Good evening. I got the thumbs up from the back of the room, so I think we're ready to go. Uh glad to have everybody back together. Um for the record, those of you in the audience, I'm Mark Watts. I'm the chair of the Charter Review Commission. I want to welcome you to our our second full meeting. Um this is the
meeting following all of our various listening sessions. And so we're going to start off with a roll call. Madam Secretary, >> present. >> Miss Nory >> here. >> Miss Bright >> here. >> Mr. Clayton >> here. >> Mr. Ingram
>> here. >> Mr. Johnson >> here. >> Miss Quiet >> here. >> Mr. Lewis >> here. >> Miss Munisy >> here. >> Mr. Parker >> here. >> Mr. Sakinovski >> here. >> Miss Shriber >> here. >> Mr. Mr. Toland and Miss Walford. Thank
you. >> Okay. Well, it's good to see everybody. I think we've got almost a full commission this evening. So, um that's good. We're going to actually get into some of the actual work um following our listening sessions tonight. And uh again, appreciate everybody being here and the members of the public that are
here. Um with that, I'm going to keep the opening remarks uh brief um because we I think have a lot of stuff to go through with the materials that staff presented us with. Um and our first item of business um is the approval of minutes from the organizational meeting on September 3rd, 2025.
Everybody have a chance to review the materials in your uh packet. Are there any changes or revisions to the minutes of the organizational meeting? If not, is there a motion? A motion from from Vice Chair Nory, a second from uh Commissioner Lewis.
>> Any discussion on the motion? All in favor say by signify by saying I. Any opposed? All right, we'll show those as approved. And then finally, or I guess the next item under that, we have um item B, the listening session minutes
from the September 9th, September 11th, September 15th, September 17th, and September 22nd uh listening sessions. Anybody have any revisions or edits to those minutes? >> I do. >> Yes. Commissioner Sh,
if you'll remember, I was supposed to say this in the beginning, push your button to make sure you can talk and take Okay, so on the um Orman Beach uh September 15th minutes,
um I just think that um creating a rural boundary charter amendment, the rule rural instead of rural, I I know it's just a simple word but there rule is a word so I think it should be corrected to rural instead
>> rural yes thank you >> okay >> under pant >> okay so we've got an amendment to the September 15th uh minutes and Catherine Pente's uh comments to change rural to
rural. Um any other changes or edits. All right. With that, I'll accept a motion with that revision. >> So moved. >> Got a motion by Commissioner Munisi.
Sec. Second by Vice Chair Nory. Any discussion? Mr. Chairman, are we sure that Miss Panty wants the note changed from roll to roll? Uh, >> obviously the intent is there because >> I think the intent was there and and those of us at that meeting I think would agree would would agree that that was the the statement made. So
>> I had the pleasure of watching it from Marathon Florida. So >> yeah, good setting. All right, we've got a motion and a second. Uh, no discussion. All in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. >> Any opposed? All right, the mot the
minutes are approved with one revision. >> Mr. Booker. Hey. >> Think you're up. >> Good afternoon. Uh back in 2015, the charter review commission wanted a what they called a trend report which which was some data
in regards to Valuchia County. So we took the liberty before we got into the business of this. We have produced a booklet which should be also on your tables. Uh it goes through everything that you can imagine about Valuchia
County. Um education, demographics, property, taxes, you name it. this is merely for your personal uh use if you need it and your responsibilities for the charter review commission. So, just wanted to throw that out to you. Um it's
nothing that that uh we will refer to, but thought that it might be helpful as you uh continue your work uh into next year. >> Thank you, Mr. Booker. We've got a question from Comm Vice Chair Nory. there. I'm sorry. Is that Can you hear
me? Okay. Now, page six. And there is a Florida county comparison. How How did we pick those counties? >> We picked counties that were similar in population >> population >> and some other demographic um >> okay
>> parameters, but but basically just size. >> Okay. So, is everything in here then compared to those. >> I'm sorry. >> Is everything in here then compared? I haven't looked at this yet because we just got it. >> Just got it.
>> But we we do a Florida county comparison on population. Do we do a Florida county comparison using those particular counties in any other place in this? >> It's not for everything that we've produced in the document. No.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you, M. Nory. Any other questions about the the information? Commission, >> I have a question. I have a question. Um, so I mean, I just got this, but um, is there I'm looking here. Is there
a breakdown of city population in here? >> Okay. If you feel like you need that information, then we can have our economic development folks provide some if if that's the will of the commission.
>> I actually think I would like it. Um, if they don't, no one's opposed. I I don't know why you'd be opposed, but I actually think I would like it. >> So, I guess just a a follow-up question for clarification. Are you looking for
the data to be provided for the cities within Valuchia County or comparing the cities in Valuchia County to other cities throughout the state? >> So, I'm asking for the data in Valuchia County and the reason I'm asking is I kind of want to see where the growth has been like where I just like I have a
general idea of population somewhat, but I think it would be helpful to have just thinking out loud. >> Yes, >> we can take certainly we can take a look at that and provide for you and the commission.
>> Yeah, Mr. Booker, I think that's something that the county I've seen those reports on kind of an annual basis, so I think it would be something you guys should be able to compile fairly. >> Yeah, we'll have something ready for you by the next meeting.
>> Okay. If if it's on the website, Mr. Dyer, I don't mind, but if you could just point me so I don't So, but we can certainly get that for you. >> Good question. >> Yeah, I don't I don't see any objection around the table and and um so I think that that would make sense if we can get
that for the next meeting as well. >> Yeah, I definitely think that would be helpful. I just have a question though on the stuff that we do have the 28. So that's when it says Valuchia County, it's it is all of Valuchia County though, not just the unincorporated area. Right. Thanks,
Okay, any other questions about the data? And obviously, we're all seeing this kind of for the first time, so we'll I'm sure have some questions that maybe are follow-up questions after we've had a chance to take a look through it. Mr. County Attorney, this is shown under an action item. Do you just want the commission to accept it or do we need to take any action?
>> I It's your pleasure. I don't think that's necessary. >> Commission recognizes we've got it. Okay. Thank you all. Appreciate that. Okay, moving on to uh general business. Um we're going to start out this evening with public participation. Um Madam
Secretary, I don't have any slips. I don't know if you have any slips. Um I do see that we have members of the public >> present. Um does anybody want to address the commission before we kind of get into the meat of our our discussion on some of the information we received on the listening sessions?
