All right. Well, I'm showing 5:30, so we'll go ahead and call the meeting to order. I want to thank everybody for being here. Um, our February meeting of the Valuch County Charter Review Commission. Madam Secretary, can we start off with a roll call, please? >> Yes, sir. Mr. Watts, >> present.
>> Miss Nory, >> Miss Bright >> here. >> Mr. Clayton >> here. >> Mr. Johnson >> here. >> Miss Quiet here. Mr. Lewis >> here. >> Miss Munisy >> here. >> Mr. Parker >> here. >> Mr. Sakenovski >> here. >> Miss Shriber >> here. >> Miss Wheeler >> here. >> Miss Walford
>> here. >> Mr. Toland >> here. >> Great timing, Mr. Toland. Well done. >> All right. Um, so we've got a full full board it looks like today. >> No, sir. We've got one >> got one one that's uh may show up here shortly. All right. Well, I'm not going
to give a whole lot in the way of welcoming remarks today because we have um number of things to work through. So, we'll move on to action items and um ask to approve the meeting minutes from our January 12th, 2026 meeting. And I understand there's one correction, Madam
Secretary. >> Oh, nope. I think that's on the Is there a correction on these minutes or it's on the committee? >> No, sir. The questions on the other minutes. >> All right. We'll get to those in a minute. All right. All right. Is there a motion on the minutes? >> So move. >> A motion from Miss Nory, second by Mr.
Parker. All right. Any discussion on the minutes? If not, all in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Any oppose? All right. Minutes pass. Moving on to general business. Um, Madam Secretary, do we have any public participation this this afternoon?
>> Give us just a second. We'll get you called up. Okay, Katherine Pente. Good evening and thank you for the opportunity to speak. I'm here to urge this commission to recommend a Baluchia County Charter amendment that mirrors
Elatchua County's protections for public conservation land. Specifically, an amendment that requires a countywide voter approval before protected lands can be sold or converted for incompatible uses. This is not a radical idea. It's a proven one. Elatcha County adopted this safeguard in 2008. It
protects irreplaceable public lands while preserving accountability and flexibility. At its core, this amendment rests on a simple principle. Land that was acquired for conservation, recreation, or cultural purposes should not be disposed of or degraded without the consent of the people who paid for it, preserved
it, and rely on it. The Elatchua County model does three very reasonable things. First, it creates a public registry of protected places adopted in the open at a public hearing with clear explanations of why each property matters. Transparency is good for the government.
Second, it says that once land is placed on that registry, it can't be sold or converted in a way that destroys its conservation value unless the voters agree. That doesn't ban change. It simply puts irreversible decisions in the hands of the people. Third, it allows for necessary exceptions like
state or federal enem domain. So, this doesn't interfere with higher levels of government. This kind of protection matters, especially in Valuchia County. Our conservation lands protect springs and rivers, including the St. John's River system. They absorb flood waters during heavy storms, help protect homes
and neighborhood along the coast, and they serve as natural buffers against storm surge, erosion, and sea level rise. These lands save taxpayer money while protecting the quality of life. Once land like this is sold or converted, it's gone forever. We don't get the flood plane back. We don't get water quality back, and we don't get
resilience back. A charter amendment is the right place for this safeguard because it rises above politics and election cycles. God bless you. If this doesn't question anyone's motive, it simply ensures that decisions with permanent consequences require public consent. Elatchua County has shown this
works. Valuchia County has the legal authority to do the same. I respectfully ask this commission to recommend a charter amendment that mirrors Elatchua County's protections and ensures that the people of Valuchia County have the final say over a sale or conversion of our most important public lands. Thank
you for listening and for your service on this commission. >> Thank you very much. Appreciate your comments. Any other members of the public? Any other members of the public that would like to say anything? All right, then we will move on. We have a presentation this evening. Nick Dunham
with Valuchia Forever. Thanks for coming out. We appreciate your time this tonight. >> Uh thank you, Nick Dunham, the resource steward stewardship director for Valuchia County. What I'd like to do real quick is just go over the uh process and flowchart for conservation
lands in Valuchia County for the Valia for Forever program. So it starts uh with the U cycle. So we have an open cycle year round for Valuchia Forever. So an landowner can submit an application at any time. Um an application comes in um with a willing
seller letter. So that that's important. This is a willing seller program. So staff will take this application willing seller letter uh and score it against 21 specific criteria that are related to the goals in the ballot language for Valuchia Forever.
Once staff has has evaluated the the application against those 21 criteria, they are then presented to the Valuchia Forever advisory committee who will then determine if that property is eligible or ineligible as a conservation land under Valuchia Forever. If it is
ineligible, the property stops there. It does not move forward. If the property is determined eligible, it moves forward to the next step of the process, which is sorting. Uh staff then prepares a comprehensive report on the property and presents that to the evolution forever advisory committee, who then determines
whether that property should be sorted into the A-list or the B-list. >> Uh the A-list being the highest priority acquisitions by council. Um after that the blue ship forever advisory committee after after the blue ship forever
advisory committee has sorted the properties it is then taken to county council for approval and county council will either add or deny those properties to the A-list. After a property has been added to the A-list staff can then start negotiating
properties with the landowner. At that point uh title work is ordered, appraisals are ordered, and negotiations begin. Once a property has been agreed to in a negotiation, it is then brought back to county council for approval.
