Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Welcome to the Valuchia County Council meeting. The meeting will begin in 10 minutes. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat.
Hey, hey, hey. Hey, hey, hey, hey, hey. Hey, hey, hey, hey.
Hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, Hey, hey,
hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, Hey, hey, hey, hey, hey,
hey. Hey, hey, hey. Welcome to the Valuchia County Council meeting. The meeting will begin in five minutes. Hey, hey, hey.
Just feel it. Hey. Hey. Hey. It's the music. Yellow money.
Wonder do it. Welcome to the Valuchia County Council meeting. The meeting will begin in 2 minutes. It's very a few seconds. Everybody's so quiet. Is that because
it's so cold outside? Is everybody ready for winter to be over? All right. Can I get a motion on that? Okay. We will call the uh Valuchia County Council meeting of February 3rd
to order at 9:02. Um we're going to uh start with an invocation in just a minute and then pledge of allegiance. When uh I invite the reverend up for the invocation, if
you would care to stand, please stand and join us. Um, if you are a member of a faith group that that would like to participate in the invocation, please just send an email to K green, the letter K green at valucia.org, and she
will get you all set up. It's open for um for all faith groups. This morning we have the Reverend Daryl Demerit of the KBY Memorial Temple uh Southern Casadega Spiritualist Camp Meeting Association.
Uh, Reverend Demerit, thank you. Good morning. Thank you for the introduction and it's a pleasure to be here with you all this morning. Um, please join me in a moment of silence as we assume an
attitude of prayer. Loving and infinite God who created and watches over all that is. We thank you for your ever presence with us and within us. We ask that this morning in your presence you guide our council
members as they consider the opportunities and challenges that have been brought before them. We ask for your support in their collaborative work this morning to do what is best for Valuchia County and its residents and businesses for today,
tomorrow, and into the future. And we ask this in all grace and gratitude. Amen. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, with liberty, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. >> Thank you for coming. >> Carissa, would you call the role? >> Mr. Dempsey. here. >> Mr. Johansson
>> here, >> Mr. Kent >> here, >> Mr. Reinhardt >> here, >> Mr. Robbins >> here, >> Mr. Santiago, >> Mr. Brower >> here. We're all here. We have a quorum. Uh, and yes, we do have
some public participation. I will uh call your name. When I do, just come up to the podium. There is a uh button on the left that will raise and lower it. We we would like to have a a microphone right at your mouth so that we can uh
everyone in the room can hear you and all the people online. You will have three minutes to talk about anything that pertains to the county that the uh council might be able to act on in the future. Um uh we just ask that you would be
respectful of of everyone in the in the room and listening online. You can say anything you want to us. Um, but just uh please be respectful in your language to uh people that are listening in first. And also if you would just tell us where
you're from in the county. You don't have to give your full address for safety reasons if you don't care to, but let us know what part of the county you're from so that your representative here um knows where you are. Um, nobody wants to go first, but this morning it's
Kathy Thompson. and you'll be followed by uh Dennis Morris, Kathy Thompson, Orman Beach. File number 12441, February 18th. Tim Bailey presented the cultural
council's updated recommendations for modifying the community cultural grants program and operating budgets of 40,000 or less would receive a maximum grant of $8,000 with no match required and a maximum of three applications over the
organization's lifetime. Larger organizations would receive a gradual reduction of maximum grant amounts 70,000 in FY2526 50,000 in FY2627 and 35,000 for all future years. The
formula would be 20% of the first 40,000 in expenses plus 10% of expenses over 40,000. A onetoone match would be required and the program would transition from operating grants to programbased grants. Additional
recommendations included one capacity building grant awarded annually up to 25,000 to help applicants hire consultants maintaining the current per capita funding rate of a dollar8 adjusting for population growth. Council
member Santiago moved her approval. The cultural council recommended modifications as amended to have a max cap of $5,000 per consultant and to eliminate any language per capita. After comments and
roll call, the motion carried 6 to one with chair Brower opposed. So my question to you gentlemen is, can we trust our government when you promise us something and we do everything that was asked of us?
Please honor what you committed to. If you want to change future years, you reserved that right, but you specifically addressed and promised us this year. We have done everything.
Please Dennis Morris. >> Good morning. >> Morning, sir. >> I'm lucky to be in Mr. Dempsey's district, Barberville. Uh, I'm here out of uh concern for the community. It's older community and and
growing very fast with the 17 and 40 dual laning and uh they finished the 40 one side of the project was coming from Orman ends. So they paved it as of November it was all completed. They
haven't done the south side yet which is the remaining fourlane and of course we've got a new Dunkin Donut and a new Circle K. and the little intersection is getting pretty crowded. And uh my concern is when they're coming from
Orman Beach and I don't know if you're familiar with the area, but when you come into our little town, there's a pretty sharp curve to the left right before the last 500 600 yards before you get to the stoplight. And uh it when
you're coming from woman, you're in the country all the way and people are running pretty good speed limits and it's nothing but you're empty wilderness. And when you pop around the curve there, you dive right into the center of our little community. And uh they're coming around there at 60 70 m
an hour. I've got a my driveway's right there. And you have the Valuchia Lodge is right there. Church Street, Pine Street. You have a couple other homes. Of course, we got the ultimate grill, the it's it's growing. And when they come around the curve at 70,
they're there's people backed up there because the lane the southbound lane hasn't been built yet. So, it's dual purpose on the other lane going west. And so, all the traffic uh you come around the curve, they're backed up to the lodge and there's nowhere to go. And
those people come around there. And we've had two wrecks. Last Sunday there was a turnover cuz Church Street where it comes off of 40 actually goes back to the right. So you can't just stop and turn. You almost got to completely stop to cut back and especi if you're carrying a trailer and there's fernies
in there. And uh anyway, we've had two wrecks Sunday before was a turnover and then another one Friday was a turnover. And both times they went across the cross the double line to avoid rear end and if it had been somebody coming it
would have been disastrous. But my uh I just wanted to basically get this started, maybe get some help from Mr. Dempsey and with F DOT. And if I noticed at the other end at the speedway that when you get to Route 11 at the other end of the project, there's a flashing light and a blind curve also. And the
light comes on, it tells you that the light's getting ready to turn red so you can prepare to stop. And if we could have something like that or maybe really please slow down the speed limit a little bit where it would warn people of the danger ahead. Uh it would be
greatful help very helpful and I I'm uh spoken to a lot of the residents right there and there a lot of elderly people and I'm I'm just trying to avoid the disaster. I appreciate any help y'all could give me. Thank you. >> Thank you very much for coming in. Uh
Debbie Krook Forester Debbie Krook Forester Orman Beach, founder and commander of Orman Strong, a nonprofit benefiting military veterans, first responders, their families, and patriots within the community. Uh we started a vigil morning bridgewalk as you remember u March 29th Vietnam
Veterans Day 2015 um when my husband and 200 local national guardsmen from the first 265th deployed for a one-year mission to Afghanistan all beca all came home safe and uh we assist with events um we
continue our bridge walks etc. Um, Orman Strong, this being the semiquincentennial uh, historic event in our country. Um, we continue our daily morning uh, bridgew walks on Granada Bridge in
celebration of our nation's birthday. We honor all who sacrifice their time, their strength, their ambition, their health, and their lives on this earth so we can enjoy the freedoms we have today. Um, with that said, one of these patriots, which is why I'm dressed the
way I am, is Deborah Samson. She's a Revolutionary War hero. Deborah, uh, she cut her hair, bound her bosoms, and served in the Continental Army under General George Washington. Uh, she was
5'11, so she served in the special forces. She took a sword um slashed to her head and two uh musket balls in her left thigh. And to not reveal that she was a female um she took out her pocket
knife um took out one of the musket balls and then uh stitched herself up and she lived uh till the end of her life with the other musk ball. and she was uh discovered as a female when uh they had an outbreak in Pennsylvania
when they were fighting uh the fever and so uh you know they that gave away what that her um revealed her gender but it was Paul River that got her an honorable discharge and a full pension. So, um, my
story to hear more stories, I'd like to invite everybody to attend the, um, Veterans Museum and Education Center located 302 Vermont Avenue in Daytona Beach. They're open from 1 to 4 Tuesday through Saturday. Come out and visit
during this historic 250 years of America. Our um our group Orman Strong paid the first 20 years rent on the Veterans Museum because we feel that strongly about remembering our veterans and first responders. In closing, I'll
quote the 30th president, Calvin Culage. The nation that forgets its defenders will itself be forgotten. God bless America and happy semiquincentennial everyone. Orman Strong out. Thank you. >> Thank you for sharing that.
Eileen Simon. >> Good morning. I'm Eileen Simino, the education officer at the Commemorative Air Force located at KDED Dan Municipal Airport. Ironically, February 18th, 2026,
we all would have been able to hear the roar of a P-51 completely restored Tuskegee Airman Mustang. At least 5,000 Valuchia County students would have been able to hear that roar,
touch that plane, view a 360 degree film about the restoration and the legacy of the Tuskegee Airmen. Now, let's think about this. If a child does not have a connection to aviation and they drive up
to an airport, what do they see? Barb wire. We offer an open gate, an open hanger, a way for all children to see an opportunity and a future in the skies.
That programming was cancelled due to the loss of the grant. I humbly ask you to reinstate that program so children throughout Valuchia County can see a future in in the skies by looking upward
and hearing the plane and by looking forward to their possibility of being an aviator and looking backwards to the legacy of the Tuskegee Airman. When children can see themselves in the cockpit, they have
a future. Thank you. >> Thank you for your comments. Uh, Michael Don Johnson. Hello everyone. Michael Don Johnson. I'm not here to campaign this morning, but for the record, I am running for Congress in the Republican primary this
year. There's some information that the voters and the residents of this county need to know about that are very disturbing, and I'm going to address them by asking questions. Is stolen valor bad? Would you vote for someone that has investigations ongoing within
the army that has stolen valor accusations? Is assaulting a mistress bad while you're married? Would you vote for someone that has has been on record of being called by the to the police for assaulting a woman?
Is threatening an ex-girlfriend bad? Would you vote for someone that has a 14page restraining order against him by a Florida judge? Is meeting with the terrorists overseas in Syria had a 10 million dollar bounty on his
head bad? Is running a vacation rental in New Summer and a beach part-time a bonafide evidence that you're a resident of our county? Is voting for morals over party labels
more important to you? Is someone that does not pay their taxes and has multiple IRS leans filed against them bad mad? Would you vote for someone that has multiple IRS leans filed about against them? Is it bad that you have not paid a
business loan and have a foreclosure lawsuit going on against you right now for $66 million and $34 million of that lawsuit is interest that you haven't paid? This case is up in Taylor County, Florida right now. Is it wrong that you take loan money
from a Canadian lender and live a lavish lifestyle pretending you're a millionaire while you have a company in Taylor County, Florida with employees who were just sent home before Halloween without pay? Would you vote for someone like this?
There are politicians that come to our county here that a lot of citizens don't know that about their background, what's going on because technically they don't really live here because they're in different areas. There are federal lawsuits going on in Virginia in the federal courouses
for fraud. Would you vote for someone like that? There's a there's a case going on right now in the Eastern Court of the District of Virginia that this person has had to do a consent
because he was sued for fraud for not delivering goods to an overseas NGO and they came up with an agreement to pay back $8 million that they kept because of fraud. They were sued for fraud. Would you vote for someone like this? This person right now, as many of
you already know who it is, is Cory Lee Mills, your current congressional politician that's serving in this county. Thank you very much. >> Time is up. Carolyn Hickerson. >> Good morning, Carolyn Hickerson from Deltona. Um, I'm here to bring
awareness. I need your help. Um this is regarding um elder predatory behavior in our state and probably at the federal level as well. I've done everything I can. There will be a story in the be beacon this week and um my mother
unfortunately with Alzheimer's has been a has been a victim of this predatory behavior. So I'm here to bring awareness to all of you and for your help to help me um get out the word. I've contacted my state legislators and my federal
legislators and have none zero response. Um what has happened and it happens right now are the seniors of this state are receiving predatory calls to change their Medicare benefits that is ongoing through this process. We do have power
of attorney over my mother for her health and for her legal but we were not aware that we needed power of attorney over her Medicare. That is something that seniors need to know in this state. What has taken place is she answered a one of those random calls and they
changed her Medicare. Yesterday I had to take her to the hospital for a fall and we learned that her Medicare benefits have been changed. She's not able to receive her Medicare benefits for her insurance. Um at the moment we are
working to change that to go back. I'm not sure we can because it can only make a change once a year. So, we're really not sure yet what can take place. These calls need to stop, especially with an Alzheimer's patient who really is not in her mind. When you pick up the phone, it is obvious she's an assisted living. It
is obvious that she's not in her mind. And this person was able to change her Medicare benefits, her insurance, without any um signed documents, without any family interventions, with nothing that has taken place to help her, to
protect her. I have now gotten a block on her phone. You can order this little device on Amazon that blocks all unwanted calls and I'm trying to do the same with her cell phone. I'm trying the best to protect my mother. But these predatory calls that are happening and I'm sure members of the community are
receiving them as well as I have. In our in our right mind, we can make educated decisions. But when you're not, that is predatory behavior that has taken place. and I need your help to help me get the word out to get legislators involved to
stop this predatory behavior that we can the elders can then make the decision on their own to contact a representative to make a change but not to pray on the most vulnerable citizens of our state and our federal levels. This needs to
stop. My mother is a victim. I need your help. And so I'm asking you to help me make connections with the people that are not returning my calls. I've gone to the state attorney's office. I've I've done a police report. I've done everything I can do to help, but I need your help. Thank you.
>> Thank you. You just started the process. Uh Ellen Wintermouth. Good morning. I've come here often enough that you've got my name right. >> Miracles. >> With its art centers and museums and
theaters, concerts, historic collections, libraries, and public art, Felia County has built a reputation as a community that values quality of life, education, and a vibrant local economy. The Cultural Council of Valuchia County
exists specifically to help steward and amplify that investment, connecting residents and visitors with the arts. Today, I'm asking you to honor that commitment by reinstating the already approved cultural grant funding. These funds are not an abstract line item.
They're the difference between the lights on and the lights off at local theaters, between open doors and shuttered galleries, between meaningful after-school arts programs and empty afternoons for our youth. Organizations across Valuchia County rely on this support to offer free and lowcost
programming, preserving our history, animate our public spaces, and welcome visitors who spend money in local restaurants, hotels, and shops. When we pull back funding a after it's already been approved, we don't just interrupt plans. We undermine the stability of the
very organizations you have asked to help carry out the cultural the county's cultural vision. The cultural council was created by Valuchia County in 1989 as the recognized local arts agency for
the county with a clear mandate under state statue to support and strengthen the arts and culture here. That partnership between the cultural council and the Valuchia County government has been a long-standing promise to residents and to nonprofit organizations
that serve them. Reversing already approved grants breaks that trust with these partners, many of whom have signed contracts, hired staff, and committed to programs based on the county's prior decision. Reinstating this funding is fiscally
responsible. Every grant dollar is leveraged by private donations, ticket sales, volunteer hours, multiplying the county's investment. Arts and cultural drive tourism, spur small business activity, make Valuchia County more competitive in attracting and retaining
residents, employers, health care professionals, and educators. When we support the arts, we also are supporting jobs, public safety through positive community engagement, and long-term economic growth. You have within your power the ability today to steady the
ground under our cultural community by reinstating the approved grant funds. You affirm Valuchia Countyy's identity as a place that values creativity, history, and opportunity. You keep faith with the nonprofits that stepped up to partner with you. And most importantly,
you protect the experience that makes this not just a place on a map, but a place people are proud to call home and choose to visit. I urge you to restore the funding. Thank you. >> Thank you for your comments, Lloyd Bowers.
Thank you, Chairman Brower. Lloyd Bowers, uh, Daytona Beachside resident and, uh, Mr. Reinhardt's, uh, designignate for the cultural council. I'm not speaking today for the cultural council, but for myself and the cultural community. I'm here to address, as you
might expect, the importance of honoring the February 18, 2025 decision you made to support the grants in this year. A decision after a thorough, transparent process of scoring and rating applications. When our community's cultural grants applied for these grants, organizations
apply for the grants, excuse me, they did so in good faith. They invested time, resources, creativity into proposals that were evaluated according to the criteria that you approved. The scoring process was not arbitrary. It was deliberate, fair, and designed to
ensure taxpayer dollars are invested in projects that bring the greatest benefit to Vucha County. To reverse funding now, as you have done up to this point, after the process was completed, not only undermines the trust in our local government, but also sends a troubling
message to artists, educators, and community leaders that even when they follow the rules, their work can be disregarded. And every council meeting we have where no one brings up this issue to discuss, real harm continues exponentially. I was
so glad you got to hear from the commitment of air force today to see the real harm where our children in this community didn't have the opportunity to learn more about the Tuskegee airmen. I know for many of you World War II is an important earmark and that is a real sad
day that we lost that. The February 18 decision was a commitment, a promise to invest in these benefits. Upholding that decision is about more than funding. It's about integrity, consistency, and respect for the process you all agreed
upon. I urge you to stand by that commitment. Let's show our residents, our cultural partners, and their broader community that Valuchia County keeps its word, values fairness, and understands that culture is not an expense. It's an
investment in our future. Thank you. >> Thank you for your comments, John Nicholson. John Nixon, Daytona Beachite. Couple of things. One, on the consent agenda, item H, uh, renaming the lighthouse. I
thought we were in the process of looking into renaming. Didn't we have a discussion about Kirk Road or something and we were going to discuss how we're going to rename, etc. Isn't this a bit early to do so? And secondly,
historic names I'm not really fond of changing. Um I would not like Daytona Beach name changed to some other name like Trumpville or whatever. Um, I would ask us not to do this. I would
wait until we have a firm, um, consensus of how we're going to rename and what we're going to rename. Uh, secondly, with regard to the cultural arts, again, uh, I thought we had agreed years ago to enhance our cultural arts,
and I think it was a dollar a person from each of the communities to go to cultural arts. Uh secondly, I thought your assignment last year to cultural arts was that you wanted them to enhance
uh the cultural arts. In other words, to reach out to people that would not normally uh like the poor, the elderly, etc. that would not be able to be able to enjoy the cultural arts, which they did. and then you condemn them for the first thing they did was to cut these
back because you're not funding what you asked them to fund. Didn't make sense to me. Uh so I'm asking you to look at this again. I thought at your workshop that um Don had come to the realization that your word was your bond and that since
several of you had made a comment that you hate pulling the rug out from the cultural arts that you would revisit this and last meeting you didn't which kind of shocked me a bit. Um, lastly, I think I've convinced David that uh,
Daytona Beach has a value to this county. Uh, that tourism has a value to this county. Um, I've asked several times to find a Republican somewhere who would look into the problems in Daytona
Beach. They are now doing that, but they're looking in the wrong direction. All right. It's our system of government. We cannot base a government on race. We cannot
determine that one race will dominate and that others you'll stick all the white people out west in one half of the city, one half of the cities in one zone. And we have 25,000 people in one
zone. All the rest of the zones are 11,000 a piece. They're supposed to be equal and this is not being addressed. That's our core problem on the B side. Thank you. >> Thank you for your comments, Cameron Vincent. Good morning. My name is Cameron
Vincent, Port Orange, Florida. I am a mother, a taxpayer, a voter. I am the executive director of Art House Foundation and the vice president of the Valuja County Cultural Alliance. I am here on behalf of our county residents and the many arts, historic, and cultural organizations across Valuja
County who rely on the county's cultural grant funding to serve our community. I want to respectfully urge this council to release the already approved and budgeted cultural funds from the Valuja County Cultural Grant Program. Delays in distributing these funds are no longer administrative. They are actively
causing real damage and losses throughout our cultural sector. Valuia County residents have already spoken clearly on the importance of this work. The people of this county originally voted to approve the echo program, environmental, culture, cultural,
historic, and outdoor on November 7th, 2000. And on November 3rd of 2020, an overwhelming 72% of voters, your constituents, renewed this program for another 20 years. That is not a narrow margin. That is not
uncertainty. That is a decisive public mandate. So when there is a debate about what the core responsibilities of our local government should be, the answer is already written plainly in the will of the people. Local government is defined by what its residents value and
what they choose to invest in together. Valuji County voters have declared in an overwhelming volume that the pillars of our shared responsibility include the environmental, the environment, culture, history, and outdoor community services.
At Art House alone, we are now facing immediate consequences because these cultural funds have not been yet released. Without access to these promised resources, we are at risk of having to drop vital classes that serve students and families in our region. We are unable to expand our programming and we planned specifically in response to
community demand. We are no longer able to meet that demand. Perhaps most critically, we stand to lose our scholarship programming for the 2026 fiscal year. These scholarships ensure that children from struggling families can participate in educational enriching
summer art programs regardless of financial circumstance. Without them, many parents will be left without affordable and fulfilling options for their children. This is more than an arts issue. It is a community safety issue. Research and experience consistently show that accessible summer programming
drastically reduces the rate of adolescent crime by providing structure, mentorship, positive outlets during the summer months when the youth are most vulnerable. When cultural funding is withheld, we don't just lose exhibitions or classes. We lose prevention, opportunity, and community investment. I
ask you tonight, respectfully in urgency or today, please release the cultural grant funds so that we can stop further program loss and continue serving the people of Valujia County in this partnership. Thank you for your time and support. >> Thank you. And that concludes the uh
public participation for the opening of the meeting. And we will move to item one, the approval of the agenda. Can I get a motion to approve the agenda? >> To approve. Second. >> We have a motion to approve by Councilman Robbins to approve as
presented and the second was by Vice Chair Reinhardt. All in favor uh Councilman Robbins chairs for the next uh just working ahead. >> Okay. Uh all in favor of approving the
agenda as written, please say I. >> I. >> Any opposed? The agenda is approved. 7 to zero. uh the consent agenda. Does anyone have an item they would like to pull for a vote
or a comment after the vote? Councilman Robbins, >> item N, please, just for discussion. N >> uh Matt Reinhardt, >> item H just for discussion. Troy Kent. Item H for a vote.
Discuss and vote. Item H. And uh Councilman Dempsey. >> F for discussion. >> F. Foxtrot. Yes, sir. >> Okay. >> Chairman, I'll make a motion to approve the consent agenda as presented by staff. Absent item H.
>> Okay. Motion to approve absent uh item H by Councilman Kent and the second was by Councilman Johansson. All in favor of each item except for item H, please say I. >> I. >> I.