Okay. if you if you um think of anything, just you know, let us know and we'll uh we'll try and get you up and and get your input. But um we we do appreciate you all being here. So, thanks for the taking the time out to come to the meeting this evening. Um, okay. So, at our prior meetings, I think
we we talked about um, you know, kind of the purpose of this meeting was to kind of take all of the various information we've we've heard at the listening sessions and, um, some of the other information and suggestions that we've received from staff uh, and start kind of narrowing down or or at least
classifying how to how to start reviewing everything. um to to help us with that. Um I'd ask the the staff to to put together kind of their summary of the various topics that were raised um by speakers through the listening sessions. And if you look in your
agendas, you know, I'm sure all of you have kind of gone through the summary of the information, but um they they listed it by topic and also kind of broke down, you know, kind of the areas that may be preempted um either by general law um
preempted by um law that requires certain amendments to come from the county council or city commission or things that may be um subject to the restrictions that we we're currently operating under with Senate Bill 180. Um, so I as ask them to kind of make it
even a little simpler. Um, so let me pass these around here. We have one, two, three, four. And I just add it as ask them to take the same thing and color code it so we could look at it simply and and kind of go through the list this evening and
pass those down. And I I think given the the amount of stuff, you know, that that are, you know, included in the in the list this evening, um, you know, I think the the simplest thing may be to go through and and first see if there were any
questions from members of the commission on any of the specific items that staff had had indicated were preempted in one way or another. Um, just so we can make sure that we are clear on that. uh clear on whether or not we you know understand you know kind of the preeemption that
may apply to a particular topic. Um and so for ease of of reference that would be everything red um in the in the version that you've got now in front of you. Um and then there were several items that um staff had had summarized in our list that um there may be some
additional research um needed um to determine whether or not it's something that we could consider with the charter review commission. Um those are the things that are listed in yellow or shown in yellow um that we we may need to dig into a little bit further if that's something that the commission wants to to get into. And then the the
items that are left without a color um are the ones that based on you know kind of the staff analysis and and the county attorney's office review of the topics that were brought to our attention. And those are the ones that you know kind of at this point in time from the comments
those are the things that this commission uh has perview to to you know get into or consider in our discussions moving forward. So, um, unless the commission has any other suggestions on how to proceed forward, my thought would be start with, you know, asking if
anybody has any any questions about any of the the items that that have been listed as preempted um or as needing further research and then get into a discussion of the items that um that the commission may take up and start talking about whether or not we want to take up
some of those particular issues. Any other commissioners have thoughts or or suggestions on how to proceed with that? Mr. Shy. >> Um, well, I may have jumped the gun too quick. Um, I have a question about one of the ones that shows preempted, but I don't know if you want to start with that. So, if you want me to wait a
minute, I will. >> Actually, that was exactly where I wanted to start. So, if that makes sense to the rest of the commission, we'll start there and go through any questions on the preempted items and then um we'll go from there into the discussion on the items that we may be able to take up. >> And then from there, we'll get into any items that members of the commission may
also want to include for consideration. Okay. All right. On um page one of the document that you gave us with the ones highlighted
um I have a specific question. So I understand that SB80 would preempt the rural boundary but it goes on to say that the it's preemptive effective on the municipalities also.
So my question, I get it that it's preempted. So maybe, you know, this may seem out of line asking, but I'm going to go ahead and ask anyway. If it weren't preempted by SP 180, um, couldn't
the municipalities be written into the rural boundary as an amendment? >> Mr. Dyer, you able to to weigh in on that one? Um, yes, it it would need to be put on the ballot by the county council under a
different state law. So, that was passed several years ago. So, um, but the council is it was announced at our last council meeting. The council is taken up in on November 4th. Um
the they had asked for information about how could they uh consider uh the rural growth boundary proposal such as Orange County and we did a memo on that. I think our opinion was that
Senate Bill 180 puts up a lot of roadblocks, but we at least our opinion, we read it that it would allow us, the council to proceed with a portion of what Orange County did, and that is u
put some a different voluntary annexation process in place, which what Orange County did was basically said that um if a property was within a designated area that the county commission had to approve it. Um I don't
think we don't think that that's prohibited by Senate Bill 180 the way it's written. Um and honestly that's a big piece of that growth management puzzle. But the other parts uh of what
Orange County did with um uh the state has taken position would be prohibited uh under 180 the maps and that type of thing. >> I understand the SB80 portion. I'm
asking why. I guess I'm asking why. If SB80 didn't exist, this charter review committee could not if they chose to do a role ready, but also second part, if the cities wherever
might be impacted by a rural boundary could go together on the amendment all in one amendment, if you understand what I'm asking. Maybe I'm not clear, but >> No, you're you're clear. >> I think I think it's clear. Um, Mike, I don't know if you want to.
>> So, in the um first binder that my my office gave you on tab 4, there was a memo address the scope of the CRC review. And it that statute that basically if it would prohibit this
commission from putting forward a land use amendment that would have preemptive effect on cities but it would allow a county to do it but the county commission has to do it which is what Orange County did. um they their county commission put the rule growth boundary
amendment and of course simple 180 got adopted but yeah so I think it can be uh putting 180 to the side as if it didn't exist it could happen it's just a question of who puts on a ballot in this case it' be the governing body
>> so I think let me clarify and I'll I'll come back to you commissioner Sakovsky I think Mike that's the preeemption effectively that's in place under 163 where you've cited in a couple different places. >> Yeah. 163 3167. Yes. >> So, so in the absence of of Senate Bill
180, you still have certain items that are restricted to only the governing body can place those on the on the um ballot for consideration, >> which is something just, you know, I mentioned this to Pat earlier is not something the county the CRC had to deal with 10 years ago. It's been adopted
since then. >> Commissioner Sarovski. So that being said, that doesn't mean that this body cannot make recommendations to the council on set issues. Correct? I >> I think it does in that unfortunately
the way Senate Bill 180 was written. >> No, I'm talking about 163167. >> Yes, that's what that's what >> that would not address that, but Senate Bill 180 does because it puts a prohibition on proposing. That's and that's that's an interesting
word and that's that is actually >> unfortunately it's not defined. >> That's exactly right. It is doesn't meet I've read 180 and the word proposing doesn't even appear consistently in the bill. It only appears I only found it in one place. I don't know about y'all but
I found it in one place and it was without definition. So, um, what would they do to us if we were to actually make a suggestion, I won't call it a proposal, to the council? Um, would they
hit us with a wet noodle or what? >> Kenny would uh be sued and liable for attorney's fees. >> And who would be doing the litigation? >> Probably a developer, some group that's supposed >> because it was a mere proposal in that by their definition as opposed to I
think so. Yes. But you don't know of any particular developer ready and willing and able to do that. >> They don't typically tell me before they see. >> Right. But they this is something untested also, isn't it? >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, but that word proposal to me
was is probably one that will not survive legal challenge no matter where it comes from in this state. But that I don't know if you caught that one, but that is actually a word that was thrown in there and it says county. It doesn't say what part of the county. It just says county. But that is that is
interesting. >> That is one of the things that the county council has voted on and seeking a legislative change to to remove that to have it be shall not enforce uh rather than proposed because I I've yet to see proposed used uh in a statute
like that. It's pretty strong. >> I have another question mark. >> Yes. When >> Nick is done, >> Commissioner Sharp. Um, so continuing this, um, the words are burdensome. I can't remember the exact
term. >> Restrictive or burdensome. >> There you go. So, restricted or burdensome for the purposes of not just the rural boundary, but the items that are considered preemptive.
Since we really don't know exactly what's considered restricted or burdensome, I'm presuming you're determining the county's determining what's restricted or burdensome. Right now, >> without a definition, we're going to the case law would have us go back to just a
basic de definition, dictionary definition of restrictive or burdensome and which is broad. It doesn't say it doesn't provide any criteria when the restrictive or burdensome would apply just any restrictive or burdensome. So
um I think it it puts local cities and counties in difficult position because that is so broad that um it's going to capture basically everything that you would do that would add additional
standards or requirements on development. the way it's written. >> So, I would um >> ask this commission to possibly consider some of the items,
not necessarily rural boundary, but some of these items because who's to determine if they're burdensome? The county is making this decision
based on previous law, Mr. Dyer. Is that what you said? >> Yeah. And let me be clear on what my role is. I'm just the attorney. I'm not one of you. So, I don't have a vote. I can give advice, but it doesn't mean you have to take it. So, what we have done
is gone through and gave an assessment. You may disagree. I say the same thing to the county council. You may not, you don't have to take my advice, >> Commissioner Saros. >> Yeah. From a legal perspective, too. And I agree with the the concept of advice,
but there's also in law, whether it be here or anywhere else, there's black and white, and in the middle there's gray. And way I was taught in law school, there's a heck more lot more gray than black and white. And that's why I kind of was uncomfortable with the idea of
color coding because the implication it's just an opinion and it's it's really more orange than a red and a yellow here. So I would just recommend that those of us when we read it don't feel that red means prohibited like it normally does.