Once a property is approved by county council, then it goes through the due diligence and closing process. So, uh surveys, environmental assessments, and the rest of the due diligence process. Uh once the property is closed, then we move into postacquisition part of the
process. uh that is the part where a lead land manager is assigned and a land management plan is created for the property and it is open to the public. After that at the very end of this process
is the property is taken to the um PRDRC committee and uh placed under a conservation status and zoning for the future. So with that is there any questions? All right, Mr. Dunham, thank you for the presentation. Let me open up and see if
there's any questions from members of the commission. >> I I have one for you. Can >> somebody else? >> Yes, >> Mr. Zachski. >> So, so thanks for the presentation. When when this call for land nominations
comes goes out, to whom does it go and by what means? >> Uh, it is open to the public year round at this point. Uh in the very beginning we we actually had a cycle that was open twice a year. So we would take an application uh during one cycle and it was sorted the second cycle. We have
since sped that process up to an open cycle year round. So they can submit at any time uh when the application comes in. >> Who do they though? >> The land owners. >> Okay. That's important because nowhere does it say anywhere about the land owner having to make the application. I was going to nominate Mr. Clayton's land
but he may not want me to. And that's what I was curious about whether it so it has to originate from the owner of the land that's potentially going to be acquired. >> Well, there is a path for nominations, but that still requires the landowner to be a willing seller. So, we would if we
if their property is nominated, we reach out to that landowner to see if they have interest in the program. >> Thank you. >> All right. I had one more question. Anybody else? Um, okay.
I I'm looking this way. So, um yeah, I was just curious. I know that the partner the program has been really successful with regard to partnering and bringing in additional dollars. What percentage of the closings that you have uh involve partner agencies and um any
rough estimate on the amount of leverage we're able to accomplish with that? Yeah, since the 2020 reauthorization, the new program has leveraged four to one for every dollar spent by Felicia Forever, $4 for partnerships. >> Question on your chart. Um, if you go to
your on the right, what's the difference between the blue one, it says county staff presents application elig eligibility evaluation to VFAC. Then you go over two, it says county staff presents property evaluation, VFAC. This seems duplicatus.
>> Well, the the first evaluation is does it meet the criteria of Lucia Forever? So, is it eligible or not? That's the very first step. The the second evaluation is the property report and should it be sorted onto the A-list or B list? >> And where does the money where does all
the money come from? If if he nominates my property, I wonder how much I'm going to get paid. >> The monies are based off state certified appraisals. Um, and we get multiple appraisals and a review on each transaction. >> Where do you get the money to buy my property?
>> The money comes from the voluore adorum tax. >> Point of order, Mr. Clayton. That's how much money does your wife get. >> All of it. >> Well, and and the partners too. I mean,
like you said, a large portion. Uh I was going to ask so we are partners with many agencies. When we partner uh what type of say do those partner agencies uh retain say you didn't for
whatever reason although we never have if you wanted to sell that property would they uh also have to uh agree to that? >> Yes. If we have a partnership on a transaction um and there was a a
property brought forth to to surplus, there is an entire surplus criteria for each agency that we partner with that it would have to go through as well. >> Okay. >> So, so basically if we have partners in it, that's kind of a safety net about
how it is sold. >> Yes. Correct. >> Any further questions? I just have a general question. Um, is is Mr. Brown here tonight? Russ Brown. >> No. >> Now, my understanding is he was unable
to be here today. >> Okay. >> Anybody else? >> But I have a great substitute. I have GIF Chumley here. He's even better than Russ playing the part of Russ Brown this evening.
>> We'll ask GIF to tell his Coast Guard stories shortly. Um, any other questions? Mr. Dunham, thank you very much. I appreciate your time tonight. All right, moving on to our uh item C in our
general business. Um, we're going to get into our our reports and and uh action items from each of our committees. But um let me just start off by saying that I uh tried to attend as many of the subcommittee meetings as I was able to to just to kind of watch the process. And I want to thank our two subcommittee
chairs for doing a just an outstanding job of, you know, kind of working through the the questions that were presented to them and coming back to us in I think two short meetings each um with recommendations that we'll be talking about this evening. So Pat, you know, Ken, thank you very much. Appreciate your time and willingness to
do that extra work. So I'm going to open up first and ask Pat Nory uh to report on the environmental committee chair uh subcommittee chair or subcommittee meetings. Thank you. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Is it on now? Can you Okay. First thing that I think that we
need to do is for the members of the committee, the subcommittee that were there the la when the last meeting was held because we signing died that meeting. Our minutes have to be approved. They we're not not meeting again. So, we need to approve our meetings tonight. So, if I could get a
motion from committee members for the Dwight. Thank you. Is there a second? Thank you. All those any changes or adjustments to the >> second it was misspelled. >> Oh, was it? >> Yes. >> Sorry. I do apologize. >> I believe it was those minutes. It was
misspelled in a few different minutes. So, >> okay. >> Can we take care of getting Suzanne's last name spelled correctly? That will be the change. So, all those in favor with that change, please
signify by saying I. >> I. Any opposed? Okay, that takes care of the minutes. Um, Mr. Chairman, what would you like me to do next? There was uh
we what we had was a a ballot question with several opportunities to vote on different language that came before the subcommittee. uh we voted out I think you have that in front of you uh the
ballot language that we've voted out and but there has been some chatter since then in the public and you heard some of it tonight of the difference of opinion about about strengthening the ballot language that
we originally said yes to. So, I would like to ask you if you would uh like to explore that. Uh there's I have some comments down here that we could explore. There was also a sentence that was not voted through by the committee
toward about land needed for conservation. >> So, uh if it's good with you, I'd suggest we have legal present what the proposed language is and then we can talk about the correspondence received and other suggestions that came in from the public.
And Mike, could could you speak to to the Elatchua because that that would be my preference, but I understand that that is not something that staff is recommending, legal is recommending. >> Um, so you have um
there's 67 counties in Florida. Two of them that we've been able to identify, Elatchua and Orange County, have something in their charter involving basically the sale disposition of conservation land.