>> Any opposed? And consent agenda is approved. Um let's deal with item H first. Uh, >> you want to take it? >> Do you mind, chairman? >> I don't. >> Thank you. Um, I am not opposed to this
being renamed the James Milton Hunt Lighthouse Point Park. I'm not opposed to that. But when you're right, you're right. And John Nicholson is right. We We talked about this with Charlie Kirk
Road. We talked about a process that we would follow and I believe that we will rename this, but I think we need to do it um following the process that we talked about as an elected body. So,
Councilman Reinhardt, I'm appreciative that you brought this up. I think this will get full support. I've not heard anything negative. I've not really heard anything about it, but I've definitely not heard anything negative. I'm I'm for this. Um I just want us to follow what
we said we were going to do. So if it delays it by a little bit, I'm okay with that because John Nicholson is right on that issue. Notice I said that issue. >> Thank you, Chairman. >> O'
Councilman Reinhardt, Vice Chair Reinhardt. >> Thank you, Chair. Um thank you, Mr. Kent. I appreciate that. Um, and I agree, you know, we have a process for renaming things and we talked about it with the Charlie Kirk issue. I was not here for that meeting, but um, the
process I do respect and that was for us renaming it. All this is is all we're asking is we do not have the authority to change this. This is FT and that's all the letter addresses showing our support for it. So that's all we're doing. We're asking for we're just
saying we support if you if you take take that opportunity to go there. I thought it was a an excellent opportunity for the creator basically of that park and his daughter is here in our audience. Uh Miss Longmire uh she's the one that first brought this to me. The mayor of Poninlet,
the entire commission or council from Poninlet because that's where the park is located was in favor of this and wrote a letter in support for that. So they wrote a letter. They could not rename it. They wrote a letter asking for support. We supported the idea. All we're doing is sending the same letter of support to FT. We're not renaming it,
so we'll leave it up to them. That's all. Thank you, >> Councilman Santiago. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. And and um Matt, you're right. Um D owns it, so we don't really have the authority to change it. I think, you know, since you know,
process guy, I've been a process guy here for for a long time. Um and and I don't know if we we this is the dilemma for me. I don't know if we should apply this to that process. I don't know the answer. I'd like to hear what my other colleagues have to say. So, um, we never discuss supporting someone else
renaming of a building or a facility or whatever it might be. So, you know, I don't we may not have to apply that standard to it, you know. So, that's just my dilemma. I don't I don't have any opposition to it. Just whatever we want the process to be, we follow it. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Councilman Kent. >> Thank you, Chairman. I am so glad that his daughter's here and I'm glad she heard me say that. I'm excited to support the name change, but Councilman Santiago, I think you pose a really a really good question and I I think we
could argue it either way that um we don't need to follow the process because it's D and it's not us doing it, but we are putting our name on this and I think that for me, I would feel more comfortable following that process. That
being said, I still reserve the right to vote yes on this today if it if it if it goes if it goes that way. But I wanted Mr. Nicholson to know that, you know, he he brought up a very valid point. Um,
and I and I and I think that Mr. James Milton Hunt is extremely deserving. >> Uh, thank you. It is an interesting dilemma, Matt. Um, you're correct. I I believe that this is different enough.
Uh, we are not renaming it. We don't own it. The state of Florida uh has decided to rename it. They're asking for uh our support. It's not a name change for a road or anything else that uh originated
with this council. So, I'm I'm comfortable with voting for it and and I do appreciate uh Mr. Nicholson bringing it up process is important. Um but I I think we're in in u good
shape if we approve this. Councilman Robbins. >> Motion to approve. >> Second. >> Have a motion to approve item H by Councilman Robbins and the second Vice Chair
Reinhardt. Any other discussion? >> Mr. Chair, you have a public comment. >> We do have one. I'm sorry. It's right here in my hand. We have one member of the public who would like to speak in this before we vote. Uh Jennifer Longmire.
>> Hi, I'm Jennifer Longmire from 684 Margaritavville, um Daytona Beach. Um, I'm speaking in favor of the James Milton Hunt um, park name because that was my dad and my dad grew up in Wilbur
by the Sea. He used to ride his bike to the inlet when he was young. He um, loved that piece of land even when he was a child. and he rallied the community because so many people were shocked by the idea of having many malls
and 500 condos on the point. Once he saved the land and it became a park, he went several times a week to watch people enjoy it. He was so proud of it. And with this being the 40th anniversary of the park, I do hope
you'll agree to send a letter to the state to help them make the decision to grant the name change to James Milton Hunt Lighthouse Point Park. >> Thank you. >> Thank you very much. Uh staff, have we had any negative feedback from this town
of Poninlet? >> No, sir. There's a letter of support in your packet from them. I believe they initiated this effort. >> Okay. Uh, Councilman Santiago, >> thank you, Mr. Chair. I think for me, I I'll vote yes on this today. Um, but I
think Troy makes a very valid point. Um, and I'm I'm voting yes for it. I nothing against the individual or for the I I don't know the person. Um, but we didn't identify this particular area when we we discussed the process, but I think going forward we should consider this as being
part of that process that we've outlined going forward. So, that's just my thoughts. >> Okay. Councilman Dempsey, >> I agree with you, David. I um I respect what you're saying, Troy, and I I think we should follow through with uh the original intent of naming things, but I
think in this instance, it is different because we're not actually doing the one renaming. And I just like to point out that Troy saying that he even agrees with Mr. Nicholson is kind of proof that even a broken clock tells the right time twice a day. So
>> we're all with you, John. Thank you. Appreciate it. >> Okay. Uh Troy Kent. >> Thank you, Chairman. My my last uh um comment on this and I said earlier I reserve the right to vote yes for this and I'm going to vote yes for this right now as well. Um, and I just want to
remind the council and the public, you know, your participation and public participation is impactful. You know, even though I'm um I'm glad that Mr. Santiago agrees that maybe going forward we'll include this as well. Um,
I'm glad that we we're talking about and we're going to have a process in place for this. I think it's cleaner um and and will create possibly less less problems in the future. Thank you, Chairman. >> Thank you. uh council
attorneys. I think you hear the the will of the the council here, I think, on this. So, just add that to the to the rule when we discuss that. Uh I don't know if I need to call the role, but Carissa, call the role quickly,
please. >> Mr. Dempsey, >> yes. >> Mr. Johansson, >> yes. >> Mr. Kent, >> yes. >> Mr. Reinhardt, >> yes. >> Mr. Mr. Robbins. >> Yes. >> Mr. Santiago. >> Yes. >> Mr. Brower. >> Yes. And the uh item H is approved 7 to
zero. >> Thank you, gentlemen. >> Okay. And for uh discussion uh from Councilman Robbins, item N. Thank you, Chairman. I just wanted to uh highlight some of Ben's work uh and
their team along with the county manager's office uh looking at the stormwater use agreement uh with the city of Edgewater and and what we're doing to help uh people in southeast flu. >> Yes, sir. So, um this is uh the
Edgewater has has gone out and got a substantial grant uh for some storm water improvements and in order to uh construct those improvements, they need to make some modifications to uh some of the canals that we maintain and this is a standard use agreement for them to do
that. So, we worked with them on that and they're actually ready to get going uh and make those improvements and so we're happy to partner with them and and help them out on that. Anything else that we can expect uh Ben down there? >> Uh we've got a lot coming down the road.
So we're starting to turn some dirt on some storm water projects with transform 386 and our studies are fixing to come back with some recommendation on some other projects. So we got a lot going on. >> Thank you, >> sir. >> Thank you very much. Uh Vice Chair Reinhardt, uh we've dealt with item H,
but item F you wanted to discuss or comment on. Was that you, >> Don? >> F. >> Yes, it was. >> Good luck with Good luck with that. >> Yeah. On item F, I just want to make
sure that we're all in agreement before this passes that we do not want any type of state regulation of our water quantity, quality, or wetland management. And I'm assuming by doing this, we're all aware
that we're asking the state to stay out of Valuchia Countyy's business when it comes to our water quantity, water quality, and wetland uh management. And I'm not I'm just assuming if we all vote for this, that's what we're wanting. And even more so in the letter
itself, we're telling the state in paragraph three that we don't even want limited or partial preeemption represents an unwelcome revocation of local decisionmaking power and
undermines the ability of our county to tailor policies to the unique conditions, infrastructure, and community concerns of our county. So, I just want to make sure we're all in agreement that that's where we're at petitioning the legislature not to do.
We do not want them to even have limited or partial preeemption powers over Valuchia County because that's what it says in the letter. And when we pass this, I'm hoping that we stay consistent in all our other votes in the future
about not even partially or limiting our pre, you know, our home rule. That's how I take this. And if anybody uh disagrees with that interpretation, I'd love to hear it now before I vote. Thank you.
>> We already voted okay on this and passed. >> So, I'm going to sit with John Councilman Santiago. Well, I was going to suggest for uh Council Mo Dempsey's um preference possibly if if you're
interested um since that was already voted on the uh the complete consent agenda, we can unless legal tells me we're wrong, we can motion to reconsider this and if you want to state your vote on that individually, you can do that separately. >> I like it as worded. I I do not even
want the state to have limited or partial preeemption power over us. >> Okay. I I wasn't sure. Okay. Just want to make sure that we're all in agreement as this is written. >> We're going to stay consistent in all future votes. >> Understood. >> Thank you, >> uh, Councilman Robbins. >> Thank you, Chair, and and Mr. Dempsey.
And I smart enough to put two and two together here. I see where you're going with this, but let me tell you the main the the main difference in this with these preeemptions. This is a blanket policy, right? we as a local government
are fighting so that we can make that decision and not somebody else for us. So it can be a case to case and I'd rather have it case to case at times rather than a blanket policy by the state because you know we're able to
hear uh these different situations when it comes in comes into this. But I I I see what you're I see what you're saying in in in lining up. Uh I think it's clear. But uh as long as we still have the power to make that decision, whether it's buying property or whatever uh or
partnering, uh it's still with us. That power remains with us. So, >> Councilman Johansson, >> and and to piggy back on what Mr. Robin said, um I concur. I can see that this will come up in evolution forever
conversation later and and I believe based on what our citizens uh uh signed up for when they read the ballot language uh was in fact local control of what we want to do with our property and how we want to uh work with
uh uh the state and Valuchia forever to to conserve our lands. Um, so that's not a preeemption. That's that's in my opinion uh local control uh are at at the lowest level because it was a ballot
initiative, not a decision by council. Thank you, sir. >> Thank you, uh, Councilman Johansson. Okay, item F has been has been voted on. Uh, thank you, uh, staff. I think this came from the attorneys for writing this
letter. We hope that it helps and I encourage uh everyone in the public to contact their state representative and give them the same message that uh we local governments, the cities and the
county should not be preempted from being able to uh make decisions that we know best. being closest to the uh to the people and to the uh the water issues. Uh water is life. It's really
important and um I'd like those decisions and I think this council has made it clear when those decisions should be made locally. Okay, which takes us this is going to be an interesting couple of uh of items here based on what Don just brought up.
Uh item three, echo strategic plan, presentation, discussion, and direction. Brad Burbal. Good morning, council members. Brad Burbal, community services director. Nick Dunham is going to be joining me. We're going to tag team the
presentation today. So um you know this is a council approved strategic plan um and funded at the recommendation of the uh echo advisory committee. So they've come back and look given us about 30 recommendations for program improvement
uh in increasing transparency and accountability. Um there are 11 of those that require council action. So they're policy decisions that would create a new category, require new more funding um and uh would be typically out of an
operational uh control. So we're going to go through each of these. So just a a brief kind of understanding of this was the most comprehensive engagement that we've done with the echo um program since its inception in 2000.
So we had hired Stson in the you know about 2009 or 10. Um we did another workshop for um I believe around 2015 and then we also did listening sessions uh when the ballot was reauthorized. So we've went to the public several times.
This is the most ever that's responded. So through the survey um we had nearly 1,600 individuals. The last survey we did the highest we got were 943 I believe. Um the way that the the consultants did the study is it was a
mixed method study. So they uh had the survey and it was open for 30 days. They analyzed the data from the survey. They came back and presented it to the echo advisory committee and they used that to inform their questions that they have with program stakeholders like grant
writers, parks and recck directors of municipalities. Um and that's typically how you will triangulate the data to make sure that they're informing each other. And then lastly, um they brief the uh the committee as well as a select
group of stakeholders as well on okay here are the here are the problems we're seeing you help us generate solutions. So this is a grassroots informed uh strategic plan. All right, just I'll just go over the summary of the results of the survey
real quick. I' like to point out that uh 64% of the survey takers indicated that Echo does well or very well in meeting their household needs. That is up 14% from the previous survey in 2022. They indicated that environmental learning facilities was the best experience. The
most important was the water access. The most visited was sports and recreational facilities. And the highest priority was trails. Again, interestingly that it still tracks with the number of voters that voted for Echo
right around 72% the last three surveys that we've done um saying that they enhance my quality of life the projects do so surveys were asked to to rank what is their highest priorities in the echo categories. Uh this also tracks with
previous surveys where trail systems and water access were the highest ranking priorities for takers survey takers. All right. So, we're going to go through each of these and I've we've tried to provide options for you, but that was just for your information. If you guys want to go in a different direction,
combine, omit, um we're here to take your direction today. So, the the first recommendation was to Yes. >> Let me ask the council a question. You're going to go through all 11. Yes, sir. and they have options and we're going to tell you, we're going to decide as a council which option we want. So,
we can either go through all 11 and make those decisions and then vote put them together as a package and vote on at one time or we can vote for all 11. And the the reason I'm bringing this up is we have 10 members of the public who would
like to speak on this. And our procedure is that we listen to staff, we ask some questions, then we debate um uh uh hear from the public and then and then vote. So um it's a little different
this time. So when do you want to hear from the public is my question. >> Councilman Santiago. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate you bringing this up because I I was thinking very similarly because dealing with all 11 afterwards and knowing our history
on on uh efficiency, my initial thoughts were was to suggest dealing with each one as it comes up on a vote and we move on. But we have to insert obviously the public comment piece. So maybe we can get the public comment piece now. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. >> And then go through the each one vote and we get done with each one. Jake, you're good with that? Don, I see thumbs up from everybody else. Okay, you guys get a break. Uh, Councilman Robbins, I also want to add to to um while we if we
decide to go forward with uh listening to the folks first, but also too, I want to also look at the um staff uh level policy that they're looking to implicate us uh uh implement as well uh on top of R1. I
think uh we need to look at those as well. Okay. I think we just decided to hear from the public first. So, I'll call your name. Please come up and you have uh three minutes to tell us uh what you want us
to hear about the echo strategic plan. Uh uh Teresa Brooks, I'm sorry, is that Bloomed? Tell us your name when you get up here. Good morning, um, Chair Brower, Council,
County Manager, and staff. My name is Teresa Brooks. I I am a resident of Pelican Bay in Daytona Beach, an over 40-year resident of Valuchia County. Today, I speak mostly from my role as
president of Brooks and Don Grant Consulting. A little background. I have had the opportunity to have my hands on writing and receiving 81 echo grants since the program began in 2000. I
provide grant writing and management services to many of the municipalities in Valuchia County. My scope of work includes writing and administering grant applications and awards for all local, state, and federal funding sources. My
grant awards to date are over $800 million for Valuchia County projects. I provide this brief background to mention that I am familiar with the guidelines, application processes, and
accountability for state and federal agencies that provide competitive and entitlement grant funds. specific to the Valuchia County Echo program. I am very pleased and impressed
with this council's oversight and forward thinking with this program. And as important, I must say that the county echo staff has held each applicant and grantee to the highest of standards and accountability.
I believe it was in 2023 when this council asked to hire an outside consultant to develop a strategic plan to see the program forward to to the year 2040. The strategic plan has been completed with the participation of many
stakeholders and residents input, visioning sessions, surveys, and review and recommendation of the echo advisory board to accept and make improvements and policy decisions as outlined in this
agenda item. if I could point out just a few of those policy decisions because I only have three minutes and I'm trying to put 30 years in three minutes. Um, policy decision number one is um to allow for for planning and design funds.
Policy five is raising the grant caps from 600,000 to 2.5 million because we have not kept up with inflation or construction um cost. In addition, staff has worked with Salesforce to develop an
online application process which will definitely make the application process much easier. However, I was able to test that system and it does not take away any of the requirements of the projects. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you very much. Three minutes goes by fast. that uh Mike uh Gribbos. >> All right. Good morning everybody. Uh my name is Mike Grieos. I'm the assistant city manager for the city of D the land speaking on behalf of the city of the land. I've worked with many of you in
the past. Um but I just wanted to say that the the city appreciates that the county council is reviewing the echo process and all things change over time. Programs offered by the government also need to be updated from time to time. The city has been an applicant and a longtime proponent of the Echo program.
Quality of life is one of the top deciding factors of when somebody decides where to live and where not to live. Ekko increases that quality of life and makes our local communities and Valuchia County a destination of choice. The city with the great help and work of Terresa Brooks has worked on many
successful projects over the years that have been assets to our community and the overall community as well. In addition to the direct city grants that we've received, other Dand area nonprofits have also received grants and have been major positive impacts for the quality of life in our community and
Valuchia County. U many of these projects couldn't have been accomplished without the partnership with the county and the echo program. In specific to the agenda item, as a government official, I know how challenging it is to get public input and I do feel like the county staff took appropriate measures to solicit that meaningful feedback and to
come up with these recommendations today. The land supports the recommendations for streamlining the application, the annual reporting streamlining, administrative approval of non-scope changes, consideration of planning and design for the grants, placemaking and public arts grants, um
increasing pre-awward cost recovery, looking at maintenance grants for helping keeping these projects in top shape, recognizing sustainability features of projects, and updating the grant limits and phasing out the exceptional grant category. Thank you for your time and consideration for today.
Thank you. Uh Chris Sealcap. Good morning. Good morning, council. Chris Silop, uh Rich Avenue, about two blocks that way. I'm in Don Dempsey's district and he leaves as soon as I get up here, so I have to talk to Don about that. I am the
uh president and CEO for the Felicia Flatter YMCA and I'm here to talk about ECHKO. So, we have over the years have secured seven echo grants totaling uh $1.7 million. The YMCA has put in $2.1 million for a total of 3.8 million
ranging from playgrounds, soccer fields, splash pads, shade cover, and a dog park in in Orand. So, it's benefited over 45,000 members and participants in the YMCA throughout the county. And uh one thing you need to know is that YMCA
turns away no one for inability to pay. One in three kids receive financial assistance in our afterchool summer camp programs who use many of these echo benefits. So, we encourage a standard grant of 600,000 to be increased to 2.5 million as it will encourage better
projects, thus having a larger impact on our community. We also encourage the approval of the planning grant to help smaller nonprofits with the planning design phase of the project. Sometimes they find that difficult to come up with the funds.
We also um the plan also the YMCA for future echo projects we have in mind that will benefit our branches in Port Orange, Deltona, the land and also upgrading the popular dog park in Orman Beach. So, I'd like to thank the council
for your time service to the community, but also for considerations in the strategic plan and the and we also ask that you instruct staff to implement it. So, thank you very much for your time today. >> Thank you, uh, Sydney Johnson.
Sydney Johnston, fifth generation native of Dand. The Via County Council political war on arts and culture is going very well. Having recently dismanted our decades old arts and culture county grants program, the council now takes aim at the Valuchia County Echo program. A small vocal
minority of disgruntled residents are leveraging their voices to help alter and destroy our successful construction grant program that since 2000 has built 319 projects to enhance our environment, culture, history, and outdoor recreation facilities. In 2020, your electorate
voted overwhelmingly 72% to sustain and advance the Echo program. At a 0.2 2 millillage rate. The Echo program represents one of the smallest county government taxes and one of the county's best long-term construction investments in culture, environment, history, and recreation. Despite the landslide vote
by your electric, no doubt some of you are still listening to a small vocal minority, perhaps as large as 1% of our of our population and largely recent transplants to our county who are out to mitigate or destroy the echo program. Too often a small angry minority makes
95% of the noise. Many opponents of Echo, a recent transplant, who simply hate taxes, hate environmental initiatives, hate our culture. They simply hate. And for some transplants, the hate also extends into history. They believe there is no history in Valuchia
compared to back home. None worthy of documenting and sharing with others because they are so busy hating. In contrast, over 25 years, the Echo program has invested 123 million of county resources in 44% of project costs
totaling $283 million. Matching funds of 56% from local governments and nonprofits are the majority of the project costs, and those entities report to you annually. In addition to the millions of dollars and hundreds of good jobs the Echo program has supported in Valuchia County for over two decades,
the facilities brought great joy and pleasure to our residents and visitors. I was here at the beginning of Echko and was pleased to participate in Echko's recent comprehensive stakeholder engagement contributing to countywide surveys, interviews, and collaborative workshops. The resulting comprehensive
Echo Vision 2040 strategic plan is a grassroots informed document that maximizes taxpayer value and preserves Echo investments. The plan's recommendations have two categories based on implementation authority. The first is operational strategies to be implemented by staff under existing
administrative authority. The second category is policy decisions which are the focus of the presentation and require county council action. These recommendations involve budget implications, structural program changes, new funding commitments, and governance modifications.
Please accept this the Echo strategic plan recommendations as presented and direct staff to proceed to advance the successful grant construct construction program to 2040 and tune out the noise and the hate. Thank you for your service.
>> Thank you for your comments. Uh John McKini. John, welcome to the Valuchia County Council. John is the finance director of city of Deltona. >> Correct. >> Yes, sir. >> Good. Thank you for coming.
>> Chair, council, good morning. Um I there's not a whole lot I can say that Mike and Teresa didn't already say, but for the city of Deltona, as the chair said, I'm the finance director, and we find that um echo is very um important to the residents of the city of Deltona
along with all um count residents. We find it's very detrimental to us the funding that Ekko provides for our parks. and we would support also um streamlining the application and reporting um process annually. Thank you, chair.
>> Thank you for coming. Uh Christine Davis, >> thank you for coming as well. The city manager of Orange City. >> Hey, good morning. Nice to see you all. um from Orange City, we have benefited as a partner with the Echo program in
the past by implementing or constructing both um environmental projects and uh recreational projects with Orange City matching 50% u of the construction cost along with us maintaining the um
maintenance of of those um construction progress pro projects. We do support the strategic plan and we also respectfully ask for consideration for increasing the cap based on the increased construction costs that we've all experienced. And
with that, I thank you for your time. >> Thank you very much, uh, Connie Colby. Good morning, Connie Colby. Um, Orman Beach, and I have no official title. Um, I'm here to talk about the strategic
plan as it's moving forward and how the um the process works. Um, the direct county expenditure program um I'm not sure that it's being used properly. Um the um
overhead says that the echo advisory committee reviews all direct expenditures as part of the oversight process. Um resolution 213-202 states that the Valuchia County Council will present the direct expenditures of
Echo Millillage to the echo advisory board for review. Um is that happening? Are they getting those process those expenditure processes directly to them? The advisory committee is charged with re reviewing all echo plans and
recommending or denying them directly to the council. This includes the DCE plans as well. Um, an example of what I'm concerned about is that some of these are being presented to the council or the
commission and they're not um they're told that they're not supposed to review them. Um the one that I'm going to um address now was from the minutes of July 10th,
2025. Um the Mr. Marsh, I'm sorry, here um moved forward to the DC projects providing an update and asking for questions. Vice Chair Pat Drago stated that she was
still concerned about the motocross project, noting that there seemed to be no design and no definite site. She asked if the property involved was a Felicia Forever acquisition, and this was after it had already been approved. Um, Mr. Marsh explained that the staff
had not received update information on the project details. However, he noted that the land was purchased through a split partnership between Valuchia Forever and Echo. Discussion arose regarding the advisory committee's role in reviewing the direct county expenditure.
Vice Chair Drago questioned whether they had the authority to recommend or deny and such projects. Mr. Marsh explained that per Echo resolution, the advisory committee role with the CE projects was limited to review only. They did not
have the authority to approve or deny these projects. Um, it should have said recommener tonight. Well, um, I'm going to go down to the end. Chair chair chair Tilly clarified that they had made
a motion on record at a previous meeting that the committee did not recommend this project. Thank you. >> Thank you for your comments. Uh, Doug Pettit. Doug Pett Orman Orman Beach. Um, since I caused such a stir at the last meeting,
I wanted to come back and report to you off of of what happened. Um, I did have a meeting on Friday of last week uh with Mr. Rectenwald, uh, Mr. Zambrano, Dr. Burbball was there. Nick Dunham was there. And I had asked my appointing
council member, Troy Kent, to sit in to observe, but he was not able to do that because of work. So, uh, Chairman Brower graciously agreed to attend, and that's despite the hardships of last week's weather issues that he was having to deal with. Um, it was a productive meeting. It really was. Um, I learned
two things, and I'll get back to that in a second, but, uh, there was back and forth. There was a lot of cander in the room, back and forth on the issue that I brought up, particularly the issue of my email stating that the county, uh, that the advisory board had not reviewed this document in full. And I was pleased to
say that at the end of the meeting, uh, we agreed that that was actually an act accurate statement that the county the advisory board had not, um, reviewed that document as it say states. We had reviewed this document, which is what I think you're going to see today. Um, Mr.