Well, and I think one of the reasons why I thought it would be helpful to to include the colors to draw out basically which ones we wanted to talk about whether we as a commission agreed with, you know, kind of that advice or if we wanted to to to take that advice or if we wanted to, you know, perhaps um, you know, kind of question it, which is I
think what's happening here, >> right? I just don't want it implied that we cannot look at red. >> Yeah. I think the the interesting thing that we're dealing with um and we've actually had some emails come into the to the um the general email box earlier today also that questioned you know kind
of what are we doing here if we've got this amount amount of preeemption. But we you know we're effectively the first time we've you know the first charter review commission that has had to deal with the amount of preeemption that has occurred over the past 10 years. And we've got the spectre of 180 hanging over us with the lack of clarity. And so
I think that was the the basis by which I just asked to organize things a little bit better so we could say here's the ones that we're questioning. Here's the you know that that we've been advised at this point in time are likely subject to some kind of some form of preeemption
>> potentially. It's it's not tested in any way, shape or form. >> Don't disagree at all. Yeah. I actually appreciate the order that you did because it made it easier for me to bring it up right away. Just saying. But
I do understand what he said. I get that. But it as an organizational it it helped me bring it up. Yeah. So perhaps to you know again um looking at you know 17 pages of of you know recommended or or suggested things for us to look at
based on just the staff and and you know county recommendations and and also the ones we heard from the listening sessions. So my intent was, you know, if there are ones that we want to, you know, kind of say, hey, we've got a question about this, you know, it's one that been identified as preempted or
that needs additional research, let's identify those specifically. Um, and then we can, you know, either ask staff to follow up on those particular issues um or not, depending on what the consensus of the commission is. Um, and then from there we can decide, okay, are
we going to continue down, you know, is there support among the commission to, you know, perhaps seek a secondary opinion? I mean, obviously some of this, you know, Commissioner Sarovsky, to your point, we're not going to know the answer to some of this until a court weighs in on it. Um, and so there is
certainly that um lack of clarity uh at the moment, which is why I think uh Mr. Dyer has given us the advice that, you know, looking at rules of statutory construction and things of that nature, um, we're going to go with definitions that are pretty broad, which makes the application of it fairly
broad. >> Okay. >> All right. So, we've talked a little bit about some of the items on page one. the um anybody else want to speak to any of the specific items that were identified by staff as preempted perhaps for some
follow-up discussion? We don't have to get into that follow-up discussion immediately. Um just, you know, to identify the things that you may want to um delve a little deeper into as we move forward with the discussion. If you just refer to a page number and
an item, um we can go through and then we'll we'll get into the ones that um um are fair game, so to speak. Is it possible to go through some of these things that clearly can't be dealt
with by us and take them off the table? >> I think that's the the intent moving forward from here is if we as a group decide we agree with the analysis that's been provided to us and we want to kind of stay away from the areas that um have
been indicated are preempted. um then we can essentially take those off the table for the discussions moving forward and focus on the areas where we may have some um latitude. >> So should we go through those now? For instance, with the first one, county
authority to establish citizen oversight panel to investigate police misconduct and it says we it cannot be addressed in the charter. The sheriff is an independent constitutional office not subject to investigation by the county. That seems to me that's pretty clear. That's not something we're going to be
able to deal with. >> Correct. >> So, can we just take that off the list or do we need a vote on every individual one in red? >> I don't think we need to vote on every individual one in red. My intent in setting it up this way and asking staff to set it up this way was for us to basically say, are there any of the ones
in red we disagree with the conclusion on >> and perhaps set those aside. Okay. >> Otherwise, we'll kind of steer away from the ones in red. If there's any questions on the ones in yellow where there may be some additional research needed, we can then ask staff to do that additional research to let us know whether we've got the latitude to go
into those areas. And then once we get through that, we'll focus on the areas that they've identified that we do have um authority to to look at based on the current state of the law. >> All right. Thank you. Commissioner, the only thing I would just uh share too
is that certain things which cannot be considered in a charter may and I agree that 180 is a complicating factor but may be able to be addressed by ordinance and the power of this commission is to
suggest ordinances as well. So, I just want to suggest that just because something may be off the table for a charter amendment, it doesn't mean it is off the table for an ordinance recommendation. >> Anything in particular that any of the members of the commission want to talk
about that are currently listed in in kind of that red color coding? Any specific issues? I'm getting shaking heads over here on the left side. Okay. So, I guess moving on then to um a couple of the items that were um listed
as, you know, maybe requiring additional information. Were there any questions on those or requests from the commission to kind of look into those a little bit deeper or have staff prepare additional analysis on those items? I think the first one I see is on page five. Um
limitations on land uses on neighboring properties. I think that was from the Orand listening session. All right. Not getting any on that one. So, moving on on page eight, um amendment to require treated waste water to be distributed to upland areas for
filtration. Again, I think that was one the staff identified that um there may be some additional research necessary if that's an area that the commission looks wants to look into. >> Commissioner Shyber, I see your head nodding. You want to talk about that one?
>> I would like to talk about that one. Um >> 17. >> Oh, yeah. Eight. Right. What I'm going to do right now is just put a kind of an asterisk next to the ones that we may want to to kind of take back up and ask staff to look into further. And then we'll do the same
thing with the ones that are not colorcoded that are kind of fair game to see if they're ones that the commission supports going forward with getting some additional information on. And then we'll kind of figure out how to, you know, sort of eat that elephant at as we move forward, if you will. Um, so we got
eight on eight of 17. How about on uh 10 of 17? There's a couple of items there. Uh mandate valu forever program acquire 55%. I think the current target is 50%. Vice chair >> nory. >> There we go. with their reporting.