Generally, I would say um you also have a state constitutional amendment. The state constitutional amendment was adopted in 1998. Um, and it the way we read it, it
applies to entities of the state and it governs basically the state way it's written. Um, and property has to be designated by general law in order to be covered by it and it requires a vote of twothirds of the governing body of
whatever state agency holds that property. Um about 10 years later in 2008, Elatchua County adopted an amendment to their charter. Um which we've kind of emulated some parts
of Elatcha and Orange in this proposal. Uh it sets up a registry as proposed here of lands. Um which and once property is on that registry of conservation lands, it
requires a majority plus one vote of the county commission to remove it. Orange County. Uh and I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I take it back. I'm sorry. See, I told you GIF was better than Russ. He's
already corrected me. Uh, Elatcha County required the referendum to remove that land. Orange County was a a bit different. They did not require a referendum. Um, but they require the majority plus
one vote of the county commission to sell that land. So, what you have in front of you in your agenda packet would set up a registry of lands that are purchased by the county for conservation purposes. And
once you're on that registry, it would take a majority plus one vote of the entire county council. So, the entire not let's say two people are on vacation. It's got to be full vote in order to sell it, divest it, or transfer
it unless used for public purposes uh or the land's taken by imminent domain. So, let's say the state government came through and they wanted to put a bike trail through, they could exercise that eminent domain. Um, so
kind of the legal issues involved in in in this is I think a orange got it right over Elatchua in that by state law counties uh county commissions in our case a
council have the authority to sell their assets, sell land specifically. Um, so we we don't think that the referendum requirement is lawful or enforceable.
Um, but I think the way Orange structured it is. Um, and so this is would this um language would set up the registry and it would take a majority plus one to
sell it. So what's the rule now? Well, first of all, I'm not aware of the council selling forever lands. I'm not aware of any or hasn't made a motion to do so. There's no transaction pending. But right now, it would be a majority
vote if they did like any other asset. This would increase the voting threshold required like um Orange County's proposal. >> I've got a quick follow-up question and then Mr. Johnson, I'll I'll go to you,
Mike. I I know when we were talking about this, um there was a basis for the determination on Elatchua County, that model not being >> Can you was it Sarasota County that had a similar >> Yeah. So, >> yeah.
>> Uh yeah, there's Sarasota County where there had been a charter amendment that had been passed that forbid the uh Sarasota County um from selling any land. uh there are certain lands that were described in the amendment and it was challenged. It went up to the uh district court there and the judge wrote
a very long opinion where it addressed it and the judge wrote that uh because you have 125.35 which is the statute governing this the county sale of real property which says that when it's determined in the best interest of the county the board has the authority to
sell it. They said that directly conflicted that charter amendment with the state statute and therefore could not survive and they kicked that part of it out. The court also went on to address the referendum issue noting that while it is there are several cities who
have a referendum requirement when it comes to selling government property. U cities are not constricted by 125.35. There's no analogous provision governing the sale of property by municipalities. And that's why those referendum requirements for those cities have been
upheld by courts where they've been challenged. >> Are you just a quick followup, was there any challenge to Elatcha's language? >> I am not aware of any challenge. Um, you know, to this day, it just remains there. So, but my theory is that if it
were tested under the reasoning of the Sarasota court, it would be found to be unconstitutional. >> Okay. Mr. Johnson, I'll go to you and then M. Nory, I think you had something. I'm willing to make a motion at this time to accept the ballot language as proposed. >> I I have some questions that I'd like to
>> We'll hold off on the motion for just a second. We'll finish discussion then. >> Well, how >> that is what I think that is a question is that Elatchua C Elatchea County has not been tested. Is that correct?
>> That is correct. >> Okay. What about my knowledge? What about changing the ballot language to make it a unanimous vote of the county council? >> I don't think there's a problem with changing the voting threshold as long as it's the county commission or or in this case the county. >> That is a difference for the legal
staff. >> That is not addressed in the statute 125. The statute just says that when it's determined to be in the best interest of the county um and they would still be making that determination. It would just be unanimous vote at that point. >> Okay.
Mber, >> the Sarasota case that you referred to, how long was that in effect for uh the amendment itself? >> It was challenged out of the gate like once it passed, >> right? But this passed in 2008 on
Elatchua. How long was that? >> It's not aware. >> No, I understand. So, I'm saying the Elatcho amendment was in effect since 2008. the one that was challenged and lost. >> You're asking for the year that the case
was decided. That was 2019. >> Okay. And how long was it in effect before it was decided? >> It was challenged once it was approved by the voters. >> So, it was approved and then it was a challenged automatic. >> Sarasota County challenged it. >> Orange County's charter amendment was
adopted in 2024. >> Okay. And what is their threshold? Orange County, remind me. I believe they have the same threshold we do. It's a majority vote plus one of their of their county comm of the entire
commission. So you can't have like a situation. >> I think their commission is maybe nine. Is it nine? Yeah. >> Hold on. Let me check. >> Their um >> I got it right. >> Theirs was different because they did not have a registry of land.
>> So they defined it a different way. This is lands that uh are public parks and recreation areas that are owned, operated, and maintained by the county and environmentally sensitive lands acquired by the county for environmental, ecological, or
recreational purposes. >> Okay, >> there were notes in their approval um minutes that talk about how they basically borrowed their definition from their own ordinances. So, their charter amendment was sort of tailored to the structure that was already in place
there. >> Okay. >> Mr. Saknovski, >> just a couple quick questions. Um, the term conservation, is that uh defined anywhere in the charter?
