All right. Good evening. Uh, welcome to the November 10th meeting of uh, Blush County Charter Review Commission. Um, kick off our meeting with a roll call. Madam Richardson, can you call the role for us here? >> Yep. Uh, Mr. Watts >> present. Miss Nory
>> here. >> Miss Bright, >> Mr. Clayton here, >> Mr. Johnson >> here, >> Miss Quiet, >> Mr. Lewis, >> Mr. Parker >> here, >> Mr. Sakenovski >> here, >> Miss Shriber here, >> Miss Wheeler, >> Miss Walford here.
>> Thank you. >> Okay, thank you for that. Um so this evening we've got um you know I think after the last meeting was my hope we were going to come here and have less stuff to look at um and and start to narrow things down and and then we got the packets and uh thank you all for
sending in the some great suggestions. Um, so what I'm going to propose that we do this evening, um, when we get to the the business section of the u of the agenda is I've gone through and looked at, you know, both the things that we reviewed, um, that are in I think exhibit A and exhibit B at the last
meeting um, and then also all of the the various suggestions and and questions and comments that came in from members of the commission. So um, if you'll bear with me um, I think it'll be a somewhat abbreviated uh, version of what we did last time. Um but I think there's
probably some things that um at least from my perspective probably have crystallized a little bit at this point that we can I say okay let's maybe look at the next meeting at um you know what this amendment would look like the potential text of an amendment so we can start looking at that in a little bit
more detail and then I think there may be some other um issues that you know were raised um particularly some of the commission suggestions that came in um and also some that we've heard from the public that may um be things we want to to maybe invite some additional um study
or some additional discussion. So, I've got a couple thoughts on how we can kind of work through that um when we get to that section of the meeting. But, um those are kind of my welcoming remarks for this evening. So, uh feel free to just raise a hand or or toss something to my direction if um you got something
to say and I'm not looking over at your your side of the the table. But, um I appreciate all of you being here. Um to the members of the public um that are here, thank you all. Uh we appreciate you being here this evening. This is uh an important process as as you're aware. It's something we only get to do once
every 10 years. So we appreciate you taking out some time to to be here this evening. Um and with that we will move on to our first action item. Um you members of the commission, you've got the minutes from our October 13th meeting in your agenda packets. Uh were
there any additions, corrections, or deletions from the minutes? If not, I'll take a motion. >> Got a motion. Second from Mr. Parker. Any further discussion? I'm sorry, Mr. Johnson was the second there.
I his second would have been you. Second only to yours. Um all in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Minutes are approved. All right. So before Okay, we're now moving into our general
business. And our first item was looking for public participation. It was 5A. So, we're going to move into public participation. I know we've got a a couple of speaker cards that have been handed in, so I will call you out. Okay. In no particular order. All right.
So, our first speaker and uh just so the audience is aware at our initial meeting, we did adopt rules for, you know, how we organize our meetings. We do have a threeminute limit on public participation. We've been fairly liberal with that at prior meetings. So, um, you know, just if you get to the end of your
your clock, look up here and I'll, you know, give you a nod if we've got more time to kind of wrap things up. Um, our first speaker is is it Bob Chu? Come on forward. Thank you for being here. If you would just state your name and address for the for the record.
Uh, Bob Chu, 208 Virginia Street, headquarter, representing Southeast Felia Autobond. Um, when I heard about this, I was um I was really confused because, you know, when the voters voted to put these
lands, these important lands aside, I just assumed that it was forever. And uh, you know, so I that's why I'm here, just to reiterate how important it is for these lands to be put aside forever. And I strongly uh support Pat Nory's um,
amendment. And I hope that passes since uh, 2016. the algo bloom that really killed so much of Mosquito Lagoon. I've been very involved in trying to restore it. And last week at the Marine Discovery Center, there was a film
festival and they had a whole series of films and one of them was the importance of protecting the lands if you want to protect the waters. So, keeping these lands protected is critical for the restoration of Mosquito Lagoon. Thank you. >> Thank you for coming out. Appreciate
your input this evening. Okay, Nancy Vaughn. >> There we go. Uh, good evening members of the Valuchia County Charter Review Commission. Thank you all for for allowing us to speak tonight. My name is Nancy Vaughn and I live at 6389 Long
Lake Drive in Port Orange, Florida. Tonight I'm here representing the League of Women Voters of Valuchia County. And the League has been supportive of Valuchia forever since its inception and uh and we uh made sure we we helped with
uh getting the word out as to the process and helping people understand it better. And I am here today to continue to support Felicia forever. I thank each and every one of you for your time and and talents of being here and and and uh
giving your giving your expertise on this panel and to make and to make sure that our charter reflects what is best for our county's future. To that end, I would like to respectfully request that you support
Pat Nordy's uh proposal protecting conservation lands uh for review as and review and research by the CRC. as Pat points out that there have been various instances recently where the protection of lands has been jeopardized
throughout the state. Um from the leaders of the state uh actually suggesting that we have um sorry that we have golf courses and and hotels in our state parks and then certain other certain other um
organizations releasing various easements. Subsequently, various counties throughout the state have used various methods to protect our conservation lands and Pat's proposal under consideration aims to do the same. Here in Valuchia County, we have a
39-year history of t of voters taxing themselves to preserve conservation land. The mission of Valuchia for forever stated to finance the acquisition and improvement of environmentally sensitive water resource protection and outdoor recreation lands
and manage these lands as conservation as conservation stores in perpetuity. For over 30 years, the members of multiple Valuchia County councils, members of which are here today, have upheld the intent of Valuchia forever.
But political winds change. We need to make sure we honor the will of the voters. 75% of them in 2020 when they voted that they what they believe to be a program that to to protect sensitive land forever. Accordingly, again, I
respectfully request you seriously consider the merits of Pat's proposal and pre please further reach please further research this critical issue. Thank you so much for your time today. >> Thank you. Appreciate you coming out.
Melissa Lamers. >> Good evening, Chair Watts, Vice Chair Nory, and esteemed members of the Valuchia County Charter Review Commission. I'm Melissa Lamers, Tenwisteria Drive, Orman by the Sea, Florida for 60 years now. In 2020, I had the honor of being the communications
strategist and vice chair of the successful campaign for the reauthorization of Valuchia Forever and Echo. The pack has since transitioned to the Echo Valuchia Forever Alliance which acts as a watchdog for the programs and we've stayed busy. I'm also here to urge
you to choose to further study the amendment proposed by Pat Northy titled Protecting Conservation Lands. It's on page 19, item eight of your packet. Florida and especially Valuchia County has a history of conservation firsts. In
1903, President Teddy Roosevelt designated Pelican Island near Sebastian as the first national wildlife refuge. In 1986, Valuchia County became the first county in the nation to levy itself an advalorum tax to fund the conservation of our most environmentally
sensitive lands by approving the endangered lands program. Since then, Valuchia County voters have reaffirmed their intention to preserve our most important natural areas for future generations. two more times in 2000 with the first Felia Forever and again in 2020 when
75.6% of voters reauthorize the program. Conservation is an enduring multigenerational and growing value in our community. The mission of Aluchia Forever is to finance the acquisition and improvement of environmentally sensitive lands, water resource
protection, and outdoor recreation lands and to manage these lands as conservation stewards in perpetuity. Through the years, Valuchia County councils have upheld the intentions of the voters, but that seems to no longer necessarily be
the case. As recently as last Tuesday, the remarks were made in council against conservation in perpetuity. what the voters voted for. Therefore, lands acquired for the public need further protections than those currently afforded. Quite simply, forever needs to
mean just that, forever. Voters made the decisions to protect our precious lands, and therefore, they should be the ones to decide if they no longer want them. For that reason, I ask you to move forward and study the amendment protecting conservation lands. and I
thank you very much for your attention and your service to our beautiful community. >> Thank you. Thanks for coming out this evening. Uh Cameron Vincent. >> Good evening. My name is Cameron Vincent, South Daytona, Florida. Um thank you for having us here and
allowing us to participate publicly. Um I am the executive director of Art House Foundation. I am the vice president of the Bluja County Cultural Alliance. I am a voter. I am a resident and I am a mom. I'm here to speak regarding the recent regarding the recent cut to the Bluji
County Cultural Grant. I would like to understand what mechanisms within our county government allow an already approved budget item to be reallocated without a formal vote, without public notice, and despite clear public opposition expressed through thousands of citizen emails and phone calls. Where
is the integrity in our governmental process? and how can we move forward to ensure that our county council adheres to transparent procedures with due notice and formal voting on all such decisions. I know that you've all heard the whirlwind of the cultural grant and it being cut.
We're just simply asking for a little bit of clarity and moving forward a little more structure with our county government and how they conduct their meetings and their votes. um without due notice, an already allocated and already budgeted approved
budget item was dismissed and we've had no clear vote on whether to cut it or to move it. Um we are in limbo and I feel that we need a clear way to move forward as far as the operations of our county council and how those meetings proceed.
Thank you. >> Thank you, Miss Vincent. U Pat Miles. >> Good evening. My name is Patricia Miles. I live at 1508 Palm Drive in Port Orange, Florida. I am
a um grandmother, a mother. I'm a retired art teacher, art supervisor here in Valuchia County. And I'm coming here this evening because of my deep concerns. I'm trying to figure out how we can best do things for
the benefit of our children. You all meet together every 10 years. In 10 years, kids that are in kindergarten will be in 10th grade. Their opportunities for exposure to the
arts are totally eliminated, and we can't seem to do anything about it. and we don't want to wait 10 years for our kids to be able to have those beneficial experiences. I don't understand how
the document doesn't contain pieces and parts where we can embed more arts into our uh everyday life. But evidently and that's lacking. So we need to fix that. Please, ladies and gentlemen, do
something so that our children can benefit from these experiences. Thank you very much. >> Thank you, Mrs. Miles. Uh, next speaker is Lloyd Bowers. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Lloyd Bowers, uh,
1424 North Halifax Avenue, Daytona Beach, Florida. Uh, I'm here tonight. Uh I am a member of the cultural council I will tell you now which I have been on for 15 years. Uh Billy Wheeler is one of the people who kept me on as a matter of fact. Uh but I'm here primarily not as a
member of the council but as a member a citizen of of this community who has seen a program uh that has been in existence since 1989 budgeted supported throughout that entire time eradicated by the current council not even without an affirmative
vote. And I'm talking about cultural funding. Uh that program has been a hallmark of this county for such a long time. Uh our county is is admired and loved and respected by its citizens because we support arts and culture.
