Hey. >> Well, good evening. >> Can somebody point Ben to his seat here? Ben, you're over here on the left. You're right. All right. Welcome everybody. Thanks for uh being back here. Hopefully everybody had great holidays and uh ready to jump back in
and and continue our work. Um I appreciate everybody being here this evening. I know we may have a a person or two absent this evening, but um looks like we've got pretty strong attendance. Um if I can start out, Madam Secretary, if you'll >> give a roll call.
>> Uh Mr. Watts, >> present. >> Miss Nory, >> present. >> Miss Bright >> here. >> Mr. Clayton >> here. >> Mr. Ingram >> here. >> Mr. Johnson. >> He's here. >> I'm here.
>> He's here. >> Miss Quiet. >> Not. >> Mr. Lewis. >> Miss Minzi >> here. >> Mr. Parker >> here. >> Mr. Sakinovski >> here. >> Miss Shriber >> here. >> Mr. Toland >> here.
>> Miss Wheeler. Thank you. >> Got it. Okay. All right. Well, um, again, I appreciate everybody being here this evening. Um, we're going to kind of jump in. I'm told there's a football game on this evening and, uh, that that it would be good if we, you know, kind
of got through our business and and let everybody go off and and root for one of those one of those teams, go Steelers. Um, but, uh, in any event, um, I appreciate everybody being here. We've got a couple things to go through this evening, uh, that we've talked about at prior meetings. We've got our first committee report that's going to be
coming up here in a minute as well. I know we've got another committee meeting scheduled for tomorrow. Um and then we'll talk a little bit about uh what's coming up on the next agenda and um and be done with our work for the evening. So um with that um we've got minutes in
your package. Um can I get a motion unless there's any changes? >> Got a motion. Got a second. Any discussion on the motion? All in favor signify by saying I. >> Sorry, too quick. Okay. Anybody uh maker the motion second
okay with those corrections? All right. Then we will uh all in favor >> I >> any opposed? Okay. Motion passes. Under general business we have uh public participation. I've got one card. If you haven't uh if you're here and you want to speak and you haven't filled out a
card, um if you'll get walked to Miss Richardson over there on the in the side of the room, um we'll start out with Keith Chester. Mr. Chester, if you can just uh state your name and um address for the record if it's not protected. >> Keith Chester, Delane, Florida. I'm here
to ask you not to place any additional burdens, financial burdens on our young people, not current into the charter or future. In the 80s, the age of a first-time home buyer was in
the early 20s. They were in their early 20s. Now it's 38 to 40. I bought my first home on a small town police officer salary at the age of about 23. I was born and raised in Dan and I was able to buy my first home without help
from my parents. So in 1995 we had save our homes was enacted that started closing the the uh or transferring the burdens from people like me and most of you to our young people. Now, it's to
the point that a young person buying my house, I pay about $1,000 a year in property taxes. A person buying my house would have to pay four to five times that. We have some in this room pay no property taxes at all. Where do those burdens go? But to our young people that
are struggling and just starting out, the whole idea that stinking thinking, well, they can get two and three jobs and they can whatever, that's a bunch of crap because all of us did that too when we were starting way back when. So from there, uh, impacts here in Valuchia
County that we added, uh, we added Valuchia County Fire Services was enacted in 1984 where we went from a volunteer service to a primarily paid service. In ' 87, Valuchia County took over the beaches.
In ' 89, we had cultural grant funding added. 2000, we had Valuchia Echo added. 2000, we had Valuchia Forever added. 2000 we had children and families grants added from the county. 2007 we took on the burden of Sunrail which of course is
just coming due now. Uh 2012 we took on EVAC. 2018 we took on amendment 10 and increased burdens were added to the budget. The budget has gone up since since that. Those burdens get transferred to our young people mostly
not to me not to most of you who've been here for a long time. In 2001, the county adopted a 10% public service tax on electricity and bottled gas. Last month, mine was $27, but for a young person just starting out, that's nothing
but an additional burden. We also added a 6 cents gas tax uh in ' 86 and then we added a 5 cents gas tax uh later on in 99.