>> I I'm not aware of having a definition. So, is the intent to interpret any, for example, land acquired through Via Forever as automatically conser I'm just very concerned about how we define conservation because >> I might argue it's the swale in front of
my house. >> Yeah. I mean, go ahead. Okay. Oh, well the um the subcommittee when they uh approved this the it it's conservation lands and we talked I think there was a little bit of discussion about the problem with defining conservation lands
and that's why the registry is used here >> and if it's placed on the registry it's conservation lands >> and also the provision that came out of the subcommittee was that it has to be added by a majority plus one okay as well as removed by a majority plus one. So the threshold is equivalent to get it
on the registry as well as to get it off the registry. >> Yeah, that was fascinating I thought too. Okay. Um just just to clarify, I think it includes the word transfer. Would that include swapping? >> I mean, if we were to propose I'll give you five acres, you give me another five
acres. Yes. and and because currently swaps um between governmental entities in Florida don't even require public hearing and >> that creates problems. >> It would be, >> you know, I'm going to step back a second because I think I think GIF he
sounds better than me >> and he hasn't had as much time to talk as Yeah. >> Well, I'm I'm just going to note that anytime we're selling property, remember there's also 125.35 which has a noticing provision in it. there is an element where you have to go through a public
notice period under 12535 to sell properties. So there would be a public hearing involved as well under that statute >> except swapping isn't considered if like and I'll give you a perfect example between the county of Broward and the school board of Broward. There were some swaps that didn't require because it's
between two governmental agencies unless the laws changed recently. There is also 125.38 which deals with when you are um trading or in that case that would cover that. It is an exception of 125.35 and it is done to make it easy when you're
doing things for a public purpose >> and that's that was my concern. So >> but transfer in my opinion as as a lawyer would mean that you are transferring the property out of your ownership to another ownership >> and that's why I kind of thought it would be covered. I mean, I happen to agree with you, but I just want the public of everyone to know that swapping
is a very interesting exception because it's the public doesn't get to weigh in on it. I promise you. Um, okay. The other uh the last question I had is when it talks about the entire county council, we covered it absences. How about vacancies?
>> It you basically would not be able to take that vote until was the seat was filled. Miss Nory. >> Okay. I have to ask a question about the unanimous then. Does that mean that it's tit for tat that if the came before them
the county council that would they have to unanimously accept it which I don't think I'm trying to think back. I think every vote for Valuia forever mostly has been unanimous >> before they I mean if we change this and put unanimous in it.
Yeah. To buy it. >> Yeah. >> Um, well, it you could write it differently. You could have a you could have a lower threshold to add the property registry and a higher threshold to sell it. You could how you write it?
>> Does that have to be in the or is that by ordinance to buy it? >> Um, the way this is written out would be by charter. uh uh council um >> but buying it they could buy they wouldn't we wouldn't have to put that
into >> I mean if you're you could have a charter amendment that provides that higher voting threshold that applies only to the sale transfer of the property not the buying of it. >> Okay. Okay. >> Okay. Miss Shyber.
>> Um, is it appropriate for me to make a statement because I I typed up something so that I would not forget my own words. Uh, so is that possible? >> We we can sure go ahead. >> Okay. Um,
and then after I say this, I do have another question as well. So, I will not be voting for the Valuchia Forever Charter amendment that we're presented with today. While I did vote for the amendment in the subcommittee
meeting, it was because it felt as though there were only two options. To allow the county to sell the land or to vote for this amendment. No one said this, so this is not an accusatory statement. And I appreciate Mr. Russ Brown's patience and position. It felt
that way in the moment and I'm on record stating that I resent being put in this position. So from the minutes following the vote, I asked whether the approved ballot language represented the only legal permissible method for protecting conservation lands or whether
alternative approaches could have been pursued. And I noted that the subcommittee members are not attorneys and I sought clarification on whether other viable options existed. I'm not going to read all the minutes, but Mr. Brown responded to me in those minutes.
So, um, in the meeting, um, by Robert's rules, I didn't feel that I could resend my vote because I asked the question after I voted. If that's not true, then I would like for legal to weigh in on that. But the amendment is not what the voters voted for. And I believe that as
a charter, as charter commissioners, we should do our best to protect what the voters already voted for at 75.6%. The letter from the Trust for Public Land states that Elatchawa's action of creating a registry and allowing the disposition of public land only by a
vote of the people is what this commission to pursue for protecting our Volution Forever Conservation Lands. This is what I personally prefer. I understand what they're saying. If it's been in effect since 2008 and not challenged, I would say that's quite a
while. We are partners with the Trust for Public Lands and we need to be listening to them as Klay Henderson who has always supported their stance and the county's partnership with that organization. Um
the public did not vote on open public purpose in the sense of what is that these lands could be used for now. and I would just like to see us support what the public voted for. Thank you.
>> Thank you very much. All right. So, let's bring this back. Um, we've had good discussion, good questions. I think let's bring it back to I think what the options are. We've got a a recommendation that came out of the committee um with the language that you have um before you this evening. Um we have heard uh I think you've seen the
the correspondence that was also received both from the trust for public land outlining the elatch option. you've heard our legal counsel upon with regard to that. Um, we've also got a letter from Melissa Lamers um that um proposed that we add findings that are consistent with I think it's section 18, I can't
remember what article it is out of the Florida Constitution with regard to findings relating to the land not being needed for conservation purposes any further. >> So, at this point, I'd be open to a motion for one of the options that are are outlined there. >> Mr. Mr. Chair, will make a motion that
we accept the ballot language as proposed by the committee at this time. >> I've got a motion. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Second for Mr. Lewis. Is there discussion on the motion? >> Yes, M. >> Nory. >> I um I happen to agree with with Miss Shriber. I although I understand the
concerns of the of our council and that is why I was wondering if we could change that to a unanimous vote of the county council. I think that's a much higher standard. Also, um I there was
language Miss Lamoris had talked about land no longer being needed for conservation. I had I'd addressed that and offered that as a statement when we were in subcommittee. It was not uh adopted, but I would like to just read
it. Upon council determination that the land is no longer needed for conservation, um I know from talking to Mr. Brown that there was that that was uh language he did not support it or not support it. He he just said that he didn't think that
it was necessary. And I would be interested in hearing what council could say about that language because I think that speaks directly to our concern that that we have to say something about the land not being needed.