Yet, at the last county council meeting, we were told by members of the council that it is not a foundational program for the support of not only arts and culture, but even social services. They
were turning their back on providing funding for uh indigent and low-income children uh to get swimming lessons, life-saving swimming lessons, but those aren't considered by certain members of the council uh as being foundational.
Well, the charter is foundational. And although I will admit that what uh Commissioner Clayton allowed me to uh submit to you got to love the MUN code doesn't necessarily get right on the charter amendment section. However, uh
it is a foundational tenant of our public policy and of the policy of this county. And in looking at the charter, there's not even a a section where you where it states what is the purpose of our government? Where is the public good? There's no reference to that. So I
would encourage you to please look at the charter and think in terms of the programs that are provided, why they are provided, and should there not seem be some basic tenant in the charter that states the public good. And so I'd ask
that you consider that and I thank you for your time. >> And thank you, Mr. Bowers. Appreciate your time this evening. Mike Ponyatowski. >> Bless you. >> Good evening, Mr. Chair, Vice Chair, Mike Ponytowski. My address is protected
under law. I'm representing the Tmoka Farms Village. Thanks for having me tonight. So, I fully support the two programs that have been talked about earlier before I spoke, but I'm going to take a right turn here. I'm going to talk about stormwater management. Valuchia County doesn't have one cohesive stormwater management program.
We have 16 stormwater management plans. None of them talk to one another. And that's not the municipalities. Those are stormwater plans. We do not have a cohesive strategy to mitigate flooding or just four to six inches of rain. If you think back to beginning of August
when we had four to six inches of rain, how many roads were flooded? How many homes were flooded? How many businesses were flooded? And that's just a little bit of rain. That's not a hurricane. That's not a major storm. That is a that's a summer thunderstorm that lasted a few days and we had no strategy across
the county to mitigate that. We allowed it to fester. We have mosquito control ditches that are 60 or 80 years old. They're not interconnected. We may maintain them. They're not interconnected. There's no way to forcibly eject the rainwater from the
residences, from the neighborhoods, from the cities into the river or the ocean during emergencies. I'm not saying do that all the time. I'm doing that saying put in pumps, interconnect these drainage canals and these drainage swailes. Don't clean them once every
three years. Keep them active parts of a cohesive stormwater management program that you folks should enshrine in the county comprehensive plan because we need to have the force of law to force the municipalities to work together to mitigate flooding. We are the seventh
highest flooding county in the United States of America. And that is not something I pulled out of the air. That is a statistic by FEMA and the United States government. You've heard about it in your towns, in your homes. You've seen it in the media. We live and breathe it every day. How would you like
to be someone that lives in a home that you've lived in for 38 years? You have a six inch rain. You go to sleep maybe and you hope not to wake up finding water in your living room. That's what happens when we have a deluge of rain in my neighborhood. I
haven't been flooded forever for 38 years until there was some development nearby. I'm not going to talk about development related flooding. I'm talking about the basic infrastructure of our flood mitigation plan. We don't have one. Like I said, 16 stormwater
master plans in Balucha County. None of them are interconnected. None of them talk to one another. And that's not the municipalities. That those are the county plans. We need you folks to work hard and I'm happy to volunteer my time and help to come up with a cohesive strategy that you enshrine in the county
comprehensive plan so that we force the municipalities. We have the authority to tax. We get hundreds of millions of dollars a year for flood mitigation. Governments should not be in the business of buying homes to bulldoze them to build retention ponds.
We should allow our residents to maintain their homes in perpetuity because that's why we buy homes. It's our biggest investment. I don't want my home to be bulldozed for a ditch. We can't dig any more ditches because the water table is 18 in. You've got to dig huge BMS. So, we need to work at this
cohesively. Look at it scientifically. It's a math problem. One acre of land holds 1.5 million gallons of storm water for the St. John's Water Management District. When you bulldoze and fill 500 acres, do the math. Where does that water goes? It goes into a system that
cannot hold it. It becomes tail water and ends up in our living rooms and our roads. It shuts down our businesses and it costs us money and makes people want to leave the area. Thanks. I'm here to help you. Uh let's work on our storm water management pro uh pro problem. Uh
you guys can put it into law. Thank you. >> And thank you for coming out. Uh, and our last uh, speaker is Katherryn Pente. >> Katherine Pente, address protected. I want to withdraw my 55% um, ordinance. I submitted an email for
uh, protection of Valuchia Forever. I want to support Paty's ordinance and just if you would change it to unlimited. I submitted an email to that. I didn't get a response. Okay. >> Same thing with Lloyd Bowers amendment
chapter 34 that Judge Clayton presented. And on rural boundary, I have a question. Why could we not implement a rule boundary charter amendment that's not effective until after the uh SB 180
is either resolved, repealed, or amended and put that on the ballot? Could we not submit one and not have it? >> This is I mean, it's a question. >> Yeah, we're we've got an answer to that that I think will come up in the discussion of some of those specific items coming up shortly. >> Okay. And then I support an east side of
the county meeting. I don't feel that cost should be a factor just because we don't have equipment over there because we have a large east side of the county. We have elderly people that live from Pon Inlet all the way to Orman Beach and they should be able to come and speak locally, not just have to drive out to
Dand at least one meeting a month that we should be able to facilitate. It shouldn't Met cost shouldn't matter. And that's all I got. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. Are there any other members of the public that uh want to speak that didn't fill out a card? Now's your chance.
All right. Well, thank you all for for coming out and uh stick around. I think a couple of the topics that that were raised will come up in some of the discussions that we've got coming up. Um so again, thank you all for for coming out and giving us your time. Um members of the commission, we've got uh moving
on to 5B. Um we are now moving into review of uh some of the the charter amendments that we talked about at our last meeting. Um they're generally broken into um exhibits A and B um to this agenda item. Um there's a few of
them I think well here's here was my thought. Um there's a few of these that I think we can probably get pretty quick consensus to at least direct staff to come back and give us a draft. There may be some others that we want to have a little bit of discussion on. And I think there's at least one on exhibit A that
um changed colors from yellow to red um based on the additional analysis that we asked um the county attorney staff to to look into um at the last meeting. So um if there's no objection to approaching Yes, sir. Mr. Johnson,
>> I'd like to make a recommendation that before we send staff off on factf finding missions. You know, it's very easy for us to pass the buck and say, "Okay, go do this." And we put staff to a lot of work that may not we may not really be interested in. And I'm I make
a motion that we take a vote and if it doesn't make a majority vote that it dies instead of sending them to do this extra work. you you read my mind with with regard to how to go through A and B right now. So that that that was my intent was to go through those um you
know you know first and see if there was support for each of the items that are in there with a with at least a straw straw poll if not a formal vote. Uh and then um you know if there isn't support then we'll let those pass and and the other ones will move on to staff to draft an amendment. All right. So
looking at exhibit A, the first topic was the the discussion of amending chap amending section 306 of the charter to address east side meetings. And as I understand it from staff's materials that they provided um currently um there
is authority uh under the ordinance for the county council to elect to schedule meetings in different parts of the county. But um see if there's any members of the commission that want to discuss this. Mr. Johnson. >> Yes. And I think I can pretty well talk about this as being a former department
head and a county councilman. And although cost shouldn't be an issue, it is an issue. And we're going to be looking at the future about how much more it may cost us. But to start with, when you start moving the county council
to somewhere else, you're moving a circus. Our IT people today probably spent half a day putting all this stuff up. Yes, you could find a room at the ocean center and make it where it's permanent, but now you've taken up a room at the ocean center that cannot
really be used except for very formal meetings. It's a lot of expense. If not, you have one day them putting it up, the day we have the meeting, and the next day them taking it down, you've taken those people out of productivity. I know that when I was sheriff, there was a lot of times that we would have things on
the agenda just about every meeting with the way it is set up with the county building that over there. You don't have to take your people and let them sit in council all day long. We have in the building speaker so we can listen to the council meeting. When you
hear your agenda items about to come up, you can move your people upstairs to take care of it instead of taking a whole day out of their duties to send them to Daytona. Not only you've lost that day of productivity, you've lost you, but you you also have to pay to get them there and back again, plus all your
county staff. And this goes on all through the county building that they're able to take and listen in, go take care of business, and then go back to their job. If you're in Daytona, you've lost them for that day totally. And if it's a night meeting, you've lost them for at
least two days really of productivity of your staff. It's a very I know it's you know we do have the ability for certain meetings to move but it's not coste effective it's not staff effective
you're taking away and time is money and the things that they're busy as it is without taking them away from their job to sit in a meeting listening to other people that they have no reason to that as it is right now I know it's not the best thing in the world it' be better if the council was right in the middle of
the county so everybody could go But it's not. I think this next year we'll able to see tax our taxes cut more by Tallahassee where now we're you you have less money to spend on these things. And I just don't think it's a wise
expenditure of our money, our time, our resources, or our people to be moving these meetings back and forth across county. >> Thank you, Commissioner Johnson. Any other thoughts on on A1?
Um, Mr. Clayton, >> when the young lady stood up and mentioned that, I I sympathize with her and I was thinking, well, we have three courouses, but I agree with Ben in that each courthouse has their staff in that building. Nobody travels nobody travels
to the courthouse in the land at the or the justice center or the city island. They're there already. It'd be great. And I agree um as far as ease, but of course 92 is now four lane. And I mean people I I I don't think traveling is as bad as they thought it was. But Ben's
right. If you moved the county council meeting to I guess the ocean center wherever you would, that means everybody would have to be the whole the whole building would would have to move basically and it set up all the the IT problem be prohibitive too because you
whoever wrote it down y'all have y'all put this out on the internet. Would you be able to do that if it moved temporarily? I don't know who to ask. I just think it's it sounds good, but I think from a pragmatic standpoint, it would be incredibly difficult and cost
inefficient. >> Commissioner, >> so um I look at this from a different point of view. How many times have we already gotten together ourselves with all of this equipment for the charter review? and how many
more times will we be getting together? Um, I appreciate what she's asking. It might be overzealous to think that we would have one a month, but to think that we would go to having none.