In 2005, we had a avalorum tax increase for capital improvements for school and then a half cent sales tax was added for schools in 2001. All of these burdens have just continued to increase and increase on the backs of our young
people, not on us. So to put anything permanently into this charter for the future is going to harm our young people. We need to be quit being so damn selfish and some of these things that I read off need to be backed out
and we need to think about our future generations. We put too much on their backs. So I please hope you will consider that as you move through the charter. Put nothing else. And also I would ask that you do away with the atlarge and and uh add a zone. Right now
I live in a section of the land that my representative is or So, I don't really get representation like I should. So, thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Chester. Appreciate you being here this evening. Anybody else in the public that'd like to uh speak to
the to the commission this evening? That better? Okay. All right. Seeing none, uh we'll move on to our next item on our agenda. Um I want to welcome Debbie Connors. Uh Debbie is the chair of the Valuchia Growth Management Commission. And if you recall, the board at one of our last meetings asked um for
a presentation about VGMC and kind of how things are operating right now. Um so we can continue talking about that in our deliberations. So I'll turn things over to you. >> Thank you, Mr. Watts. Um thank you for having me here. Um I've been chairing the Valia Growth Management Commission for the last couple of years. I've been
on it for about 12 years since Kim Parker appointed me when he was city manager a 100 years ago. And um so I wanted to give you a little update and we have a PowerPoint. Is somebody running that?
>> Okay. They didn't tell me I'd have to do technical stuff. Okay. So the Growth Management Commission was established in 1986. Our goals um to provide an effective means for
coordinating the comprehensive plans of municipalities and the county in order to provide a forum for local governments in Valuchia County to coordinate decision-making related to land use, the environment and public services for the citizens of Valuchia County. The
objective is to review the comprehensive plans and any plan amendments there too for each governmental entity in Valuchia County to ensure intergovernmental coordination and cooperation. The VGMC provides the platform for each
local government to review all comp plan amendments and to ensure that the proposed amendment is consistent with their own comp plan. An interlocal agreement exists between VGMC, Valuchia County and the state in which the state agrees the findings of
the VGMC pertaining to the matters of intergovernmental coordination and consistency between local government comprehensive plans within Valuchia County shall be considered by the state as additional data appropriate in review of intergovernmental coordination
element matters. Most of the local government comprehensive plans policies include the VGMC review as a means of meeting the state required intergovernmental coordination element policies. VGMC review is not
duplicative. The state recognizes a consistency certification as having met the intergovernmental coordination requirement. So VGMC creates a level playing field. No one comp plan controls over the
others. It forces cooperation early in the process. Uhoh. What did I do? Okay. Okay. All local governments are represented in the commission. We have 21 voting members. One member representing each of the 16
municipalities and five members representing Valuchia County. VGMC does not select its members. They are appointed by the local government bodies. Voting is weighted based on the population represented by the member. The Valuchia County School Board and St.
John's River Water Management District are also represented on the commission as exeicio members. VGMC staff consists of two independent planning firms, outside legal counsel, and one part-time administrative employee.