Burbaugh continued to to insist that this was the final plan, and that's fine. But my point was that what I agreed to and saw here changed when I saw this. And I think that there there can be no mistake that that could happen, something like that. The first
thing that I learned that I that I'll point to is that this is your plan. It can't be changed. Mr. Direct can't change it. The board can't change it. The only people that can change what's in here is you because you put the contract out to a consultant to develop
this plan. And so this is your plan. All right? And you'll take the recommendations and make those changes as necessary. So the idea that anybody could suggest the change was there would be would be erroneous. Um, I think and there's there was discussion about when
I had a chance to make these kind of comments during our meetings and there was a lot of back and forth about that and I think there was some frustration, you know, on my part about when it would have been appropriate to make these comments. Uh, I think it's appropriate to make the comments anytime tax dollars
are are in in question. So, my two comments today is be very careful as you go forward with this. All right. I think the construct the consultant contract was flawed because it didn't push the consultant to go out into the community and get more people. We involved the
entities, the applicants far more than we did the the um the residents of this county. So, um that needs to be understood that that the survey is one thing, but getting somebody out in front of somebody in front of the publics is another thing. I'm going to take my
final few seconds here and do this. I'm going to admonish the residents of this county and I'm going to look right in the in the camera and tell you this. If you don't get involved, nothing changes. There are numerous boards the residents of this county could be involved in. And if you don't get involved in those boards, if you don't sit on those
boards, then nothing's going to happen and these kind of things will just go forward. So my final statement would be Mr. Santiago, you owe me an apology. >> Thank you. Um, John Nicholson, John, that was hard to follow. Um, couple of
things on echo I want to bring up again uh about having the arts and culture go under Echo. Uh, I understand that it's brick and mortars. We discussed this 30 years ago. All right. Before we voted for the first
echo at Revolution Forever, the concept was we didn't want to go through something that Daytona Beach was going through festivals. All right? And the money is basically wasted. Once festival's over, the money's gone. We wanted something that was substantial.
We wanted to help create buildings and places for people to go. All right, that was 30 years ago. Things have changed in 30 years. Things have changed 25 years ago when we voted on it.
You have changed things that we were not expecting in Echo. If you recall the trails that did not go out to a vote for the public that was decided by the council to take a million dollars off the top, which we said specifically that
you guys could not do, but you did it all right. Then you did the idea that, oh, we're going to take money for parking on the beach. So you took land that the cities needed for income because that's
the most valuable land many of these communities have. So you took five or six million dollars from a community every year because you took their land and put in a park for free parking. So there are things that you have changed that did not go out to a vote. That's
why I'm asking you, you have time to put this on the ballot for November and ask the people. We have excess amount of money. All right? We have gone to two um terms for every year
to get rid of this money. We have built most of the buildings that we've gone to build. That's why we did the trails. That's why we did the the parking, etc. you have an opportunity to make use of these buildings. And part of that is
these people, the elderly, the children, the poor get to use these buildings. It's a community event. It's a community building. And what you're doing is you're allowing those people that are least able to use
these buildings to use the buildings. That to me is a community purpose. I don't know how you're going to talk about the core, which is the big thing. I've asked you and Jeff did some things at the uh workshop so fast. I thought you were going to discuss it, so I
didn't write it down. I have no idea what he said other than uh roads. So, I'm asking you to look at this and discuss uh voting the public. Thank you. >> Thank you. You want to wait till the end
your comment? We got one last. Okay. Okay. We have uh Nancy Maddox from uh the city of Daytona Beach Shores. He's a community engagement director. And I would also mention that we have the mayor of
Daytona Beach Shores, Nancy Miller, here present today. >> Good morning, chair, council. Thank you for this opportunity to speak and and first I would like to thank Mr. Marsh and Dr. Burbal and the Echo staff for their thoroughess during the strategic
planning process of this and the opportunity to be a stakeholder in this also um echo program is very special to me because I was once an administrator um and I was the Daniel Marsh um and I've also received Echo grants so
I've I've had both sides experience the um the Echo is integral to our community and one of the reasons why Valuchia County is such a special place to live, work, and play.
Today, I'm here on behalf of the city of Daytona Beach Shores to support the proposed changes, and I thank you and for your um time and effort to and we hope that you support this project, these
proposals. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. And that ends the public comment of on item three. Uh, Councilman Santiago. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I was prepared to just ready go into the discussion on the individual topics, but
apparently my name was invoked and I don't stay idly to my name being invoked given the perception that I did something misleading. So, um, since Mr. Pettit explained the meeting that he attended and his thought point of view.
This council directed our county manager to have this meeting and report back to us the outcome of that meeting based on the commentary that was submitted at the previous meeting. So, Mr. Chair, I'd like to have our county chair give us a synopsis of the meeting and maybe some questions.
>> The county manager >> chair. >> Sure thing. Uh, thank you. Uh, I'd be happy to do that. Yeah, I think first off the characterization uh that um Mr. Pettis said that it was uh full of a lot of
cander and was productive was actually very correct. That's what um I saw. Thought it was very productive. We had a very good discussion. I will say uh some things I took out of it and I think what came out of it. Um the
uh the part about the uh the plan was not done in its entirety. Uh that is correct. But I think that's taken a little out of context with the fact that the first part of it uh the plan was given to Mr. Pettip and all the members
on October 29th and through the discussion you know that kind of was brought out that the plan was in fact there. uh it was at the end of an email and uh that Mr. Pettip didn't scroll down far enough to see. So they they did
have that and so Mr. um Burbal, Dr. Burbal worked from the premise that they all had the plan because they did and it was also sent later on uh regular mail I think in December. So they had two times they were sent the the document. Now the
document that he held up uh of course has a lot of boilerplate. It has a lot of background information just like what we do with this uh board. Uh we don't sit and go a line by line of those programs and uh Mr. Burbal chose not to
do that either. He did a summary highlight which was what the other document that was held up of the changes. Most of them are what you're going to be talking about here today. So he chose to in the interest of time and working with that particular board and the majority of that board to to
streamline the process and that's what they ended up doing. I think we agreed in the in the meeting that possibly that could have been communicated a little bit better on our end. Uh but but the uh facts were gone over and I think we all
agreed that that was the case. Uh so I think what you really have here is um is miscommunication. um maybe a little bit on both ends. And I did instruct the staff that in the future uh if they were to put out information electronically that possibly
they call the members uh to make sure that uh to to scroll to the end of the full email so that they can see exactly where uh to uh the link or whatever to click on to. I think that's uh really where our end. But for the rest of it, I
think, you know, the idea is they had the information from October 29th. And my uh interest was to make sure this process moves forward. And and again, we've got a lot of people on the committee. We have yourselves, we have staff time that has worked on this uh
really for a year now. And the point is to get it moved forward. So we uh agreed leaving that meeting. It's uh uh really maybe the best effort would be for Mr. repetited at this point to come in and speak like he did uh on any concerns he
may have because he had uh missed that opportunity in the committee meeting to do that. We also expressed the fact and Dr. Dr. Burba offered uh that as he's done on many occasions to meet with any committee member at any time, have lunch, do whatever so that we uh have
the ability to work out any issues before we get before this board or that so everyone can feel like their voice has been heard and and I think we agreed and again Dr. Dr. Burbal was very gracious uh to offer that and again that also phone calls any other kind of
question be because again we really had from October 29th to now to now the beginning of February to have all that stuff worked out and unfortunately I think because of a little bit of lack of communication that didn't happen but again the information was there and I
think we went with a strong um method of doing it but now we know to make sure that if there's a committee member that hasn't gotten the information that we circle back and and and make sure they get that. >> Just one followup, Mr. Chair. Did I hear you correctly, George? You said that it
was sent in two two versions. It was an email that was sent with the document and it was mailed. >> Yeah, they they were sent another uh I think version in what December. >> It was specifically a request from Mr. Pettit. It was a hardbound copy of the
strategic plan that was sent to him on December 16th around December. >> Okay. So, he received an email with the proposed changes that we're discussing here today, right? Yes, sir. >> And he said he didn't see the document at the end and he requested a mailed
copy to his home and we sent him that, too. >> We did. And he and his you know, I will I won't paint the full picture for the the council. He was on vacation when we sent that and I think he didn't come back until the first week in January. >> When was the email sent? >> October 29th.
>> No. Uh the email to us. >> Remember that date of that >> before the last meeting whatever I think >> after the mail. >> Yeah. >> Received. So again, I'm not looking to pick a fight, gentlemen. My name was invoked. I was ready to vote on the issues and move forward. But since my
name was invoked, I stand behind my statement. I want to make sure anybody that represents this council on any appointed board operates at the highest levels of integrity, especially when they put things in writing to try to dissuade or
misguide this council. I'm ready to proceed forward, Mr. Chair. Thank you. >> Okay. I'll just add that I sat in that meeting as as Mr. Pettit said cander is an interesting word to to use. I'll be a
little bit more clear. It was it was started off a little tense as you can imagine. Um but it proceeded um in a good direction. I was I was pleased
with the way that Mr. Pettit conducted himself, Dr. Burbal and the county manager. Um and by the end of the meeting as we were passing around the peace pipe um there was
uh there was uh great agreement on how to work how to go forward and I think what Dr. Bur Ball found and what he offered to Doug was um call me frequently call me if you have questions
and um I think Mr. Pettit will will do that. I think he's going to be a very valuable member of that committee. He's going to ask a lot of questions and that's what we expect from advisory committees. Um, and I would like to hear their advice. But I'm I'm pleased with
the meeting with how it went with how everybody conducted themselves and and the end was um I think favorable for Echo. So, okay. If now you're back on, Dr. Burbal,
if you want to go through the 11 proposals, we'll discuss them and and vote on each one as it comes up. So that >> Sure. Um, you know, I I think as as we move forward, one of the things that I would like to do is um correct the
public record when there's misstatements. And so one of the things that I would like to just kind of go through the previous speakers questions or comments very quickly um number one in terms of motocross motocross is outdoor recreation and aligned with the
ballot language. It is a eligible expense for echo funds. Um we have a very long history from the 1986 program which was kind of a different focus than the 2000 forever which in '86 we bought parks um a lot of big parks so you think
of Lakeman or Lake Beersford um and it's the one in Pier >> Chuck Chuck Lennon thank you um where there's you know general fund dollars was were mixed with other dollars so we conserved a large portion so there's 136 acres I leave at Chuck Lenon, it's not
all developed. So, we have a portion on the waterfront that is conserved. Um, same thing with Lake Beersford. So, this kind of hybrid approach to funding projects using echo and some sort of forever conservation dollars is a thing. Um, and we've done it for a long time.
So, um, the to talk a little bit about trails, the trails is a as a direct county expenditure which is authorized by the ballot language. um you know the the language there's two funding pathways that we can use echo funds that was um
the resolution that put it on the ballot. One is the direct county expenditure which this council has full control over and separately the grant program. Now I sometimes people like to conflate the grant requirements with the DCE but you have full latitude so long
as it meets the uh the ballot language to uh fund DCE projects. So two separate programs. I will say however com however comma the um we have adopted the compliance
measures that we place on grant recipients for county projects through the direct county expenditure. I think it's fair that we be held to account just like they are. So I just wanted to um share that information. The parking piece was also in that resolution that
put Echo on the ballot. So, it allows us to do some of that. All right. Pre-construction grant. We're good. >> Can I can I ask one question? I think that that came up uh from the public. I think the question was and I' I would be
interested in knowing did the committee um get to discuss the motocross? Yes. >> Was it presented to them? >> It's so their their job is to review. It's strictly the the way that that when the resolution was implemented in 2015
was to keep them a breast of the county spending um because at the time they weren't understanding that the county was using some direct county expenditure money and it didn't go. Now we bring it as a good practice. Um they review it, they do not vote on it, they do not
score it like a grant program because again it's a separate program but we're bringing it for public you know just for the sake of transparency. So, and that's all good. Do they uh as a as an advisory committee, do they get to
advise us of what they think about it? >> Yes, that we so we take their comments and we include those in the agenda item. >> Okay. We just we needed to to discuss that. Uh Don Dempsey. >> Yeah. I just you had mentioned trails. Um what is our biggest in the last 10
years? What has been our biggest expenditure out of the tce out of the all the projects >> direct expenditure. >> Yes. >> Oh, the direct expenditure. Well, it so
the the direct expenditure for trails is probably the largest because it's an annual set aside. So 1.5 million. >> And that's to what program? >> That's a it's the trail set aside program in account. So, this is used for Tim Bailey could speak better to this,
but this is to help us construct the construct the trail system. Although we are fully funded by FDOT, I believe in their five-year work plan to complete the river to sea loop, there are some things that we can't use FDOT money for. So, that would be um imminent domain if
we have to practice that as a um a tool to build the trail. >> So, if we have to do eminent domain, we also have to get more money No, it comes out of the trails account >> which is funded by Echo or >> Yes. Yes, sir. >> Okay. And how much have we spent in the
trails program? >> I'll have to get you the number. And >> is it in excess of 20 million? >> So, it's a $1 million set aside. So, five years we've had uh 7.5 so far and that the reiteration this our previous
council increased it to 1.5 million from one after reauthorization. And I'm cannot remember when it was implemented, what year it was. Uh, so you would have a million for each of those years previously. >> How far back does that go? >> I I I'd have to check though.
>> And that's a about 130 mi of paved asphalt road through the wildlife corridor and the wetlands through this project. >> So I would say that it it's going through neighborhoods, too. Not all in the wildlife corridor, but yes, it's going through environmentally sensitive areas,
>> which would be wetlands and environmental or wildlife corridors. >> Yes, sir. >> Have you received any blowback from that? >> No sir. >> You were questioned about motocross. How much paved asphalt road are we going
to incur with motocross? >> None. >> Okay. So, we're not creating any impervious service with motocross, but the trail system is creating 130 miles of 12 foot wide paved asphalt petroleum based roads partially through wildlife
corridor and wetlands. Correct. >> Yes, sir. I I must I must say here because we just met with the water management district and they are treating the tracks as imperous surface because they have a clay cap. I just want to provide that context. So, I'm not >> Doesn't have a clay cap. It does. That's
what we've been told by the developers. >> If it had a sand mix content, then it would be >> it would not be perfect. Okay. >> Thank you. >> Yes, sir. >> Councilman Robbins. Thank >> you, Chairman. Brad, I just kind of want to circle back uh before we get into
item one. Uh I saw the responses 1500. There was about 16 participants. Um can you refresh my memory? What what those agencies or organizations those that's 16 >> what what 16 are you talking about? >> I was just taking notes based on your
>> earlier um >> so there were 1500 responses and 52 individual interviews um that they've that we did >> or the consultant did rather. >> You say the survey was open for 30 or 60 days?
>> I believe it was 30. How many times could one person take that survey? >> They could take it one time. So there was IP blocker. So a standard practice in the industry for any of these software survey tools like Qualrixs or you know survey monkey is that um you
will typically put the IP blocker on when you are doing a survey. So um it would so individuals even in the same house could not do it. Now if one could do it on their phone and one could do it you know in a hardwired computer they'd have a separate IP address. I believe so. Um,
it does that. Also, our consultant like looked at the number of minutes it took and we have an estimate based on the open-ended questions and the qualitative questions as to how long the survey should take. So, 10 to 12 minutes. If they're completing the survey in 2
minutes, we know someone's cutting and pasting. And so, they will flag those. And we actually did flag 10. And they were through they we the consultant threw them out of the analysis. How did they get flagged if there's an IP blocker on? Like how did >> the time
>> the time >> but if the IP blocker is on >> kind of filtering that stuff? How did they get >> the IP blocker? The IP blocker keeps people from doing the same thing over and over again. >> Right. >> So, >> okay. >> So, let's say I Brad I sat at home and
Yeah. Well, I'm not going to say that it'll end up somewhere. >> Let's move on to item one. >> Yes, sir. Are we ready? >> Well, can I ask one last question because in the in the briefing for the opening summary, you said, "What's the difference between a stakeholder >> and a resident?"
>> Um, same. They're they're they're stakeholders of the program. So, residents are stakeholders in the Echo program. >> So, I'm a stakeholder. All these people in the crowd are stakeholders. >> Absolutely. >> Every So, it's just a fluffed up way of saying taxpayer. >> Yes, sir. >> Or even non- tax residents, I should say.
>> Residents. Yes. >> Okay. I will say that you know it is standard practice to have individuals who interface with the program to participate in strategic planning because they understand the program. They've experienced it like Teresa said and many of the people that spoke today.
I will say that your team even you know detractors of the program were included because we wanted a balanced perspective um in the interviews and focus groups. >> Okay. >> Thank you. Uh Councilman Johansson.
Thank you, sir. Um, is it safe to say that a stakeholder could be a city? >> Yes. >> Not not a citizen? >> Yes. >> And is that why you say stakeholders and citizens? >> I mean, Theresa Brooks, if she lived in Flaggler County,
>> could be a stakeholder because she's a grant writer for virtually everybody here. >> Absolutely. But, all right. Thank you. I think your uh definition of stakeholder is is appropriate. Um, it's That's how it should be. The
stakeholders should be the the uh taxpayers and everybody that's involved in it. I'm It seems like though when you read the report that the consultants saw stakeholders as applicants only. There were people that participated in
interviews that were not applicants. So again, they asked questions. The way that they went into the situation was asking questions. So they they had the survey data, they looked at, okay, here's some themes that we're seeing. Let's follow up. The mixed method study helps them understand the phenomenon
that they're seeing in the survey. So um those stakeholders kind of said, this is what they mean. So it's a kind of a a a multi-level view of the program. You have the public at large who is not going to say we need I want this project at the end of my street. will speak in
in generalities that we like trails, we like water access, you know, we'll give them ranking. Uh they will also, you know, we analyze all 1500 open-ended responses to get a list of projects that people want and need, which ones they really like, which ones they don't like,
which ones they'd like to see in the future. >> Okay. Uh Councilman Santiago. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I like uh option B on the established pre-construction planning grant category, which is to approve pre-construction planning grant as a
three-year pilot program uh with staff have to evaluate the effectiveness and present finance to the council for a continuation decision. I like that we get a report back whoever's this council here. With that, Mr. Chair, I move that council selects option B for the first policy recommendation.
>> Okay. I you're you're moving it ahead to uh his his first question. Um well, I'll make note of that that you have a motion to accept option B on number one. Um I
think we had uh Councilman Dempsey, >> I had a question. Yeah. >> Yeah. Still had a question. >> So, do you verify that these stakeholders are from Valuchia County? >> Yes. How do you verify that these emails you're getting are actual Felicia County residents?
>> So it asks them. >> So it's an honorbased >> Yes. You for instance >> there's a small percentage that did answer honestly. I think it was less than 2% but that's standard practice in the industry. when we did the fairgrounds master plan, very similar.
You know, we we expect people to I don't know why they would have a reason to lie and be from another county. >> Well, you know, there's a lot of suspicion about the no kings people coming to the land on the weekends to protest are not from around here that they're actually shipped in and paid
to make a position. I'm just questioning how we actually verify that these are true Valuchia County residents, same people that voted for ECHKO. Are they say are are the actual people taking the survey as opposed are we getting a driver's
license? We getting anything to verify residency or are we just trusting this isn't a group of people with an agenda who live in Witchah? So, I don't Okay. I just want to just make sure that somebody's not out there
stacking the the votes that doesn't reside in Valuchia County. Do we know? I'm just I'm sorry. You can just want to know. And I So, the we asked the respondents if they're Valuchia County residents as a electronic survey. I think it would be
very difficult to have them submit driver's licenses. So, they saw it somewhere on our Facebook page. We we advertised it widely on Valuchia County social media, not Flaggler County social media or Brevar County social media. So, it would be our residents who are seeing
the the survey when we're announcing it to the public and reminding them over the 30 days. >> Okay. Again, I just want to make sure this is the true will of Valuchia County voters, not others. >> I understand. Happy to answer. Thank you. Uh, okay. Let's move to uh
policy one. We have a motion. It's not >> second Johansson. >> We now have a second on option B. The motion was by David Santiago. The second by Councilman Johansson. Go ahead and and uh would you brief us
on >> Yes. Nick. Is that >> okay? All right. So, the next one is a >> Mr. Chair, >> what? >> If I may, I I know this is usually me, but I mean, I don't think I need to have staff read the four options to us. They're pretty self-explanatory.
>> Okay. Can you go back to option one, please? Because we're going to vote we're going to vote on each one as we go along. >> Just want to be efficient. >> Um, okay. We have a motion on the floor to accept uh option B and a second. Uh
questions for staff. Uh Councilman Robbins. Chair, I got I just have a comment when the questions are done. >> Okay. Are there any questions for Dr. Burbal? >> Okay. Go ahead to your comment. >> Hey, Chairman Robbins. >> Mr. Santiago. Um I appreciate your your
recommendation for option B. I just want to I shouldn't say caution, but my fear with some of these um policy changes is that we're watering down a a good established program uh that that's been
around for 20 plus years now. Um, and I say that watering down or lowering our standards and opening opening up some of it wasn't originally designed to do this. And I fear that, uh, the ballot language was different and now we're
changing it. Uh, essentially, um, this program has been successful for a reason. Uh, it's had, uh, uh, uh, great great standing in the community for for a reason because the standards were high. uh not everybody gets a trophy,
right, or a ribbon. Um they got to have skin in the game. And I look through these policies and this is pretty much a blanket statement except for one or two of these. And I I feel like we're lowering the standards. Um I'd like to hear what the rest of the the council
has has to say. Uh >> okay, Councilman Santiago. >> The reason Thank you, Mr. Chair. The reason I like this one is because if if I recall the past three years, we've had a few I don't want to say bumps along the road, but
I think unnecessary things that have bumped up to us had we had more dialogue, staff had more dialogue with the applicants, it would have avoided maybe some heartache even on our side. So, I'm just talking to number one. You may have a place on some of the other numbers, but for number one,
having a pre-construction meeting, I think, is good for all parties to make sure the the program runs smooth. That's just my thought. And I think reflecting back, I think we've had issues that would have been avoided had they had this. >> Councilman Johansson.
>> Yes, sir. I'd like to offer an amendment that three years is a long time to let this thing roll. I'd like to offer an amendment to uh hold it. Uh I think we have two we're in a two cycle echo.
Uh so four cycles is two years. I I I think we can determine whether it's working for us after two years if if >> I'm willing to amend >> sir. Sir sir may so we have one cycle per year. We added an additional cycle at council's direction
>> and we're not okay. And we just said for one year. >> Yes sir. >> I'm still up for two years. We'll take uh >> You want two years? I'm willing to amend two years. >> I'm amending my second. >> Okay. So, it's option B at two years
instead of three. Um, Councilman Dempsey. >> Yeah, I agree with Danny. Um, you know, it's funny that when I want to readress Valuchia Forever to talk about some some potential things that need discussing in Valuchia Forever, I get inundated with
leave it alone. They voted for it as is. Don't don't reform Valuchia ever. Leave it alone. But yet the same thing voted on the same agenda or the same referendum. Now we're doing a deep dive and gutting it and nobody says boo about it. I don't
see anything any protests about leave it alone. This is what we voted for. Don't touch it. Leave it alone. It's exactly what I'm hearing about Felicia forever. And we'll have this discussion in the next meeting. Discussion,
and I think discussion is healthy, but from what I'm hearing from the whole county is leave it alone. Don't touch it. We voted for it. Don't touch it. Well, why are we touching it? I'm for option D like Danny apparently is is heading. There's nothing wrong with it.