>> Um, I want to be careful about things that we put into the charter, but this is one uh that if I understand this correctly, there is nothing in the charter now that mandates
any percent of land. So, I I would like to talk about this, you know, as part of what we're doing. I don't know if 55% is the right number or whether the goal of 50 is the right number. I have to think about that. But I do want to talk about
could this be a charter issue. >> Okay. Well, uh I think um and and let me look to my fellow commissioners who have spent time on the council before. Uh my thought is go through run through this and kind of get that list and then go
through with the ones that there's support for and see if we've got the full commission, you know, majority of the commission prepared to move forward with that. That make sense to y'all? >> Okay. So, we've got the uh percentage for the Valuchia forever forever program on page 10. Um the next item is remove
the authority uh for the council to directly purchase Valuchia forever properties. That was another suggestion. Any question or getting heads shaking on that one? So Nick or Nate, sorry. Thank you. Uh Mr. Chair, I I joined the the
CRC and was appointed by a council member under there the notion that we're looking at things from a 30 to 40,000 foot view where we're looking at the last 10 years on what worked and what didn't and then looking forward for the next 10, 20, 50 years. But it seems like
a lot of these suggestions that we're looking at, especially the ones that are highlighted in red and some of these that are in yellow, are more day-to-day policy decisions and things that we really shouldn't be concerned with. I mean, why why am I concerned whether code enforcement officers are wearing
body cameras when we have other greater issues to look at? And so in just in thinking of some of the things that we're looking at in here really okay so they're they could be under the purview of the CRC but is it really something that we want to deal with when we could
be focusing on some of the bigger issues. So, I admire what you're doing and moving through here so we can discard the chief from the wheat and move forward. And and I would just say that to my fellow members that we look at things that are going to impact our
citizens from a 50,000 foot level and leave the day-to-day operations to the folks that have been elected to run it or that we have hired to do it like legal staff. uh you know they we hired them to do our job for us you know to examine the laws and make sure that what
we are looking at to put forward to the county first of all is responsible secondly it's legal and maybe I have those reversed maybe it's legal then responsible Mr. But I don't want to be on the CRC and make recommendations to council that are
going to get us sued because it's our tax dollars that are paying those lawsuits to begin with. And just to make a statement, I don't want to waste taxpayers dollars just to be on one side of an issue or the other. So I commend you on being careful with that. And I make this suggestion to the rest of our
our council that we are very careful in what we do and very deliberate moving forward and not putting us into a liable situation to where we have to have staff involved and it's going to cost us hundreds of thousands of dollars to reverse something that we do. Thank you. Yeah, and I appreciate those thoughts
and and comments and and I think that as we kind of get through the the course of the discussion this evening, I think those are some of the things that you know I think a lot of the commissioners will be taking into account uh as we decide what to move forward with. >> Okay. So, >> I would like to address I'm sorry at the
page at the bottom of page 10, code enforcement officers wear body cameras. I know that sounds like something that we wouldn't want to get involved in and um I do know that um the Valuchia County Council has brought that up already and talked about the legal issues with the
fact that code enforcement officers don't have the same protection as law enforcement officers and I believe Mr. Booker, isn't that on the legislative agenda to ask for that law to be changed? >> We have that as part of our legislative priorities. Yes, ma'am. So, I would
think that's something that we ought to, you know, not mess with because the county council is already addressing it. It's already moving forward. It's already in action. It's not something we really need to weigh in on. >> So, so in essence, you're agreeing that that's not one to to um include on our
list moving forward. >> Correct. >> Okay, >> Mark. >> So, yes. >> Um sorry, I was waiting for them. Um, I want to go back to the one that you were on earlier that was right on page 10, the remove the authority of the council to directly purchase Forever Properties.
I would like to bring back more information on that. >> Okay. So, let's um again, right now I'm just going to identify them and then we'll go through and see if there's a consensus among the commission for each of the ones that we've identified from there. >> Perfect. No, that I didn't have an asterisk. So, that'll that I'll bring
that one back up. >> Commissioner Johnson. >> Yes, I have to agree. Go back to ideas. It's >> your mic. >> I thought it was on. I'm sorry. A lot of
people throw out ideas that really have no clue how it works or what it works. They feel like they have been wronged or something. And that's not the the council. The charter is not the place to try to correct those ills. and you start taking away the power of the county
council, you have really uh made a mess of our charter. We elect them, ideas change, circumstances change, and when you put this in charter, you have it for 10 years, and no way to undo it in that 10 years. So, we have to be very careful
not to take away the autonomy of the Baluchi County Council who are elected by the citizens. Yeah, I I think that absolutely true and I think that'll be something that comes out as we work on a consensus on whether or not to to pick up some of these issues. Um I was meeting with staff last
week and one of the things I mentioned was I think it's the uh state of Missouri's constitution is,200 pages long because they put so many things in it from the flashoint of kerosene to the basic rights for all citizens of Missouri. Um probably a little bit of overkill. Um, I don't think the flash point of kerosene needs to be in the in
the constitution, but um, you know, I think that'll be what kind of informs the next step in this process after we go through and identify the ones that we may want to consider and go through and pull the commission members. So yes, down on the end, >> I think we owe it to the residents to go
through everything they brought up and if it's something that's not we can't legally do or isn't affected by us, it's our job to explain to the residents why, but I think it's our job to go through everything that's important to the residents and everything that they brought up. >> Agreed. And I think that's the reason
we've got the the document in front of us that we do now. And I think this, you know, my intent is that this process this evening is where we're starting to work through that. And we want to make sure that, you know, from here these materials are part of our record moving forward. And part of the explanation to
members of the public that came out to our our sessions and provided that input of why this commission may or may not be able to do anything with regard to some of those suggestions. But I think that um that's this process and it's not necessarily a cleaner or uh you know uh streamlined process. It's a little bit
messy, but um it was the best thing that I could come up with. So um you know, bear with me. Let's uh kind of go through the rest of the list, see if there's anything else we want to talk about, and then we'll go back through and start talking about the ones we want to include on our on our agendas. Um anything on page 11 or 12 from the
commission? Uh again, these are the ones with uh we already dealt with all the red ones, but any of the yellow ones. So on bottom of page 12, we've got mandate funding for public transportation. >> Commissioner Sakovski, >> yeah, I'd like to put a asterisk there.
>> Okay. Uh reference resiliency in the charter. >> This was from the deand listening session. >> Yes, Commissioner. I'm not sure what that means. I mean, resiliency is certainly something we should be doing as a county, but I don't
know what that what that means. Do we have any did we get any background from the speaker? I don't don't know who J Baker is. >> John >> John Baker. >> John Baker. Well, it says J Baker here. Okay.
Um my recollection uh vice chair nory of that comment at the listening session was simply that it was reference resiliency as a organizing principle within the charter. Um I think that was the extent of it unless any other commissioner has other additional recollection. >> So there was no place where they would
put that. No additional language. >> It was just a general request to reference resiliency in the charter. I mean, I like the idea of of being a resilient county, but I'm not sure how that >> I I have a question.
>> Goes along with what you're asking. Do we are we under any obligation to turn around and ask the person who spoke, not us personally, but county staff to ask them what they meant like further or not really, just asking? We um I think you
know from this process obviously this is all occurring in the public and um each of the speakers that came out have the opportunity to come back to additional meetings provide us that additional input if um if they take a look at what we've generated here and say hey you guys have missed the mark you've misunderstood what I was talking about
then perhaps they can come to a subsequent meeting and give us additional detail. Well, it it also says in here that it probably wouldn't be it probably would likely prohibit the proposal of this topic and that would be Senate Bill 180. So, I don't
>> I think it would probably get into the detail of how you're referencing it. Then may trigger some other some other concerns. Um there's none other than the next one I've got is on 16 of 17. Amend the charter to allow revenue raised by thoroughare road impact fees to be
expended in alternate forms of transportation. I think that's um from the the land listening session again. Did anybody have that one marked as one to get into further research on? >> Are you referring to page 16? I'm sorry. >> Yes, 16 of 17. That was the last yellow
one that I think we hadn't addressed yet. >> I would like more information. >> Okay, got that one marked down. Any others? >> Commissioner Sarovsky. >> Uh, I'm just going to make a motion then just to make some progress here is that
the I we've only identified I think four of the yellows, five of the yellows. Um, and because two of them are related and the ones that are not colorcoded as you put it um that we get more information.
>> Okay. So I think if we get into a lot of the individual ones, my observation is we may want to talk about some of these in particular um moving forward. If you can clarify your motion for it with it. >> Okay. >> So that's that if anyone wants to second
it then we can get into discussion maybe modify it further but >> Okay. So can you restate your your motion for me because I'm not sure I fully understood >> it. The whole concept of this discussion was that we identify items that potentially need more information from staff and the staff themselves have identified the yellows and the whites.