So, we have a slide of the um review process get back to that. Okay, here we go. Okay, so the application was received and reviewed for completeness and that takes about
two days. There's a notice of application and you can go down the chart and kind of see how the flow of that is. So I can give you an example. As an example, the city of Port Orange is pro proposing a multifamily
development on property that currently has a rural land use designation which would not allow that type of development. The city would be required to amend their comprehensive plan to change the future land use to a designation which would allow such development. In doing so, not only would
they review it through their local planning agency and the city council, but they are also required to submit it to the VGMC to determine if the increased density proposed by the amendment adversely impacts surrounding local governments. VGMC does not look at
the internal consistency only how how it impacts the outside of any applicant jurisdiction. In 2016, a streamline review process was established for all small-cale amendments and amendments that are
subject to the interlocal or joint agreement amongst the affected jurisdictions. Each local government uploads the application to the VGMC secure file site and the application submitted typically consist of the same documents
local government staff presents to their planning board and to their city council. For example, staff reports, maps, ordinances, traffic studies, school adequacy findings. So, it's not as if the local planners are burdened with having to create new
or extra documents. When the application is received, VGMC administrative staff prepares a notice of application which provides a summary of the proposed amendment, deadlines for other units of local government to petition for hearing and submittal
requirements for the petition. The notice is distributed electronically via email to all of the local governmental planners. VGMC planning staff reviews the amendment in accordance with the criteria staffed established in section
98-37C of the Valuchia County Code. Review includes if and how the proposed amendment impacts traffic, utilities, schools, natural resources, and infrastructure beyond the boundaries of the applicant local government. Our planning staff works very closely with
the local government planners through coordination efforts. Any concerns raised are generally addressed early in the review process, avoiding the need for a public hearing. VGCMC planning staff issues a written
planning report with their findings within 14 days and local governments have 21 days to review the application. If no objection is filed, a consistency certification letter is issued by the chair. If an objection is filed, a
public hearing is scheduled. The same review criteria applies to largecale amendments. If it is determined the additional information is needed to review the application either by notice from another unit of local government or
VGMC staff, a request for additional information or RAI is issued. The RAI must be issued within 14 days and time is told until such time as a response is received from the applicant government. Once a response is received and deemed
complete and if there are no objections raised by other units of local government within 28 days less any time told VGM staff issues a written planning report and a consistency certification letter issued by is issued by the chair. If an
objection is filed, a public hearing is scheduled. Most applicants are certified by letter within 30 days. And if a hearing is held, all parties will present to the commission. Public comment is welcome and final action is taken by a weighted
vote of the members present. Should be noted that the VGMC may only independently request a public hearing if the proposed amendment is the subject of a prior resolution of the commission and is inconsistent with conditions approved in the adopted resolution.
BGMC was the subject subject of an extensive review by the 2016 charter review commission and through a series of meetings over the first quarter of 2016 which included input from charter review commission members, VGMC members, local government officials and staff,
local community leaders, and more. Amendments to the VGMC consistent consistency rules and regulations were proposed to address concerns and criticisms leveled at the VGMC. of most significance. the amendments proposed
limiting standing and the ability to call for a public hearing before the VGMC to units of local government, including the Valuchia County School Board as a unit of local government for purposes of the VGMC review process
and establishing an expedited review process for small-scale amendments and those amendments involving property that was the subject of an interlocal agreement. On April 13, 2016, the VGMC approved
resolution 20163 recommending the Valuchia County Council approved the amendments proposed to the VGMC consistency rules and regulations. And on May 5th, 2016, the Valuchia County Council adopted ordinance 2016-10
approving the amendments as proposed. Since the rules changed in 2016, the scope of VGMC review has not changed. All amendments are still reviewed in accordance with the view review criteria established in section 9037C of the
Valuchia County Code. The volume of applications has not changed. We continue to receive a steady flow of new applications averaging 70 per year over the past 10 years. The number of public hearings has been significantly reduced.
only three case related public hearings held in the past 10 years compared to an average of two or three a year prior to 2016. Her review timeline has been shortened with the establishment of the streamline review process. We have implemented
processes to improve efficiency. All new applications are submitted electronically eliminating the need for paper copies. Written communications are delivered electronically, considerably improving workflow and turnaround time. The VGMC continues to remain an
effective tool for local governments to coordinate their plans and work out inconsistencies early on and at the local level. Can we answer any questions? >> Turn it on there. Uh, Miss Connor, thank you so much for for coming out and providing the presentation. I'm going to
open it up to the to the commission uh now and and see if anybody's got questions. Mr. Sakowski, >> thanks for explaining a lot of things. Just a couple quick questions. First of all, so the amendments to the rules only had to be approved by the county council in 2016, not the public, right?