It's got a 60 63.9% approval. It says it meets their needs. If it's not broken, don't touch it. I do have some questions about this. Um you know it says that the council that
this that we need refer uh reform because the politicians are not lack here it is under weaknesses of the current program 350 page 350 on this package and it says a lack of political
leaders understanding that somehow we don't understand how it should be run. Nobody's ever come to me and briefed me and said, "Don, do you understand this?" I don't know if any of you've received this. They don't brief us. And I haven't heard any problems in the three years I've been here.
But you guys are sitting there saying that we don't have understanding. And then there's another part here where it's designed to stop pet projects. And I'd like for somebody to tell me what pet projects we've had >> that needs to be rectified.
What What does that mean, pet project? So I would say that there's none and that I would clarify this is the consultant's work. It's not staff's work. >> I understand it's the consultant. >> So but what just name one pet project >> that we don't have one >> that we've ever had. >> We do not have a pet. >> Then why is that word put in there?
>> Because it was heard by the stakeholders and the surveys >> and a slush fund. What does that mean? >> So the echo has been used as a slush fund or is being used as a slush fund for pet projects. >> No for the direct county expenditure program. Some people characterize it as
such. However, we follow the ballot language for every single project and we are audited every year by Jonathan and we've had clean audits since the reauthorization. I just I'd like to know what why that was put in there, but
is that it? >> That's it for now. Thanks. >> Okay. Uh, Councilman Robbins. >> Thank you, Chair. I'll make one one last comment here. You know, this program is entitled for brick and mortar. was uh intended to keep the uh standards high
uh reward uh the good uh stakeholders that uh go by the book uh and u show positive results. Um I I'm going to vote no and I'll be more
than happy to make a uh a motion for D if needed. >> Vice Chair Reinhardt. Thank you, chair. You know, I have to take the words from my colleague, Mr. Kent, when I was leaning one way until we hear Don
Dempsey talk. So, you know, talking about this program and and its success and the amount of people that have voted for this in the current ballot language and and I respect your opinion. You're right. I love the fact that we can talk about things beforehand as well, but I I
think I have to side with um Mr. Robinson, Mr. Dempsey on this one as well. May >> may I provide the rationale for the change? That may that may help. >> That would be appropriate. Yeah. >> Thank you. So when we reauthor when the
program was reauthorized, one of the problems that we were seeing is that it was taking um projects three and four years to be completed rather than the two years which is the standard. So what we did is we implemented and it oh sorry
I believe Mr. Robbins and Mr. Brower, you were here. We implemented that they have these construction documents. They have a shovel ready project when they come to us. That has been highly successful. We've asked Jonathan to do the analysis for us. And so in the
previous iteration of the program where the average to completion was uh nearly 3 years, 2.5, 2.6, we're at 1.7 years now to finish a project. The biggest feedback that we hear from the that the consultant heard from the community and you heard Carmen Rosamandanda say it
when he came here for Alexander Island is it's a risk mitigation factor. So why if we're going to you know invest all of this money up front on drawings $100,000 for you know feasibility study drawings um with no guarantee that we'll get
funded. It's like do we bring the projects to echo then? And so this was why this recommendation was in there was to to say, you know, the changes we made are working very well because we're getting shovel ready projects. But the biggest feedback is the risk mitigation
and also, you know, putting taxpayer dollars out there. Um, now I will say that one of the things that we've tried to do is make sure that they have skin in the game. I've heard that from all of you about, you know, our partners. So it's a 50% match program. We'll match
dollar to dollar up to 50,000 is what the recommendation is. >> Okay. Councilman Santiago. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, Don, I'm not married to the to the to the to the B or these options. I'm just
I I know where you're going. I Right. And I and I and I I'll say it. There's there's a uh orchestrated effort to try to stop the the uh you know what I'm talking about the
motocross right and and and and and I'm supportive of it of of that project right for for the valid reasons that it's good for the community and I think what you were trying to is some of the commentary and some of the comments that have been made to the consultant trying
to undermine Yeah, I think so. I'll say it too. Right. Um, but and then I'm the plan itself. The people voted for Echko and they voted for Valuchia Forever for the the core principles of what the project does, right?
>> We still govern the process on how we implement that. And that's what we're discussing here today. Not the whether or not Echo continues or I know forever is not today, but it's not any of that. is about how do we manage the program?
So, taking all of that aside, if someone says to me, is it good to have a pre-construction planning grant category to help the program run smoother right on a project that we already approved? I think generally speaking, that's a
good idea. separating all of the other uh motives that people that are trying to do. If I take all that out, this I think there's no no one has set a valid reason why that's not a good idea. And please, in order for me to get vote no
on this, tell me why that idea is bad. Take away all the other stuff. I get it and I'm I'm supportive of all we're doing. Tell me why I should vote no on this on the specifics of the question. C. >> Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't know if that was a question to me orbody.
>> Okay, good. I'll wait my turn. >> You're next. Uh, Councilman Johansson. >> Thank you. Um the the option B is is is something that that I think merits well
it is meriting discussion but I think the downside if you want one is is that some of the bigger organizations will be able to leverage some money to
get a lot of shovel ready projects whether they'll ever be able to afford them or Um, is it a waste of money? No, they'll be shovel ready projects, but um, you know, we do this with uh with FOT for for
transportation projects. We we try to plan for a ton of them and then they're all on the books and two or three of them get get executed and the rest of them are on the books. And for cities sometimes we only pay 50% match to have the planning and they sit
there forever. Probably same for infrastructure and things of that nature. So um uh I I I caution that we don't want to uh lean too far forward. That's why I want to give it two cycles just to see how it
goes. Um uh because I do think it helps uh some of the nonprofits who who we found ourselves um uh with our cultural arts money. Um some people spent a lot
of their budget on on grant writing only to be uh not able to execute their plan. So I I'm kind of torn here. I but but I think uh by giving it a little beta program here, we can see if it works
out. Um and and as far as the the the rest of it and the the rub between what we do DCE for and what we don't, um that that's a discussion to be had possibly later. But but I I think we need to
press forward with these policy issues, especially if if Councilman Robbins wants to talk about the operational stuff as well. >> Councilman Dempsey. Yeah, I'm just I'll just get to where I
think the source of this is coming from. Um Dr. Burbar or Tim, do you know what the funding last year? Valuchia Forever is a similar program as Valuchia Forever. Correct. >> I'm sorry. Valuchia Forever. >> Forever pretty much has the same goals
as Valuchia Forever. Florida Forever and Valuchia Forever. I'm sorry. >> Yes. Yes, sir. >> They do. >> Okay. In fact, today we have a project that is what 96% funded by Florida Forever and only 4% funded by Valuchia Forever.
>> 95% Florida Forever, 3% Valuchia. >> Oh, got thank you. >> Yes. >> Um, so there's a there's a part in here. It's on page 323 and this is a uh how many pages was
this package? Almost 300 pages. we were presented with to read through >> the strategic plan. >> Yeah. >> 270 is what we >> 270. >> Yes, sir. >> So, I hope we're not going to pull a Pelosi. Let's pass it and then figure out what it says later on. I hope everybody's read this because again, the
devil is in the detail and that's what I'm concerned about. Okay. How much funding did and we do a lot of partnerships with Florida Forever for these conservation easements, right? >> Uh fe simple and conservation easements. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Designed for conservation. Yes, sir.
>> Which I have no problem with. I like conservation. I don't like being in bed with the state and having them have a preeemption over our water and other items, i.e. solar. But forever for these acquisitions last year
had how much money in their budget? >> Chairman, this is a echo conversation on policy one. Can we get to it? >> Can we get to it? >> Yeah. Last year it was $229 million in funding for Valuchia Forever for these
for land acquisitions >> Florida forever >> for Florida Forever. What is it this year? >> 18 million. The the legislature has cut over $211
million from Florida Forever. Correct. >> So last year they did cut they zeroed out the funding lines I believe. Um but the governor reinstated it through his power >> with 229 >> I think it was 300 million across the program. So Florida forever and the
rural and family lands program through the department of act. >> But what is Florida forever now? >> It was so interestingly I did not know the governor could do this but he added it back to the budget after the legislature zeroed out the lines. >> Okay good. Glad to hear it.
>> But this was in place while all that happened. Correct. this project that we're doing now was in place. Correct? >> It came to us in 24. So I believe it was 24. >> So here's here's the question. Why are we why are we looking to put under page
323? Why are we looking to make environmental conservation priorities within echo? It says here that we need to make sure that we implement what does it say here?
>> Green infrastructure. It's 323. >> So >> there's concerns as a top priority for Echo in future years and noted the need for flooding several stakeholders. Noted >> that there seemed to be enough and too many sports facilities and pickle ball
at the expense of the environment. >> Isn't it Isn't it true that basically what they're trying to do here is take some of this echo funding and shift it over to Valuchia forever? >> No. So it will not be land conservation. is so what the this council adopted a
low impact development guide um for green infrastructure is strictly storm water. So it's using innovative methods you know natural systems um the stakeholders that that were interviewed and even some in the survey said echo
given the perception of overdevelopment um which was talked about in some of the meetings that and there is a perception out there of that and that you know we're still continuing to fund capital projects build more buildings so why
can't Echo be the leader in low impact development or green infrastructure, it's already an allowed expense. Um, green infrastructure as a standalone project there. What the consultant is providing to you, Don, as a recommendation, sorry, council member
Dempsey, is >> the this is a way to make the echo a leader in in, you know, developing sustainably given, you know, flooding concerns and overdevelopment concerns.
>> Okay. Well, in paragraph 3.6 on page 3 hyphen 83, it's titled coordinate more intentionally with Felucia forever. >> Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry, Mr. Dempsey. Mr. Chairman.
>> Uh, yes. Councilman Johansson, >> we have a motion and this conversation so far has not been terine to policy one preconstruction planning grant category option B, the pilot program to evaluate
the effectiveness of the continuation or continuation decision on the preconstruction planning grant category. >> It's a great conversation. Can you relate your argument to echo? >> Before we go down the primrose path of
going through all 11 of these, we need to first, I think, address whether we want to change anything that the voters approved of. >> So, let's vote on this and if it votes down, then we'll proceed with another motion. I just don't want to speak all
day about the efficacy of echo when we have a motion on the second on the floor right now. >> Okay. Okay. Well, I'll finish it up in a paragraph because 36 says we need to coordinate more intentionally with Valuchia Forever to supplement land preservation. That to me sounds like
they're trying to shift all this money from Echo under the guy under the guise of this reform to supplement Valuchia forever acquisition. That's my concern. That's why I agree we should just leave it alone. >> 63.9% of those pled said they're happy
with it the way it is. If it's not broke, don't fix it. So um the council member Dempsey the the coordination comes in the amenitizing our purchases. So we use Lucia forever funds to
purchase the property fee simple properties. If it is purchased then we come to actually this council for a request for direct county expenditure to add the amenities. So if you remember we came before you with the land management plan. Council member Dempsey or Council
Member Robbins at a previous meeting where we provide kind of a conceptual recreation plan of the site and that's what will be funded by Echko and it has not been done in the past but after authorization we actually had a a joint workshop with Echo and Valuchia Forever
to see how we could better coordinate using Echo funds to add amenities pavilions trails you know stuff like that. Well, again, my point is just like overwhelmingly, don't touch Felia Forever. Don't touch I say we shouldn't
be touching Echo either. And I'm just concerned why this is in there. Have we not been coordinating with Valuchia Forever? Because it says here we need to do more coordinating with Valuchia Forever to supplement their land preservation. And I just think
they're trying it's it's getting morphed together. I want them separate and apart. what the voters voted for. Leave it alone. Thank you. >> Okay, Councilman Robbins. Thank you, Chair. Uh getting back on on track. You
know, it comes down is David here. Um Chairman, it comes down, I believe, to to the price the price tag. And you know, the program is assuming all the risks. when we go into any business deal or any uh contract, there's going to be
risk on both sides or both or both parties or multiple parties. So, if you're serious, you're going to have some risk in there. So, um to Mr. Santiago's um uh you know, to respond to Mr. Santiago, that that's why I'm I'm
I'm more inclined to go with D. David, did you hear all that? >> Um there's got to be risk. And when you asked, you know, what's the uh pretty much what's up with the three-year pilot project? Well, it comes with a a price tag, too, where we we can
take uh where we take some of these um burdens on, you know, that that's stated in the recommendation. So, uh I'd like to call a question. Yeah, let's let's vote on We have a motion on the floor to approve pre-construction planning grant as a two-year pilot program with staff
to evaluate effectiveness um and present findings to council for a continuation decision in 2030 which is uh longer than two years. >> Yes. So what we would do is this would the recommendation included us
implementing it in 27 because it'll take us a while to get the scoring rubric up and all of the work out the details of the program because our cycle starts next month for the the current grant cycle. So we'd like a a year. It also will give individuals an opportunity to
plan those bigger projects and use this grant if we >> Okay. So it actually would be 20 2029 now. >> Yes sir. >> Okay. or 28 after the 28 cycle we could come back. >> Yeah. See this this is just just a comment. This is why it would have been
really helpful I think for the committee to make recommendations to us just like PLLDRC. They're not binding but they they're the ones dealing with this all the time but we don't have that. >> Um the motion on the floor. Uh Carissa
would you call the role please? >> Mr. Dempsey. >> No. Mr. Johansson, >> yes. >> Mr. Kent, >> no. >> Mr. Reinhardt, >> they changed me again. Yes. >> Mr. Robbins? >> No.
>> Mr. Santiago? >> No. >> Mr. Brower? >> No. So, the motion fails. Is there a uh >> motion? Option D. >> We have a motion on the floor for option
D. No action. >> Second. >> And a second. Motion by uh Councilman Robbins. Second by Councilman uh Dempsey. Chris, would you call the role again, please, for option D? >> Mr. Dempsey?
>> Yes. >> Mr. Johansson? >> Yes. >> Mr. Kent? >> Yes. >> Mr. Reinhardt? Yes, >> Mr. Robbins. >> Yes, >> Mr. Santiago. >> Yes, >> Mr. Brower. >> Yes. So, option D. >> Policy two.
>> Policy two is to currently there is a um pre-awward match credit for grant writing expenses for nonprofits. So, we will allow them to use up to $7,500 to match our funds. Um, so it would really
be a um has no budget impact because we're providing the match already. They're just using it for a source of their match. I after talking to some municipalities, they've said, you know, we have laid off our grant writers uh to decrease our staff level. So, we hire
consultants as grant writers. So, could could we have this as a um if we're paying a grant writer, could we use it as match as well? So, that's kind of what this recommendation is is to um you've gotten some options. It was implemented in 2015 at the $7,500
level. That was the cap they could use for match. There's a few options here for your consideration to whe to raise it uh extend it to the full, you know, nonprofit and municipality sector or um maintain the program as is.
>> Okay. Uh, Councilman Robbins. >> Uh, thank you, Chairman Brad. How much does it cost to write a grant? >> I don't know. I I will tell you. So, I think an echo grant I heard um from I just happened to be sitting in a fair
board meeting when they were discussing it and um I think it's over $10,000. >> Wow. >> Partly is because the rigor of our application. I will tell you that some of our grant writers and will tell you that ours is harder than a federal
grant, but that's it's a test if you can get through that. >> Mhm. Okay. Any other questions for Brad? Is there a motion on option A, B, C, or
D? >> Motion for D. >> Second. Dempsey makes a motion for uh D maintain the current $7,500 limit and existing eligibility restrictions and the second was by Councilman Robbins.
>> So policy three, I believe I mentioned this to many of you when I briefed you. >> We need to vote on policy two. >> Um I appreciate you're trying to move it ahead. Any u
any discussion on uh on D? Okay. D is maintaining the current uh status. All in favor say I. I. >> I. Any opposed? >> Now you can go to three. >> So if we can just forego three. Um it
was a recommendation and it would have helped some folks like um the two that were here previously um given them a mash grant to help them not maintain but do some capital investments because Echo is a capital program. I I feel that the the 20-year
restrictive covenant as part of this new program, you got to maintain everything. But those that had 30 or 40 years, the consultant recommended this program using investment income, not the advorum. However, my team went back and there's only nine organizations that in the small to medium category that would
um qualify and they're all very well um capitalized and maintaining their facilities. >> Motion to forego this one. I guess vote for option D. Matt, >> option D. >> Second. Okay. Motion on the floor uh by
was it you or Danny? By Vice Chair Reinhardt is for option D to maintain current policy. The second was by Councilman Robbins. Any questions for staff? Any comments? All in favor say I. I.
>> Any opposed? Option three is D. All right. Policy four, recommendation from the consultant to offer a zero match bonus for funding for low impact development projects across all echo
categories. Currently the the match is one to one for an applicant. Um this would give you an option to offer a percentage base match or a cap up to a certain number of cap to have a match bonus.
Is there a motion for option A, B, C, or D? >> Motion for D. >> Don Dempsey makes a motion for uh option D. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Second by
Councilman Robbins. Any questions, comments? All in favor of option D, maintaining the current policy, please say I. >> I. >> Any opposed? >> See how this is going to go. Option five
or decision five. >> So, uh, policy decision number five is the grant cap award adjustment. So the the consult was like Jonathan Edwards as part of our audit last year um did an
analysis for us like what is present day money worth um compared to what we were offering for grants in 2000. So the the cap in 2000 was 400,000. We raised it to 600,000 uh when the program was reauthorized. this council, some on this
council, um Jonathan's math said we to keep uh track with inflation and construction cost uh 400,000 and 2000 money is 1.2 today. Um the consultants also looked at the exceptional program, exceptional grant
program and made a recommendation u to do away with it. We've had eight exceptional projects in 26 years and has not been for a lack of projects that have the scope. It's a a lack of
un there's two criteria you have to meet as an exceptional project and that is um the has to provide a significant a benefit to a significant number of folks countywide. Okay. and it has to be paramount countywide importance. So applicants
struggle with how do you how do you provide uh evidence to support those. So when we got here, Kendra and I and this team, we tried to operationalize them. So we said if it's countywide importance, you could have a resolution from the county saying, you know, this
is an important uh function like Jackie Robinson as one. Um, you know, you need to have a consultant do some sort of math on what the visitors would be. As you remember, um, Carmen's consultant provided the number, 26,000 people from across the county would would visit that
project based on their survey. So, it's it's a nebulous kind of thing. Um, and it's a super at at the echo committee, it takes seven of nine members to grant exceptional status. So, you have you
have minority rule. That's what the >> Okay. Uh, Councilman Robbins, Chairman, motion to adopt option C. Councilman Robbins makes a motion for uh, option C.
>> Okay. And second by uh, you want it, >> Vice Chair Reinhardt. Option C is immediate full adjustment immediately raise standard grant cap to 2.5 million
eliminating exceptional category establish and questions for staff. Go ahead. Um >> if we eliminate Thank you, Mr. Chair. If we eliminate that category, does that prohibit us from considering something that
would be exceptional? I'll just use that term because it won't be in the category anymore. But does that tie our hands >> in the grant program? Yes, >> does. >> Now, I will say that there are we've I looked at a few other grant programs that would allow you to come in over, but you better you have to have a very
strong rationale and that is reviewed by the committee and then moved on uh to you as council. Um way some grant programs do it that we we take a hard line on the 2.5. Um but it's council's prerogative.
>> You said we've had eight applications or something like that, >> sir. >> Um and how many have come to fruition? >> The eight, I believe. Now, there were some bumps. The news general center was one, so there were some bumps along the way, but it's still operating. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
>> Councilman Johansson. >> Mine just going to make a comment. Chairman. >> Uh, Don, did you have a question? >> Comment as well. >> Okay, go ahead with your comment. Jay, no other questions. >> Okay, Jake, hold up one second because
you just you just said something that you take a hard line on the 2.5 million, but explain that. >> So, they're not allowed to submit a project for 3.5 million >> for exceptional or >> So, no. The question was, do we allow to go over our cap? Could a project be submitted if they're asking for three?
>> The answer is no. >> Okay. Go ahead, Jake. >> Yes, sir. Um, this is uh Echo Vision Plan 20 240 and what I don't want and Mr. Kent and I talk about it, everybody talks about it
is to not increase for 20 years and then and then make a huge jump, whether it's a benefit or a cost. Um, is is there any plan to just, you know, going back to
Jonathan's audit, um, is there any plan to take a look at costs of inflation and and come back to us for adjustments as as required in intervals? >> Yes, the team will look at the the CPI
each year um and and make it part of the the committee's annual report that's submitted to this council. Thank you, >> Councilman Dempsey. >> Yeah, a couple of things. Um, again, it's more comment. I mean, again, I'll
just double down on the uh the me the overwhelming concern with messing with something that was voted for by referendum in the majority of the people, the the voters approving it. Is my understanding originally it was like 53%, now it was
70%. Is that right, Brad? >> I'm sorry. I'm I didn't mean to catch it, but basically when this originally was passed in 20 I think it was 57% of the people voted for echo >> I think it was yeah close to 60 somewhere around >> close to 60 >> and the way it's been run over the last
20 years when it was time to put it to the test again on a referendum. It passed by a more substantial yes right almost 70% or was it >> 72 >> 72%. So we went from I believe 57% tried it out for 20 years in its current
state and now the voters even liked it more and voted 72% to keep it the way it was being run. Now we're talking about changing it. And even the most current poll in this study was 63.9% approval.
So again I'm against changing anything. If it's not broke, don't fix it. Secondly, we've got 109 $109 million shortfall. Allah the governor's no property tax bill or conversation. And
so we may actually be really in a fiscal crisis here in the next year or two. And to get people's hopes to go from 600 to 2.5 million is is probably a disservice. I think you like Jake talks about all the time. If we're going to talk about
preserving the budget and talking about keeping the budget constrained, here's another example. Let's just keep it at 600. Let's not expand it to 2.5 million. And let's It's going to cost the motocross. I mean, hey, look here. I'm voting for something that may hurt for
motocross because instead of applying for 2.5, they're capped at six or whatever in future projects or whatever that may come up. I'm just saying let's keep the budget low. Let's keep it at the current 600,000. So, I'm for option D. Thank you.
>> Yeah, I go right ahead. I I I agree with you, Don, and I think it's I think it's more stark than that with the property tax issue. Um if it eliminates um advalor property taxes, what happens
to Valuchia Forever and Ekko? That's how they both raise money. Do they both go away? >> So to be conservative right now with the money that we do have is probably a wise option. I would like to say though that I don't think when this was voted on any
of these rules were even in place. The rules came after the vote. Um which was a contention of mine when it went in. We didn't there was no description um with this detail but um but but I agree um
with you Don. Uh Councilman Johansson he left. Do you want to speak for him Danny? Congressman Robbins. >> No sir. I just I just want to point out that that the ad valorum and then this uh voter initiated self tax is two
different two different things here which we can fund. There ain't no may say maybe. >> Yeah we there there's I don't think there's any maybe about it. I mean it's it's two two separate things actually three separate things on our on our tax bill. So uh at the end of the day the
the voters voted for it. Voted up the two mills you know. I get what you're saying, Don, but this is separate. I think we're it's becoming a quagmire. >> If I may, just for clarification, so we're uh the context here so we're all
on the same page. If I bring projects back, um this is a per project cap. And the way that we've done this in the past is a building as a project for a grant. Now, if you develop another building on your campus that serves a a significant number of people that is a different
audience or providing a different experience or scope of services, that has a cap, too. So, it's a per project cap, not a per campus cap. When I say campus, I mean multiple buildings. >> Okay. Uh Jake, you were out when I called on you. Councilman Johansson.
>> Yes, sir. Thank you. Um I these projects will come back to us for approval. Right. So if the property tax um thing becomes a factor whether this
policy is in existence or not. We can always not execute it. It's like we can assess two mills on everybody every year but we don't have to. Um, so we can adjust
option C and just say not this year or not for the remaining years till we get property tax back or figure out some other way to do this. So I don't see any harm in in in making the changes and then uh uh
adjusting as necessary um based by vote uh when we have to. Thanks. >> Okay. Uh, Councilman Dempsey. >> Yeah. Two thing, Danny. One to respond to your statement, but it it's up 2.2 millage. It's not mandated. 2 mil. So,
when the taxpayers get hit hard in another area because there's no more the $1.9 million property tax has gone away and we have to make up for it in some other form or make cuts. Um it's quite likely that we may have to cut forever or echo.