I'll call them the whites for lack of a better word instead of non-colorcoded. Um and then we just simply uh refer those to for more information, better analysis. >> Okay. And that's in the form of a motion. So, we we have a motion to ask
staff to provide us additional analysis on all items or the four items that were listed um as the yellow items for for follow-up research. And I've got that as um on page eight, the
review of uh using treat uh amend to require treated waste water to be distributed upland areas for filtration. uh mandate Valuchia on page 10 mandate Valuchia Forever to be at 55% goal within the charter remove the uh also on page 10 remove the authority of the
council to direct directly purchase Valuchia Forever properties that was also on page 10 and on page 12 mandate funding sources for public transportation and on page 16 amend the um the one
relating to the use of thoroughare road impact fee I think those are the the yellow ones that you were mentioning and then I think your motion includes all the non-colored ones that >> um and yeah, so let's So we've got a motion. We
don't have a second yet. Let's see if there's a second for discussion. >> I'll second it for discussion. >> Okay, we've got a second for for discussion. Is there any discussion? >> Vice Chair. >> Yeah. Um, maybe I'm just confused on this, but um
I I I agree that we should be talking about the yellows, especially the whites. We haven't talked whites. We haven't talked about those yet. So, are we intending to talk about them tonight or >> Yes. >> Okay. All right. >> Yeah. So,
>> I mean, like term limits for staff, I would throw that one out automatically. But, >> so that was my purpose in saying let's go through. >> I'm sensitive to that. And that's if you want to just put the whites, >> non-color, whatever you want to call it, aside, that's fine with me. I I'll I
just want to I just want to move the yellows, the five yellows, and get and then move on to those. That makes sense. Five yellows. So, I I misspoke before. >> So, is there an amendment to your motion? Well, >> I'm I'm withdrawing the mo with the drawings. I'm just modifying.
>> I did it for discussion. >> All right. Is there is there a follow-up motion? >> Is there a follow-up motion to your motion with regard to the four that have yellow ones that have been identified for additional research? >> Okay.
Okay. So, um, what's the what's the commission's consensus with regard to do you want to go ahead and see if there's a consensus on each of those four items that have been identified for additional research so we can move on from those and then start talking about the other? >> The motion is to just move all get more
input. We'll have that discussion later. >> You may like in a different meeting. >> Yeah. Because the whole point is the the staff itself identified those as things that needed more research. let them do the research and get back to us, then we'll talk about it. >> So, for purposes of clarity, let's let's
give the staff a motion that says we want you to look at these four u five and clarify the fifth one for me. The >> last one, >> okay, the thorough fair road impact fee um topic and ask them to bring that back for additional information for the next meeting. So, is that a motion?
>> Yes, sir. >> All right. Is there a second? >> I was trying to second that before. So, I'll second it again. >> We'll second it again. So, Commissioner Shyiver with the second. Um, any discussion? All in favor say signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. >> Any opposed?
>> No. >> Okay. So, with that, I think it's a 13-1 uh vote with regard to just asking for additional information on those five issues to be brought for the next meeting. Uh, Mr. Dyer, do you have enough information to provide that next level of analysis there?
>> Okay. >> Can you clarify those five again on what pages they're on? >> Sure. It is the item on page eight of 17 with regard to uh distribution of treated wastewater for native vegetation
>> uh filtration. Um the item on 10 about mandating a specific percentage for Valuchia Forever's target for acquisition. The item uh removing the authority for the county council to directly purchase Valuchia Forever properties on page 10. the on page 12
mandated uh funding source for public transportation and then finally on page 16 uh amending the charter to get into um specific allocation of revenues from the fair road impact fee >> and again I think you know we may get into some detail on some of those in the
subsequent meetings and subsequent discussions with regard to whether or not we think that's an actual charter um appropriate topic for the charter. So, okay. All right. Hopefully that at least makes it a little bit simpler. Um, let's go back through, if you will. Um, I think
just going through quickly to address the items that did not have color. Uh, we didn't want to put green on them, um, to signify any kind of an endorsement or anything of that nature, but I just wanted to try and be able to highlight these simply for discussion. Hopefully, it's working so far, but we'll see. Um,
so on page one of 17, there was a discussion of term limits for staff. I wanted to just see if there's a consensus for that um item or if that's one that we we don't want to take up any further discussion on. >> Yes. >> I'd just like some clarification. It says senior management works at will. So
can they also be terminated at will? >> Yes, that's what that means. >> Yes. Yeah. I'm not seeing any any real consensus on that item >> except John Booker. >> Except John Booker. Commissioner Ingram, >> this is another one that I I don't feel
that we should be involved in. You there's already ad nauseium and mechanisms for getting rid of employees. This to me just seems like this is going to be a personal beef against somebody with county as a another bite at the apple, if you will, on how to get rid of
staff and I think we have plenty of mechanisms in place already for that. >> So, are you looking for a motion? >> No, I think we'll go through >> just consensus, right? Again, >> we'll get general consensus that that's not one that we want to pursue further and then at the end of this, we'll go through and say here's the ones that
we've identified that we do want to pursue. We'll get a vote on those and then we've got our agenda set moving forward. That make sense? >> Yes, sir. >> All right. Excellent. So, our next item then would be on page three. Um, require native landscaping for county properties. Um, I will say this is one
just from my perspective in dealing with the county's requirements for landscaping. It's already a requirement in a lot of the county regulations. That's what staff has also indicated on that. Is there any desire to to include that as a charter amendment moving forward?