>> Right. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, let's talk about how this is worked with between Orman Beach and Daytona in the case of Avalon, >> right? >> Because clearly that was a large element. >> Mr. Saknowski, can I get you on your
microphone? I think they're having a hard Y. >> Maybe lean into it a little bit as well. >> Okay. So, it's how would you review the phrase there was an effective tool for local governments to coordinate their plans to work out inconsistencies when
it comes to the Avalon development, which is currently in court. I don't see how that worked in that particular case. >> Okay. Um I asked our legal council for specific in case that came up and um Orman Beach did file a position for rid
of Cintiari against VGMC and the city of Daytona Beach regarding the VGMC's conditional approval of Daytona to Daytona's application and resolution 20230. Orman asked the circuit court to review
VGMC's quasi judicial hearing to determine one whether Orman was denied procedural due process by Daytona Beach's adoption of the comprehensive plan amendment prior to receiving a certificate of consistency from VGMC
or two whether VGMC's decision was conditionally approved the resolution was supported by the evidence and three whether VGMC's approval of the resolution complied with the law. On October 27th, 2025, the court issued an
order denying Orman petition for writ of >> certary. I'm sorry, I have with that word. The court found that VGMC's decision was supported by competent substantial evidence that the requirements of the law were met and that Orman's procedural due process
rights were not violated. Orman had 30 days to appeal the circuit court's decision to the fifth DCA. Arman did not file an appeal, so the course co case is over. >> Good. That's that's exactly the update I
was curious about and it's fairly recent information, too. Certainly since this commission's existed. So, um do you see uh because nothing has happened yet there, do you see it coming back to y'all? >> I mean, we
Chris, do you want to answer that? I mean, it's it's Chris is our our planner, so he may have a better answer than I do. >> Good evening. Chris Stardy, uh, BGMC planner with Inspire Placemaking Collective. Um, so the just going back
just a little bit to the the case. So, this was Daytona Beach's water supply plan that they were uh just amending. So, they were updating it to to make sure that the data and analysis was current. um and to also um update some
of the policies. It wasn't a really, you know, significant change, but again, it was a requirement because uh 18 months after the regional water supply plan is updated, each municipality has to update theirs. Um when we reviewed the the case
uh we noted that they did have uh specific things calling out Orman Beach because again their their service areas overlap I guess is the probably the easiest way to to describe that. Um, when we dug into it a little bit
further, there was already an agreement in place which meant that they've already met kind of our issue, right? That it, if we're looking at those types of situations, we want to make sure that there is some sort of interlocal
agreement in place. Again, making sure that intergovernmental coordination is happening. And it was already happening. It was already memorialized in the policies of their comp plan. So we didn't find any issue. So we weren't
there to arbitrate that interlocal agreement. That wasn't our job. Nor is it our job to find whether or not they're internally consistent within their comp plan. So that was the issue with that particular plan. Now where if
it's going any further, that remains to be seen. Um, >> well, there's another lawsuit too from the developer suing both the city of Daytona Beach and the city of Orman Beach because of these delays. >> Sure. >> That's actually in court now. >> Unresolved
>> and we're we're not thankfully you're not a part. >> All right. >> Thanks for that update. >> Sure. >> That was a good update. Um, any other questions from the >> Commissioner Sher? I >> I have a question. Oh, sorry. >> You're recognized and I'll
>> Okay. I have a question. Um, how do you with what's been happening with flooding? How are you planning for that? >> Okay, that would be your >> and the reason I ask is because water is
running from city to city and there's widescale flooding >> and and this is in just in general flooding. Well, I'll refer specifically to Southeast Felia, New Smyrna Beach, Edgewater,
um, Port Orange, those three. Let's just talk about those. There's flooding in other areas, but let's refer to that. I mean, I don't know how you what what are you doing? I I caught that there was a St. John's water management person on your board, but how are you planning for
that? So, so we don't really do any proactive planning. Um, as part of the the Valuchia Growth Management Commission, we're reviewing comprehensive plan amendments. So, they already have a plan in place that should presumably be taking care of drainage
that's required as part of a comprehensive plan. So, they're required to have level of service for storm water. What we're finding is that a lot of local governments have been um increasing those requirements, looking at a 100red-year flood rather than 25