Well, in a typical scenario under 12535, it's if the council determines it's in the best interest of the county. That's a bit broader than making a finding that it's no longer needed for conservation purposes. Um, obviously if you have a conservation
land registry and you're putting property on it and you're taking property off when you put it on there, I think it's implicit and you probably would find those findings in any resolution that was drafted to put it on there that it is needed for conservation land purposes and that's why it's going on the resolution. And if you voted to
take it, if you had a resolution voting to take it off, then it would be implicit that it was no longer. If you're looking for an express statement, I can just tell you from drafting resolutions, you'll usually see statements to that effect in the warehouse clauses on the resolutions
supporting the resolution or you know the reasoning behind it. So I believe the reason Mr. Brown said he did not think it was necessary is just the very virtue that you're putting it on the conservation land registry or you're taking it off speaks to what the council is made is determining from a
legislative standpoint. if an extra statement if if it were so the committee's desire to have that extra statement added to the charter amendment I don't think there's a problem with it but um you know again that is up to the committee >> okay let's go back to the we've got a motion and a second on the floor any
further discussion on the motion understanding that um >> well that changes yeah I won't be voting >> did you make an are you proposing an amendment to the motion >> I I was interested if if yes I'm proposing an amendment to the motion that would
add add language upon council determination that the land is no longer needed for conservation and also that we um make this a um unanimous vote >> and that's to re Okay. So the no longer being uh necessary for conservation is
to replace public purpose then >> no that would be that it would read um shall the Valuchia County Charter be amended to establish a conservation land registry allowing the county council to add or remove land by majority plus one vote of the entire council. I would
change that to unanimous and then add upon council determination that the land is no longer needed for conservation and land on stop and then and land on the registry will not be subject to sale, devesture or transfer by the county unless for
public purpose or the land is taken by imminent domain. >> Okay, don't worry about the language on the top. That's just an explanation of that. The language that matters is the underlined. So, you're really saying that you only really want to add the unanimous thing to remove it, not to add
it. >> Let's let's go back. >> I'm trying to She's trying to make a amendment motion. I'm trying to understand what the because the motion's on the table. We're looking talking about an amendment right now. >> Correct. >> So, are you saying just to amend it to remove it from the registry? >> No, I don't want to remove from the
registry. >> So, the unanimous part because you the way you just said it to us was it would be to replace it on both sides and I don't think your intent was to make it unanimous to add the thing. >> To clarify, I think what you're saying is keep the lower threshold on adding it to the registry.
unanimous to remove it from the registry >> and then have the conservation purpose uh finding included as well. >> Is that what your intent was? >> No, my my intent was to change the the uh make an amen amendment where it says
majority plus one vote to a uh unanimous from the council >> to remove >> to rem to remove >> I think the question Mr. Saknowski is asking is do you need the same unanimous vote to put it on the registry? >> Oh no, we I that's why I said the
conversation then I'm just clarifying because the way you said it it would be and that's what I'm saying. Your intent is to say added to by a majority plus one and removed by a unanimous vote. That's your intent. >> Okay, I understand what you're saying. Okay. Yeah.
>> So addition to that was to add that there be a declaration by the council that it be no longer needed for I'll second that amendment for the purposes of discussion. >> Was that a mo that was a motion motion? >> That's a second. All right. So, discussion on the proposed amendment to
the motion. Mr. Johnson, >> I've been on the council. I've watched council since I was a kid and you can't get a unanimous decision on what time to have a free lunch. There's safeguards in this already. and the fact of the majority of these
properties are bought with other people involved that they have to approve of it before you can get rid of it anyway. So, there's more safeguards in there than we're really thinking about looking at right now. Now, I'm not for selling the properties, don't get me wrong. I voted
I voted for this proposal when it came through both times to buy these lands. But I think you need to leave some stuff in the hands of the county council because we don't know what's going what you know what may come up. They may have something very advantageous that if they
do they can make up somewhere else better. It may have come come up to where the county manager has to have something and they need it that will save the county money or be advantageous. We don't know what the government's going to do in the future. And you don't
want to take and totally handcuff your people. So government cannot function 20, 30 or 40 years down the road. That's very dangerous situation. I don't want to see the property sold. I think it's up to the citizens when
something comes up to lobby their county council. Yes, you have county councils that come and go and some of these things could cost the county council their positions. So, I I think we need to take and and not overreact. I I'm
going to stick on what my motion is. >> Okay. Any further discussion on the proposed amendment to the motion to >> in the committee that had that came up with this proposal, was this discussed a lot at the committee level, unanimous
versus majority plus one? And so y'all had an opportunity to consider that as a committee a lot more than we're hearing it today, right? And y'all came up with the majority plus one as opposed to unanimous. >> That was correct. That was the way it was originally presented. But that is a
subcommittee, not the committee of >> I'm just trying to figure out the subcommittee presented this to us and I give great deference to our subcommittee. >> So there were I >> wait I'm not done. And so it would require as I understand it they
all have to be there. It'd be five votes which is a super majority majority plus one. So if I I defer to the committee, the subcommittee, and I agree with Ben, I think if you're if unanimous is especially to get on the
list requires a majority plus one, why would you not have the exact same vote to get off the list? And I think you're add you're adding another hurdle, if you will. Some judge in the future is going to say, why did y'all do that? It should be consistent for getting on and getting
off. You can't have it both ways. in my opinion. So, while I certainly agree, I don't want any land sold, but I think if you make it unanimous to get off, somebody's going to say that's a barrier that can't that that's too high of a barrier. And I can see some district
court of appeal reversing it. So, I'd stick with the language as it is. And I think it I mean, I don't disagree with the the language in the letter is no longer needed for conservation purposes if it's how do you define that even? I
think Mr. Sandeski said, "What does that mean?" I guess if you're on the registry, it's conservation, but conservation is not even defined. So, that's causing another issue that's going to pop up. You're clouding the issue. >> Okay. Any further discussion on the on the amendment to the motion?