Correct. >> Yeah. So I've not heard any complaints in the last three years about the way it is currently. And again the stakeholders 63% 64% agree that it's good the way it is now. I just don't want to change
anything. And just like Jake said, if it needs to be changed maybe in two or three four years, then maybe we can change it there. But if it's not broke, don't fix it. Don't touch it. And the only question I have though is is this going to contemplate these recurring the $1.5 million year after year after year
for the the asphalt road going through our wildlife corridor. >> So it was not contemplated by the consultant because it was previously approved by council, but you're welcome to revisit it. >> Okay. Well, so we're saying so for
motocross, we could dip in 2.5 million year after year after year like the bike trail or 1.5 million every year like the bike trail. >> So I I think that the the bike trail is um funding the master trails plan. So
there's a larger plan that it's being used to fund, but >> but it is sucking out of the echo funds yearly $1.5 million for road through the wildlife corridor. Okay, that's all I have. Thanks. Okay,
let's uh let's vote. We've got uh the motion on the floor is for option C on policy five. Uh Chrissa, you better call the role on this one. >> Mr. Dempsey,
>> no. >> Mr. Johansson, >> yes. >> Mr. Kent, >> no. >> Mr. Reinhardt, >> yes. >> Mr. Robbins, >> yes. >> Mr. Santiago. >> And to close it out, uh, yes, it passes.
>> Mr. Brower. >> No. And so option C fails. Is there >> passes three to four or four to three? >> I did. I I wrote no for Mr. Santiago,
you did. Okay. >> Yep, it's me. >> Decision six. All right. Policy recommendation number six to require a streamline application for direct county expenditure projects to increase transparency and accountability. The options range from creating a formalized
direct county expenditure handbook to uh enhancing public reporting through our uh dashboard website and media and uh board maintaining the current process as is. >> Thank you uh Councilman Santiago. >> So
>> yeah uh mean to increase transparency and accountability. We talk about these things right here out in the open publicly. So how did that get in there? So the it would be so let me explain the process to you now and how it would compare. So I think that that's you know the the the goalpost that they use to
say you know one is better than the other for lack of a better term is um right now we take things on a spreadsheet to the um advisory committee with a small box description of the project. Um, you know, we, the Echo
staff, and including myself, have looked at the project to make sure it qualifies for the ballot language. And so, it's a very simplified, streamlined process. Um, the consultants heard. Unfortunately, right at the time that we were talking to the public was when we uh approved the motocross deal. I will
say it was very disheartening for your team to know that we did the right thing and it was a qualified expense. Um, but people kept repeating it. So, um, this was the based on the public feedback. Now, this is giving up some of council's control as well. You know,
>> I I think I've heard enough. >> Yeah. >> Option D. I move to accept option D. >> Second. >> Thank you, Brad. I didn't mean to cut you off. >> It's all good. >> Motion on the floor by Councilman Santiago is for option D. Second was by
uh Councilman Robbins. Um, questions for staff, comments. I'll call for the vote then. The motion on the floor is option D, maintaining a current process. Um, all in favor say I. >> I.
>> Any opposed? And that option D passes unanimously. We're halfway there. >> All right. >> Policy decision seven. So seven is um about 30 to I think 32 the last time we
did the analysis of our projects charge fees which is allowed under Echo. They just have to be uniform for all Valuchia County residents. That prevents a hindrance for some people not who may not have the means to attend, you know, these publicly funded
events, amenities, plays, whatever you want. So there is a program in Alageney County in Pennsylvania that you can check out passes. Like if you wanted to go to, you know, a theater show, if you have a library card, you could see if there were passes available at the
library, you could check them out. Um, now two options here. It's called the RAD program in Pennsylvania, and they fund it at I think I've included here um I think it's more than $50,000. or council could direct us to require
feebased programs going forward provide some of these passes as part of their grant application. So we kind of moving forward rather than backwards. >> Okay. Questions for staff? Uh Councilman Johansson.
>> Brad is the Alagany how long has it been going and and how successful is it? >> So they're actually a recreational asset district. That's what RAD stands for. been highly successful. It's a an independent district that manages all their sports facilities. So, think
Pittsburgh Steeler, you know, um and local wreck projects, too. And this has been going on, I think, uh close to 10 years. >> All right. Thank you, >> sir. >> Uh questions for staff. Councilman Dempsey,
>> just quick question, Brad. How does this apply to the P3 situations? Like for instance, would a a property owner have to let them in for free for one time or how does that >> So it would be a passbased system. So you would you would commit to providing
so many passes for the 365day year if people could check them out. >> So you could go play pickle ball for free for a year if you had this pass? >> No, you would get one day. >> One day to play pickle ball. Okay. >> All right. Thank you.
>> So, pickle ball is a fee facility. It's one of the 32. >> Councilman Santiago. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that we select option E. >> Second. Second. Joe Hansen. >> Did you say B or D? >> Oh, E is an echo.
>> Option E. No action. >> Okay. This one will be real quick. You guys have asked us before. Why Why are you bringing back these budget changes if they're staying within what council's allocated? Why are we approving line item changes? Um that was a >> Is this item seven still?
>> Oh my gosh. >> Yes. >> Item seven. >> No, I think I think Brad's on a >> library base. >> He doesn't like the individual voting. >> Was there Was there a second on David's? >> Yes. Johansson. >> Jake Johansson made the second on uh
option E. No, it's uh it's quite understandable. Second was by Jake. Uh questions for staff. David Santiago. >> Oh, no. That I the vote. Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> Any questions for staff?
Any comments? The motion on the table is E. No action. All in favor say I. >> I. >> Any opposed? And no action is taken on seven. Now you can move to uh policy decision 8 allow staff approval of
non-scope budget changes. >> So this is let's say that the grantee gets $600,000. When they come back for a budget change, they're not asking for additional money. They're asking to maybe move it from site prep to finishes and it comes to council. It's a change
that was implemented in 2000. that when you're in the middle of construction, waiting to get on a council meeting for a month is not um you know is not great for our folks that are doing that. So essentially the project has to pause. We'd like to go back to the old practice
of staff approving the line item changes. No no budget impact. It's still the same allocation. If they change the scope or service they've promised, it will come back. So this is just a budget uh line item request change.
Questions for staff? Councilman Robbins? Uh, no questions. I was going to make a a motion for option B. >> Second. Okay. Uh, we have a a motion for B.
Motion by Councilman Robbins, second by Don Dempsey. Uh, but questions for staff, Jake Johansson. >> No, not with option B. >> Okay. Uh, Councilman Robbins, you're done. No other questions.
All >> under. >> Go ahead, Councilman John. >> And we talk here a lot about streamlining process and here we are holding out
process. Um, I I think that staff with non-scope budget changes should should be afforded the ability to keep these projects moving. A lot of them come back to us
with needing extra time and sometimes I bet if you look back it's because it takes a month to get to see us to make a scope change. Having said that, I like the transparency of knowing. So, and I've asked this in other other programs
before, if if we can get not that we need to ratify it, but if we can get something on the council meeting on the agenda somewhere that that is the um like the echo report on staff appro
approval of ncope budget changes. So we have the essay. It can be a consent agenda item or a presentation item or we can have conversation about it if we have a problem. And if we keep having problems then then which I I don't think
we would most of them are are uh consent agenda that we don't pull um uh then we can make some course corrections. But right now, uh, I think this gets government basically out of the way of
people trying to do business. So, uh, I'll be a no on this. >> Okay. Uh, Councilman Santiago. >> Yeah, Jake, I I I agree with almost everything you said. Um, I Yeah, because I don't know if it needs to come back to us either. there. I mean, we approved
the the line item for the the overall our team budget and staff is competent enough to to know whether or not it comply the change complies with uh our requirements and it's just an inefficient way to manage the program. So, we should allow these types of
change doesn't change the budget and like you said um every day in construction that goes by the cost traditionally just continues to go up. So, >> I'll amend my motion. Go ahead >> to I'll amend my motion to reflect uh
option A. >> He changed option. >> So you're withdrawing your emotion your motion and and now submitting option A uh withdraw. Is there a second for option A? >> Johansson second.
>> Second by Jake Johansson on option A. Uh, Councilman Santiago. Yes. Councilman Kent. >> Thank you, Chairman. I um don't know if I would have been able to help Mr. Robbins with his decision on this. I wish he would have waited 30 seconds
because it very well could be that the change is that they need more time. But we've sat here before when these projects have come back with not one change for needing more time, but two and three, etc. And I know that I have
said I'm going to grant it this time, but I want the applicant to know this is the last time I will approve this. You will lose the funding if you don't have this done in a timely manner. And I don't think there's anything wrong with the current process that we have. So now that you've changed your motion, I'll be
voting no on this. >> Councilman Dempsey. >> Yeah, I'll agree with Troy on that one for the reason I've already said people voted on it. uh 72% voted for it in 2020. There's a 64% approval rating. Now, we have been
accused of having a lack of understanding of what's going on in the current echo process. So, to sit here and now say, "Yeah, and don't educate us on non-scope budget amendments." I mean, that's that's hypocritical. If
you're saying that we are, and I quote, we have a lack of political leaders understanding of echo, then shouldn't we go with option B to where they have to educate us and we vote on these issues, especially with the hardships of our
budget in the next couple of years? So, I want to know what's going on and vote on it with everything. So, I'm with Troy and I'm a no on the current motion. Thanks, >> Councilman Johansson. Yeah, I I have no
problem getting reports from staff on these things. Uh I communicate with uh Dr. Burba and his staff often on many things. I I don't feel like I'm uneducated or uninformed about these things. I just don't think it has to be
formally brought up here um to to get my my knowledge and my situational awareness of what's going on with the echo program. Um, I would like to keep it where it is too
with uh, so I'll be a no on this. And the reason is because I I think the public likes it when it comes here and and we get to u make a recommendation on changes, but it also gives the public a chance when that happens to speak on it.
So, and they they don't like it when we take uh those options um away. So, uh, keep it the way it is. Councilman Santiago, >> thank you. I just want to get an example of a nonscope budget change. >> So, let's say there's a minor example.
>> There is a threshold right now and it's more than 20%. So, if you had a $100,000 project and you put um $20,000 in site planning, okay, or site prep, um and now you found someone who's going to donate that site prep to the organization. If
you're going to move that $20,000 now to landscaping or finishes, you have to come to council even though it's still in the allocated amount of dollars that council has. >> Now, does this council approve the landscaping? >> No, we don't. So, we don't get involved at that level. >> No, sir. And so, so we never even see
that at today's process, meaning how much landscaping they're doing and stuff like that. >> No, sir. >> Okay. And that and there lies in my point, guys. We we are not project managers. That's a project manager detail. We are policy makers and we should not really
be in the weeds of that and it should be reviewed by the echo advisory committee too. So they they meet on a quarterly basis. So if you're in the middle of construction and you need to change something, you're waiting till that quarterly meeting or we call an emergency meeting and then another month
to come to council. So it's, you know, >> and it doesn't change the overall budget amount. That's still the same that we approved. >> No, sir. guys, let's let's not get into the weeds. It's not our role. And Don, I the commentary that happens in all this,
you know, there was a lot of organized effort in there, just so you know. And I know some of it was specific. So, I wouldn't put too much into that, meaning and and not to take away from someone's thoughts, however, there's motives with some of the commentary, not from you.
I'm talking about what was submitted >> that you're reading. Yeah. So don't know if there's motive there. So we have to >> Councilman Dempsey. >> I know those are zingers and but that has nothing to do with what I'm saying, you know. Okay. So that same 20% rule
applies to the annual $ 1.5 million asphalt road through the wildlife corridor. >> It's a separate program. So it's a grant program versus the direct county expenditure program. >> But that's okay. So that if there was a $300,000 modification,
allow the 20% rule, this wouldn't apply to any modification to their budget. >> So it's a $1.5 million set aside. It goes to into account an account and it is spent. There's no allocating dollars. It's used on an as needed basis. So if
DOT is going to um construct a part of a trail uh and we're we need to build the bathroom or the amenity, then we would use those funds to do that. >> Okay. But we're you keep saying DOT, but it's still 1.5 million a year out of the echo budget, out of our tax county tax dollar. >> Yes, sir.
>> It's a separate program. So the grant program has rules. The DCE has got latitude as long as it meets the ballot language. >> And so what's what's the hardship? Three years on the DAS up here. I have I don't feel overwhelmed with the current process.
>> How many times has the current process bogged us down? Okay. >> All right. I mean, is there a number? I mean, how often does this come up now on the current basis that we don't want to have to review this when necessary?
>> I just like to keep it the same. >> Okay. Is Okay. Councilman Santiago, >> pull the question, Mr. Chair. >> Sure. So, the the motion on the floor is for uh um policy decision 8A, delegate non-scope budget amendment to staff. Uh,
Carissa, would you call the role? >> Mr. Dempsey? >> No. >> Mr. Johansson? >> Yes. >> Mr. Kent? >> No. >> Mr. Reinhardt? >> Yes. >> Mr. Robbins? >> Yes. >> Mr. Santiago? >> Yes. >> Mr. Brower?
>> No. Uh, but the motion carries 5 to three. Four to three. Okay. We will move to policy decision nine. and support public art and creative placemaking. >> So, um, one of the things that
many of the the stakeholders and survey respondents have talked about is um there's different examples of this, but public art is considered a capital infrastructure uh under or capital expense under uh state statute. So, it
would qualify under the grant program. This would be a separate this would be expanding echo. They're recommending, you know, um that public art be an eligible expense. >> Okay. Councilman Robbins, Chairman, uh
motion to accept option D. >> Uh we have a motion for sign D by Robbins and a second by uh Councilman Kent. Any questions for staff?
Councilman Robbins, can you explain our the arts and the excuse me, do we already have like arts and public places program where we dedicate about 3% to a build or if there's >> Yes. Yes, sir. So, if it's Yeah. Up to
0.5 if it's over.5% if the building's over a million dollars >> capital construction, there's a threshold. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Any other questions? Any comments? The motion on the floor is for 9D, no
echo funding for public art installations and creating placemaking initiatives. Uh, all in favor of 9D, please say I. >> I. >> I. >> Any opposed? >> 9D passes unanimously.
>> Decision 10. >> Is that Yep. Decision 10 is to develop an advisory committee selection guide. Um some committees are it's dictated by the state who has to serve on it. Like you know I think our affordable housing
committee has to have so many you know a realtor uh you know a land owner. So so what they're saying is that we need to have a a good mix on the echo committee. Uh they're saying develop a guide for this council. you know, we need a CPA,
we need an architect, we need people that have the experience in these fields. Um, and we've we've got a pretty wide bench or a deep bench at this point, but one of the things that they recommended was to help help the next
councils um identify people who who could they who they could appoint. A selection guide may be helpful. >> Thank you. Uh, questions for staff. Councilman Johansson. Yes, sir. Brad,
how hard is it to get people on the echo committee to begin with? >> I I will say we typically do not struggle with echo in forever because people want to serve. >> I I do know that Carissa has a problem
filling the the the mandated you have to have a CPA, you have to have a contractor. Um uh I >> I would recommend against a mandate. It could be recommendations. >> Yeah. I I uh I don't want to go
overboard here if we do this. Um does it need to be in a selection guide? Is that something you >> write a memo to council looking for? >> All right. Thanks, Councilman Dempsey.
>> I just move for option C. >> Option C is maintain current process. Motion by Don Dempsey and the second was by Councilman Santiago. Uh, any other questions for staff, Don,
or comments? >> Have we received any complaints about our current appointments? >> I'm sorry. Have we received any complaints about I won't I don't want to mention names or anything like that but currently they're appointed by us right >> correct
>> okay >> too too soon done >> too soon >> good sport >> okay the uh the motion on the floor uh is for 10 C maintain current process
uh Jake, did you name this? Okay, >> just Johansson, >> final comment. I I think council our our main goal on all these boards is diversity of of thought, right? Look at
us. We have lawyers, we have old retired guys, we have farmers, uh we have teachers. I I think it benefits anybody to have a diversity of of folks. So, as the um as as we select,
I I think that's something we can just keep in mind here here within the the elected body and and make sure we don't have all teachers or all old retired guys and we and we keep that diversity. I think we can do that from here. >> Jake, you neglected to say we have
somebody here from corrections. >> I >> he was the old guy. I think him as the old guy. I figured that would come up in in council comments later, so I was going to skip it. >> No doubt. Okay. The motion I'm sorry,
the motion on the floor is for 10 C. Uh maintain current process. All in favor say I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Any opposed? 10 C passes unanimously. >> This is the last one, isn't it? >> Yes, sir.
>> 11. >> Yeah. Policy recommendations. >> Advisory Committee. Term limits. term limits. Um so currently there is no term limit on the echo advisory committee um other than the uh chair cannot serve two consecutive terms. So this provides some options um like option A that would
align with council term limits um all the way to maintaining the current process as is. >> Okay. Uh Councilman Reinhardt, >> I make a motion for option A to align with what we are with council. Okay. 11
A is a motion by Councilman Ry, Vice Chair Reinhardt. >> They still get reappointed every year though, right? Or every two years. >> Every two. >> Every two. >> Every two. Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> Second. >> And we have a second by Councilman Kent.
And questions for staff apparently from David Santiago. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, how would this apply? How would this be applied to existing members? Do we have a timeline? I know we just voted on it, but will you come back to us?
>> I think it would be to your current term. So, >> okay. And if they if they're currently I I get it. Thank you. >> Okay. Uh, Councilman Dempsey. >> Fortunately, I didn't get it. So, are we saying if they're currently in their eighth year, they'd be done?
>> No. So, you've reappointed them um to the beginning. So, if they've if you've appointed them and they've been serving four years, it would be four years. If you get reelected and reappoint them for the additional two years, it would be the eight years. >> Is there anybody that's currently on there that's been on there for eight years now? >> We've got three that have been on since
2000. >> Oh, early 2000s. >> Yeah. >> But would this go back retroactive? I'm >> push you. >> I'll talk to you later, Sabrina. >> Yeah, you don't want her to be mad at
you. >> Um, so are we saying that if we pass this, if they've already been on for eight plus years, then they would be done. >> So Sabrina's telling me that you guys need to um decide on how you'd like to implement, >> right? You'd have to decide how Sabrina Slack, assistant county attorney, you
would have to decide how you would want the term limits to apply. Uh whether it would be applying to current terms served or whether you want to start with a policy from today or however you want it to do it. >> Is any I'd like to hear what you guys
think about that retroactively being applied or not. Thanks. >> Okay. >> Thank you, Sabrina. >> We have 11A. Um, do you want to >> Yeah, I I can expand on the chair if >> um I think aligning it with our elections.
Um, this and I know what you're concerned with, Don, with the other issues as far as uh ballot language. This was not on the ballot language. This is something I think that needs to be modified. Um, I think that if you came into office and there's somebody in
uh that particular seat that necessarily you wanted someone else, you might have to wait two years or three years or four years until their term is up before you can make that selection. I think what this does is allows us if we make it alignment with the times that we took office. You see
what I'm saying on that? That's the policy I think that we that we need to set and that's at least my interpretation of this. So, if I may interject or would we go back because we all stagger every couple of years. So, would we go back every two years and
re-evaluate the entire board >> or just the ones? >> That's what she's asking us to decide. So, you can make that as >> I you've got to bring back an So, there's an enabling resolution from Echo that establishes the committee and and talks about this. So, that would need to
be amended. So, I would say if we bring it back, we could give you options on how to implement it if that's okay. >> Okay. That'll save us some time, too. Councilman Johansson. >> Okay. So, uh 11A and you're going to
bring back options at the next meeting for how that's implemented. >> Uh can we have two meetings >> if we need to do some research? I mean, the current board is seated. Yeah. Council okay with that? Two meetings.
Okay. All in favor of 118 I >> in two meetings. Any opposed? >> And that passes unanimously. So one of the things that we would like you only had 11. >> I'm sorry. >> Go ahead.
>> One of the things that we would like um council for council consideration. So March starts our grant cycle. We typically bring back any guidebook changes that we may have um to this council given that we have the cap and the de the two that were approved today
are the cap the adjustments to the cap and the delegation um to staff for the scope changes. Correct. So um instead of bringing back the guide book can we just implement they're very straightforward add them to the guide book and send it out to our grant recipients because it
the grant cycle starts next month. we want to give them some I with that if you agree to that um two things that we would like to include is um in the past we've always had um
cooperation from grant recipients to provide board meeting minutes bylaws stuff like that we would like to make it a requirement of nonprofits as part of the application process to provide 12 months of board minutes uh and their bylaws addition itionally, one of the things,
and this is a taxpayer savings issue, is that on pre-engineered sites, so I have a park and I'm adding a pavilion or a new playground, replacing a playground, uh, we require the full design specs again, and if it's a previously
engineered site and they're replacing something or adding something, rather than do the design and engineering again, we and this is aligns with the national park system is um you do a conceptual plan where the new pavilion will be. You don't have an
engineer engineer a pavilion on a already site. >> Just two. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. Um Okay. So, board minutes and bylaws from applicants. Yes. That that's that's a good one. And if it's a pre-engineered
site, they don't have to re-engineer, >> correct? If they have a change. Is there uh questions for staff? Councilman Robbins. >> Uh I'm I'm good with that. My my uh question >> you do have a question. >> I do have a question, but it was for the
part two of this. >> Okay. >> Um the operational improvement staff implementation council. My recommendation is um >> we do look at this a little bit in depth too. Uh especially if you look if you go
on page uh 15 uh is it 15? Yeah, 15. You'll go through it'll say uh enhance accessibility and sustainability sustainability uh in in certain sections and and my
greatest concern like I said to begin with is to keep this program strong. I'd like to uh at least have a say. So, if we can maybe uh chairman or council, if we can have a separate agenda item, maybe uh next council meeting where if
we have questions about any of these 19 uh staff level um or new staff level uh proposals here that we have the opportunity to bring it forward uh individually as council people that make sense through an agenda item.
>> Okay. Are you make we don't have a motion on the floor yet. Are you making that a motion? >> I'm I'm sticking my toe in the pool uh real quick to see if it's something we need to review or do we need to blanket approve this? >> I don't have a problem with the review. >> Okay. Uh Councilman Santiago, you were
next anyway. You >> going to say something else, but >> any other >> I'm also okay with the recommend if you're looking for support for his recommendations. I'm okay with Brad's recommendations. You repeat it >> one and two. Okay. Uh any other questions for staff? Don, you have
questions? I have a qu I guess for Danny. I I also agree with what they're saying and I'm in favor of the uh the few changes. Um but I I I don't quite understand exactly Danny what you're looking to do. You want us to revote on all these issues we voted on or
>> No no no there's 19 more Don on part two the operational improvements which staff implementation. Okay. at their level. My biggest concern is uh 1.7 engagement to uh community organizations. 2.1 streamline application process,
which I'm all for streamlining, but uh if we want something to stay on there and staff is able to do it, how are we ever going to know? Uh so um and then section uh goal three uh direct county expenditures.
Uh uh so they they want to obviously clarify the process there. Um so I think there's a couple sections that we could talk about if it interests people. If not, the ship's going to sail. So
can we go through them now? 19. um >> just the ones that there's concerns about. >> I I would hope that we would look at the ones that we voted on today as approved and and not say that every other one is
automatically approved if we accept this um this report. So, they probably should come back. Uh but right now we're dealing with just these two uh changes. Let's get through that
and then Danny, you stuck your toe in the water. We can come back for for that. Um right now the the question on the table looking for a motion is board meeting board minutes and bylaws
required and and no uh required second engineering. >> So moved. >> David Santiago makes a motion >> for that. The second is by Vice Chair Reinhardt.