year, which which was kind of the the minimum. Um so that is supposed to be helping. Now, not all local governments are taking that step, and we can't require them to do that. Now, if we're reviewing a case and it is clear that they're going to cause issues
downstream, literally, um, then we will call it out. Now, it's it's not clearly evident all the time when you're reviewing a case. Just because somebody's changing the future land use map doesn't necessarily mean they're they're increasing the the
the flooding issues, right? They're supposed to be addressing storm water on a development bydevelopment case. So, >> but it g does give the neighboring community the opportunity to say this project is going to affect my community
in a negative way and then they can they can >> Yeah, I was I was actually going to maybe bring out that point that I think um and correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the context in which it would come to you is let's say Dand is updating its capital improvement plan or addressing a
specific land use amendment that will result in all of their storm water being discharged to Orange City. Orange City then has the opportunity to to request a more detailed review of that change. So the coordination between Orange City and Dand for example would occur with BGMC
staff and ultimately there's a possibility that Orange City in that instance could request a hearing on the the proposed change and whether or not it's consistent with the two local jurisdictions respective comprehensive plans. Is that kind of the the context
in which you would typically see it? That's correct. >> Okay. Does that make sense or clarified? >> It does with the exception of the preeemption where some have tried to change and they couldn't. So, so then what happens?
>> Well, I think all of that then relates to I think Mr. Dyer, that would be part of the 180 limitations that I think everybody is operating under. So, in that instance, I would assume your review kind of gets curtailed a little bit by the fact that it's been potentially preempted. Right. And and
well, what you're finding is that most local governments are either holding off on doing full updates. So, they're just basically, you know, making tweaks to address the state statutes and that's it. So, they're not really doing, you know, as much proactive planning. We
have we do provide courtesy comments, you know, because we we do this for a living, too, and we we coordinate with the state on on many comprehensive plans. Um and and so when we do see something that that you know would kind
of uh maybe uh cause issues with other agencies, we'll we'll point it out. But you know, it's it's merely just a a courtesy. >> Okay. Thank you. Any further questions? Or Miss Bright, I know you had your hand up as well.
>> Um just so I I want to make sure I understand this on on your diagram on how you get it. You get the application and review it before it goes. Who sends you the application? The cities where the changes are taking place or the applicant who wants the changes done? >> The city or the county?
>> And then it goes to Chris for review. >> Okay. So, user approving all this even before it gets to the public at the city level to vote on it judging by because it's down that the hearings are down at the bottom of the of the diagram.
>> No. So it it'll go to the local planning agency first. >> Okay. >> And so there'll be a public hearing in front of the typically it's the PNZ boards and then it'll go to another hearing in front of the city council and
that's typically we get that the the amendments after the the city council hearing. >> Okay. >> And it's usually the first hearing. >> Yeah. from from a process standpoint. Anytime you're you're dealing with let's say an applicant is asking to amend a comprehensive plan or land use
designation, you go to that planning board hearing first, you then go to with regard to the land use amendment, there's a transmitt hearing and that is historically went to the state for the you know involved review there. That's the point at which it also goes to VGMC for the review and then when it comes
back assuming everything has been signed off on by the state review and and BGMC Yeah. >> Coming out. So I just want to make sure. >> So I think I think from a process standpoint, the potential hearing you have in your process would occur prior to that final adoption hearing at the
local jurisdiction. >> That is typically how it happens. Yes. >> Another question then. >> Just one last question. Uh you mentioned about the um you don't review internally the city's comprehensive plans. Would
you actually be a more effective tool for local counsel local governments to coordinate if you did have that responsibility? >> I think we would step on their toes. I I don't think that's the uh purpose of VGMC. It's to coordinate between the
municipalities and not within the municipalities. So you have >> Right. But you've now had two examples of where maybe that's not as working as well that it might. And I'm trying to say what can be done to improve it because if that were really effective these two rather significant issues
wouldn't be happening. So what can be done to fix it? Yeah. I think in this case the the VGMC does as much as we can to help mediate between the parties and at some points
there's just no there is no mediating it it and I think if you saw that between Orman Beach and Daytona Beach there was nothing we could do to help the situation. In fact, the commission required that the two meet and that