We're set up right now. How many times have we already been set up here? And um, yes, there are a lot of um, attorneys and staff people in the room. And I think that um I don't know what the magic number would be, but I and
also I want to add I've been hearing this for years to request a meeting on the east side of the county. This is honestly the first time that I've ever even heard a discussion on it. I've never heard the council discuss it when it's been asked. It maybe they
have. I know Miss Wheeler's nodding her head. Uh but it it has been asked and I I understand what you're saying about um expenses and budgets and staff. We can't um ignore residents on the east
side. We're setting up right now and we already have what what is this our seventh meeting. We've shown it can be done. What is it? Seventh, eighth, I don't know. But we've been all over the county in different areas. I think it's fourth,
but they they tend to last a long time. >> Well, I'm talking also of I'm also talking about the five listening sessions. I'm including that because the listening sessions were set up as well. >> So, and then different libraries across the county. >> So, I don't know if you know two
meetings a year. I again I don't know what the magic number is, but I would say the opposite. We've shown staff and expense and this charter review has shown it could be done >> all over the county for that matter.
>> Thank you. >> To me, this is a procedural thing that should be left to the council and not in the charter because I think that clutters the charter. the council already has that authority and I think that uh we should allow the county
council to use their authority if that's where they need to be. But uh in my opinion it's not a charter issue. >> Commissioner Bright, >> I would agree with Suzanne. I think some meetings doesn't have to be one a month.
It could be quarter one quarterly, but I think something should be done on the east side. half the residents or you know the count half the county is on the east side. It needs to be broken up. Technology is getting better all the time. Things are getting easier to move
and and it's uh faster to do and if you're going to use the argument that leave it up to council, most of the stuff in this charter can be left up to council now. So that that's not an avenue we need to take. If we feela if the citizens on the east side needs
would like a meeting, I think we should uh do a trial run at some point and see if it'll work. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Lewis. >> I found that most people when they're interested in a subject, they find their way to the council. They fill the
council room up. They they get there if they want to. Our listening sessions that we went around and met, we had one at one, we had two at another, three at another. People don't come if they're not interested and uh I I think we leave
it up to council like uh Mr. Parker said it's not an issue for the charter. >> Mr. Wheeler. >> Yeah, I agree with Mr. Parker. Um I was on the council and it was brought up almost every single year and for some
reason or other and it was a conclusive with everyone that we decided that you know it just wasn't uh feasible to move staff you know like he had mentioned or someone Ben had mentioned you know sometimes they could go back to their job until their issue was brought up and
they come back into the council meeting room uh it's very important for the staff to be close to where their offices are I feel And again on some of the meetings that we had, you know, we changed to the night meetings in response and the turnout isn't there. If
people have an issue, they want to be there. I'm on the east side, you know, I traveled that road all the time when I was on council, but I also traveled it when I was going to a meeting that was important for me. So I I think our council, our city, our our county seat
is where it is and that's where the meeting should continue. Okay, thank you. Anyone, Commissioner Saknowski? Thanks. I The only thing I would point out is that one thing that could be in the charter as a potential change, and I'm not saying that needs to be done, but that the charter could be
amended to to change the county seat if that was something that really motivated a lot of people. And obviously, the county seat is not where the population is, but that's was a choice that's was designated in the charter to go with the ex pre-existing rule. But that's something that could be changed. But
there there is one county seat. Right now it's delayed. >> All right. >> Um my question is for Miss Wheeler. You said it came up every year. Did residents bring it up or what? Like how
did it come up? I'm curious. Yeah, there were times that residents brought it up, but very seldom was it brought up and we would maybe hear it once a year and we we always voted it down that there were many reasons and I'd have to go back through all the minutes to to go through
all the reasons, but there were a lot of reasons. But, you know, citizens um we listen to them, but then it's up to us to make the decisions that are the best for everyone. and we just felt conclusively that it was not a wise decision at that time.
>> I would just express that that's unfortunate that there's not flexibility with the council there if there's been seven years of no meetings on the east side. That's all I would say. >> So, um you know, I appreciate the discussion. I think it's been a good one
to start out on. Um I'll just from my own personal perspective offer a couple of thoughts on it. one, when I started out my practice coming out of law school, I worked as a county attorney for Penllis County and we were in Clearwater and there was a lot of places that were kind of far removed from
Clearwater. Um, and to me the the the biggest issue isn't the technology because I do agree that the technology is there to be able to make it and we've moved it around to the county as we've done these these meetings and the listening sessions. It's the staff time. It's the the lack of staff being there
and being available. Um, you know, as a staff attorney in Clearwater or in in Penllis County, we would all sit at our desks and work until we knew our agenda items were coming up and then we would be able to go down to the u, you know, commission chambers to participate, you know, in the item that we were engaged
in. Otherwise, we were able to continue doing our work for for the county. And um, so that's kind of the reason why I don't support that change. The other thing is I do agree with Mr. Parker. Um, with regard to a charter, I think that
the the the we have the ability right now in the charter for the meetings to be held someplace other than the county seat. Um, and I think it's a matter of, you know, if that's the expectation, then that that authority already exists. And I I think putting a mandate in the
charter that gets more specific than that really starts to get a little bit of a a creep I think from the standpoint of the purpose of the overall charter. We do have members of the council and that changes from time to time and some may be more receptive and some may be less. But I think that's the group that you have to hold accountable for making
sure if that's an expectation that we we feel like needs to be met that the council that's sitting when they're establishing their schedule um plans in plans that in I don't know what the right number is whether it's you know once a month or quarterly or whatever it is. I would hate to set a number in the
charter that's wrong. Um and so I think we we have the existing authority in the charter. Um and and I' I'd like to see us rely on that. So without a any other further discussion or is there a motion to go one way or another? >> No, but we could because you hear some
talk in here about moving it once in a while over there. At the end we would probably do a recommendation letter and we can recommend in that thing that they take and and consider >> consider >> from time to time having that just a reminder to have a meeting on the east
side of the county from time to time and then they can even gauge how much worth it is if people show up or not. Okay, I think that's a great suggestion. >> I appreciate that consideration because quite frankly that's where I was trying to get here. I just went that's the
reason I asked for the question I did. >> Well, and perhaps what you can do is in the recommendation letter point out to the council that it's been something that has been raised repeatedly and it is within their existing authority. So, all right. So, let's do a quick show of hands. Is there
support for moving forward with uh a charter amendment that would mandate a specific, you know, meeting schedule east and west? Anybody in favor of that? >> So, let me let me >> let me let me let me clarify. Um, is there is there a motion to do include
that in our recommendation letter, >> but not as an amendment to the charter? I I'm definitely would be willing to move that there would be a let's say I would I would recommend a minimum of two times a year that they would meet on the east side as a recommendation. Okay. >> I have no problem making that motion. >> So, we've got a motion to include that
in our recommendation letter. Is there a second? >> Not a charter, >> but not a charter amendment. >> Recommendation letter. >> Miss Nory, was that a second? >> Second. >> Got a second with Miss Nory. All in any further discussion? All in favor signify by saying I. I. >> I. Any opposed?
>> All right. One down. >> What? How much? >> 38 pages to go. All right. So, the recommendation uh at our last meeting um the second item on exhibit A was to talk about the wastewater. County Attorney's Office advises that that is actually uh
the state statute governs on that and that's not something that we can move into um the charter. So, we'll move past that unless there's any questions on that. Uh move to number three on exhibit A. require the county protected lands may be disposed by a supermajority vote
of the council. Um that was from the uh listening sessions and I think Miss Nory that also ties into the one that you sent in um which is on for everybody who's looking page 19 of 32 of the um member proposals. So let's open that up
for discussion on whether or not um we want to and I think here there's probably a lot of detail involved in that. So, um, what I think, you know, if this is one that that the commission wants to continue moving forward with, I don't know that we can go directly to a val, you know, proposed amendment and,
you know, the ballot summary and everything else, but I think it's one that we could study from there. >> I I wasn't expecting that. I was I was hoping that we could take this to a committee for consideration, the amendment. I tonight I didn't did did not think this was the place where we
would be choosing our committee excuse me our charter amendments but rather this be discussed >> that would be what I would like to see >> just as a point of order it's not just the the my understanding is that it's not just the ones that have already presented I mean there's certainly going to be future opportunities for
commissioner recommendations so it's not like this was the one and only chance >> not to do that absolutely on this particular item item three on page two I would recommend and that we defer it to include it in the discussion on Miss Nory's motion later. Okay. >> Or proposal later and just let it
>> everybody good with that? We move it and talk about it when the commissioner. All right. Um so moving beyond that. Um >> I think this was >> that also brings number >> just a second.
>> I think Miss Pante said she pulled 55%. She pulled 55% the remove authority for uh the council to directly purchase Valia Forever properties. Do we want to roll those all into one discussion >> on that? >> Is everybody good with rolling that into
one discussion? Okay. Mandate funding source for public transportation. Is there any uh and I think there was a I recall there's a a further uh comment that was raised that related to the thoroughfare impact fees that
ties into that. Um is that one that uh the commission wants to continue discussion of or is there a consensus on whether that does or doesn't you know need to be something included in the charter? I I would >> Yeah, I would just move that that the concept is is pretty general and I would
re recommend that's something that >> uh I think would best be suited being referred to a subcommittee. >> Commissioner Johnson, you got a comment on that? >> Yeah, I tend to tend to agree that I don't think it's a charter item. I do think it's a it's a
>> good idea. >> I'm saying that see that's what I'm saying that this is the kind of thing that in terms of it says a more appropriate broader approved discretion local option sales that might be the vehicle but that's to me a detail that we can approach later after discussion at that
level is my point I think that there's no reason to dispose of the whole concept right now >> by simply the idea of straw voting and all that that's not what >> decisions are made with real votes and I'm saying let's get more information from a subcommittee on that issue >> okay
any other thoughts on on the dedicated funding source for public transportation as a as a charter uh issue. Commissioner Clayton, >> I think I'm confused. >> Yeah, me too. >> It's either a chart I look like to chart
as our constitution. >> It's the foundation. The leaner the better. >> Yeah. >> I just I I don't Why are we going to talk about public funding for transportation if it's not truly a charter item? I love seeing y'all, but I don't want to
talk about that. >> I mean, am I missing something? Is that is that a charter item? >> The point is that a member of the public's made the proposal. There is certainly nothing at all illegal. It's maybe a perception that it's not foundational to certain individuals. But
if the if it were to go to the vote and the vote of the people were to do it, then it's so then it becomes foundational. That's how the charters get changed. That's how their state constitution gets changed. That's the process. So that's why I'm saying it's better to let it's way too premature if
we don't even have a concrete idea in front of us to make a decision like that. In my view, I I think that it sounds like people are prejudging and that's that's it's based on a philosophy. But then when it comes to the ballot box, one of us gets one vote,
you know, at a time. The other half a million people get to vote, too. And that's what the our only decision is whether or not to let them vote on it. But if they vote on it and they make it so, it is so. >> Let's go back to have body warn cameras on zoning officers. Why are we not
voting on that? We decided not to vote on that. Let's have them Let's have our elected officials be Republican and Democrat. We decided not to do that. I've had a pile of people say, "I want to know how they I want to know if they're taxing me and taking my money. I want to know if they're Republican. I want to know if they're Democrat." I said, "Oh, no. We're not going to
discuss that." But we're going to discuss this. That makes no sense to me. Any other thoughts, Miss Nory? >> Yeah, I having served time on the county council, I understand the concern, but I do believe this is a council issue. I
don't know that I don't know how you would even put it into the charter that the format that would would be used to say that this is a requirement. So I would not be u open to putting it into the charter other than if there is
support to discuss it to put as recommendation but I'm I'm even reluctant on that because this is really policy stuff that the council that's elected at the time would be making decisions on. >> Well commissioner
>> yeah we're it's we are not limited to what we're saying is in the chart. We have absolute ability to recommend ordinances. Also, now that being said, I like the recommendation letter concept. I think it worked before. I would have no problem with saying that something
be, but again, I'd still think it needs to be fleshed out more. I'm not comfortable just saying that this be done in a recommendation or without a little more guidance. I'm just saying the proper This is to me a clear example of something that needs a little more information at a subcommittee level. That's that was what I'm recommending.