>> Okay, that's the right one this time. I'm just wondering knowing Joe whether he's looking at this to be beyond just the unincorporated county and into make mandating it for cities. That's the only thing I wondered about. But we already do that with the county. So
>> yeah, any other thoughts? I think the general consensus I see would be not to include that one moving forward. >> I have a question. I have a question. Commissioner Shyber, >> the percentages um
there's a few different well more than a few several sections here. >> You're referring to the the percentages that are currently required under the county's ordinances. >> Yes. So, so I think what that indicates is
those are the percentages that the current ordinances already require for some of those things. So, for example, um you know, under section 50 uh 50-136 and 72 uh-100, um there's a specific standard that
relates to any area within the Indian River Lagoon wershed that has a 35% open space within the property boundaries uh that's landscaped with native vegetation and species. So that's a current requirement that's in the code of ordinances. And I think the question here is should we have that level of
specificity in the charter and I think just from a structural standpoint I would say no because then you're starting to be like the Missouri Constitution. Um you know and and but I do think that we do it's an important standard that we've currently got in our ordinances. And this is a list, correct
me if I'm wrong, um, but I think this is the kind of exhaustive list that staff put together of where we've got some of those specific things already. >> So, I don't see a is there a a general consensus to move past that one. >> So, the the specific ordinance for the
Indian River Lagoon, >> I I so I grasp what you're saying about not making a charter. Like I don't disagree with that, >> but we're not discussing ordinances at all as far as because that is low to me
for the Indian River Lagoon. >> So I think for purposes of of narrowing the discussion, I think there may be some additional things to look at with regard to the recommendation for ordinances and things of that nature. I think right now it would be my
experience in doing this 10 years ago. You know, I think it's helpful for the commission to narrow down where we're going to focus because, you know, we we're going to meet once a month and we may need to identify committees and things of that nature to do some additional work in between those meetings. So, I think if we can start
with narrowing down the charter amendment issues if there are then some issues. Um, at the end of this process, I was going to go back to the commission to see commissioners to see if the commissioners have any other area that we'd like to look at from a charter amendment or an ordinance and then we can include that in the list and figure out how to how to then begin dividing
that up. >> And one thing I should add when we responded to this, I you know, I I just took it the way Mr. Hous had presented, he mentioned for county properties. So, we listed what was available, but some
of it if we were to try to propose or adopt it now, it would be wrapped up in Senate Bill 180 because it would be more burdensome or restrictive. >> Unfortunately, >> correct, Commissioner Inger, Mr. are the
way that the suggestion is written for county properties that could literally be every county property regardless of use which once again this would be more under the purview of county council for direction and not a 10-year charter
review committee but uh in reading that it's openly vague and I think we're ready to move on from it. >> Yeah. >> Any other vice chair? Um Mike, we currently have uh minimum standards in the charter now and we have some
standards that are specific to environmental issues and um do we have which we're supposed to be countywide not just an incorporated but countywide but we don't as a county from what I
remember unless it's changed we do not enforce those minimum standards. Correct. >> Right. We look to the cities to enforce them. >> And I I think there you're you're discussing environmental minimum standard provision in the charter. And I
think the way the reason why it was drafted the way it was in the 1980s was it's very careful to not transfer a service away from a city. >> Right? >> When you do that under the constitution, you have to have a referendum both in
the city and county. So, it was just preserving the regulatory >> authority and having them have their code enforcement or whoever enforce that rule. Um, we are authorized to sue the city if they're not enforcing
>> enforcing. >> Okay. >> I have I don't want to get off. So, I don't want to get off topic, but I I do have a question that's pertinent to what's being discussed here. >> So, these all these ordinances that are listed under the native plants,
>> there's a turnover of elected officials and staff. So, out of sheer curiosity, how are the cities do they do they how do they keep up with this? I mean, is that the city manager's job to let them all know? Because, for example, the cities along the east, you know, the
east side for the IRL at 35%. I'm kind of thinking they don't even know this. >> I can um just from from recent experience, I can tell you Edgewater does um you know and and they they regularly enforce that same standard um on projects that are within within that
>> planning directors. Planning directors say like who? Okay. >> Yeah. the the the planning directors generally do. You know, again, I you see um staff at the the vast majority of the the jurisdictions that I work with are aware of the minimum
standards that the county has adopted um and do require those to be met um in the developments that are coming forward in in their jurisdictions. >> Mr. Chair, >> Mr. Parker, Commissioner, >> how can county address that issue? Because when the county passes the
minimum standards, they come and talk to city staff and then the ordinances then are amended to bring our or the city's ordinances into compliance. So, it's it's a it's not something that
we have to read in the newspaper. they really I can say the county staff does a great job of communicating and even before the ordinances are adopted uh cities are involved in the process.
So um so I can speak from personal experience of how that works. >> There's some it's just quite a bit of turnover I mean in certain cities and yeah that's why I asked. >> Yeah. No, great question. Great question. So, um I think you know and I
know Commissioner Parker, you do have a good deal of experience in in how that has been implemented over the the course of a few decades. So, um so on page seven, just go continuing on through the the items that you know whether or not we want to take them up. Um page seven
on the top of the page, amend existing requirement of section 308.1 to maintain the uh code of ordinance to require additional notice requirements. I think this also related to uh code enforcement items. I'm sorry.
Is there a consensus on on taking that up or are we we good? Okay. I'm not getting a consensus on that one. Uh the next item, change county elections from nonpartisan to partisan. >> A lot of head shaking on that one. Anybody feel strongly?
If you go to partisanship, >> okay, about a quarter of the voters would not be participating in the elections process because it becomes a party function at that point in time. I think that's one of the strengths of our
charter is that everyone gets to participate in the in the process and not just the party side of it. >> Yeah. And I I agree with that that you know I think that the way we're structured currently keeps it from being decided at a primary for example and lets everybody have an opportunity to
vote for those offices. >> It's already party. >> Yeah. But sure everybody knows what they are. They they the handouts I mean you can say it's nonpartisan but it's partisan. >> We all know that >> they you know
>> I just thought I'd throw that out for y'all to think it's not partisan. It's partisan, >> but primaries are you. >> No, no, no. I'm with you. I'm NPA. I'm nothing. >> Okay, >> that's right. >> No, I got it. I'm just saying you all do understand when it comes time to vote, everybody knows what they're what
they're >> So, let me let me sum that up by saying for a plethora of reasons, we think that's not a good idea to pick up and and continue discussion about alone. >> So, moving on to the next one. Amend section uh 10, I'm sorry, 103.1 to further address whether a member of
the personnel board may be reappointed after a removal for cause. Any any desire to pick that up? >> No. >> No. Moving on. Uh bottom of page seven, amend 306 of the charter to address east side meetings of the county council. >> Any desire to pick that up?
>> Yes, >> Commissioner Shyber. >> It's already an option. >> Yes. >> Yeah. Okay. So, let me just highlight that one and then we'll pick that up for further discussion. Uh, page nine, require that the county uh protected lands may be disposed by a
supermajority vote of the count county council only. Any desire to include that in the discussion moving forward? I'm getting heads head shaking on that. Commissioner or vice chair Nory? >> Yeah.
What do they mean by protected lands? Because We can uh if I recall correctly, you had sometimes you had plots or lots that were came before you and we made uh contributions to Habitat for Humanity.
We made other contributions on those and um so did did we have any idea what protectant mean? I mean I I would not want to see the council sell off lands that we have already purchased. Is is that what we're talking about then?
>> Yeah. Unfortunat I mean the speaker didn't define it but I would imagine you know lands are purchased with Felia forever funds conservation. >> Well I would would >> I think that was what was intended but >> that was how I had interpreted that. So
Commissioner Shyber >> I agree with Miss >> Okay. >> I agree with Miss Nory. >> All right. So we'll hold that one aside for further discussion. Um, page 12, require a county to maintain pedestrian safety reporting mandate. Um, that came from the deand reporting session. I
think a lot of that is covered by the TPO currently. Um, we do get a lot of that data. I know the county staff does require that data on safety analysis every time they're doing traffic studies and everything else. So, um, my view would be it's not a charter issue, but any other.
>> Okay. So, we'll take that off. Moving forward on page 16 of 17 portable water supply. Um, this was an email suggestion that came in. Um, I'm trying to
>> page 16. 16 or 17. Did I skip one or Okay. >> So, I'm not sure exactly what that means proposal related to. Let me see if that I think there's a tab that has the u additional information on that one. I
think this is the one that related to lawn watering with portable water. Is that >> it just says protect portable water supply? I don't >> I think this was okay. So in the email that came in I think it's behind the tab
with emails from Amber Gilbert. Says C Gilbert. Let me see. Carol Gilbert. Let's see. I think that was protect portable water supply as presented by Dr. Anderson with the five-point recommendations. So some of those I think were specifically
separately addressed with the five points that um were pulled out into the list that Dr. Anderson had provided. So any any desire to continue with that one? Okay. So,
let me just run through. >> Well, Mr. Chair, I'm just going to make a motion that we accept the two for further analysis. There are only two that we picked. Um, page seven, the last one, and page nine, the two non-colorcoded ones.
>> Okay. Okay. So, the motion is for to include the last item on page seven. Um the non colored item on page nine >> for additional further review. >> The only two that passed our little
review here. >> Okay. So, we've got a motion. Is there a second? >> Got a motion uh from Commissioner Sakovski, second from Commissioner Clayton. Any discussion? All in favor of the motion signify by saying I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Okay.