wasn't going to happen. they weren't even going to meet each other. So they they made that a stipulation as part of the consistency certification. >> All right, Miss Mizy, >> thank you. If I understand the history of
the growth management commission, it was established in 1986 when Valuchia County didn't even have a comprehensive plan and then Valuchia County through state mandate um have started adopted a comprehensive plan in 1990 and that's
been up upgraded or you know updates have been added to that in 98 2007 2025. Um, and in looking back at the history of the charter review commission, I know there were concerns about the growth
management commission in 2006 and there was amendment placed on the ballot that failed then and some of those concerns came up again in 2016 and so I know that um there was a resolution there that was passed by county council to make some changes and that was 2016. Then House
Bill 1151 came through in 2018 and that eliminated the state and regional level reviews for developments of regional impact. Um, and that gave, you know, we talk about preeemption a lot, but this
is an opportunity where it gave back power to the local municipalities and and Valuchia County government. So, I know there's been a lot of criticism from uh county council recently in particular and over the last few years
that this commission no longer really has a role. And then you brought up a couple of opportunities there where municipalities were already working together um and local municipalities already have plans in place and they do discuss these things. So, I'm just
wondering, you know, is this just an extra additional step that it sort of causes some friction or problems when these municipalities are already working together and already aware of each other's plans? >> Yeah. And and many times they probably
are, but this gives them an opportunity to know what plan is coming up. And that's not necessarily the case. like Daytona Beach wouldn't necessarily have had to tell Orman Beach that they were, you know, their plans for Avalon Park,
but you know, this notifies all of the committees or the communities of a plan that's coming up. So, they have the opportunity to respond on something that may affect their comp plan and their ability to provide services. So, I mean,
the commission only comes into play when there is a conflict. um and the planner makes sure that there's not a conflict. >> It it just seems like um you found that interlocal cooperation was already happening and then when there were conflicts, you weren't necessarily able
to resolve those. So, I'm just wondering, you know, how how effective the commission is. I know y'all do hard work. I know what it's like to be on to serve on these things. And I don't mean to be critical. I'm just asking because I would like >> and I'm just appointed. We're not paid. I mean, the planners are paid. So, I
mean, all I know is what we do is give the communities an opportunity to see what's coming up that may impact them and give them the opportunity to respond to it. And it does go through the planning uh process, but that does correspond with the other planning
processes that had they have to go to through for their planning commissions and their city council. So, it's not duplicative. It goes along with it. So, um, you know, it's just an opportunity for our municipalities to work together
and know what's coming up, know what might impact them, >> you know, if they're already doing that. I appreciate it. >> That's great. But they may or may not be. I don't know. Chris may know. >> Well, and and I'll just add that all of the the local governments know that we
have to do this here in Valuchia County. So, it is unique. It's different. Not all communities do this uh this level of review. And so they know they're they're looking at their amendments. They are understanding that they do have to provide certain amount of information
and they do need to coordinate. So they recognize that before the amendment is even proposed. So it's part of that process. they understand that they're going to have that level of scrutiny and we're going to hash it out one way or
the other, you know, if there's an issue and and typically, you know, uh what Debbie mentioned earlier if there is an issue and Mark, we've we've dealt with some together. We try to handle it early and get it taken care of, which we've
been very successful in doing in kind of squashing any of these, you know, I don't know, extra jur jurisdictional issues. Um, but generally speaking, we we don't need to do these public hearings anymore because we're not
dealing with the zoning that we used to, which was an overreach at the time, and we recognized that in 2016, and that's why we pulled back on those rules. Um and and if you've followed along a little bit, some of our hearings that we've had were to get rid of those
conditions where the VGMC was reviewing PUDS, which again I felt like that was that came way before we were involved. And so we're we're no longer doing that. Um so again, we're we're we're doing what we originally said we were supposed
to do, and that's really look at development from a high level. We're not digging down into, you know, each one of these traffic studies and understanding what turning movements are happening. That's not our job. We're looking at kind of the macro impacts.