>> Okay, >> Johnson. This is too much of a moving target from county, state, too many moving pieces for us to take and put something in there that can't be corrected for 10 years and we have a major issue out of it. In the meantime, and it's something we back up and say, I
guarantee you, we voted to put this on there, it may pass. And then if it passes, you can't fix it. >> And that's a problem. It's more of a county a council issue. And part of it is with state tells us how we're going to do it. Well, and Commissioner Sher,
>> I have a general question. These letters of recommendation, which we started tonight talking about when are they going to go out? Are they going to go out like after we've made this recommendation tonight or are they going to go out in the future? Once the commission takes final action
on our list of proposed amendments that we forward to the county council, we forward that together with a a transmitt letter that can include any other topics that we discussed and a list of recommendations for the council to act on things that are more policy issues
rather than government structure issues. And so that's where I think that letter will be drafted will be approved by this body as a whole. And that's where something I tend to agree with those that say this is and I'll give you a little bit of a different perspective on it. Um, one of the hats that I wear is
doing um, you know, bond issues for public finance infrastructure. And I'd be really concerned that we put something in the charter that that screws up our ability to bond revenue streams that are coming in because but I but I do think it's worth worth some discussion and it may be wrapped into if
you when we get into some of the commissioner um suggestions as well. I will say at the at the very end is one that I sent in that it may be rolled into and and you know there may be a concept there that that also provides some some direction for it. That's why
that's why I'm exactly why I'm recommending that we kick it to a subcommittee. >> Okay. So, is there is there M Commissioner Lewis? >> You know, we're a representative government. We can't put every question on the ballot. You can't ask everybody
everything they want to know. What color you want this? What color you want that? Right? >> We have a representative government. And if they have a problem with those things, they should go to the people that they elected. We're not elected. We're appointed. But you can't put on the ballot every question that you
think's important. >> I I tend to agree with you. Um I think I used the example at our first meeting of the I think it's the state of Missouri that has a 1500page constitution. >> Point of order. I did check that. That's not actually entirely correct. But
>> am I am I got did I get my state wrong? >> Yeah, you're No, it's Well, I don't know about the state being wrong, but the the the Constitution of Missouri is not 1500 pages. Okay. >> Guarantee you that >> I did I did look at it. >> All right. Any any further discussion? Motion. >> I have a motion that we do not mandate
funding for public transportation. >> As a charter amendment. >> As a charter amendment. >> All right. Got a motion and a second not to mandate uh public transportation funding as a charter amendment. Any further discussion? This does not mean we can't include it in the recommendation letter. All right. All in
favor of the motion signify by saying I. Any opposed? >> Moving on. All right. Uh, number seven. I think this one also dealt with the Thoroughare Road impact fee. I think that is probably dealt with with the motion that
just passed. Um, unless there's any disagreement with that. >> I'm getting nodding heads. So, that takes us through exhibit A. Let's deal with the >> just to be >> Commissioner Saknowski >> are are we not going to make any I mean >> what I guess this is a premature
question but can a subcommittee whatever is dealing with that take these issues up as a part of the recommendation >> so I think I don't want to dispose of things because the ideas may be evolving >> not not at all and so my point in talking about the transmitt letter is that's a letter that we're all going to review and approve and so I think that
is one of the things that and I think carrying forward from this discussion that's an item that we need to to consider keeping on that recommendation list unless I don't get any any shaking heads when we say >> no. As long as I as long as it's not dead, that's what I'm >> I don't think it's it's not it's not
dead yet to quote Montipython. Right. So, um okay. So, moving on to exhibit B. These are the staff um suggested amendments. Let's do this one a little bit different. Is there any item on exhibit B that anybody would like to discuss on the recommended changes that
were largely sort of some cleanup changes and some tweaks that we've been uh presented with before? And again, this does not say it's a final thing going on the ballot. It doesn't say um it's something that that we want to remove. My my suggestion moving forward
from here is the things that there's a consensus behind, we have staff begin the process of at least drafting what those amendments would look like so that we can review them. So this um I think came from the 11 items that um were advanced at our first meeting by staff
as recommendations for us to look at. It includes cleaning up some of the amendment 10 related. I know that was also something that was dealt with in a number of the um commissioner comments that came in. Um the CRC approval process. Um uh the name change from
council to commission is one of the other ones that came in there. Commissioner Shyber. >> So I have a question about the council to commission. Yes. Um I see what it says. A name change has no substantive legal effect. It's solely a name issue.
But when you look up um the definitions of council and commission, council is more policy driven, more um uh has the capability of impacting policy more and commission was was not.
So it uh I guess I'm trying to understand why this is coming up. >> I I think in general and I'm going to go to Mr. Parker in a second because he wrote a a good piece in our our commissioner comments on it. Um but I
think in general um what we've heard from a number of folks including some of ex prior council members and some existing council members is we are the only board government in the state of Florida that has council members instead of commissioners. And so I think it's really a nomenclature issue when you go
to the Florida Association of County meetings for example and you say I'm Councilman so and so what city are you representing? Um, so I think it's it's really based on on kind of that history. Now, there is a purpose to the history. Mr. Parker, uh, do you want to weigh in on some of that?
>> Well, I think you're correct. You know, if you were going when I was studying political science in college, you know, there was the commission form of government, which um, basically they ran the operation. When you go back and sort
of look at the history when uh the county firstart charter review, they were wanting to make a distinct break from what was previous which was the board of county commissioners. Um but the terms today are
interchangeable. So it does not mean that the if you change it to a commission that they would automatically become an operating department over a certain group of departments. That's what the commission form of government
originally was. Uh so you know it's just one of those types of things. But when you look throughout Valuchia County uh the term is interchangeable even within our cities. There are some cities whose governing body operates under the same form of government that we do here at
the county that are called commissions. There are others that are called city councils. So the term is used interchangeable within uh within the statutes and within local governments today. It doesn't apply to what was used
to be formed in the early 1900s out of Galveston, Texas. by the way was the first commission form of government. U it was after a hurricane hit and they used it to for the recovery but it evolved the term evolved and today
they're interchangeable. >> The charter protect the duties anyway. >> Yeah the the charter does >> protect it doesn't matter what you call them it's still in it is changing that name. It still gives them the same duties and responsibilities. And if you look under, you know, chapter 125, which
is the primary statute governing county government, you know, in the state, you know, it it identifies the governing board as the board of county commissioners, unless you're changed in the charter, you know, or in how the charter is established. And again, I think I think this is really just a kind
of a preference issue. >> Okay. I I hear what you're saying. I understand the basics. It's like, you know, 10 shades of blue that are all blue. I think what's just troubling is the definition. The term may be interchangeable, but the
definition wasn't. That's just troubling me. When you look at the definition, it's not. >> And and I think and I think you're absolutely right. The definitions of the two are different. I think the authority and the powers are the same no matter what we call them because they're delineated both by the charter and by by
state state law. Commissioner Clayton, I >> pride myself on being frugal. I don't care what it's called. How much would this cost? >> How much would it cost to change all the letterhead, the titles, the tags, the plates, the the county, the buildings?
What would this cost? Has anybody thought about what it would cost to do all that? >> Anybody? >> I I appreciate what Mr. Lewis said the other day. He said he was there u he might have been there back in 1970 when they first started, but uh But but but he said, you know, they were
the only ones known as council. But in my we've been doing this for 50 years. Does it really matter? >> Yeah. >> Bottom line is I want to know what it's going to cost. Don't we have fancy plaques everywhere that say council and Yeah, you do. Even on the courthouse, the justice center says council members that approved this building. >> Well, those are always going to be
council members because it happened in the past. >> Saying currently, what do you Yeah. >> What would it cost? You tell me that figure and then I'll tell you how I'll vote. >> Yeah, that's that's a good question. 38. >> I'll donate the money not to do it. >> Miss Nory, >> I I was, you know, letterhead, that kind
of stuff. That's that's easy peasy. >> That's computerenerated at this point. >> Computer generated at this point. So, I understand what you're saying about about those u you wouldn't change all those plaques. They would say the same. But yeah, I I can tell you that as a former council member, it does get
confusing when you go away to different place. truly that what's what's a council as opposed to a well your commission. >> It's a minor change that I think should be should be made. >> I think that's the most progressive
thing I've ever heard Jim Clayton say. Um Commissioner Bright, >> I think we should just leave the name the same. First of all, we avoid the cost. Second, everybody that lives in the county knows it's the county council. And second, if you're going to
go with everybody being the same, maybe we're the only ones in the state of Florida that use council, but councils and commissions, you get out of state and they don't even use those terms. So why do we have to match everybody else
in Florida? Why can't we stay the way we are and be different? >> I think there's certainly an argument for that. Commissioner Lewis, >> if you hadn't walked in these shoes, you don't know what we're talking about. Northern knows that. I know it. Ben knows it. Whenever you go to a meeting,
they say, "Who? What do you do? Who are you?" And you tell them, "I'm the same as a commissioner." Oh, okay. But you have to clarify that with everybody you talk to. >> And you wonder if they really believe that. >> Yeah. Right. >> And you can usurp some of your power in the long run because you don't fit with
the rest of them. >> So, so let's do this. We've got uh 11 amendments on exhibit B. Um we seem to be talking about one of those amendments. Um, and I I kind of hear things all over the place and I've got Commissioner Clayton that's asking for a
cost estimate on what that amendment would would uh would cost. >> I don't think it's fair, Mr. Booker or whoever gets saddled with that. I feel bad. I I feel bad for even talking about it. Now, somebody's going to be have to figure this out.