>> I was just going to say that it's only been five years since the public voted. It's not like it's been, you know, a really long time. And as far as the subcommittee itself, I'm not even sure how many members were supposed to be on it. Four members
showed up to our first meeting, four. And five members showed up to our second meeting and there was someone that was supposed to be there that didn't attend for whatever reason. And as far as how long we discussed it, I believe our
first meeting was about 48 minutes. Our second meeting was probably close to the same amount of time. I'm just answering your questions. >> Okay, Mr. Johnson. >> The chair put a committee together. The committee brought us back something. So,
I think it's a little bit late to challenge why and what happened at that committee. >> All right. So, we've got a motion on the floor to amend the Mr. Johnson's motion. Um, Madam Secretary, and I just to make sure everybody's clear on what we're voting on. This would be the vote on the
amendment to add a unanimous requirement for the disposition, the sale or transfer of any property that is on the registry. Uh and to add the um finding that it is no longer needed for conservation purposes. Is that properly stated?
>> And and that the to put it on there is a majority plus one. Is that >> remained unchanged? >> I just want to make sure I understand. >> So that that is the motion you're voting on now before we get back to the main motion. This >> this is on the amendment, the proposed amendment. Um, Madam Secretary, can I
ask you to call the role? >> Miss Bright? >> No. >> Mr. Clayton? >> No. >> Mr. In Oh, he's not here. Mr. Johnson, >> no. >> Miss Quiet? >> No. >> Mr. Lewis? >> No. >> Missy?
>> No. >> Miss Nory? >> Yes. >> Mr. Parker? >> No. >> Mr. Sakenovski? >> No. >> Miss Shriber? No, >> Mr. Toland. >> No, >> Mr. Watts. >> Uh, I'm also going to vote no.
>> Miss Wheeler? >> No, >> Miss Walford. >> No. >> Okay. So, it brings us back to the main motion to proceed forward with a recommendation of the uh committee's recommended language as presented. Any
further discussion on that? If not, Madam Secretary, if you'll call the role on that. >> Miss Bright. >> No. >> Mr. Clayton. I >> Mr. Johnson. >> Yes. >> Miss Quiet. >> Yes. >> Mr. Lewis. >> Yes.
>> Miss Murzy. >> Yes. >> M. Nory. >> Yes. >> M. Mr. Parker. >> Yes. >> Mr. Sakenovski. >> Yes. >> Miss Shriber. >> No. >> Mr. Toland. >> Yes. >> Mr. Watts? >> Yes. >> Miss Wheeler?
>> Yes. >> Miss Walford? >> Yes. >> Okay. Well, again, thank you for all the discussion in that um and time you spent talking about that. I think um certainly an important issue um and uh I think we are adding to the protections with
what's being suggested should the voters choose to adopt it. Um with that um I'm going to move to our next item on the agenda, which is Mr. Parker's subcommittee and his report. Um I'm sure this is going to be the long one, right, Mr. Parker? Thank you. I believe in short meetings.
>> Um, our subcommittee has met three times. Um, and I really appreciate the input from each of our committee members. Uh it was a very good discussion and we would reviewed a number of the items among and I've told
the committee I would report that uh we had a a very good discussion on how many members should be on the county council uh because of our growth in population and things like that. Uh so I'd like to report to the committee that we actually
had that discussion and the majority of our committee is uh recommending that we maintain that number at seven at this point. Uh and so uh that was part of our my uh I told the committee I would
report that to the full commission so that you were aware of it. uh that we looked at the whole charter and as it related to each of the issues that were brought up in our in the group and the recommendations that we are bringing
forward are those that we believe are charter provisions and u some of the others that were in the in our listing could be handled through other mechanisms available through the county. Um and so as okay there is a
clarification of language in amendment 10. Um and so uh amendment 10 made some changes as it related to uh the constitutional officers versus elected department heads plus it added the tax
collector uh to that particular item. Uh we also had a discussion of some of the other uh provisions and that you've see the ballot language there. um for the complete commission I will disclose I
had a discussion with the tax collector uh on Friday and again I got a text message back from him today and uh his question related to budget as I recall and uh and as I conveyed to him uh there's a constitution provision and
plus statutory and from our pro from the committee's provision we thought that if it was covered by either the constitution or statute, why clutter the why clutter the charter with those types of items? So, if you begin to look at
our charter language uh as it related to uh cleanup language, I think that is pretty clear. I think the county attorneys have done a good job of trying to clarify that particular u particular area.
Um so, you want to take each of these by themselves, Mr. Chair? Yes, I think that's best. >> So, uh that's the I think report on the amendment 10 uh ballot language. Are there any questions on that ballot language? If not, is there a motion on that ballot
language? >> I move that we approve the ballot language. >> Second >> and multiple seconds. Mr. Johnson was the first one I heard. >> All right, we got a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Any opposed?
>> Okay, Mr. Parker. Number two, >> okay, >> we had some discussion concerning the uh actually some of the structure of the of the council and um it related basically to the chair itself. Uh so the ballot
language that is being proposed would take the uh the chair back to a an appointed actually elected from within the body which was what it was for many many years as it related to that
particular item. And um and there were some other changes as it related to a clarification as it related to the uh the number of years that a council member could serve and all of that. And at the our meeting just prior to this,
we had some amendment language and that lang that has been handed out and provided to you. And uh based upon that, I'd like to make a recommendation and a motion that we approve the ballot language. Is there a second?