>> Other questions? Anybody else from the commission have a question? Mr. Parker, are you grabbing your microphone because you have a question or you ready to move on? Mr. Mr. Johnson, >> I I hear maybe I'm missing something. I'm hearing what they're they're talking about problems when the two governments
can't quite hash it out, but you still have relief through the courts if necessary. So, you do have a final action somewhere if you can't get it done. So, I think we're kind of kicking a ball around here back and forth where if you don't don't agree with it, take it to the courts and be done with it.
So, I think there's already everything's in place in my opinion. >> Mr. Perford, >> let's go back to 1986. In 1986, the state said, "Concurrency and consistency
in your comp plans." And the state played a very important role in that. And um and so when the growth management commission was put together, it was underneath that
particular uh 1986 growth management laws from the state of Florida. And so we were trying can again I can speak from from a city standpoint because I was there
and what you what we were attempting to do is to be sure that there was adequate review and in within Valuchia County so that when it went forward to the state that we were sure that we were consistent and
concurrent since ' 86. the state has basically gutted the growth management law in my opinion. Okay, I'll make sure I'll say it's in my opinion. So, but still Valuchia
is trying to be sure that there is a forum by which there is this review to be sure comp plans are consistent and concurrent so that we don't impact each other.
So from my perspective that is, you know, kind of the 30,000 foot view from 1986. But it's because not because of what we did here in Valuchia County, but because of what happened at the state
level that sort of preempted some of the things that we were trying to achieve here at the local level. >> Any other questions? So, I have one. Um, and Mr. Connors, I think you said you'd been on the on the commission for 12 years. So, you were
there kind of before the 2016 rule amendments and and are now there obviously afterward. How has I always, you know, kind of heard BGMC, you know, like the original drafters, if you will, of the of the charter kind of characterized it as it was going to be a
council of mayors and dual office holding kept it from being a council of mayors. But um where kind of these discussions would take place so that everybody could coordinate and handle the intergovernmental um you know coordination element of of the state um growth management act. How have you seen
the process evolve since 2016 in regard to making sure that that coordination is occurring either because of your efforts or as a result of the cities or county knowing that they have to go through the process? >> Yeah. Um well because of the changes that were made in 2016. We don't hear a
lot of the um the internal issues that we used to have some of the public coming up to express concern about a project that was coming along. Now we're only concerned about um comprehensive plans and what affects another municipality's comprehensive plan. So
we're seeing a lot less hearings. We don't have all of the hearings that we used to have. Most of the stuff goes through our planning stuff and it was resolved then. We've only had a couple of hearings in the last three or four years. Um, so the commission is there to
hear when there is a case that does come forward, but mostly is handled in the in the planning process. >> So the the commission doesn't see the majority of the coordination because it's all at the staff level really. And
then you know of course when things are are elevated that's when you'll see them in front of the board. But uh yeah for the most part all the coordination is is h happening with the technical staff of each one of these municipalities and and
we love to do it and that's what we're here for. So um >> and I can say I' I've been the recipient of some of those phone calls or emails uh to make sure that coordination is is occurring in some you know some cases. So, um, okay. Any other questions? >> Well, I appreciate your time here this
evening and, um, you know, if we have any other follow-up questions, we'll definitely reach back out to you, but I I appreciate you coming out and spending your time with us this evening. Mary Chris, good to see you back there, too. >> Thank you. >> Thank you so much. >> Thank you. >> All right. Um, as it gets to kind of
further discussion, we'll we'll deal with that when we get to organizational items and item six on the agenda. But in the meantime, we have a report from our environmental and conservation subcommittee. Chairman or chairwoman Nory, >> mine will excuse me. M excuse me, mine
will be very brief as we are not finished with our work. We met Friday about for an hour and talked about um putting have an amendment to put forever into the charter at a hyphen standard uh under state law. We had a
recommendation, not a recommendation, we had a draft uh possibility of a of a form to put in and we reviewed that and our next steps that we did where we're where we uh sent that back to legal as a
draft ballot language to re we're going to re review that at our next subcommittee meeting and then we will refer to the full charter for we hope by next uh meeting by FE by the February meeting for you all to take a look at.