Well, we got through the first part. >> Ask a question about this. Is this all already on the website for other people to take a look at? >> Okay. >> Okay. So, >> we're going to upload the color code version to our
>> but the um >> All right. >> The >> and and put our you know what what the motions were that we're Okay. Okay. >> Okay. All right. So, um, that actually didn't take quite as long as I thought it was
going to, so I appreciate you all working through that. I thought it was going to take longer, frankly. Um, all right. So, let me then draw your attention. We do have some additional um, charter amendment concepts that were included in exhibit B. >> These are the ones that, um, were
brought forward to us by staff. Um, and let me see if I can simplify this one, assuming that everybody has taken a look at that list. Are there >> what document are we on? So, so behind the color-coded one, >> there were, I believe, 11
recommendations for discussion or review that came from staff. And these are things that deal with um I think you kind of their experience working with the charter. Let me ask, is there any commissioner that has reviewed that list that thinks there's something we shouldn't discuss at a further meeting
on included on that list? Vice Chair Nory, >> this we just received this tonight, right? No, that was part of the uh it was in the original >> exhibit B. Yes. >> Okay. I guess I'm I'm wondering about the very last one of them, tax collector
budget. Um why we are signaling out tax collector budget when we have other what used to be departments that elected department heads that reported to the manager and
tax collector was one of them. So was elections was one of them and it was a number of them but we're only looking at tax collector. Is there a reason why that I know there's been some issue >> Mr. is going to >> council, but but >> that could be just a issue.
>> Yeah, I looked I looked into that. Um, oddly, the tax collector is one of the um only constitutional officers where there's a statutory pro provision that says that they're there's a couple different ways that their budget can be approved. One of them, of course, is put
off by amendment 10 because amendment 10 made them separate and that was by making them an internal part of the county. Valuchia County used to be used as an example in the uh Department of Revenues uh literature on that. There's another one though that says that it's you know it says that they under the
statute says or otherwise and I'm I'm paraphrasing I think it's quoted in the uh in the in the document but or otherwise determined by charter. So this has to do with the difference between whether the tax collector is a budget officer meaning that they are part their budget is approved by the uh the local
government or they are a fee officer which means that their budgets approved by department of revenue and the default is that they are a fee officer and they report to the department of revenue. However, there are some counties that have made their tax collector a budget officer just because it's cheaper and
it's usually in smaller counties that don't have as much revenue and therefore, you know, it's easier to just integrate the tax collector signs a resolution with the uh board, but it does appear to be uh I wasn't able to find an example of where this has been done by charter, but the option is still
in there in the statute that was not taken away. Now, it would not make the tax collector any less um I would say it would not make them any any less of a constitutional officer, but the statute does specifically >> except they would have to come to the council for their budget approval >> possibly depending on how it's written.
And it's unusual. >> I was just going to say this, this sounds very punitive to me considering what's going on right now at council level. >> This existed prior to that. This did not come from council by the way. uh in
meeting with Mark it was these are these aren't recommended by step necessarily at all. These are things that have come up over the last few years. He said well like for example um number five you know we have a uniform vehicular beach access
fee in the charter. We've stumbled on to that and having to deal with that with implementing different things. So it's purely for your discussion and you can do whatever you want with it. Yeah, I think this was um the attempt by by county staff to identify the things
that have come up over the past 10 years whether it was you know and and I will say this was uh I saw this list more than more than a month ago. So um it's not I think anything triggered by recent events um Vice Chair Nory. So, >> okay.
>> Um, but I I guess the the question stands, are there any of these that we don't feel we want to get into moving forward with discussion? Commissioner Skovsky. >> Uh, just sac um the only thing I would recommend on number two is to do if there if we're
referring this for further analysis, which I think is the concept here, it should be also looked at as the reverse as well. So that instead of just saying if if the concept is consistency to have it that the council also just have a majority rule. So um specifically if to
get to the details and I have brought this up in discussions with staff is that that any recommendations that this group might make that requires council approval because all that was subsequent to the original creation of the charter that it only be
a majority rule of the council. So this idea that's because it's 2/3 already in there to justify 2/3 here, it's equally logical to say, well, if it's h a majority here, we should make it a majority there. So I just want to if
it's going to be analyzed, analyze it both ways. >> Okay, I think that's a fair point. Um, any that you don't want to see us look at further as we move forward on this list? I'm not ask for one about one more >> item seven
>> the annual report on preeemption by state of county home rule authority I'm not sure I understand what that actually means Mike >> it would be >> because we do a report now on on all of the >> well we have one internally for staff level but we don't have one that goes to
council on how we're preempted although certainly we're forced staff to deal with that in different hearings Um, it's not anything we have to do. It's something we would just and and I know I responded to you on 11. You may
not be in favor of that. So, you know, I I think that's what >> I I would just add on that seven. It doesn't say it says requires a written annual report is by whom. >> I think that's part of the clarification we would get into if we take that item
up as a discussion item. So, if it's by the county manager or his designate or >> But since staff proposed it, I wonder what they're thinking. >> Yeah. >> Who were you suggesting do this? >> Uh the county attorney or county manager. >> So, you'll look at it both ways if we if
we kick it back to you. >> I would prefer that it be done by the county manager. I don't think he >> Well, I Yeah, that's why I say and we're not going to ask him what he thinks. I'm just kidding. It >> sounds like a special project, right? That seems like that might might flow
down to our our new deputy county manager as well. >> Yeah, my I feel it's already basically covered myself. I I'm going to move that we uh with the the with the modification we discussed on number two to have it
both directions uh to refer these back to staff with the exception of seven and 11 >> for what? Okay. So the the back to them for further >> Oh, for further. Okay. >> Okay. So you want to continue to discuss
them. Okay. >> And I think you know the the point here would be to round out >> Oh, >> our agenda moving forward. It's the things we've already approved off the other list plus everything off of this list with the exception of seven and 11. I think that's the motion. Is there a
second? >> Got a second from Commissioner Lewis. Any discussion on that motion? >> Why are we not examining? >> I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. >> That's right. >> Why are we not looking further at 7-Eleven if staff has identified this as something we need to look at?
>> That's just how the motion has come out. So, you know, I think the question now would be, you know, is there consensus for that motion or is there a consensus to have a second motion depending on how this one goes? >> It's nothing to stop a f subsequent motion to add those.
>> Just to make us move on. Vice Chair Nory, >> I I I actually think I spoke about probably both of those. I'm I'm fine to have more information to discuss them. I mean, it is from coming from the staff.
I think that's important for us to hear what the concerns are. So, I would well I appreciate that motion. I would not exempt those two items in it for discussion. the senses that to to just move them all with with the with the with the my main
thing was to have two looked at both ways >> and that was accepted. So I'm going to withdraw that motion and I'll make a motion just to move the 11 with the modification of two. >> Okay. Got a motion from Commissioner Skovski. All right. One more time. >> Sacowski.
>> Sacowski and a second by Commissioner Johnson. Any any discussion on that motion? Commissioner Shyber. I have a question for Mr. Dyer. >> Okay. >> Um on um item three,
name change of council to commission. >> Yes. >> And so I'm trying to figure out how to pose this question. Um, being that we're a charter form of government and we're currently a council, um, SB80 is really only
impacting land, but nevertheless, this is the charter. So, if we change council to commission, does that impact is that impacted at all? I wouldn't think so, but we're changing our charter literally at the same time this bill is happening.
