struck me was the way he said, you know, our city's flat like a plate and there's

682
03:19:07.600 --> 03:19:23.680
no place to put water. So that's why they made swailes because a bowl is easier to drink out of than it is a plate. So for soup anyway. So that was >> I don't think we need any more agenda items for the next meeting because we've spent a lot of time on the urban forest

683
03:19:23.680 --> 03:19:40.160
and we need to finish the wetlands. So >> absolutely. >> I don't I I vote no other agenda items at the next meeting. >> No additional. >> Yeah. All right. >> It's all Mary's show. Well, >> Lily might come up with an agenda item. >> If Lily comes up with something, then

684
03:19:40.160 --> 03:19:51.319
it's going to be important and that'll be fine. >> Of course it is. >> All right. Nothing else, then we're adjourned. Thank you for your time and effort, everybody.