Um, consensus was reached to use current draft as a starting point with any modifications to be considered at the next meeting which is the end of January. Um, I don't have the date missing. >> January 28th.
>> 28th. Thank you. 10 a.m. Um, you all are welcome to come out and participate as public participation. We had that this time with uh Amy Manuzi came out and listened and made some comments. So, we would encourage you all to do that. Uh and we should have it that ready to go
bring back to you by the February meeting. And um I don't want to go into any details because we we spent a lot of time talking about the program forever. And I'm thinking we probably ought to have somebody here from staff that we can make a a small presentation about
the program as it stands now. if that works so people understand. >> Could you clarify the time and location of the meeting? >> The TCK building, the the admin center and the uh TCK meeting room on the first
floor 10 o'clock on the 28th. >> Thank you. >> Sure. >> Okay. Any any questions for Miss Nory? So I think uh the plan would be then that >> Oh, and I'm sorry. Mr. Watts was there too as a chairman of this committee. He would attended that committee meeting
>> and you did a fantastic all the committee members. Um so I think the plan will be then that that gets referred whatever the the consensus comes out of the committee would get referred to us for our February meeting discussion. >> Yes. Yes. >> Um Mr. Booker and and staff can we if if
that is coming onto our February meeting would it be possible for us to have Brad Burbar or somebody here just to answer questions about the program itself? >> Certainly. Of course. >> Okay. All right. Any other questions, Miss Nory? >> No. Any Okay.
>> That ends our general business items. Um, so moving on to item uh 6A, talking about our next steps. Um, we have a pretty significant committee meeting uh with regard to governmental structure and everything that's going to be
occurring um tomorrow um at >> 4 o'clock at the same location. It's right here. Different location. Sorry. running through too many things on my calendar. Um so here tomorrow at four o'clock uh anybody else that is is not
formally on the committee that wants to come out welcome to come and attend um just to to watch the discussion and be involved with it. Um I think my view of it would be that the um we really for the for the next steps need to see what's coming out of uh Pat's committee,
what comes out of Ken and and his committee. Um and then the goal would be in February hopefully begin to be able to say, "Okay, we've got some draft amendments to look at um and consider and then also potentially take up further discussion on BGMC." Um any
other commission members have additional thoughts on that? Okay. So then for the agenda at the next meeting, uh we'll focus then on the items coming out of the two committees. Um we also had talked about kind of once we get a little bit further in,
maybe February, March, creating a committee to start working on a draft report. Um, so we'll deal with that um when we get into the meeting in February as well um at our next meeting. Um and uh then be able to actually start looking at some some of the amendment
text and language. Anybody else have any input or thoughts that you want to share with the rest of the commission before we uh leave for the evening? >> Oh, Mr. Chair, I just had had one thought. I unfortunately had to miss the last meeting. Um and I'd be very interested in joining one of the
committees. Had some interest on the environ environmental um committee if possible. Um is there an opportunity to perhaps join that committee or we need any help there? >> I I think you'll be your your participation would be welcome and um and I did get the message that that uh I
think you had had some interest in joining a committee. So um I think if Pat's got room on her committee, I think that would be a great addition. So, thank you for for doing that. Um, we'll add that if we can um to uh the committee membership and um your next meeting is the 28th at 10 o'clock at
room to land. >> So, >> welcome. >> All right. Any other business from members of the commission? If not, is there a motion to adjurnn? >> Got a motion to adjourn. We will stand adjourned. >> Y'all go watch football.
>> Yeah.