>> Second. >> I think I got Miss Munisi on that one. >> All right. >> Goes to >> uh any further discussion on that? >> I have a question. >> Miss Chber, >> uh how long have we currently been >> with the current chair structure?
>> Bruno Davis Kelly >> 2002. That's when the >> 2002. Yeah. >> Been 20 years. >> Yeah. >> About 20 years. >> It's 20 years. >> Okay. Any further discussion?
All right. Uh, all in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. Any opposed? >> No. >> Two opposed. Okay. Mr. Parker. Number three. There were a number of provisions in the charter as it related to personnel and
personnel administration and um and the discussion in the committee is that many of those provisions should be uh left to the county council should not be in the charter. It sometimes they're sort of handstrong and we went through a fairly
detailed discussion about some of the items and the pros and cons. And so we're recommending uh that uh language from the charter be removed that the some of the personnel items that were included in the charter be removed and those be referred back to to be adopted
by ordinance by the county council. Okay. Based upon our recommendation, I would move the uh adoption of the uh ballot language. >> Is there a second? Second. Second. >> Miss Wheeler got that one. She's been waiting. She's been waiting. All right. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing
none. All in favor signify by saying I. I. >> Any oppose. Motion carries unanimously. All right. Mr. Parker, your last one. >> Okay. Our final uh related is uh related to the compensation and we got we had a lot of discussion about this particular
provision and uh >> okay. And we have proposed to take out the provision related to that. It's the total compensation and that council members would not is not currently
eligible for reimbursement of certain expenses within the county. Um so that's our recommendation to the full commission and based upon that I'll make a motion the adopting of that particular provisions.
>> Got a motion and a second discussion. Just clarification on what you just said that the miscellane miscellaneous expenses will now be reimbursed. >> Okay. No, I didn't say that. We're removing that provision as it related to
that. It's your total compensation. So, you're not eligible for uh county council members are not eligible for reimbursement of ca of business related expenses currently. >> Currently, right? >> Yeah. This would remove that and place
it into uh where it could be adopted by ordinance. >> Okay, that's >> okay. Any further discussion or questions? All right, we've got a motion. Who had the second on that? Miss Wheeler. Again, she's on a street. Um got a motion and a second. No further
discussion. All in favor signify by saying I. I. >> Any opposed? >> No. >> Got two opposed. >> All right. >> Can I just a clarification of who was opposed, please? Uh, Miss Bright and Miss Shyber. >> And can I have the same clarification for the last one that where there was opposition?
>> Miss Bright and Miss Shyber, I believe on the prior prior one that had two negative votes. >> Mr. Chair, that completes the report from our subcommittee. Thank you for allowing us to uh to conduct the meetings and then provide this report to
the full full body. >> I thank you for your work, Miss Nory. I thank you for the work that you did on your committee as well. Um, we'll move on in the agenda. Um, at the last meeting we had a presentation from uh the Valuchia Growth Management Commission on who they are and what they
do and how they presently operate. Um, and I wanted to bring this back up just to see if there was any further thoughts uh from the commission on whether we wanted to do anything with regard to the language in the charter currently about the VGMC. Seeing none, we'll move on to the next item. So, from an organizational
standpoint, um I believe we've now adopted five um proposed charter amendments that will be moving forward um to our report to the council and then ultimately to the ballot. Um we are now at the point, I believe, where we need to start looking at the messages that we
want to send along with those ballot questions. Um we've had a lot of discussion that's taken place here over the meetings uh over the past several months. um a lot of input from the public um and a lot of things that we heard the same response on is you're preempted from that. But we did talk a
lot about including those messages along with the report and the ballot language to um the council. So um we have mentioned at our now that we've got two committees that have disbanded, I think we need to put together a committee that will work on the drafting um of that
report and recommendation letter. Um, I wanted to to start out with um I guess getting a show of hands on folks that would be interested in being involved in that committee. >> Mr. Senovski, >> can you raise your hand?
>> Yes, I'll do. >> Mr. Parker, >> Miss Nory, >> uh, and I'd actually like to participate on that one as well. >> I have a question before I would decide that. >> Yes. um Senate Bill 180 is that um my
understanding is from it's going through committee right now that would um instead of being effective next year that would end what July 1st or sometime this summer
yeah would shorten that deadline that I believe is effect until 2027. So some of the things that we were not allowed to discuss before we could >> propose. Yeah. >> Unfortunately the well I hope the
amendment to the Senate Bill 180 passes. Uh unfortunately it kind of puts it puts the charter review commission in position of it um late. you know, if that bill were to pass uh and you could
propose those chain things over the summer. >> You got real soft at the end. >> Um I said I hope I hope the amendment the Senate Bill 180 passes, but the phase
out under that one amendment uh is almost too late to be of any help to the charter review commission. can help local governments, but uh for you to be able to propose something, right? >> Well, I I'm just I don't think that's necessarily the case because if it were
to go I personally just don't think it's going to pass. That's what I think the problem is. But if it were and it were to go to an effect July 1st, th this commission would still have some time because we know if the law were passed well before July 1st, the legislature won't make it retroactive, obviously.