Any questions just on on that uh that motion? Uh David Santiago, Don Dempsey, >> Jake Johansson, >> Repeat the motion, please. >> The motion is that the applicants are um
required to have board minutes. Um actually nonprofit applicants are are asked to have provide board minutes and bylaws >> and then no pre-engine no additional engineering. >> Excellent. Thank you. >> Okay. Uh on that question, on that motion, uh
all in favor say I. I. >> Any opposed? And that passes 7 to zero. Danny, did you want to put a motion on the floor for the final 19? Chairman, I Brad, this was an email you had sent me.
Are we looking at the same um stuff that's on the uh agenda item when it said part two operational improvements which is staff limp? It is. >> U so I'll make that motion uh to allow council to to bring this back and if
there's any of those subsections uh to talk about um let's talk about them. I I announced a couple of mine here on the fly. Um and then we can then we can vote on them just like we did today. Yep. >> Thank you.
>> And you're making that as in the form of a motion. >> Sure. Okay. >> I don't understand the motion if it gives Danny if it gives clear direction on what occurs next from a staff perspective. >> Are you suggesting that we >> we need to look at these David?
>> I got I got you kind though. >> Uh well, we need to have the same opportunity kind of like what we did today. Do we want to let staff do this or is this something that that council to give direct >> agenda the other night the other remaining items for another meetings would you say?
>> Absolutely. >> I need a second on that motion. >> If there's no second uh the motion fails and then what happens to those additional items? Are they uh assumed approved? Brad,
>> so comment council Johansson, this is a um this is a strategic plan. It's a book. Um it provides guidance. I think it's a a a
great plan to depart from. uh we have strategic plans all over the place that we depart from here and there. I don't think this is something they get mired down in here. Uh now if
somebody has a problem with anything that that George or the departments have a plan on, we bring them up and discuss them and they might be um uh they might be dependent on the situation. Um, so
do I have a problem right now with with Brad convening the the stakeholders and and getting buy in in a project or or to align what the county is doing. Um, it's a bunch of people getting together and brainstorming. I think it's a great
idea. I I don't want to think of that as anything other than operational. Is that going to prevent us from doing the same thing in our travels? Um, no, maybe we do it all together. Um, so I I don't think the operational goals, those are
the ones that he wrote down. He's got tons of operational goals that probably aren't written down. Um, uh, they were included in a strategic plan, which could have stopped at the strategic u policies that we just
uh we just approved. So, uh, I don't mind bringing them back as they as they pose a problem or before they pose a problem, but I don't think we ought to go through every one of them. Uh, uh, unless we all have problems with one or
two of them, and we can relay that information to George and Brad and get it on the agenda. >> That's what I'll do. Okay. Because we still don't even have a second. >> So, did you say you just dropped it? your motion.
>> I'll do that. What I'm I'll go ahead and look through this. Okay. And if there's an issue, which I see a couple that I'll >> Okay. >> handle it. >> I think that's acceptable. Uh Councilman Dempsey. >> Yeah. So, I just want to make sure now that we haven't changed. >> There's nothing going to be changed to the existing program except what we
debated and voted on today. Correct. >> Yeah. >> Well, that's my understanding. >> Yeah. >> Is it yours? Unless I I thought you were going to bring back ones that were Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Well, I I just thought that we Danny
backed off of that, which I I don't want to see any changes other than what we've debated and voted on. Um because again, passed with overwhelming approval in 20. The poll says 64% approval. Now, I don't want to change anything except what
we've discussed and voted on. If somebody becomes aware of an issue on this program, then we can during closing comments talk about it, vote on it about putting it on a future agenda. And that's how I'd like to see it remain
here. That's a good question because the recommended motion was move to accept Echo Vision 2040 strategic plan and direct staff to proceed with implementation planning. That to me that says every everything on there, even the
things that we didn't vote on. Councilman Johansson. >> Yes, sir. Um, we all got this plan. We all looked at it. Uh, I think the question now is the the operational stuff. Um,
and and if if we think there's operational things in there that should be policy things, I looked at them. I I don't see any that are changing policy. Um uh and and keep in mind that that staff changes operational
stuff that's not written in a in a plan uh all the time and and they don't bring it to us because it's not a policy issue. Um we're changing from Firestone to Goodyear. We don't discuss that. It just happens.
Um, so I I I like the program. I I don't like metal. I don't like having council start to micromanage the operations. And you know where I came from in my past life, so you know why I'm saying
that. Um uh but um if if there's one that you think ought to be a policy, something that we ought to be uh handling here at this level, then then bring it up during council comments and and we'll put it on the agenda and discuss it.
>> And this was done as a transparency measure. Could you imagine if I separated these out and they didn't come? >> No. >> What we would be accused of? >> Okay, Councilman Santiago. >> Well said, Jake. I agree with you. It goes back to we're not project managers.
>> Yeah. So, um, what do we need to do to move on and get off this topic? >> Let's hear from the county manager, George Rectenald. >> Just to reiterate what Jake said. I mean, I think we we got what we need, which is the policy questions taken care of. The operational questions,
we'll keep it as much the same as possible. there might be some minor update operationally that we have to do to complete the task, but my goal is to get this out on the street uh as soon as possible. So, I think the, you know, with the council's okay, we've got what
we needed, the two changes that are going forward. We'd like to get the uh the guide book put out because you have uh all the cities and the stakeholders out there waiting uh to go ahead and and
get into the next cycle. So >> that's correct. >> So there's really nothing else to to decide on here today. >> Okay. Uh Councilman Dempsey, final comments. >> Brad. Yeah. Um, so there are proposed changes
to the operational >> operational changes. >> Okay. But we haven't discussed any of those operational items today. >> And normally you wouldn't because that's my job. See, so I think that's what I need to go back and talk to them. But we'll keep it exactly the same it is as
it as it is today. So we don't >> So there'll be no operational changes until I've had a chance to go over anything that I think would be uh raising to the level of uh of a um policy change to you guys changed then why do we have to vote on this?
>> You just voted on the oper on the on the policy changes >> because those were changes. That's right. My question here is operational. Why would we have if you're saying just now you said we're not going to make any changes then can we just >> we don't have to vote on them. I don't they weren't there for you. I didn't see an item for you to vote on for that.
>> That was the reason >> that was brought up by that was brought up by Councilman Robbins. So, but we weren't bringing anything forward for you to change as far as an operational change other than what he put up there or the final couple questions he added
there at the end uh from he got I guess in the final moments before this meeting because I wasn't aware of them. Well, I my question to the chair and everybody else was is anything else we're changing I other than what we've discussed and
voted on down the is there anything else we've changed we're changing if you're saying nothing else is going to change in this nearly 300page packet um then I'll take your word for it but if we are going to change >> certain components of the operational
standards we need to discuss that I do not want to we need to discuss and vote on I am not going to go through another Affordable Care Act and let's pass it and then we'll figure out what it says. No, let's discuss it now. My motion is to leave it as is >> and I'm fine with that.
>> Okay. >> Okay. >> Well, just to address Jake's comparison and Dave, you agreed with it, but Jason, in a race car, Jake, in a race car, you would never expect your mechanic to change your tires without talking to you first.
jump in. But okay, Don Don just put a motion on the table to to relieve the to leave the operational things as are and you >> No, no second. >> And is there a second on Don's motion? >> Second. >> Second by Troy Kent to not change any
operational >> chime in >> procedures. Um uh questions for staff or just or just a comment? >> No, just something >> I I think been saying, >> Don, your your description about changing the tire, right? You hired a mechanic to change the tire and you're
exactly, but you're not going to go in there and say, "Take this lug off first and then take this lug off before you get to this lug." The point is that you hired a professional to change your tire, right? And we don't do operational decisions. It's a it's a risky slippery
slope. I'll just say that where we're going here with operational stuff. That is not our role. And so going back to the mechanic, you hired him, we hired him and we hired our attorney for do certain legal things and he's hired these people. They run the operations. We make the policy. What we did earlier
today was we created the policy. We made policy changes. That's it. What they did out of a out of transparency is they say, "Hey, we're also going to make some operational changes on how they implement this, which is within their right already." They didn't have to put
that in there because we don't vote on policy. That's why it's not a separate line item. So, um I I Mr. Chairman, let's vote on this. And >> and if I may, I I showed extreme difference to council. Originally, there were six policy questions and we went from 6 to 11 based on the evaluation
between me and my team. So, >> yep. And and we dealt with all of them. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. The motion on the floor is the only changes to echo would be the ones that we voted on today.
Um, you better call the role. Caress. >> Mr. Dempsey. >> Yes. >> Mr. Johansson. >> I'm voting on policy. >> Strict policy. >> I'm voting strictly on policy. Is that a question?
>> I I don't know what the If the motion is to revote on the policy that we just voted on. >> No. >> What's the motion? >> No. They stay the same. The uh >> No. >> Okay. >> Mr. Kent.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Reinhardt? >> No. >> Mr. Robbins? >> No. >> Mr. Santiago? >> Mr. Brower? >> Yes. Uh but the motion fails and um but I do think Don that the county manager
said if he's if he's going to make a change you would bring it to us. So you'll get to vote on it. We'll get to vote on it. >> Mr. Chair, I I move that we adjourn for lunch. >> We do. Um the I was hoping to get
through item four cuz we've got a lot of people in the room for that, but I'm afraid we're going to have a lengthy discussion on Valuchia forever. So we will break until uh 1:00 Hey, hey, hey.
Heat. Heat. Heat. Hey, heat. Hey, heat. Heat. Heat. N. Welcome to the Valuchia County Council meeting. The meeting will begin in 10 minutes. Hey, hey, hey. Hey,
hey, hey. Hey, hey, hey. Hey, hey, hey. Hey, hey, hey.
Hey, hey, hey. Hey, hey, hey. Hey, hey, hey. Welcome to the Valuchia County Council meeting. The meeting will begin in 5
minutes. Hey, hey, hey. Heat. Heat. Baby. Yeah. Yeah. Hello. Hello.
Baby, baby. Black. Boom. Welcome to the Valuchia County Council meeting. The meeting will begin in two minutes. Okay, if everybody wants to find a seat,
we'll start in just a few seconds. Okay. Well, we we will resume the February 3rd County Council meeting. We are already on item four. Um agreement with the Florida Department. >> Chairman, if if I may, I told my wife it was going to be a short meeting. I'd be
home by noon. I just want to publicly tell her I just want to publicly tell her I'm not going to make it home by noon today. Sorry. Sorry, Heather. you you just prolonged the meeting. Okay, back to item four, which is an
agreement with the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services for the joint acquisition of an agricultural conervation easement over the 124 acre Bennett Road property owner Donald Smith in the Pearson area.
>> Motion to approve. >> Second. And we have a motion to approve the purchase by uh Councilman Robbins and second was by Councilman Santiago. We do have a member of the public who
would like to speak on this. Do we have any questions for staff? No questions for staff. And I'll call the uh member of the public who wanted to speak and and then we'll open it up for discussion. Uh, Greg Gimbert, you
have three minutes or less. >> Hey, good evening. Greg Gimbert, 255 Uclid Avenue, Daytona Beach. I wanted to talk to you about the concept of forever and preservation. There's no such thing in forever in
government except a government program. There is no permanent conservation. I submit for your consideration the city of Daytona Beach's city island, donated to the city, bound in perpetuity for public property, and sold for $8.77
million. Since 1966, there were six attempts to privatize City Island. The seventh attempt in 2019 was successful. The citizens of Daytona Beach were shocked to find that their mayor and
their city commission and their staff had been colluding behind their back to sell off City Island to developers. This very county council was shocked itself to read in the paper that y'all owned 8 acres of the 46 in City Island and nobody had come to you about that
either. So what my point today poorly made is that the only thing permanent in government is what the government decides it is. And as soon as some of y'all decide it's not forever anymore, it's gone.
I'm halfway through my time. I submit to you example number two, Tiger Bay State Forest owned by the state of Florida. Under the Rick Scott administration, he put that and many public lands up for sale. He called them surplus lands.
When we bought our state forest and our wildlife management area, we bought it for 50% recreation and 50% preservation. It says it right so in their documents. At least we own that land, but that too was set to be sold off.
So as you decide to spend public money on land, don't pay so much because there's no forever for it. the people behind you can switch it up. I don't care what your documents say. I've already shown you twice things that you know from your own heart and your own recollection are true.
So to buy development rights, not even real land, seems the epitome of foolishness. The epitome of foolishness. If buying the land isn't forever, what is buying air but a waste of money and a
contribution to somebody who wasn't going to develop anyway? So, I hope you will consider this memorandum of understanding and help them understand that we don't want to buy air anymore and have them come back to us when we want to buy land at the
very least. Thank you for considering my input. >> Okay. And that concludes public comment on this item. Uh is there any council member who would uh like to offer discussion?
And the motion on the table is to approve the sale. Um Councilman Don Dempsey. >> Yeah. I don't see the AC I don't see the agreement in the packet. Is it in here? Uh so this is just a memorandum of
understanding to begin the partnership process with the Florida Department of Agriculture and Cummins. Um in the future when we reach an agreement with the land owner that easement and sale contract will be brought back to you for approval. >> So what is the purpose of the vote
today? The vote today is to enter into an agreement with FDAX to allow us to use them as a partnership for this transaction, >> which is a state level agency. >> Correct. >> Hey guys, I um I'm not comfortable with
uh going forward with this today. I'd like to maybe continue this a couple weeks. We're going to have our deep dive discussion at the next meeting into Valuchia forever. I don't want to lay it all out now because I'm sure you guys don't want to hear it all right now. But if we could uh since this isn't the
final decision, um I'd like to wait until at the meeting next week after we have our discussion on Valuchia Forever or bring it back the following meeting. But I think there's a lot of worthy things to discuss at Valuchia Forever
and basically allowing us to be preempted by the state by entering into these typical agreements. I don't know what this agreement says, but I would only take an educated guess that it also involves the same constraints as all other easements, which takes away our
preeemption power over various things that I think we all don't want to happen. So, I move that we continue this. >> Okay. So, you have a motion. There's a we already have a motion on the floor to approve it. So, you'll have to vote I'm
sorry, >> against it. And then you could bring that back. But let me ask you if this is coming back anyway, isn't it? The purchase of the property will come back. >> Yes. Yeah. This this just >> this is approving negotiations.
>> This approves the partnership with FDAX um for them to be able to to utilize or start the due diligence process such as appraisals, negotiating with the land owner, the due diligence part. >> Okay. May >> so we are getting it back probably after the our discussion.
>> Yes. Easement terms and the purchase contract will come back to council at a future date. >> What I would be totally in agreement with and voting on today is if only Valuchia County alone was negotiating to purchase this. What I don't like is partnering up with
the state. The very people we do not want to be preempted by all that discussion we just had earlier on the consent agenda with our letter to the Tallahassee. We don't want to be preempted over our water there. I don't want to even begin discussing getting
into partnership with the very people we're trying to separate oursel from now going into partnership where they basically can preempt this all the contract. So, >> okay, >> I would like to vote just on Valuchia buying it through Valuchia and Valuchia
forever funds alone so that a future council could get out of this agreement if deemed in the best interest of public policy in a future date. >> Okay. Well, we'll see how this motion goes because the motion already is to approve. It's been seconded uh by David
Santiago who wishes to make a comment. I >> think so. So this is just for you to for them to come to the table to agree to some staff agreed terms or proposed terms to bring back to us to vote on later.
>> Yes, this is a two-step process. So this is the first step um in the partnership. Um this property is also eligible for FDA rural family lands program. So this allows them to start the acquisition process with us as a partner. >> Is there anything that stops FDA from
doing it themselves? No, FDAX can purchase properties on their own as well. >> That's it. Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> Any other comments? >> Uh if there are no comments, uh Carissa, would you call the role on item four?
The motion is to approve uh initiating the uh purchase requirements. >> Mr. Dempsey, >> no. >> Mr. Johansson, >> yes. >> Mr. Kent, >> yes. Mr. Reinhardt, >> yes. >> Mr. Robbins, >> yes. >> Mr. Santiago,
>> yes. >> Mr. Brower, >> yes. >> And so it is initiated. >> Thank you. Um um item five, Don, I assume you're going to love this one, too. Valuchia Forever
joint person purchase of a 493 acre carway lake conservation easement. Motion to approve. >> Second. We have a motion to approve by Councilman Robbins and a second by Vice Chair Reinhardt
and number of the public would like to speak. So, first let's uh see if anyone has any questions for staff as staff sits down. No questions for staff, then we'll go to public comments.
Um, uh, Dennis Thomas and you'll be followed by Dan Thomas. >> How you doing? Good. >> I'm Dennis Thomas. I uh, just want to kind of be short and sweet. I'm very supportive of the program out there. Uh
as we all are aware, Valuchia Forever program was established in year 2000. Careway land out there is a prime example of why taxpayers wanted this program and that's to preserve it.
If you're familiar with the property out there, I was I've been out there for over 40 years, been living in Valuchia County for over 50 years. Um, I believe in preserving pristine property and this is
it. If it's if it's natural, if it's what you uh dream of Florida to be, this is the land right there. It's can't sum it up any better. I'm not against development. Uh, I like smart
development. Uh but this is the example of what Valuchia Forever is all about and in and just in short I understand partnerships and stuff like that. I was I worked in government for 30 years. I worked with a
lot of DEA task force FDLE work many investigations but if we couldn't partner and share our funds we couldn't accomplish our common goal. At times you just don't have the funds to support
what your goal is and in this example you got to partner sometime or the end results is not what none of us want. So sometimes you got to give and take and this and this is an example of partner up. The partnership you know needs to be
ironed out the the positives and negatives but sometimes you got to partner up to share funds to accomplish your common goal. And thank you for your time. And one more thing, I had I talked to over 100 people, taxpayers, about
this and probably 50 or so letters came to all you guys that I spearheaded and I have nothing but positive with this program and supporting of this purchase on Careway. So that's my input
and thank you for your time. >> Thank you, uh, Dan Thomas. You gonna top that? >> Probably not. >> Uh, members of the council, thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Dale Thomas. I was born and raised right here in Dillion Springs down Black
Welder Road. This land isn't just acreage on a map. To me, it reflects the way of life that I was raised, the values I learned, and the reason so many of us call this place home. Places like this are becoming incredibly rare in Florida. And once
they're gone, they're gone forever. If this property is subdivided and developed at scale, the loss will be permanent. It would threaten ranching, wildlife, and one of the last remaining pieces of true old Florida. This land holds history, provides balance to our
environment, and quietly shapes the quality of life we often take for granted. You cannot recreate that once it's been erased. We understand that growth is part of our future and we are not against development, but growth should
be guided with care and respect. There is land to be developed and there is land that should be protected. This property falls into the ladder. If we allow a larger developer to transform it into an overpop populated subdivision, this will forever change
the character of this area and disconnect future generations for what makes this place so special. I respectfully ask the council to consider alternatives that preserve this land for the future, options like Valuchia forever so that what makes Dillion Springs unique is not lost over
development. This is an opportunity to protect something truly irreplaceable. I ask you to choose legacy over convenience and preservation over regret so that when our children ask what old Florida looks like, we can still show
them to this day. Thank you for your time. I support the purchase. >> Thank you for your comments. So Amy Manzy, Amy Munis, De Leon Springs Community Association. There's very little I could say that would top what those two guys
just said, but um um when you um approved this in 2024, September of 2024 for the active um list, the staff went to town on it. They did everything they could to make this work out in a way that was good for everybody. And I want
to take a moment to thank Brad Burbal, Tim Teler, uh Nick Dunham, the entire staff for everything they've done. They've they've taken kick after kick and they've done so much to make this a reality that's going to work for all of us. Um many of you have been to this property. You know, it straddles two
lakes. It's adjacent to a third lake. So, it makes it an incredible water recharge area. It's also part of the DeLeon Springhed Basin and it's part of the Deleon Spring Basin Management Action Plan. So, it needs to be protected. It's also part of Florida
Forever's um long leaf pine project. I need to make sure I say that correctly. And the longleaf pine is an incredible species because it provides an ecosystem and a habitat for many species, but also some on the endangered list. It's also incredibly resilient to against fire,
against hurricanes, against um drought, and it's something that really needs to be protected as well. It's part of the Florida Wildlife Corridor, and we know how important it is to have connectivity for wildlife as they look for places to travel and places to eat and make homes.
It's currently in active agriculture, and we want to make sure that it stays that way. It's an important part of Dillion Springs. It's important part of Valuchia County as an easement, not an outright purchase. The easement means that the owner continues to be responsible for land management. That's
a big expense. And because we're not having to pay for that, he's paying for that. They're paying for that. It's a big win for taxpayers. Um, also the fact that it's an easement and not an outright purchase, it stays on the tax roles, and that's important, too. Um, I
understand your con your concern um, Representative or Councilman Dempsey about partnerships, but um, $8 million is coming from Florida Forever. Florida Forever is in many ways funded by the
documentary stamp tax and that's a tax on all real estate transactions that we do. So, we think it's an amazing thing that $8 million of our money comes back to us to help preserve something incredibly pristine like this. And so,
we implore you to pass this to um contribute this amount so that this easement can come to fruition. Thank you. >> Thank you. And next we have Jim Cameron, who I don't believe is here, but there's a note at the bottom. It says, "Wave
time in support." Um, so next is Greg Gimbert and you'll be followed by John Nicholson. Hey again, Greg Ember, Daytona Beach. I'll pick up where I left off by an air.
No doubt those guys and that lady made an excellent plea of why we should save this land. But the only thing it takes to save these lands is for you people not to change the comp plan and the zoning. No charge. It doesn't get developed. These people seem like hostages. They're saying, "What if a
developer gets it? The biggest developer in the area already owns it and he's already bullied the state to give him $8 million for it. And now he's coming to pick our pocket for another $379 on top. If we take what we just discussed, the memor memorandum of agreement, and we
apply the price per acre of this thing to what we just talked about, it would cost us 3 million. Half of that be a million5 for us. Take another 400,000. Now we're up to 1.9. The budget for forever is only 10 million. We're 20% in the budget and we
ain't bought a handful of dirt. Vote no. May 8 million's enough for him. Thank you. John Nicholson, John Nicholson, Daytona Beachside. Normally, I would think this would be a no-brainer. Uh, I know how much you like
Brad and think he's so competent, but where the heck has he hidden this less than $1,000 an acre? You've heard flooding for what, two, three years now. This is perfect for a number of reasons. It is Miller Lake all
over again. All right. Without the comments, this is water recharge. Toilet the tap you've heard. You don't have to worry about that. Not with this property. This is ideal. And where else could you
buy anything for less than $1,000 an acre? Orman Beach. Down on the beach side. Nowhere around where I live can you get it for $1,000 an acre. You bought in the middle of nowhere for Don's track.