>> I would like to know. I know letterhead gets printed, cards get printed, but you got name like we're commissioners right here. We should have been the council. the charter review council. >> Well, you can amend that. It's in It's in the charter. Uh >> it's in the charter. Okay. I don't know.
I just don't want to spend money unnecessarily when it's the same. I know that he represented me. >> I never I might have called him commissioner. I might call him council member. >> Yeah. I think >> about the title. >> Commissioner Johnson. >> I'm making a motion that we accept these items. >> Items 1 through 11 on exhibit B.
>> 11 as written. >> Is there a second? >> I'll second that. >> Okay. >> Okay. Okay, I got a motion in a second and I've got discussion. Commissioner Nory, is there discussion on the motion? >> I'm not sure what you mean by accepting them. >> So, let's clarify it. I don't So, for
purposes of accepting it, um, you know, the intent would be to then have the draft amendments brought forward for each of those items as a next step that we then would vote on as prospective amendments to the charter. It's not a final >> because I think there's some things in in what this commission has said they
would like to see that probably would go along in that area. Agreed. And I think that we can then consolidate. >> Commissioner, just to clarify too, Commissioner Johnson, the the issue on number two is that they put out the staff put out that thing. And what I was saying is that there's no there's no
logical reason to say we should go to twothirds. There's equal logic to say that they should go to one a majority, which when as soon as you say twothirds, that means a minority is controlling. So, I would say I I I think we should leave two out of the discussion at the moment, but
other than that, I think that that's wise to to allow them to go forward with the others. >> So, it's a we've got a motion to approve 1 through 11 and a second. Um, and that's a proposed amendment to the motion to eliminate number two, at least for the time. Okay. Thank you.
>> The Were you the second? >> Just >> uh Mr. Johnson, you were the maker of that motion. Do you agree with that change or >> the maker does not agree to that change? >> You seconded the amendment. I was going back to the maker.
>> I think you have to vote on this. >> I think you have to vote on that. >> All right. >> The amendment. >> You're right. >> There's a proposed amendment to remove item two from that list. I've got a second for that. Is there any discussion on the amendment? >> All right. If not, all in favor of the amendment signify by saying I.
>> I. >> I. Any opposed? >> Yay. >> I >> Well, we lost that one. >> Well, I didn't I don't think >> All right. >> Was there a count? >> If you voted I raise your hand, please. We got one, two, three.
>> Dwight, are you voting? Yes. >> Can you I think Mr. Lewis is confused. >> All right, >> y'all need to clarify the amendment. >> Time out. >> You okay with that, >> Mr. Wheeler? So, so let me let me >> council the former council members are
committ Let me let me clarify the motion. There was a motion to remove the CRC approval process uh from that motion to approve 1 through 11. So to remove item number two >> from item from the 1 through 11 and there was a second to that. So what
we're voting on is do we remove item number two from Mr. Johnson's motion? All right. All in favor of removing item number two, raise your hand. I've got one, two, three, four. All opposed. Like
sign. >> Okay. The motion the amendment fails. So, we have a motion on the table and a second to move items 1 through 11 forward for the next step to come back with draft amendments that we will then
consider and vote on one by one. Um, is there any further discussion on that motion? >> Can I Commissioner Lewis, >> I would like to ask you to clarify number 11, tax collector's budget. It says it's in the Florida statutes. So,
if it's in the statute, can we undo the Florida statute? >> Mr. Dyer, can you address that one? >> This is the only of the several county constitutional officers. State law is unique as to a tax collector budget and it allows a charter county by charter to
provide for a different method of submission of that budget as provided in the charter. So that flexibility is only because of state law. >> I know that their budget is approved at the state and not at the county like the rest of them,
>> right? But I just didn't understand when you say we're a charter county that lives by the Florida statutes, you know, that we can't do something that they prohibit. And does the statute prohibit that? >> No, it it it allows it it allows a
charter amendment for that purpose, >> Mr. Chley. >> It would essentially it would essentially make the other direction officer
Although things again small So, does this in is this an effort to be more efficient in the way that that budget works from the county standpoint or >> Yeah, just to be clear on your staff's
not recommending any of these. This is just a reflection of things we've heard over time for you to talk about. >> Correct. >> It's not a proposal from staff one way or the other. >> Okay. Mr. Senovski. Okay. The statement is quote provide a
different method of submission. It's not at all fleshed out. Um the way I interpret if this motion were to pass is it's getting it fleshed out because obviously we're not going to just write into the charter a different method without specifying the method.
>> That's correct. What would be moving forward? >> That's that's the point and that's I'm saying that's that's all we're doing here is just allowing I kind of thought we were going to get that more information today but we clearly didn't. Yeah, I think what we narrowed down were the topics at the last meeting. This is moving to the step of let us see what a
draft amendment would look like, you know, if we move forward with this. Okay. >> So, that clarify? >> All right. So, the motion on the on the floor is to move items number 1 through 11 on exhibit B forward for a draft amendment for us to discuss in more
detail later. Um, >> I I just have one question, >> Commissioner. >> Would it would it be considered that these would be different Are we going to roll all these into one charter amendment or how do I see Mike's >> They'd have to be separate. >> They they have to be separate.
>> Okay. >> And just so just so I'm clear, I'm assuming with these we may bring back more information on these and you may decide you don't want to proceed. >> Thank you. >> With any of them or some of them? >> That's right. >> Okay. Okay.
>> I'm good then. All right. So with that, Commissioner, >> you know, I'm thinking Mr. Clayton brought that up about the expense to have no idea of cost of change. It is
really irresponsible in my opinion. So I would like some type of projected cost. I mean, I get it that it's not going to be >> 100% but something. >> Is that something that staff can provide as we come back with those draft amendments? some projected costs on what the implementation would be.
>> Like there's got to be some general idea. >> I think that's a I think that's a good suggestion. >> John Booker. >> Mr. Booker, we'll make sure we have that. >> Okay. >> All right. We've got a motion and a second. All in favor of the motion signify by saying I. >> I.
>> Any opposed? And we're through A and B. All right. So, we're we're moving into a little bit more of the um you know, the again, thanks to everybody that did send in some um suggestions on things to look at. Um I think we had a little bit of a combination of suggestions and and then
some u you know, kind of narratives as well. Um so, I'm going to just kind of run through these and and I'm not going to get us into discussion on each and every one of them because I think we've talked about some of them already. Um for example, Mr. Parker. Um one and two, unless you have anything else to add. I think we've addressed those with um both
our uh council versus commission discussion and amendment 10 uh discussion. Um I think three, four, five, um under Mr. Parker's discussion really kind of gets into a I think this
is really a lot of the core of the charter and that is what's our structure. Um, and you know, I think we could probably talk that to death. My suggestion to the commission, um, is
that we request a presentation on some of this. Does that make sense? >> That makes sense. >> Um, >> I what purpose? >> Well, this is this is this is heavy duty stuff that we're talking about. So, I think we probably need to hear some
experts about the what the impacts are. I can tell you that some of my suggestions I think would be rolled into the same thing that Ken had. So >> I would like to see some >> additional work on this. >> Is I don't think anyone in the room is
seriously considering changing our form of government though. >> Well, I think that so we've got a couple of recommendations or suggestions to >> it's a questions as all these I >> Yeah, I think I think that's true. I agree with you. I think those are >> I don't think there's any recommendations here. So,
>> Commissioner Clayton, >> there might be some people in the room that are suggesting changing our form of government. >> Well, people haven't done that though that I'm aware of. I mean, are you suggesting that? >> What form are you suggesting? >> We we've received a number. >> I like some of Mr. Parker's suggestions
and some of the suggestions. They overlap, but I think they need to be looked into. So, let me let me offer my suggestion on on there's a handful of the the the questions that were raised, okay? Or the statements that were that came in from commission members that relate to the number of charter or the
number of council districts, whether we have an elected chair, whether we have um you know, uh you know, council manager form or whether we go into more of a strong mayor form. My suggestion would be those are probably things that we should get some more information on before deciding whether we should move
forward with any of those. >> And I'm suggesting that people should just make some proposals that we can discuss. This is what I'm saying is I don't see the role of this thing is have unlimited discussions about things that aren't actual proposals. So I'd like to just say let's make see some proposals.
I'm very interested in some of that. >> Sure. But presentations, I want proposals and then have discussions on it. That's the whole function was as we've been doing, we make proposals, we refer for more information and come back. >> So, I think there's a number of specific
session. I think there's a number of specific proposals that I saw in going through these um for example, there was a proposal to go to six um districts um with one countywide elected uh position um that could be the chair. there was a proposal to eliminate the elected chair.