So, I just think we have to wait and see is where I would look at it that way. >> Well, and I and I think that's a a good approach. My understanding is the Senate bill is proceeding through committees. The House bill has not really proceeded um through committees and isn't really getting any attention. So, the question
will be if it if it comes through both. Um so, I I do think Mr. Senowski, you're right. We will have some time while we're still um organized to to be able to deal with that if it comes up and if we have time before the end of our term. Mark. So, I've got five people for a a committee include
>> I just want to make a comment. Yes, sir. >> The county council has the authority to put amendments on themselves. >> That's correct. >> So, if there's some things that come up, they can put them on there. >> Yeah. And so, I think that's where the recommendations that we're talking about including in the transmitt letter are important. Mr. Johnson,
>> Mr. Chair, I'm not on that committee, but I would recommend that the possibility the committee consider the fact of electric cars in reference to a tax. They they give that to the county council as a recommendation to look at >> because of their electric car pay the
gas tax but but they take as much toll on our roadways as any other. I don't think it does not belong in charter but I think it's up to them to send to them for them to possibly look at it and take some kind of action either themselves or to recommendation to Tallahassee.
>> And I think the recommendation to Mr. uh to your point Mr. Johnson, we will as a I think the committee that we're forming now will draft that report to come back to this body to review and approve. So, you'll have an opportunity to make sure we're including that >> and we can see how it goes. But just be mindful under the charter. Once you give
your report to the council, they got to conduct three public hearings, >> correct, >> on your proposed changes and you got to get the ballot language to Lisa by early August, >> right, >> for her to make the general election. That's just something to be >> So, so we're only ahead of the game at
the moment, >> Miss Nory. >> I just want to confirm, Mike, that they don't make changes to our our questions. >> They don't have that authority. Correct. >> Right. >> Okay. >> Correct. Okay. So, we've got the the drafting subcommittee. Madam Secretary,
did you get all those names? >> No, I've got um Mr. Sakenovski, Mr. Parker, Miss Nory, >> Miss Munisi, >> Miss Munzy, >> and myself. >> Okay, thank you. >> Anybody else that Miss Shyber? >> I will. And also
um I I'll wait a minute. >> Okay, Miss Miss Shber will be on that as well. >> So, is that six? >> Yeah, it is six. >> Okay. Um, and so what this committee has done,
what you have produced in the past is there's a set of bios for each of you. >> Uh, there's a summary of what you're proposing and then the actual language like you just adopted tonight are attached >> as a report to the council. >> Mr. Sakowski,
>> that's fine for the past, but the the as we've established at numerous meetings, there's going to be an additional responsibility of this subcommittee, which I know Mark's going to say something. >> Correct. Correct. Okay. >> So, I I will So, I'm going to go ahead and ask this question. She asked, Miss
Nory asked if we if the council could change our amendments. Is that what you were asking? >> Change or whether they could deny putting on ballot. My understanding is no. They had all they do is conduct a public hearing
>> unless it's a a land use amendment >> unless it's outside of our perview, >> which we don't have. you don't have those. >> They were referring to the ones we've already passed. They're not making any opinion as to what we may try to pass. And he's absolutely right. State law pre
has created an additional hurdle, if you will, that if this body were to do something that was interpreted as being land use related, then the commission would have a separate vote on having it and would have to pass that vote. And in
addition, it would have to be a a a more than a simple majority because of the way the uh charter is currently written in our subcommittee. But that's that is the clarification. None of the things we did tonight are going to be anything but rubber stamped. But if they if in the
future between now and when we disband if there was somehow a passing of a land use related specifically land use related amendment then it would have assuming it was legal would still have to be additionally voted on. >> Well, how would Valuchia Forever not be
a land use amendment? >> It's Mr. Dyer, you want to respond to that? How does how is Valuchia forever not a land use amendment that's preempted to the council >> involving purchase of property rather than regulating that property >> proprietary versus regulatory >> it's not the use of the
>> well that then raises a question when I was on council we always changed them to conservation land by zoning >> right does that >> that's a separate okay that's that's a programmatic thing within the blue forever program
>> okay so um we've got a committee formed for the drafting of the subcommittee or for the drafting of the report and recommendations. My suggestion would be for us to go ahead and have that committee meet between now and the next scheduled meeting. Go ahead and keep our next scheduled meeting so that we can come back as a committee and give a
report on what the outline of the topics that will be included in that report will be to make sure we're not missing something that somebody wants to make sure is included before we do a final. >> My only suggestion, I'm looking at you, Ben, because you look forward. It could be anybody, but I would recommend you
have an odd number in case you have a tie vote. >> That's that is a fair point. >> So, >> I was going to ask earlier, we had four people, so what would we vote at that meeting um not not on a final amendment,
but what would have happened had we voted with the four on the subcommittee? >> Okay. I'm sorry. Can you say it again? There's a tie. It fails. >> It the motion doesn't pass. Yeah. Is there one other person be willing to serve on the committee so we can have an
odd number? >> Miss Brightite. >> And just keep in mind that that doesn't mean they're going to be there. So that's why it can happen. It doesn't really matter how many you set up. It matters who's actually showing up. >> Correct. Okay. So we've got Miss Brite added to the committee. So we have seven. We will work with the um Madam
Secretary to um get that scheduled um have that outline prepared for the next meeting. Um if everybody agrees that will be our agenda at the next meeting to go through that report. >> Yeah, Mr. Chair, just a clarification. Also, uh this committee also has the
ability to make management recommendations. Is that part of the committee's work in the drafting? >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. I just want to get that clarification. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Mr. Mr.
>> Um, >> what's that? >> Yeah, Mr. Sakowski, would you like to would you like to chair that committee, Mr. Saknowski? >> I can add it to my plate, but yeah, I have be happy to. I think I' I think people would be happy. >> All right, then we'll go ahead and have Mr. Saknowski serve as chair of that
committee. And just just to be clear like and I know you've discussed this as a commission you have charter amendments which is a you spent the line share of your time but you can make also make recommendations of ordinances. >> So when I heard operational it's ordinances
>> and and we have a number of those from our original lists that we talked through that we >> kind of put a pin in to bring back for this purpose. So >> okay um well I think that concludes our business this evening. Um, anybody else have any other business we need to talk
about? All right. If not, then we are adjourned. >> Thank you.