So, so I think and and I'll give you my answer and then defer to to staff. So, um statutoily um under chapter 125 identifies the governing body of any county as a commission, board of county commissioners. Um Belaluchia County, I
believe, is the only county that has a council instead of a commission. And I I' I'd actually heard this suggestion from a couple of sources that um I don't know that we don't like feeling different um or what it is, but um there was a suggestion that we look at whether we should continue to be a council or a
commission. And I don't think that would fall within the purview of anything dealing with Senate Bill 180 or any other >> limitation. I would agree. >> I'm kind of surprised that is not preempted by anything based on all preeemptions. Just saying. >> They haven't thought of it yet. But um
All right. So, um, I've got a motion with the modification of number two. Commissioner Lewis, >> you've ever been on the council, you understand whenever you go any >> Yeah, exactly. >> And you have to always explain that. >> Yeah,
>> I understand. I've had to explain it myself as to why. So, I I get that. I just thought I would ask the legalities just out of curiosity of everything being so preempted now. No, I I I don't disagree. All right. So, we got a motion with the modification to
number two to make it call it bilateral if you will. Um and uh otherwise to to continue on with the items uh that were suggested by staff items 1 through 11 with the modification to two. Any further discussion? All in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> I.
>> Any opposed? >> All right. So, that passes. All right. So, we have identified the the topics at least from the lists that we had uh presented to us. The last thing that I thought um we may want to discuss tonight. Um it may be something you want
to defer to a meeting down the road. Um but you know, as commissioners, we we may also have thoughts of things or topics that we want to include on the agendas moving forward. We haven't had any real input. Well, >> I I certainly have some thoughts on that, but I'm just wondering if it
should be something that we take up at a separate meeting and give everybody an opportunity to to be heard. >> We could we could go into some dark holes on this one. >> So, so in in essence, vice chair, you're asking me to send everybody home with homework. >> Yes.
>> Okay. All right. So, let's um Is there is everybody generally agree with that? What what I'd like to do, we we've heard from the public, we've heard from staff. Um obviously there's 15 of us that are sitting on this commission that may have some additional thoughts on things to look at. Um why don't we do this based
on that suggestion? At the next meeting, we will open the discussion with any other suggestions from members of the commission of other areas we may want to look at now that we've kind of got some. >> Do you want them in in in before that? Would it be helpful to have them sent to
staff to John to put on a list? >> Yeah. So, why don't we do that? I think that would be helpful if we could. If you have as members of the commission any other areas you'd like us to discuss that we haven't covered with what's been approved and we'll circulate the list that's been approved this evening, then
if you'll send that to Mr. Booker, um I think he can then get it coordinate with staff to look at it and let us know. Same thing at the next meeting. Is that an area that we can look at? is an area that may be subject to preeemption, things of that nature. That sound good for everybody moving forward. >> Just uh you should establish some
timelines because you don't want it sent to him the day before the meeting. Um so that and the the uh as far as uh public records, etc. Uh I want a timeline for it back so I don't get it the same night
or anything like that. So if as long as you establish timelines and the last thing is that it doesn't prevent any of us from suggesting anything at future meetings. It's not like this is not our one shot. >> Yeah, >> I don't Yeah, I I fully agree with that. I think there's a lot of times that that ideas may come from the process. Um and
so, you know, I would say this is our first round. If you if we if there's something that we haven't talked about yet that is really kind of, you know, sitting with you, um then if we can get it to Mr. Booker, Mr. Booker, when would you need that to get it into the agenda? materials and have some analysis on it.
>> Mr. Watts, >> Mr. Johnson, >> I have a question. You know, there's some things that we may discuss in here that really don't rate going on the charter. Are we going to do like a recommendation letter to the county council at the end of things that we
think about >> that uh may not be but recommend to them that they look into? >> Absolutely. And I think that also covers some of the things Commissioner Shy was talking about earlier with regard to ordinance revisions and things of that nature. We will generate a report to the county council and go present that
report with our recommendations um for the actual charter amendments and then also for any other recommendations on ordinances that ought to be looked at or any other, you know, kind of areas that this commission thinks, you know, the the council should take up or commission, whatever they're called at
that point in time. >> Vice Chair Pat, did you have something to add? >> I was just going to remind everybody to go back and pull the charter open again and reread it and that will refresh our
memories on what is already in there and maybe what needs to be changed. So, >> that's it. >> Or added. >> Okay. >> Or added. >> No, that's great point. So, um, Mr. Booker and Mr. Dyer, when do you need the suggestions for to get them into our materials? >> I was just going to say we try to get
everything a week ahead. So the Monday prior to our next meeting is when we try to get everything out. So a week prior to that would be most helpful. >> One week enough for you guys. >> Yeah. I I was going to say if if a goal
maybe it's not always met is give it to give it to him like two weeks before the meeting because he gets the agenda materials together a week before. Um because I I respect I don't want to be dropping things on you last minute and you've had the opportunity to see
them. So we appreciate that. We realize there may not that may not always be possible. There may be something where you want it quicker and that's up to you. >> So I guess for purposes of clarity for members of the commission November 3rd >> two so two weeks prior to the next meeting would be by
>> Monday. >> The 27th. Is that doable for everybody? Okay. So, Monday the 27th, if you'll email those in to Mr. Booker, then we'll take them up from staff standpoint. Mr. Dyer. >> Yeah, just just for your own uh
edification um going forward, when you get to a point, if you do decide to recommend anything to go on the ballot, what your staff's going to do is write up what that draft ballot language will look like. And so there are restrictions in state law on how long the title the
ballot question is. And then the summary takes some time. So uh we would you know like an ordinance of council we would start doing that if you direct us to do that and realize you're in a position now if you're kind of narrowing items
but you may also raise other things at a future meeting that could result in a recommendation. >> Thank you Mr. Dyer. Could I just say one vice chair >> one final thing? One, thank you for color coding those because that really made it a lot easier to go through them
and come up with them. And I just want to commend you on being the chairman because you have doing a marvelous job of keeping all of us straight. >> It's only our second meeting, Pat. >> I know. I know. But >> no, I appreciate that and hopefully that
was helpful. >> Public service announcement on your emails. Just send it to staff. Please don't copy other commissioners on your email. >> Yeah, thank you. >> Yeah, that that is a always a good reminder. Don't reply all to anything. >> And um Mr. Chair, >> Mr. If you could use the VC charter
review.org to send me the information, that would be most helpful. >> V, it's the general email address VC charter review.org. So you're saying by that that the emails we send you will automatically become
part of the public record. Just to reinforce >> anything that comes Yes. anything anything is public record. Not everything but okay. >> You know what I mean. >> Well I think we we winnowed down the list and I appreciate you're working with me on doing that this evening. Um
last couple of items. Um just with regard to agreement on the agenda for the next meeting. My intent would be to have all the items that we just looked at. We may at the next meeting um decide that we want to break things into some committees for review. Um I think that's
probably um we'll look at kind of the the the universe of the things we've approved or or the the things that may come in between now and then and decide, you know, how many committees might be necessary. Um I'll work with staff to maybe come into the next meeting with some recommendations for committee structure, whether it's one or two or
three depending on, you know, kind of what feels natural. Um, any other business from other members of the commission this evening? All right, I think we're Madam Secretary, >> can we take your photograph, please? >> That was going to be my last thing
before we adjourn. We've received a request to adjourn to the room over here to take a group photo. Um, so you know, if everybody's good with that, we'll uh get a motion to adjurnn and then head over there. >> Motion to adjurnn. >> Got a motion to adjurnn. Second. All in favor? Hi.
>> Hi. All right, group photo. Thank you for your time this evening.