There's been a number of different things. So my suggestion is in order for us to decide whether we as a body should come up with proposed amendments that relate to any of those topics, perhaps it would be good to have a presentation
made by somebody that's outside of this group to talk about the pros and cons of some of the different concepts that were laid out and be able to give the commission information to decide whether or not we think it's a good idea to move forward with any of those proposed amendments or not. If it doesn't last
more than 20 minutes, I guess I'm okay with it, but >> Okay. Does the rest of the commission feel like that's a good >> be helpful? >> Okay. Okay. I'm getting head nods. How about that end of the table? Okay. Head nods. All right. So, um as it relates to
I think it's um numbers three, four, and three and four. Um I think those fall into that discussion. Um I think we already addressed number five. That is the um I think that was on
>> B1 the 11 in there. So I think we'll come back and deal with that one on travel >> uh suggestion six. I think that's covered by the uh amendment 10 and the rest the rest
had to remain to reflect the role of the clerk. You good with that Mr. Mr. Okay. Um, seven getting into the discussion on HR. Um, and the lobbying cooling off period. So,
let's talk about seven first. Commissioner Parker, do you want to kind of explain your your comments there or thoughts? >> When I was looking at it, it just looked like that um you've almost got a charter officer created with the HR person. Um
secondly uh even in the definition of classified unclassified when you got over into it's really into the minutia of of the classified unclassified system for example in one of the sections it says there will be uh the department
head is unclassified but there's one other a okay now know from a practical standpoint okay um you know know and manager's office and some things like that. Uh there more than one
person in the unclassified service. So when you're looking at the charter, you know, it probably made sense when it was adopted and and originally, but probably today it doesn't make sense. So to me there are those procedural things that
are in the that are really policy and that are put into the charter and it clutters it up in my opinion. >> That's where I was coming from. >> Okay, Mr. >> This is number seven. Correct. >> This is number seven on page four of 32. >> That should come out of the charter and
he should be under the county manager. >> Okay. >> That's that simple. >> That sounds like two agreeing people. All right. Is there getting head nods around the room? Just to clarify, the HR director is under the county manager, >> correct? >> Yeah.
>> Okay. >> Do we want to see further detail on this one? >> Okay. We do that one by consensus. >> Okay. Consensus to to get further detail on number seven. Uh number eight
relating to lobbying and um a provision to deal with um a time period uh for you know a prohibition on lobbying. I think the staff followup that's included there kind of gives you an idea of what current state law um sets forth with
regard to that. >> Is there any followed state law? Are are you saying that we're following it? >> We're currently following >> more stringent than state law. Do I understand that correctly >> that we are currently more stringent than state law? >> So you have three things going on here.
You have a charter existing charter restriction >> correct >> that applies to former council members >> and what they can do for a period of year >> and over time things have become stricter at the state level. So now you
have a state law that governs post office lobbying. Now you also have a state constitutional amendment that addresses it. So you have three three sources of restrictions. >> Of course we do. >> So So let me let me just try and summarize from the standpoint of what we
currently have from a structure. We have a prohibition in the charter regarding employment of former county council members, right, >> by the county. >> There's a state prohibition on lobbying by those council members for a period of time and there's a constitutional prohibition on lobbying for certain offices for a longer period of time.
>> Right. Do we feel like the charter needs to address anything beyond that >> given the statute and the constitution? >> I'm getting a lot of shaking heads on that one. So, Mr. Parker, are you any other >> I know. All right. Um, okay. So,
>> let's keep us going. Um, so we've got a list beginning on page six that was um, some suggestions that were sent in from Miss Brightite. Thank you again. Um, and and talk about a sleepless night. Uh, going through and providing, you know, our a lot of
comments and suggestions. So, um, just running through these in general. Um, so number one on page six, uh, talks about can salaries be reduced or capped? Should we consider, you know, a charter amendment that would put a cap, for example, in place for county employees?
Um, >> no. >> Commissioner Johnson, >> you could work yourself into a real bind doing this because as you have job markets around, if we did it and we had we had uh restrictions on what we could give our employees, you'll have Daytona,
New Smyrna, Semino County, Lake County, Flagler County, then you don't have much left. I think we're making a big mistake that that you have unions to that are involved. >> Um there's just too many moving parts in this also for us to get involved in. >> I wasn't looking at union or type
employees under contracts. I was looking more at staff but also what I also suggested in the caps was to be looking at the state levels and national averages and averages in the state area and everything taking it all into consideration with that because
>> there are some you we don't want to be driving up the salaries for the entire area either. >> Yeah, >> I don't think we've done >> and and I will say I I don't disagree with the the need to keep our you know um our budgets in under control and everything else. I don't see it as a
charter issue. Just and and I my personal experience example would be I represented Bvard County when they had a cap on their budget increases year-over-year in their charter at 3% and it it really kind of handicapped what they were able to do to to address
changing economic circumstances. >> And that's good. Then we should can we just remove the entire salary thing from the charter? If if the salaries aren't important a charter item, then maybe we should just remove it. Well, I think from the standpoint of authority, it does simply say the county has the
authority to fix the the salaries for the officers and employees. And I do think they need that authority to do that. I don't think we want to quantify it or or cap it in any way. At least that would be >> Yeah, I'm with you, Mr. Chairman. >> Okay. >> Saved alone.
>> All right. Um two um adding in um flooding due to development or improper land grading or fill under uh um the abuse of the environment section in the existing section 202. Um I guess
question to staff. Um I think you see you see that as maybe something that 180 would create an issue on. Yes, I I do think that the views of environment section is so broad now it does encompass those things, but right now we're faced with Senate Bill 180 that I
think would restrict us from proposing something that is arguably more restrictive or burdenome at this time. So in your opinion then after so if we do do nothing with the charter on this section after the time period in 180
runs out in 2027 then there's existing authority to do this by ordinance that could be countywide. >> Yes. >> Okay. Is that good for everybody? And just so I'm clear on that, I mean, we have an ordinance chapter dedicated to
implementing the environmental minimum standards in the charter which applies both in the cities and in the unincorporated, >> right? And so that would could be something done under that that existing authority. Um, >> all right. Number three was getting into the discussion on BGMC. Um, should we
keep it? >> We had a lot of conversation about this in 2016. In fact, it was pretty much our entire >> meeting schedule in 2016 on this commission. So, um, you know, I think at the, you know, just to to kind of when we when we addressed this in 2016, the
question was we debated whether or not to put this on the on the um the ballot. And so, I appreciate you bringing it up again. What we ultimately did was BGMC and the county council worked to amend their rules to kind of change how they were operating at that point in time.
And so I'll throw it out to to the question of, you know, should we put it on the ballot to consider elimination of EGMC or do we leave it as is currently? >> I I um I would normally say yeah, get rid of it because I don't think it does much good at all. I don't know. I mean,
I never hear anything good that comes out of it. But maybe that's one of those areas that we needed a presentation from maybe the chairman of that group to say what is it that you do because I know what it's supposed to do but I don't
know that it does that Mr. Chairman. >> So would the commission entertain a presentation from the chair of BGMC at one of our follow-up meetings? >> Okay. >> So we'll follow up with that one. >> Mr. Dyer, do you have something you want to add? Okay. We're we're going to make them brief.
>> Brief and efficient. How's that? And we'll ask them for written materials in advance. >> Okay. All right. My goal was to be out of here with within two hours. So, we're getting we're going to make it. Um number four,
uh minimum standards for environmental protection. Um I think in here these are instances where we can be more restrictive. um than what the state or federal laws um require. So if everybody's good with that, Commissioner Bright, >> that answered your question on that.
>> Okay. Um unified beach code. Um Mike, do you want to uh address this? I think the the question on number five was the enabling language that led us adopt the unified beach code. >> So right now the county council has uh
regulatory authority over the whole beach. Most of the beach is actually within a different city. Uh so this is one of those areas where when this was passed gave the council that authority to pass an ordinance over a city. Um
because we have the uh also beach driving in that section is allowed. Uh we were grandfathered in under the state law that prohibits beach driving statewide. So there's we're actually we have more beach driving than any other
county in the state because of that. So uh if you did want to um change it uh I think there's risk of losing the beach driving under the current state law but you'd be giving up regulatory authority over the
beach. Now let's talk about services. So right now, if you propose to take away a service from a city, that requires a dual referendum of the people in the city and the county to achieve that. So
city of Daytona, Port Orange, they can send their police officers on the beach. They can enforce a law just like the county. That was not taken away because there was not a dual referendum. This is purely a regulatory authority over the beach by the county
council, not a service. Okay. Answer the questions. >> Okay. All right. Um and I think the same applies or similar reasoning for school planning. It's it's another thing required for us to to have that. So we'll uh go past that one. Um number
seven on the council districts and the re reaportionment. Um, I think that's kind of the traditional language used to talk about, you know, dividing, redividing up council districts. Um, so the question was I think what do we should do we change that to redistricting? Um, any any thoughts on
that, Mr. Dyer? >> Okay. >> No, this is uh it's really a naming issue. I don't think substantively it will it won't mean that a difference in substance. I I Mr. Nory >> I think what we're talking about too is we're going to go out back out to the
public and ask them to make a yay or nay vote on this and complicating things like this I don't think is wise because they're already going to be reading a lot of amendments anyway. So I I understand that there might be an issue
with language but I'm fine with leaving it the way it is. >> Okay. Okay. Is that the general consensus? Okay. Um, location of meetings. We talked about adnauseium, so we've dealt with that one. >> Um, number nine, uh, let's see,
this was, uh, the question of are adopting ordinance by simple majority. That's that is currently how ordinance are to be adopted. So, are we good good with that? >> Okay. Um I don't think there was any required
action on number 10. I think we talked about the HR issue already. um county attorney number 11 and I think uh this also is applicable to number 13 as I've uh you know our county
manager and county attorney I think are the only two of employees that the council has directly and as I think they'll tell you they they serve on a two-eek continuing contract. So >> every every two weeks they're up for uh for consideration. So um so I to answer
your question I think you know Each council has the opportunity to make that change if if they so choose. All right. Um temporary absence. I think that u Mr. Dyer, you've included this and there's a couple of places where it applies. It's really kind of under common meeting.
Will you all mention just kind of how you tend to treat it just to provide your commission with that information? >> So, um and this is consistent with how our predecessors have applied it as well. If I'm leaving the county, I ask
uh somebody to be acting county attorney for me. Uh George does the same. And the reason honestly we do it is for states of emergency. Uh my luck, I would fly someplace with my family and the biggest hurricane that Florida's face come up.