Everybody hates that, too. But it's not Don's track. It's for recreation. But we didn't get that for $1,000 an acre. This is a no-brainer. I'm the only reason why I'm speaking is because I I fear that someone's going to say, "Well, we don't want to do that. We
don't want to buy air rights." Yes, we do. It may la last forever, Don. So, somewhere in next 50 or 100 years, there may be a need, but there's a way out. If there's a need for this property
in 50 or 100 years, they'll vote it out. All right? Nothing stays forever, not even taxes. Sometimes taxes go up. Thank you. >> Thank you. And that in concludes public
comment u for item five. Uh comment by councel Don Dempsey. >> Um John, you're right. But I don't know where how how do you Well, I can't talk to him. I'm sorry. I'll talk to these
guys. He's the broken clock over there. But um how I'm kidding, you know that. Uh how do we how do we see that the future leaders of
the state are going to somehow be reasonable all of a sudden and answer our concerns? I I don't understand that. We we all want beach driving back, but we can't get them to agree to that. We want them to stop trying to preempt us over water, but we can't get them to
stop that. We can't get them to stop SP 180 when we don't want it because we can't get that back, apparently. So, why are we banking on the state being so reasonable 50 years from now or 100 years from now? There there I'm not against this
project. I've talked to Mr. Vanor. Um, I understand he's turned down significantly higher offers for this property. Um, more than double of what he's getting from Florida Forever. So, he is he is taking a loss. And even though there's a taxable value on these
properties, it's substantially less. I mean, good luck selling a piece of property that you can't even shoot guns on or you can't even build more than 7,500 square feet of imperous surface, which includes, coincidentally, asphalt driveways.
Uh, so this is a real tough one for me. If this was a Valuchia Forever acquisition alone, I'd be 100% behind it because I'm not against conservation. I'm not against Valuchia Forever. What I'm against, and we just wrote a letter about it today, is preeemption. We are
partnering up with a state who wants to control everything we do, but yet we're contractually binding ourselves to their wishes. And that's what has me scared. That's what I don't like. There's a lot of legislation going on in other jurisdictions to stop this
very issue. And I we'll do a deep dive into this in two weeks, but this one's a tough one because even if we didn't kick into 300, he could just agree to the 8 million and then we're stuck with a Florida forever restricted property. So again, I just
want to make people aware that we are systematically allowing our pre our properties to be preempted either through Florida Forever or the federal programs. And that's what I don't like. I want if there's an issue in a hundred years from now or that like the song
2525 if man is still alive what's going to be in the best interest of Valuchia County at that time and I just think it's I hate to say this word but arrogant for us to think that we know what's best for Valuchia County in
the year 2525 and what should be used with this property and our future leaders cannot make any independent decisions on what to do with this property in 500 years because we've lied down in bed with the
state and we've got so many of these properties that are happening. This one's a tough one for me because even if we didn't vote on the 300, he could still um go through with it and we would have the same problem of preeemption. I do like the property. It's a wonderful
asset for the west time west side. I'm inclined to vote for it only because there's nothing we could do to stop this and he's turned down twice as much money um for this property. So, it's a tough one for me. Um if we were funding the 8
million, I would be a no, but we're kicking in like 4% 3% of the purchase price. It is a valued piece of property. It's beautiful out there. Um, I just I really don't like us allowing
the state to control more and more and more of Valuchia County. And that's why that's what I'm struggling with. Thank you guys. Councilman Johansson. >> Thank you, Sean. Um, when we have these conversations and
we've had them a lot lately, you talk about we talk about our property. This is not our property. This is Vanor Holdings property. Uh upon completion of
this deal, it will be Vanor Holdings property with some restrictions on what Vador Holdings can do with that property. At no time does it become the
county's property. If we join in with Florida forever, then then we put restrictions on that property as well as the state. So at no time do I feel
that that the state is putting restrictions on us, the county, on this property. They're putting restrictions on Banor Holdings as far as I'm concerned. And and I'm not too sure
um since this isn't we're not buying the property that that this isn't a a like Brad does the stack when he says this is the stack. Mr. Vanor has got a Florida stack, a state stack worth about
just short 8 million and then he's got the Valuchia County stack which just hits the top. Um and and it's his deal uh like Mr. Dempsey said. So at the end of the day, it's not our property to be
preempted. Uh it's his property and and with that comes all the all the strings attached to accepting this money from the state and and us. And apparently he's willing to do that. So, um, uh, I just want to be careful that it's
not going to be our property at the end of the day. Uh, uh, we're not going to manage it. Uh, I don't, it's not going to cost us an operational tale. So, um, there's some benefit to that as well as well as not being um not being uh,
developed. So, thank you. >> Thank you. Um, the state of Florida has unanimously voted on a program, every Democrat, every Republican for the Florida Wildlife Corridor, which is uh in in
their description perpetual. Florida statues provide for conservation of real estate to be held in perpetuity. The department of a and commuter uh consumer resources or services is is authorized to acquire perpetual conservation
easements. The 1986 endangered lands program talks about perpetuity. And yet, Don, and I don't know if this will make a a difference to you, but I I think it's the hinge that you're looking for is the state talks about um buying land
to conserve it in perpetuity, but they have also allowed for us, the local government, to uh take it out by a vote. Let me And Mike Dyer, you're an attorney, too. Either one of you correct me if I'm wrong. I'm going to read
article 10 section 18 of the Florida Constitution and it says disposition of conservation lands. Um, the fee interest in real property held by an entity of the state and designated for natural resources
conservation purposes as provided by general law shall be managed for the benefit of the citizens of this state and may be disposed of only if the members of the governing board of the entity holding title.
um determined the property is no longer needed to conservation purposes and only upon a vote of 2/3 of the governing board. So, we really don't need a charter amendment to to do this. It's already in the constitution. The
question here would be the title holder. Um who would >> ask you that site again? Article 10 what? >> It's article 10 uh section 18. >> Thank you. >> Of the Florida Constitution. Does that offer Don some protection? >> It that would apply to stateowned lands,
not county owned land. >> It says the governing board of the entity holding title. The state would hold the title for this land. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Then you still have a problem. >> Wait a minute. Hold on. I I
I'm sorry. >> I said then you still have a problem because he said no, we couldn't vote to uh No, we can't preempt the state. They can preempt us, but we can't preempt them. Right. Or am I wrong on that? >> Right. Unless we were the sole owner of
the land, >> then we could take it out of conservation. >> Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for making that point. Been my point all along. >> I have to read the law. >> I understand. I understand that. But it's just I want to keep local control
of Valuchia properties. I don't like the state people who aren't even born yet in 500 years telling future council members what we can or can't do with our own property. That's been my concern. How however the
the reason that we do this, it's already it's been said by the two gentlemen that talked um that live in that area is that by taking on partners, we're saving the taxpayers millions and millions of dollars and and are able then to buy
more land. They also share in the cost of maintenance in a in this instance, the owner does. So, we're making their tax dollars go further. But maybe most importantly, this is a willing seller
program. I have questions about this about this particular program. I'm not going to go into all the details why, but I my understanding it was never going to be developed and I didn't understand that that's only going to happen if the state pays him $8 million.
Um but it's still a willing seller program and that seller should have the opportunity to say I want my I want to sell my land for conservation the same as he could say I want to sell my land for development which generally gets
approved. So, it's not our decisions, it's a sellers's decision. >> And and just to clarify, he's selling the easement, >> not the land, >> right? >> Difference. >> It's not Well, I don't know if you want
a response for me or not, >> yeah, put put your name up, please, because Troy's going to get mad at me. He was next. >> Sorry. >> Thank you, Chairman. I'm not going to get mad at you, but um you know, Mr. Dempsey, you and I lately
have been in lock step with our votes recently and um I don't feel like I have to give you a reason why we have a little fracture going on right now, but there's a little fracture going on. I'm going to tell you my reasoning behind this. So, I agree with you that it would
be wonderful for Valuchia County to be the sole land owner so that we can make all of our own decisions. The problem is there's over eight million reasons the state has given eight plus million dollars. So there's over eight million
reasons for me why I am for this. I'm going to go back to my days as a city commissioner in Orman Beach really quickly and just tell you all a lot of communities have these beautiful melee palms
up and down their roads, which by the way are my favorite dates to eat if anybody's looking for a snack every anytime. We had some people screaming at us for going into a partnership with FDOT. They were purchasing these Majul palms about
10 plus years ago. I think around the tune Jake around $15,000 a tree back then. How could you allow that amount of money? At the end of the day, if Orman Beach said no to those majel palms, you know who would say yes? Miami,
Daytona, Tampa, St. Pete, they would say, "We'll take Ormans. We'll gladly take them. Go ahead and cut your nose off despite your face. Don't get them jewel palms. put your sable palms in at 700 bucks a piece or whatever it is, you know, 300 bucks a piece. I I wanted I
wanted to take what the state was willing to give. And I liken it sort of to this, Don. I agree with you again that I would like to be in control, but because the state's coming to the table with the eight plus million dollars for
this if if we said no and Vanor said no, I think that Florida Forever would just say, "Okay, Hillsboro, what do you have? We've got 8 million bucks. We're ready to spend. Uh Miami Dade, what do you have?" And and they would spend it elsewhere. And I think Valuchia loses in
that scenario. So I wanted to tell you why I'm fracturing with you on this and that's and that's my reasoning. I'm going to support this today. Thank you. Chairman Councilman Santiago >> call the question. >> Well, uh Don asked had asked to respond >> only Councilman Dems.
>> Yeah, we're not fractured. I agree with you. Okay. You've ch you haven't changed my mind. I I never said once I'm a no on this. I am in favor of this and I'm going to vote for this property for the one reason. There are exceptions to the
rule and just like the lighthouse, instead of that lighthouse property being condoed and turned into a private development, it was preserved for a park. I liken this Careowway property as a park. Uh it's beautiful out there and
it should not be developed because I think it offers so much beauty that everybody should be able to enjoy it for future generations. So, I can stomach this one because it does add so much to our westside community and um for fishing for Danny and his boy and all
the other reasons why this is such a valuable piece of property. Um I'm just trying to make a point that we we've got to look into this. This is not something that I just pulled out of thin air. And again, I don't want to go into this too deep. My concern is preeemption in in
perpetuity. Those are the two words that scare me. I want us to be able to control future things. We are making this decision whether or not this goes in. Uh if it ever gets undone, unfortunately, we don't get to make that same decision. Only the state, we have
to get the state's blessing. That's what I don't like. That's the same thing with beach driving. We unilater our predecessors gave it away, but now we got to get the state's blessing to get it back. And they're not being quite so lovely. I think chair you even said during that same meeting that dealing
with the state is a very frustrating task. I think that was a nice >> way quote I think you actually said something worse than that about dealing with the state and trying to give us back local control. >> That's my concern. So >> this is going to happen. Florida forever
is going to grab this. I'm sure uh Mr. for Vanic. Um, like I've been told and I've talked to him. He could have got a lot more money and I I speculate with land. I know he's telling the truth. He could have probably got he has been had he's had had offers for even more than
double this. So, I think it's very nice of Mr. Vanor to do this. I think he's doing this as a legacy for the West for the whole county for us all to be able to enjoy this property because I think if he sold it or developed it, he would be making a lot more money. So, I don't
want to step on Mr. Vanor's toes because he is trying to give us legacy property, which I really, as a citizen, I really agree. Uh, I appreciate that. But again, I'm not going to stop. There's other legislation as we speak in other states
and at the federal level to stop perpetuity, to re-examine these easements. 26 Republican senators and representatives at the federal and state level agree with what I'm saying. So, I'm not pulling this out of thin air. I'm This
is a concern that we need to look at. These conservation easement purchases now are great, but how great are they 100 years from now, 200 years from now, 300 years from now? We don't know what's going on. And that's that's my whole point of all this. I'm for conservation.
I'm for everything that it stands for. I just don't like the words perpetuity and the state who we can't seem to get anything we want out of them as far as giving back our local power. We're we're putting all the power to change these things in their hands
forever. That's what is really hard for me to stomach and that's what I want to talk about our next meeting and that's the only reason why I'm having consternation over this. But I am going to vote for it because, you know, I agree with you, Troy. This is a
beautiful piece of property. This isn't just swamp land out in the middle of nowhere or whatever. This is valuable property. Thank you guys. Appreciate your time. >> Okay, Carissa, would you uh call the role? It may not be necessary on expenditure of $379,000
for the Valuchia Forever Joint Purchase. >> Mr. Dempsey? >> Yes. >> Mr. Johansson? >> Yes. >> Mr. Kent? >> Yes. >> Mr. Reinhardt? >> Yes. Mr. Robbins, >> yes. >> Mr. Santiago, >> yes. >> Mr. Brower,
>> yes. And the purchase is approve 7 to zero, which brings us to item six, which is a quasi judicial hearing. Um, I don't know if anyone has any exparte to declare on
the amendment to Halifax Plantation. >> I have none. None. I spoke to the attorney for the petitioner. >> Same. >> Okay. Two two members, Jake and I don't know who's writing this down. Jake and
Don uh talk to the >> Mr. For Danny. Okay. >> Okay. Duly uh noted. >> Motion to approve. >> Second. >> Did you say that? >> No, sir. I did not say that. I have a
motion to approve uh this amendment by Councilman uh Robbins and the second was by uh Jake Johansson. Is it you? Okay. >> Okay. Any questions for staff on this? >> No, chairman. It's my district. We all read the agenda item. If they don't need
to present, um we have a motion in a second. We're ready to rock and roll. >> Okay. No questions, no comments from anyone. And there is a lot of public comment on it. So I will call your name.
Uh Peter Hartman. We have nine people who wanted to speak on this and Peter is the uh HOA president of the Halifax. Thank you gentlemen. Again my name is Peter Hartman Orman Beachch. I'm the board president of Halifax
Plantation phase 2 and three which encompasses right now about 1,800 built homes and with a buildout of about 21 homes that are 2100 homes that are in the very near future. We have 4,200 residents approximately. This is um not
an age restricted community. It's um not it's not a private gated community. It's a public community. The property that you're addressing today is basically the way I look at it is a hole in the donut. It's directly in the center of our HOA community, dead
center. And what happens in that piece of property is going to be a reflection on the rest of the community that's there. It is imperative that the HOA and its residents are a part of the continuing development formula that was set forth in the original DRRI uh to be consistent
with the language and intent of that DRRI when it was developed. The original DRRI I believe was a contract between the county and the developer at that time and whereby each has to live up to its agreements and I know under time past there has been
amendments to it but nothing that's originally affected the original DRRI and we didn't find out about this until it was actually in the newspaper and some of our residents had uh read about it but we weren't informed about it until probably four or five months after
the fact. So, we didn't get a real handle on it until later on. The HOA is basically looking for some asurances that this property pocket that's in the center of it will be part of the original DRRi agreement allowing
the HOA to have governing sense over the uh property that's there with the CCRs in place for the HOA. the what we're looking for probably at least would be some sort of a restriction on the deed when it's issued that the HOA is part of
that um pocket of uh property that's being sold so that we would be able to have some governing process over that based on the original DRRi. Thank you. >> Thank you John Mau. Good afternoon. My name is John Mau and
I'm a resident at Halifax Plantation. I'm a retired planner and an architect with nearly 50 years of experience working with school districts and and developers as well. Set aside as a potential school site, the subject parcel is situated, as Mr. Hartman said,
at the heart of the plantation. Being familiar with the original PUD resolution that contains specific language uh prohibiting sale of the property and finding nothing on the county website, I reached out to the planning department seeking information
about the proposed amendment. I received no response to my increase. Further, it appears that no notice was given to the HOA or neighboring property owners. I consider this a negligent outcome and omission depriving the concerned parties
of the opportunity for engagement, enlightenment, or participation in a unilateral amendment attempt. The original resolution anticipated the possibility that the site might not be needed for a school and provided specific options for disposal. It now
appears that selling, which was not one of the specified options, is simply the option that is preferred. It is critical to our community that the amendment language is crystal clear on several issues. Subject parcel located at perhaps the busiest intersection in the
interior of the plantation and completely surrounded by fully built out pockets with this potential for a change in use. It must be included in the Halifax plantation phase 2 and three PUB and subject to its terms. While the staff has offered assertions that
attempt to provide such reassurance, the language itself of the proposed amendment does not appear to clearly support these assertions. Likewise, in concern to a planner like me, the included future land use exhibit seems to be in conflict with the
original intent of the DRRi and thus is inappropriate. Specifically, this exhibit identifies the site as ULI, urban low intensity. While this designation may be compatible with single family uses, it also indicates compatibility with business uses and
manufactured housing. These last two classifications are wholly inappropriate and inconsistent with the community design and the original intent of the DRRi. Seems to me as a planner that a more appropriate FLU is LIU, low impact
urban with compatibility reserved specifically for PUD. if it if including an L FLU at this time is even necessary. Also, my understanding of Florida statute 720.3075
is that a unilateral amendment attempt by a school district constitutes the actions of a developer and this attempt as well as any future attempts by future developments after this sale must engage the HOA in any desired amendment process. This ensures that both the
homeowners and developers can achieve a mutually beneficial result. Therefore, I respectfully request that the board deny or continue this item until these deficiencies are addressed. Thank you. >> Thank you for your comments. Uh Tony Yuanino,
Tony Wanino, U Orman Beach. I'm the um I'm on the board of the homeowner association and I think John pretty much said what I was going to say but I'm saying it a different way. Um Oops.
The um it's not the sale of the property, it's the way it kind of came to your desk. Okay. This is the final development order for Halifax plantation. This is the master covenants.
This what's governs everything up there. The this document I'm g take this. Do I have to speak to both? Um was signed by the county and a developer. This document was signed by the
developer and effectively the 1,800 the 1,800 people that are there now, the 2,000 that are plus that are going to be there later because the developer has turned it over to the homeowners association. The homeowner association is run by the
board. The board has a duty to enforce this and this. And the problem is it went through in a manner that just doesn't make sense. Um
the the county unilaterally is changing the words on the development order and at the request of the school board who wasn't a a signer on that document and the developer which is now the
board. You got to developers gone. The border took devel the board takes took the place of the developer was never notified. So you have the people who signed this one is unilaterally changing it and the
the homeowner association has no input. On the other side of the equation the covenants it's between the developer and the people. The developer now remember is the board. We were never notified and I think Pete made that
point to you and John made that point to you. So if you go across the lines I was giving you here, there were three four three places that we should have been notified as a homeowner association. So you get back
down to where the land is and the question is what should you do? I think what you should do is not vote on it, pull it until you can do the wording over to make sense. Doesn't mean we're against it. It means
we need to put that what uh John said. It should be something in there that stipulates that the HOA is going to be part of that conversation. Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh
James uh Pickkins Council, Mr. Chair, James Pickkins with the law firm Mackenzie Vincent Pile. um here on behalf of the Halifax Plantation Phase 2 and Three Homeowners Association. Um we cannot support an
amendment to the Halifax um development plan when uh we did not participate and we're not consulted in the drafting of that. Um as I said, there's over 1,800 homes in this community. Those 1,800 homes are u subject to covenants and
restrictions. this 18 acre parcel that's in the middle of the community is not. So, um in order for to get the support of the community, they want some reassurance that those uh covenants and conditions would be subject to this 18
acre parcel and under the control and direction of the homeowners association. Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh Susan uh Vormack. Good afternoon. My name is Susan Vormack
and I'm a homeowner of two properties in Halifax Plantation. Um my townhouse is directly uh backyard is the preserve area of that's in question here the 18 acres and the impact to this project
directly affects the value of my home and the peace and enjoyment that I purchased the home and the price that I paid for that home. So it made it a premium a premium location. uh removing that area of preserve is going to change possibly the flood zoning of my property
as the wet land will be now absorbed um into some kind of concrete foundation and the noise from the uh 95 will also be I'll be exposed to that. um the wildlife that I enjoy which is very massive in that area is going to be
displaced and I think that really some consideration of the impact of uh removing that preserve area there is something that really hasn't been considered. Um where those animals are going to go and bobcats uh wild turkeys
are probably going to going to wander off onto 95 and old Dixie Highway. Uh we've had tremendous problems with uh storm drainage water and the reckless and quick rapid uh hardscape development
in the in the area has caused mosquito problems that are out of control. They've sprayed all summer. I I was attacked over 20 times. It was like CO all over the past summer. Um it's like a paradigm shift. You know, a little bit a little bit each developer comes in and and does what they wish. Then all of a
sudden there's a paradigm shift and you have an eco problem. I think that the whole holistically the situation and the impact of that uh developing that land really needs considered. Um that area is
very fragile where all those uh canals and channels come and the surge of uh storms can really impact our our residents. And not only that, it's a it's a figurative line between Valuia County and Flaggler County and all the
development they're doing north of us. So holistically, you need to take a look at what's going on with the water runoff and water drainage. Um we've had water on the side of Old Dixie Highway now for over a year in drought conditions and it's just a mess and and nobody can lead
the water into the state park because the county only cares about the roadway. Thank you. Brian Beelick. Is Brian here? I don't see any movement. Uh Pam Croll. Hello, my name is Pam Croll. I live in
Orman Beach, specifically Halifax Plantation. I've lived in Dunore, which backs up against these 18 acres since 2003. We bought the property with the understanding that the 18 acres that
border our backyard would not be developed. Years later, we found out it was zoned for a school. Wasn't told that at the beginning, but as a retired Valuchia County teacher, I know the district looks for larger undeveloped land for
new construction. Now, this land agreement is in question. We've had more of the experts explain all that. We do not want any more development. We don't want homes. We don't want a recreational sports field.
We don't want a community center. We don't want a library. The developers are chipping away at the beauty of our neighborhood. Please keep these 18 acres natural as our deer, turkeys, gopher, turtles, birds, and more losing their
environment. More development on these 18 acres will also cause, has been mentioned, drainage issues, increase our traffic, and more demand on emergency services, and of course, displace the animals that many
of us enjoy. Changing zoning undermines the original planning meant to benefit the entire community. Please keep these 18 acres natural and not allow more building to take place. I did see it in writing
today. These things that I had mentioned could be possibilities. One of them was a park. Some of us that I've talked to would be agreeable to make it a park if that had little or no impact on the current
environment and the animals that we have enjoyed. We like the woods that are directly behind our house and we do not want to lose the natural look. Please vote against changing the original plans to these 18 acres in Halifax plantation.
Thank you for your time. Thank you for your comments. Uh Judson uh Huggins. I'm Justin Huggin. I live also live on um I live on Konamar Drive which backs up to this property and uh had pretty
much all the same uh concerns as her. Uh my wife and I uh actually just moved down from uh well seven years ago um from North Georgia in the mountains and we enjoyed you know a lot of animals in
the area there. Uh the animals uh behind our house uh are you know the tortoises, gopher turtles and um box turtles uh a lot of other uh even seen some cougars
back there walking through. But um we really enjoyed it and uh we thought the land was on uh I guess protection because of uh the gopher turtles and uh thought it was
pretty much you know protected zone and were shocked also to find out that it was going up for sale because they wanted to change it and um I just I'm looking to hopefully keep it
the way it is. Um, that's all. Thank you. >> Thank you for your comments. Uh, Ben Fitzpatrick, thank you for your Thank you for your time. Um, my name is Ben Fitzpatrick. I'm a resident of Halifax Plantation and
I am against this resolution for a couple of reasons. One is that it is very vague and nebulous as a as a as a property owner in Halifax Plantation. The amendment, you know, there's no
specificity to it. What are you going to do? I mean, now I've been told that and the reason that this property is being discussed is because the school board wants to sell it. I understand that. You know, the school board wants to sell it
and, you know, they they actually took a bid uh before any of us had any idea what was going on. And my concern is that if you don't specify in the amendment what the zoning is,
then there's not there's nothing to prevent, you know, you know, uh, a commercial development there or whatever kind of development that the, uh, purchaser decides. And that's completely
inappropriate for Halifax Plantation. It's right in the middle. It's right in the middle and uh we just don't you know I mean I think that this is this resolution is totally unclear and we
need to get something that guarantees that the HOA will have control over that as an assurance before I could could support this amendment. So that's all I have. Thanks.
Thank you all for your for your comments. Um, Councilman Kent, do you have questions for staff or just a comment? >> I have comments. >> We We had an opportunity for questions. Nobody had I I have a question now. Does
anybody Jake? Okay, you go. You're next. So, questions for staff. Yes, sir. Um, does this public hearing today have anything to do with the future use of this property?