So you need to have somebody here that can take control of things. It does provide some flexibility, but that's how George and I both have applied it. >> Okay, everybody good with that practice and and feel? Okay. >> No, no, it's great information to get
out and >> Yeah. All right. So, I think 15 and 16 we addressed with the amendment 10 um updates. We've talked about the merit system and that's coming back to us um down the road or no I think we already
talked about that under Mr. Parker's uh comments as well. Um that's also the classified unclassified. All right. So se number 20 regarding amendments and referendums and how they're they're
noticed. Um, I think the question was with technology uh growing and and print papers becoming outdated, these announcements need to be published in more than a newspaper. Um, and I think that um, Mike, if you want to go into your explanation there, I think it um, in essence we're required under Florida
law to, you know, to use newspapers and there are other options available. This has been a hot topic uh with the legislature for years and they finally have passed a law that allows each county to set up its own electronic
noticing system uh which I believe one county has moved forward to implement. We actually have issued a request for proposals which is a fancy way of saying we've invited pro providers of a platform to give us information to consider. you have to
allow the school board and all the cities to join in all the local governments in your county at cost. Um, and really I think the idea now is in state law you have uh newspapers which
for years were the only mechanism to do it. Um, certain notice requirements for things that you enact like a zoning ordinance, a certain length of time that the ad go out and that type of thing. We're starting to see the system evolve into
electronic. I don't think we're there yet, but we're awfully close. Um, state law uh for amendment referendums is one of those sections that also required advertisement in newspaper. We as a county uh do a lot more than a newspaper
ad using social media, press releases, that type of thing to get the word out. I think a lot of local governments are like that anymore. Um, so council meetings, we stream meetings online. We're not required by state law to do that. So I think a lot of local
governments now are doing things that are not required to do. Kind of going above beyond to try to keep up with the changes in technology. >> Okay. Any any questions on that? Okay. Um, I think same thing on charter review. the three commission the three public hearings once we get to the point
where we have our draft ballot language and our things that we voted on then we'll have the public hearings on those. So all right um amendment 10 update address number 22 um number 23 I think the question was um
should we have these consistent and um right now the charter has a a standard of 5% to um amend the charter or propose an amendment to the charter or 15% threshold of the voters to repeal the charter. I personally think that's
right. Um that amendments got a little bit lower threshold than repeal. Um and and I think that was done intentionally, but um I'd be if there's anybody else that wants to kind of get into that. Mr. Johnson, >> I think we need to leave that alone. >> Absolutely. Um if if not, you end up in
the old county council form of government. And a lot of us were here remembered even though I was young. We remember the county council form of government and it it was the necessity of moving to the charter form. Okay. All right.
So number 24 and I know this question has come up not just here u but this is this has come up you know a number of places around the state. So Mr. Dyer, can you address the the question of prospective amendments that only come into a springing amendment that comes into effect after 180 um burns off?
>> Sure. Um the bottom line is on other subjects when the legislaturator's preempted an issue and a local government has tried to enact and say, "Well, this would apply only if that bill was not in effect." The courts have struck that down. They've said that once
your print duty, you can't regulate on that subject at all. Um, so short answer is we can't do anything in advance until that that law is not in effect or it doesn't apply to us. >> Commissioner Sakowski,
>> definitely I the only thing I would suggest is since it's a different DCA, you actually could if you want to spend the money, you could test that. >> Fair point. Okay. Um, all right. Moving into some comments that came in from Miss Nory.
um the initial uh I think discussion uh there's a number of items there one two three and four uh that deal with um kind of the the chairman position the structure of the seats um whether or not
the uh if the elected chair is reaffirmed how we kind of aortion the rest of the districts right >> do you want to get into a discussion on that or my suggestion would be >> I was going to try and tap some of the resources that Mr. Parker has with ICMA and some of the other to see if we could
bring a speaker in. Yeah. >> To talk to the whole commission and then decide from there if we wanted to study it at in like January, February in the committee standpoint. Mr. Sakovski, I see a curious look on your face. >> Mr. Johnson
15 to 20 minutes >> 15 to 20 minute presentations. >> We do the third one like this. That's an hour. >> This is part of the one we already already talked about on council structure. We have to put the time in to get the to get it right. So, >> agreed. >> Okay. Um I think travel costs we already
addressed. Um >> I think >> Mr. Triber, I'm sorry. >> Yeah. So, I'm sorry. I I need to back up for one second. Okay. We we got past something here. The SP 180 situation. Um
>> can we make recommendations for future? If we can't, I don't mean recommendations on items. I mean recommendations on categories to bring back. >> So I think we have under our charge the ability to make that you know again that recom the list of recommendations for
potential ordinances the council should consider moving forward. >> U Mr. Dyer I don't know if you want to weigh in on whether or not >> I just think you need to discuss what you want to propose because we're not allowed to propose anything more burdensome or restrictive which it's the first statute I've seen
>> that says that >> that says that. But I mean after so um like for example um bring back environmental standards what is the deadline 180 October after October like two years from now or
whatever. >> Yeah. Unfortunately and let you know and it could change the session but the way it's written it it kicks back into life if you have another hurricane that makes landfall within >> 100 miles. Well, let's say five years from now. I mean, I I get it, but
>> I think there are certainly areas that we're going to have the purview to include within recommendations. Um, and then I think we can talk about those specifically, you know, kind of coming into drafting that that transmitt letter for the amendment package and then the recommendations for potential
ordinances. We've already identified a couple here tonight, I think, to to include in that package moving forward. >> Okay. And I would just reiterate that at some point if the, you know, matter becomes important enough
and a majority exists, then it could be put on the ballot regardless of what current interpretations are. And yes, it would have to be tested. But that's how our system works. I'm not suggesting that now. I'm just saying that that is the idea that we cannot is not actually
true. You can, it just may cost you. >> Sure. M did you have a >> No. Okay, >> I'm okay. >> Okay. Um so in regard to uh number seven, penalties for failure of municipality to
adopt or enforce um minimum standards. >> Did you want to elaborate on that one at all? >> I don't I'm not sure how how to even do this. I just know that there is an abuse of of this within the cities and maybe even with the county. I just don't know
that we are adopting or that we we Mike, aren't we required to do enforcement or we don't do enforcement within the cities? >> Yeah, we so we uh do not do enforcement because we have not transfer that service away from the cities. When Clay Irvin was here and retired early this
year, this came up at council a couple times and his shop had reviewed to make sure that and his predecessors did too, but to make sure that the environmental minimum standards were adopted by the cities and he said they have. So the way
the charter reads now, if a city does not adopt them, that our means for enforcement is to sue the city. And I think the reason being is doesn't say we'll step in and and do it for them because we're not transferring that service away from them. I think we
>> it's written that way intentionally to avoid that problem. >> Now, if you want more information on it, uh you know, Ray Tiner, our new growth resource management director, I recommend he be the person to come. I I just want to see them enforced. And
maybe what it is, it goes into a um a recommendation that we recommend to the council that this current language be enforced more thoroughly than what it is. >> Okay. >> I I don't know anybody has any idea on
that or not. Suzanne, do you have some thoughts? >> So, I I have a question going along with what you're asking here um with enforcement. Is there any reporting? Is there anything? >> There's nothing. We did nothing. >> So
>> in in that regard the if we made the recommendation that they actually do make reports quarterly or whatever it takes. I think that's very germanine and it's because I think the language is strong enough. It's been clearly ignored. It's a
question of the implementation and then what's happening >> and I think this group can definitely include that in recommendations and and and suggest methods including reporting. >> Okay. >> I like the reporting. Yeah, that's good. >> Is there a consensus for us to continue looking at that as far as moving forward
with a as part of a recommendation down the road? Okay. All right. So, moving on to the proposed language um relating to protection of conservation lands. Um, I think this is the one where we kind of rolled everything down to to here. So,
um, Pat, do you want to um, kind of talk about that at all? And then Mike Mike and his staff have given us a good bit of information on that, so I'll ask him to provide some report on that as well. >> I would like to hear from Mike, but I but I would say I just want to clarify that I'm not an attorney. This was
written by an attorney that cares deeply about this county and has been very active in this county. Clay Henderson is uh my environmental uh person and and we talked about this. I want to be clear that I didn't write
the language. >> Sure. Sure. >> Because it is pretty legally. So, I would like to I I think we have to put something into the charter that says we're spending, especially I don't know if any of you listened to last meeting where we had a county council member who
talked about generational purchases, not not purchasing in perpetuity. That really concerned me a lot. And >> so I think it's important that if we're spending all this money, we have these partners that we put something in the charter that says we're going to
>> love these lands but in perpetuity. >> Commissioner Johnson, then I'm going to ask Mr. Dyer to >> I agree with the fact that we bought it and they bought it for a reason, >> but if you put it too tight, you could um playing the devil's advocate, you could work yourself into a corner. And
there's several different issues. For instance, the way I look at this right here, if we needed right away down to increase road traffic, which we're in dire need of in places that you couldn't even doing it this way, you take and and comfort so bad you couldn't even get
right away. Another thing is is say we have 50 acres that's marginal and you have a chance and and the way this is written up, you have a chance to swap that for 200 acres of good property. um you know that you might get you might
you might handcuff yourself in a manner you didn't really intend to do. That's that would be my fear. >> I just I I hear that and maybe we have to address how that would be a super majority or something. But we cannot allow council to come in and just take
pieces of property and say because we've had it for 25 years now we're going to sell it. That was not the intention of Valia forever. >> No. What? And I agree with the supermajority of your council. >> Mr. Dyer, can you uh um weigh in on this?
>> I was going to defer to John Booker. He he didn't find that funny. Um so yeah, um you know, I think basically if you want to talk about this, you can. And I think the only hesitation we had was I, you know, had a chance to look at
a little bit more since the agenda is released and Miss Nory mentioned it. I don't think you can require the referendum approval because of state law and dispose of the property, but I think you can elevate the voting threshold by council to be twothirds or whatever to
do that make that decision. >> All right. I'm not following that at all. Mike, are you saying we can't put this into the chart? >> No, you No, you can't. It's what Russ had mentioned before. It just I I don't think you can require the referendum. >> Oh, I Yes. >> But you can have the >> Well, that's that's why I said I didn't
take ownership of the language. I would look to you all to >> I So, just just to to drill down, Mr. Uh, Lewis. You could do less than 2%. It was max of two. Well, it was two. >> It's two and that's what the public was
told because I had did all the meetings and uh to even to hear them thinking about that they want to sell any of that property or move any of that property, it just is unheard of to me. It just it upsets me. I don't think that uh the the
public is supportive of that. They supported the the issue so that we could set aside some of those properties and I think it's hands off. >> Thank you. >> And I'd like to find some way that we can make it uh more secure so they can't mess with that.
>> I don't know how you're going to write it, but it needs to be written because they're they get too >> So I I will say that I'm I I see a clear consensus among the commission to explore this issue. um as a potential um charter amendment. Does everybody agree with that?
>> So then we can work with staff to to kind of dictate how we bring that back for further discussion and and refining language. Commissioner >> in addition to sold or surplus swapped is a very big deal and and Ben mentioned
it. >> Swapping is a technique that's available and if it don't say it, it won't be covered. So does the word swapping if you're interested in protecting it would definitely have that word has a legal meaning and it needs to be in there if you want to do what you're trying to do.
>> Okay. So I think we'll move forward with that one as a one that we're going to explore further. Got a general consensus on that. >> Yeah. And and they brought up a little bit about Pat and I may have missed it. Um they voted in two mills but they keep cutting it.
>> We could potentially put it back in that they will stick with whatever. >> Actually they stayed two mills as budget. Yeah, it has to that has to stay in there because that's what the people voted for with the two mills >> and take that one out of the council about where they where they want to cut. >> Yep.
>> Yeah. >> So, we'll bring that back for further discussion. We'll work on how to how to bring it back and what agenda to put it on, but I I think there's a clear consensus to further explore it. The >> the only thing I'd share too is you'll notice that the um language that was written by an attorney got the longest
attorney response also. seems to work that way, right? Anything but brief. >> Be sure to tell them about >> All right. Um, all right. Moving into uh some suggestions came in from Commissioner Clayton. Um, and we heard some number number of speakers
>> that Yeah, he's still here. I when he he called me >> and I said, Lloyd, just you need to put your thoughts in writing and and he'll tell you. I said, I'm not going to say I'm for it. I'm not going to say I'm against it. I'm going to keep
my mouth shut, but I'll be glad for you to submit it to me and I'll make sure the others get it. That right. >> That's it. I'm not going to tip my hand about how what I think about what you're saying. I'm just not going to tell you like a judge would do, >> right? >> I'm not going to let you know,
>> but feel free to give it to me and I'll get it to somebody to get it posted up. So, that's I want to make sure that's >> not a proposal by me. >> Duly noted. It was received from you. >> He covered it tonight anyway. >> All right. Move on to the next one. >> Mr. Dyer, can you address the your comments on on the suggestion of
cultural funding? >> No, I I think uh the only restriction we have is uh and I think it's why forever and echo are written the way they were. It allows you to levy up to the 02 mills. It can't require the 0.2 mills by charter because that's a budgeting
decision by the elected commissioner council. But it, you know, to identify as a goal to require that it be considered all those are things that I think you can talk about. >> So let me ask the commission. Is this an area I mean obviously we've heard a
number of speakers on this this evening. Do we want to to bring this back for a further discussion? >> I would like to. Yeah, I would and and I would frame it in terms of instead of like you said amounts if it's framed in terms of it's a priority and it be the
the public can certainly express in its charter what its priorities are and I think that would send a clear message. >> Okay. >> Any further discussion on that? Commissioner Sher, >> I have a question um with echo. Is there
a I think I know the But I'm still going to ask it just to make sure. Is there a set amount in each category for Echo? It's just the projects that come forward. >> It's the projects that that are submitted by the uh cities and by not
forprofits. We review those and there is not in fact if you look at the way the breakdown is now outdoor recreation has consumed most of the the echo money. Um >> what was that? Say that again. >> Outdoor recreation. >> Outdoor recreation.
>> Outdoor recreation. Yeah. So, so no there is not they don't we don't do a certain percent by each category. >> Okay. >> And we also have a direct county expenditure program too that that does not do it by direct by category. >> Right. >> It's by however it comes in.
>> Right. Okay. >> Okay. So we will come back with um a further a future discussion at one of our subsequent meetings on the cultural um approach priority funding whatever however we ultimately end up phrasing it. Um, Commissioner Wolffar, thank you
for sending in your suggestions as well or your comments as well. Um, I think the county chair discussion will roll into the discussion we the future um brief presentation on uh structure of government resident residency
requirement. Um, I think based on the the county attorney's recommendations, there's it can be all over the board, but too much is too much, you know, and too little, I don't know. So I think on that one maybe we can roll that into that same discussion um or or decide >> okay
>> my opinion is that we have enough being discussed in the future I think the answers are written right there in blue >> tend to >> it's the answer is no >> tend to agree all right last one uh and I apologize mine was late um and and so
the explanation behind it didn't make it into your materials as well >> motion to adjurnn All right. So, let me just be brief on this. Um, you've got the last thing that I did and I think somebody else also proposed a new section 207, but we can figure out the numbering later. One of
the things that that occurred to me and you know we we have worked with a lot of different municipalities and the county um in the aftermath of a lot of our recent flooding um episodes and um I think the county has done a phenomenal job of putting together kind of an ad
hoc approach and and so have a lot of the cities. They're coordinating. They're getting together in the meeting and meeting and starting to go down the path that I think Commissioner you had referenced earlier. we had a public speaker um that that referenced it earlier. So
thinking about it purely from a a charter perspective and what authority does the county have in this role and also you know being cautious of that whole question of transferring services between jurisdictions. Um I worked a little bit with with um the county
attorney to kind of draft what's here. Again, no pride in authorship and this is open for further discussion. But what we currently have as an ad hoc committee to deal with things like flooding, which is the immediate thing that's been the topic of the discussion. Um my proposal
to you know kind of explore further is should we have a give the county the authority to establish that kind of a body by ordinance. Not only then for you know them to be able to kind of look at storm water but it may get into other areas of infrastructure where it just
makes sense for us to have a stronger structure to coordinate the efforts between the the municipalities and the county. And I think they all again I think they all work well together. I think there's an opportunity here not only to deal with that structure for the discussion but also to perhaps you you
know um do coordinated funding planning permitting things of that nature as well down the road. So I put that out for the council's thought. It was something that occurred to me I think after we went through Hurricane Ian and um and um was the what was last year's
>> Milton. Thank you. um forgetting the names now, but um you know I spent a lot of time looking at the data after Milton and I sent my thoughts to the council at that time with regard to you know you know how the impacts were and if there's commission support. I think this is one
that's worth looking at. >> I certainly support it. >> I I I think so too. I mean you use the reference of shall later on. I would just change the first May to shall also. I mean, it's something that it has to be done is the bottom line and the people,
there's no question and I don't think anyone's mind that this would pass if it was before the voters. So, the only change I would make is this Palooia County shall by ordinance do that. >> So, so we'll roll that into future discussion. Commissioner Shber, >> I I support what you're trying to do here. And I just want to um let you all
know if you don't know the round table of elected officials has a flood committee that's been meeting and the city um usually the mayors or utilities or um city managers come to those meetings. But even though they all meet,
each one is discussing their own individual cities. And it just so happens that today at the round table of elected a regular meeting, not the flood mitigation meeting, the mayor of Southeast Felia brought up um having a subcommittee for Southeast Felia because
they have so much flooding and so much new development. And um it was asked that he not do that, which was kind of unfortunate I thought. Um >> Leah, you said the mayor of Southeast, >> the I'm sorry, the mayor of Edgewater.
Okay. Okay. The mayor Souththeast. >> Correct. What I was saying from Southeast Felia, but he was asking for a Southeast Fuchia committee and and I understand that because New Smyrna Beach is impacting Edgewater and Edgewater, you know, is impacting New Smyrna. Water is like has no boundaries. So, I really
support this and they're doing a little bit similar, but right now it's more about each individual city. Even though they're all getting together, I've attended almost all the meetings this year. It's better, but it's not what
you're suggesting, and it needs to go further. >> Well, and I and I'll tell you the other reason I suggested it the way that I did was it's it doesn't run a foul of 180, >> but it lets us take some some step. >> So, the 180 is killing us.
>> Yeah. >> Okay. >> So, um if I think we got a consensus to to to move forward with that. All right. So our our next steps um I think that got us through everything you know here. So we've we've we've now got a lot on
our plate to I think we've drilled down on it. Some of them are ultimately going to be a little bit easy to look at. Some of them may require you know a little bit more um study. what I've asked um you know what I'd suggest to you um is that at the next meeting we've got a lot
of things that I need to work with staff to organize to come back and figure out how to how to digest it all um and how to digest it in a way um that lets us get to specific amendments and ballot questions and everything else by the end of our timeline in May if I remember
correctly. So, um, I've we have a meeting in December and then we've got the holidays. Um, and so I've asked staff to look at and and pull the commission to if we had to schedule any additional meetings in January or February to go ahead and try and start
exploring some of those dates. But I think at the next meeting, I don't want to try and look at do we need committees, do we need to break into subcommittees and stuff now or what the structure would be. Before we do anything like that, I'd like to um spend some time working with staff to, you know, kind of talk about what's now on
our plate. Um and then at our next meeting, come back with that proposed structure for moving forward, including a schedule of the things that we will talk about at potentially a couple of additional meetings in in January and February. Does that make sense? >> Sounds good to me, Mr. Chairman. Really,
I think that's the way to go. >> Okay. just to just to because it is only November and we have until May um not anything particular in mind but I think that we have the framework that is from what tonight's discussion on terms of numbers for example it's a topic how
large should the council be slash commission whatever you want to call it what I'm saying is those can be fleshed out if if I'm comfortable hearing that or understanding that then um even though I think we should allow because it's only like I said November that we could do
similar discussions that people might have. They want to submit something two weeks ahead of time just like they did last time. It's still early days enough to do that. But what I am also hearing is that we've I think made it broad enough topics for future discussion that a lot of it can be fleshed out in
detail. >> Agreed. >> Okay. But both I think both is good just because we don't know we don't know if other ideas might come up. So yeah, >> at least for for the two weeks before this uh December the 8th, >> right? So I think what we'll do from
here um then at the next meeting I'll work with staff to kind of organize how we get into that that further discussion on some of these very broad topics. I think we've got some others. We probably don't need a lot of discussion on we'll just end up with ballot language on some of those. Um and then we'll we'll bring
it back, you know, at the next agenda kind of say here's our roadmap moving forward. Does that make sense? Okay, with that, um, we got we got through everything. >> It's we're five minutes shy of two hours. Um, we've got an agreement on how we're going to set the agenda for next meeting. Any other business?
>> When is the next meeting? >> When is the next meeting? >> December 8th. >> It is changed. >> We changed that. Yeah, we changed that at the first meeting, the organizational meeting. >> 128. >> All right. Staff, anything that you want to add to the to the discussion before
we adjourn for the evening? All right. Is there is there a motion to adjurnn? >> We we uh Is there any further discussion from the public? >> All right. >> We got a motion to adjurnn. >> All right. All in favor? We're
>> journ. Thank you for your time this evening.