>> No, sir. That's right. >> Does does the hearing that we're discussing today, >> will it come back to us for future decision or or to the HOA for
future decision of what that property may be? >> Yes, sir. >> So, that that's although these are all important things to the HOA, they're they're not things that we are voting on today. >> Yeah. I think you know today the action
is you know can can uh Valuchia school sell the property to a third party that's on question today >> and then the third party comes >> right >> back through the process like everybody else >> the zoning stays intact to what what the use is now and that is for a school a
park. So if a third party happens to get it and they want to do commercial or residential, they will have to go through the public process. It would be a council decision. The HOA, I share their concerns, but that would be the next step if that were to happen to work with the HOA.
So, if the school decided to build a school, which it's zoned for right now, and and the cougars and the box turtles and and the turkeys get shued off, that would come through us. That would not
come through us. That's right. Because it's already zone and it's a school. Um, that's all the questions I have. Thank you. That that answers half my question, Jake. Thank you. That the question I have left is what happens if we vote this down?
>> If we vote it down, then um the language would be changed in the DRRi development order and then um then I think uh Valuchia County would have the right to receive receive that property. >> Okay. Thank you. And we we do have
>> I think Po wants to add a little bit to that. >> He always does. So, so this this site is subject to two restrictions. One, while it is vacant, the uh the school board can only convey it to to the county. However, if they develop a school site,
you know, and remember, it doesn't go through us. Then the rules change. The rules basically say that we get the right of first refusal and only the right of first refusal. And if we refuse, they can sell it to whoever they want. So, right now it's vacant. Uh they can only provide it to us. But if it
gets developed as a school site, then all we get is a right of first refusal and the school board can sell it to whoever you know they bids bids for it. >> But they obviously don't want to build a school there. >> Correct. >> Okay. We have the applicant or the
applicant's attorney. >> Correct. Yes. >> So I think we need to hear from you before we continue. >> Alex Ford, 145 East Rich Avenue, the land representing the Valuchia County School Board. And I do appreciate all the effort that the staff and and uh county attorney's office have gone through. We've been meeting with them
for for a while now um to get to a point where we're in agreement on on a staff level and a a school district level uh where this should go. The the the first thing I want to mention is notice was given including to the HOAs. I've got uh
the return receipt uh cards in my file. So if anyone has any question about that, I've I've got those. I can show them to you. Um, we what we what you do, you probably know this process, but just for the benefit of the public, we go to the
Lewis County property appraiser. We ask them for the addresses of the adjoining owners, which is who we serve notice on, and then we send them out certified mail, return, receive request. So, I've got those I've got those in my file. Um,
so, uh, start, uh, as Mr. Uh, Council Member Johansson was saying this is not seeking to change any use whatsoever. In fact, the the map continues to say school. That is what continues to govern
this property. So, there is no ambiguity. There is no there's nothing that's that's vague about it. Right now, if you guys uh do see fit to approve this, it's a school site. Period. Okay. Now, at some there's no
secret here. It's public record. I think they've even seen our our our contract. The property is currently under contract with a company and I can't remember their exact name, Serenity. Um, and it is under contract. Uh, Serenity is uh
obviously would have to come back before unless they want to put a school there, they would have to come back before this body. These folks would be able to address their very valid concerns at that point in time. every one of them and and you would as an amendment to the
DRRI either say yay or nay or maybe change some of the development standards they want to have. Uh but that's we're not developers other than developers of school sites and school infrastructure. So, um, a couple of things I want to
correct. This DR, it goes back to the 70s. And back in the 70s, this site actually had two, uh, alternative uses. One was as a school site. And then after I think it was 10 years, if it hadn't been put to use as a school site, it was
to be for single family residential, and I think it was not to exceed 45 units. So this is this is not something that is a a new concept that the property might be developed as a school. It's not a new concept that it might be developed for
something other than school purposes. But uh at some point in time uh back in the 80s I believe it was uh it was changed to take out the 45 residences and then I think at that point it added things like community centers, parks, I
don't remember ball fields are in there but other public type uses. Um, so, um, it's never never been restricted to a preserve area. And for the people who were told it was preserve, you need to you need to talk to whoever told you
that because they were wrong. It's always been public record. This was never a preserve area. Um anyways, at some point back in the 2000s, I think it was 2004, 2005, something like that, uh the school board actually purchased the
site from uh the uh from the developer and uh paid some cash, gave some impact fee credits, and um then uh fast forward uh you know, 20 years has passed, something like that, and it's just been
determined that this is not really the best site currently for a school. Uh we don't think it's a good place for the school district to have a school. Currently, we don't think it's the best place for Halifax Plantation to have a
school. Um so um what the school board determined u six eight months ago something like that was uh they it would be better to deploy this asset uh uh by selling it for fair market
value and um use those funds in other other ways to to to deal with school infrastructure. Um, and so one of the comparisons I'd like to make, uh, really the only comparison, uh, there is no other comparison right
now other than a school, but let's talk about if you put a prototype elementary school there with 700 students. Uh, according to, uh, our staff, that that project the projection would be 2,800 average daily trips going to that
school. Uh most of those trips would come from outside of Halax Halifax Plantation. So you're going to have not only the backed up roads twice a day in Halifax Plantation, but you're also going to have a pretty significant
impact on Old Dixie Highway. Um now I'm not saying this is what a potential buyer would do, but let's say a potential buyer comes in and says 45 single family residences. And I'm not a traffic guy, but I've been told that would be approximately 10 average daily
trips per residence. So rather than if you did the 45 that had previously been permitted, that would be 450 average average daily trips versus with a school 2,800. So we believe not only is this good
stewardship of a school of a public asset, um it's also better for this neighborhood. Now, I completely understand the neighbors concerns, but they have a they have you folks sitting here that can address those
concerns if and when a developer comes in uh in the future. Um because they're going to have to change it from a very defined school use to to whatever use they decide to put through the property. Um
there is some blurring of the lines I think in some of the discussion you heard today. Um and that's understandable. You know, they're not lawyers. Um but there was a blurring between the private covenants that they have the the the declaration, the deed
restriction as part of Halifax plantation versus the uh DRRi and the PUD that's associated with that. This property is actually subject to the the PUD to the DRRI. It already is. It's not. And they've shown me the the um HOA
covenants. It is not. For some reason, it was specifically excluded from the covenants probably because um it was not anticipated that time. Again, that's something to address when the ultimate buyer comes before you if they decide to change the use. That's something you
folks can address at that time. And actually, I think it's a good idea to address it at that time. That's that's typically what you do. Um, so just I think one other comment. Um, I'm not sure if they mentioned it, but someone said, "Well, this this is it's
not a good school site, so it never will be a a school site." That's just not correct. The school board will eventually have to deploy this asset for some purpose. If it's not sold, then it will eventually be a school site. And uh
even though this is not a a a 55 age restricted community, another we have another good example of that and it's called Deltona, Florida. >> Uh when Deltona was developed when I I don't know about Did you go to Dand High School? You did. So when I went to Dand
High School, we had kids shipped in from Deltona, Ostein, Lake Helen. Okay. And there weren't any schools in Deltona to speak. I think it was Deltona Junior High and and but then that that Deltona was
originally marketed to senior citizens to retirees and then they died and their children moved in or somebody else bought it and all of a sudden Delton is a great place for young families because you know there's there's a lot of availability there and all of a sudden
you have all these school sites. So, if the people out here are thinking this will never be a school site, if this does not pass, it will eventually be a school site. Uh, and that's that's a pretty significant impact. I don't know how many of y'all have been by this
property, but the the uh the site is very close to Dixie, Old Dixie. And just imagine that that traffic backed up on a five days a week basis during school season. So I I think this is you're going to have your shot to make sure
it's developed the right way, but this is not the time to put those kind of restrictions on it. Do you have any questions? Be happy to answer. >> Yeah, we you had a couple questions, I think. Uh we'll start. >> I have a question for him. >> Did you have Okay, go ahead. David Santiago, >> thank you. Can you address uh Paulo's
comment on what he believes is one of the I'll use the word restrictions um about the sale of the land. And I think he described it in a way that if it's not developed that the county would be >> right >> could the first right of refusal. >> It it's a very weird it's very weird
language. I don't think any of us that are currently sitting here would have probably drafted it this way. Uh but the way it's worded right now, as long as a site remains vacant, uh the only thing we can do with it is
either put a school on it, develop it, or give it to the county and then if the county accepts that gift, there are certain restrictions as to what the county can use it for. That being said, if that's in place, I mean, it kind of is a little I'll use
the analogy, cart before the horse, because it seems like your your client's sales contract is void. I'm not an attorney, but I slept in a Holiday Express last week. >> Me, too. >> No, the the sales contract actually the
current sales contract actually is contingent upon uh this approval being obtained. >> Okay. So they it's not a it's not a void contract. Uh we actually when we acquired the property uh we yeah you as you would think we get we got title
insurance. Title insurance did not disclose this restriction. >> Looks like you got a claim. >> So that's that's you know >> um if I could ask our attorneys a question. Mr. Chair. >> Yeah. If you don't I was going to. >> Okay. >> Mr. Paulo you're up. >> Yes. help me understand to me what what you
said and I think what I've identified now is that we could just say if you're going to give up the land give it to us and that's it. We could say that too, right? Based on what you think our agreement is in the covenant or whatever it is, right? As long as it's vacant. So, so,
uh, one thing, um, when we look back at the the history of this, the the presumption was that the school district received the land free of charge from the master developer and they paid nothing for it and granted 1,800 units of impact fees. Um, this was in the 80s.
That didn't happen as as um, and school district shared the uh, purchasing document. So they had to buy the property from the master developer and they paid cash and they gave provision like impact fee credits for that. So um
you know you did a lot of strange things in old DRI such as you know put in what should have been a a restrictive covenant into a development order. Um we typically don't do that anymore. We've got interlocal agreements with the school board for school site planning
and things like that. So, um, but it's the county's development order that has, you know, this statement on conveyance of the property, um, with conditions that may or may not have occurred. >> Is it enforceable?
>> Well, it's it's your development order. Um, and you know, there's an out school board, you know, um, constructs a school site. And once again, we have no authority of what a school site looks like. That goes through, >> you know, University of Florida and then
it's just right of first refusal for us. >> Sure. >> The the I didn't want to get into the weeds on some of the legalities here, but let me let me make this point. In my opinion,
we cannot convey the property to Valuchia County free of charge. And there's a very good reason. I think would violate state case law. It's there is something called the dual rational nexus test uh which Mr. Dempsey may be familiar with um some of the rest of
you, but basically it says because keep in mind part of the consideration was impact fee credits. So we have to be very diligent to follow the law regarding impact fees on this. We can't transfer, okay, here's an impact fee that's paid for schools. Well, all of a
sudden we're going to make it instead of using this for schools, we're going to use it for parks. It doesn't meet the what's called the dual rational nexus test. Doesn't meet uh Florida statute. It doesn't meet even the Valuchia County ordinance on impact fees. Um secondly,
um a couple weeks ago, Mr. Dempsey was talking about restraints on alienation. Um the way it's worded, in my opinion, that language is what's called an illegal restraint on alienation. Nobody was thinking about that stuff back in
the 70s, 80s, whatever. But that is, and I'm not going to put Mr. Story on the spot, but I think he has actually used that same term in discussing the matter with several of y'all. Um, the third thing, just from a practical standpoint, there would be no reason for the school
board to say, "Well, we'll just give this to the county." Um, they they have they have to be good stewards of their assets just like you guys have to be of yours. and at some point in time this may be a good school site and so they they would not be they would not be
willing to do that. >> Okay, one one more question for you, Mr. Ford. You said that you did send notice to the residents and the board. We we have the board president here and he said he didn't get a notice. How how did that happen?
>> I don't know. All I can All I can do is mail the notices and that's all your ordinance requires me to do. It was mailed through the snail mail, not through uh >> Okay. >> Okay. Um
>> and you said it's it's under contract with Serenity, but you have no idea what they plan on doing with the property if they were to buy it. >> The actual name of the company is Serenity Capital Management. Um I don't
know what they would do with it. I would assume they would be looking to do something. >> If I were them, I would be looking to do something compatible with the neighborhood >> because if you don't do that, you're going to be facing, you know, 20 times the number of folks that are here right now.
>> Okay. I would assume that too. Paulo, can I ask probably the same question that uh Councilman Santiago just asked. So as brief of answer with as few words, I thought I heard you say that if we vote this down, we get the first rate of
refusal for it. >> If it if they develop it as a school site, so >> if they develop it as a school site, >> right? So the current rules right now for this particular site, it's marked as a school. If it's vacant, then the the
restrictions are they can only convey it to the county and no one else. >> Yeah. right? If they later decide to sell um but if they develop it as a school site then then it's just they can they can choose to sell that school site and offer the
county the right of first refusal and if we refuse then they can sell it to anyone else. >> Okay. All right. Uh we'll go to uh comments and and debate. Uh Troy Kent.
Thank you, chairman. Um, this is my district. To my friends at Halifax Plantation. Uh, man, you chose a beautiful gem of a place to live in. Some things I'm going to say you're probably going to appreciate and agree with, and maybe some things you don't agree with and maybe won't appreciate,
and that's okay. Um, I think you'll appreciate that we've been working hard on Old Dixie, Old Kings, and Ross Common to straighten that out. We're going to get you a stoplight there and make things a lot safer. Um, I agree with the school board attorney
that's here and also I saw some residents that spoke nodding their head yes that they would not want to have a school with 2,800 trips a day and and I see you shaking your heads as well. Um,
that's a use that that you don't want. I'm appreciative back in the early 80s they were planning and thinking there would be a school that possibly could be used there. But I know I don't want a school next to my home. Okay. Now the
thing you may not appreciate is and that's okay is is that you know everybody wants everything to stay the same. Just keep it the way it is. Don't let it change. And it's it's nice you know to say well you know we're the homeowners association. you know, we we get to make the decision. And I would
say yes, if you buy it, you buy it with your money, and then leave it vacant, pay the taxes on it, and and enjoy it in the state that it's
in. But most people don't want to do that, you know? I mean, I I live I live beachside for insurance purposes, 1400 feet from the Atlantic Ocean. I would love to have no neighbors to my east and be able to walk right to the beach. But my house was built in 1954 and I wasn't born till 75. So when I bought my house
in 2003, you know, I could complain about I've got all these people in my way to the beach, but I guess I could just buy all their homes and then not have the complaint. So, I I I ask you to just be realistic when
you say things like, you know, well, we don't want any other use there because I'm going to tell you, even as your representative, then buy it because when your homes were put in, which I love them, by the way, your place wasn't clear-cut like developers like to do now. You have
beautiful, majestic, 100 plus year old trees in your neighborhood. But when your homes were built, mark my word, I was a little boy, but there were people in Flagler County and people on Beach Street, Norman Beach screaming about your homes being built. They didn't want
them there. They in in turn, they didn't want you there. So, that being said, council, I'm just going to very quickly with my two minutes left, you know how I operate with with George and staff for these meetings. I send my questions in. This is my district, so you know, I send
a question in about this. It may help you. It may help the council. It helped me. This was my response from staff when I inquired about this. This is from staff. The item is an amendment to a condition in the Halifax Plantation DRI and allows the school board to surplus
the property to another entity. However, the designated uses on the site remain as either school, public facilities, or play fields as provided in the Halifax Plantation DRRI and PUD unless changed by council through another reasonzoning
application. A future owner has not been identified until right now. Possibly, that's possibly. And the proposed future use has not been identified. A future owner would have to file a major amendment to the Halifax Plantation PUD to create additional entitlements and
reszone and redesate the parcel to accommodate any other use such as residential or commercial and must be in compliance with the county's current comp plan and meet all required mitigation measures. A major amendment to the PUD to uh allow the site to be
used as a residential or commercial is treated the same as a reszoning and the applicant application must come before the county's PLLDRC and must be heard and approved by the county council. So, anything that's
going to come is is going to come back and I'm not here to make your decision for you. But if I didn't have the money in my coffers for your homeowner association to go and purchase this land, I would much rather have a few homes than a school with 2,800 trips. I'm not fear-mongering. I'm just telling
you what I would rather have. That's just that's just me. And um you know, you you all get to do you. Um but I'm going to end this with the way I started it. Man, you bought in a beautiful area. Thank you, Chairman. Councilman Dempsey,
>> I didn't get a chance to ask Mr. Ford a couple of questions with my bank. Um, Mr. Ford, um, so just so I'm clear and so everybody else in the room is clear, when this uh, PUD was done way back when, was the school part of the original
>> mic microphone. >> Oh, I'm so sorry. I'm sorry. Was this all part of the original PD? >> I think I know as of 78 it was. I think it was I think the original one was either 72 or 74 and I think it was back then as well. I'm confident that it was in 78.
>> Okay. So, the the surrounding houses that had joined this area, were they built after the uh this was adopted? >> It appears to be me. I I don't know the dates they were built, but I mean >> most likely was all done as a package and the school board got their property
and then homes were built and all through it. We we didn't get our we didn't actually physically take title of the property to 2004 or five something like that but the the the site was designated as a school site. I know at least in fact the the what um Tony is
that what >> yeah Tony just showed it to me a little bit ago. Is that was that the original one or was that the 78? >> Yeah. But anyways, yes, it's been there. It's been a school site for very very long time. So, they were on notice, at
least through public records, that this was intended to be a school site, most likely when they were beginning building their house or buying their house. Okay. >> Correct. >> Um it it sounds like that maybe you guys have not had a meeting between these
people and um you're you represent the school district, correct? >> I do. >> You don't represent the purchaser. >> I do not. >> Okay. I mean, is there any harm in having a a workshop or a meeting with these people to discuss what it sounds like they're not asking for too much and
maybe you could work out an agreement. I would much rather see you guys have an agreement than us coming up with a black or white type of resolution for you all. >> I think that I think that meeting needs to occur between the ultimate developer
>> and and these folks. um because we really can't define what it is that they they want or the ultimate developer. And I did speak by the way I I spoke with Mr. >> Pickkins and and uh uh you know I I did
try to connect them with the the current contract purchaser. Unfortunately, we didn't talk to Thursday or Friday and they weren't able to connect. So, >> was this proposed sale advertised by the uh school boards?
>> It's on the schoolboard agenda, but you know, in fairness to them, they're not going to be watching the agenda every week. But yes, it was it was all the process you're supposed to go through it went through. And and also, by the way, uh I I believe I'm correct. It was also with the county. Is that correct? In the
with through Yeah. I mean, so we've before it was surplused, I think y'all received notice of of the intent, but did we notify the HOAs? Probably not. Um, you know, you get tuned into doing what the the ordinance or the agreements
require you to. And do you believe the future purchaser, the potential purchaser that we're uh that's not here today knows that they may very well be limited by the council to absolutely >> remain a school or whatever the restrictions are? >> Absolutely.
>> And there's no guarantee that we're going to change anything just to appease them. >> They we they've absolutely we I think I think I even put it in the contract. >> Okay. Okay. Great. >> I I I made a representation about the contract earlier today I found out was was incorrect. So, but I'm 99% sure I
put it in as a um a uh um exception as an exception to title. You know, put them on notice. >> Ink hasn't disappeared yet. >> Yeah, I'm kidding. >> Yes. Yes. I in the schedule of permitted exceptions. Halifax plantation PUB documents. >> No.
>> Okay. So, they know what they're looking at. They know they're looking at those. That's all. Thank you. >> Motion to >> Okay, let's vote. Yeah. >> Okay. Nobody has any more questions or comments. I'll call the uh the vote is the the motion is to uh approve
resolution 20 26x. Um >> Christrista, would you call the role? >> Mr. Dempsey, >> which is to sell the prop to approve the sale >> or to Yes. >> I just want to make sure I'm clear on what's the
>> to approve the resolution. >> Okay. Yes, >> Mr. Johansson. Yes, >> Mr. Kent. >> Yes, >> Mr. Wrangler. >> Yes, >> Mr. Robbins. >> Yes, >> Mr. Santiago. >> Yes, >> Mr. Brower. >> Yes.
>> So, it will come back to us. Don't Don't lose hope. >> Item seven is ordinance 2026-02 amending the county's purchasing administration ordinance to conform with state law changes.
>> Motion to approve. >> Second. Call the question. >> Do I have a motion? Motion to approve by Councilman Robbins and a second came from Vice Chair Reinhardt. >> Uh any questions for staff? >> No, sir.
>> Any comments? All in favor say I. >> I. >> Any opposed? >> Thank you. >> Nice work. Item eight, overview of mini budget workshop series pursuant to consensus of county council Ryan Osowski.
Uh good afternoon, Council Ryan Osowski, chief financial officer. I in the interest of what's remaining on the agenda, I will try to keep this brief. Uh what um what we're looking to do here is just inform you of our interpretation of what was uh what was done at the county council workshop. uh because
there was no official vote, but we we have a consensus that uh we're going to move forward starting at the next county council meeting going through uh the first meeting in May to go through a series of what we call mini budget workshop meetings. Um they will they're
not actually workshops. They'll be agenda items at uh these county council meetings that are coming up, one per meeting. Uh I have a schedule that's in the presentation. And I won't go over the the entire schedule, but if you have any questions or concerns or there's
something that you intended on talking about that wasn't on there, uh what we did is we took uh what I believe the consensus of council was at that workshop and everything that was in the remaining categories, not just for the general fund, but for every fund. I've put them together so you can see what
that is. Um the each slide will uh uh sorry each presentation the goal of those presentations will be to show you what the use of general revenues is. So any any um department revenues will be netted out. So you'll see how much the
expenses are the gross expenses are what any revenues are generated by that program or restricted to that program and then the net use of those revenues in a little bit more detail than what was provided in in the uh the handout at the uh workshop. Uh and then we'll be looking for uh
feedback from from council because some of the decisions that you might want to make regarding a program or an activity could be uh a simple decision. It could be a line item. For example, and not that you would take this action, but it is a a simpler example. Recently in our
budget, we've included $5 million of general fund money for uh additional road construction. that is a a simple thing that we could remove from the general fund budget. Um that would be as opposed to some service that's being provided in an area that is not
representative of like everything they do. It's just one little thing they do in an area and you're like we don't want to do that anymore. We we might not know immediately what the savings of that would be. We have to go back and figure out how many staff members that is, what's the cost of that, what kind of
operating expenses are attached to that. So, in these uh first five meetings where we're going over these presentations, any feedback for things that you might be interested in, um we're seeking that so that on the May 5th meeting, I think I think it was the
fifth, it's the first meeting in May, uh we can come back with costs related to those things and show you everything that maybe you've asked about, put it all together, compare it against each other, and see if there's any uh official service uh reductions. or
budget reductions that you want to move forward with. And the plan is to have that at that first meeting in May. At the absolute latest, the second meeting in May, it could push into that. Uh and I'll fast forward to this slide here. Uh community services, that meeting is
April 21st. If you have anything that we're looking at gathering facts and individual uh costs related to some service or program that's done in that presentation, uh the publishing deadline for the May
5th meeting would be a week after that. So it might take longer than that to gather those facts, put the presentation together. So we might have to come back if there's too much on the uh April 21st discussion uh on May 19th. Move to accept staff recommendations.
I'm >> Thank you. >> I think I got it all. Are did I Did I basically Is everything in there that you expected to be in there? And is this uh meet the consensus of council? >> Yep. I think that's what we're going to vote on. I like it. >> So, we have a motion to approve your
your schedule. And um who is the second buying? Councilman Robbins. Uh, David, do you have a question? >> Nope, that was it. >> Jake Johansson comment. >> Go ahead. >> Yeah. When when we originally talked about
this, one of the things that that I wanted to make sure that that we had in the in the front of our minds, not the back of our minds, is every one of these I don't my opinion is we don't say thank you,
Ryan. No, no questions. and and then around September is when we start jockeying money around. We owe it to our staff to provide them stick and rudder aviator
as we go along. So at at the latest when May rolls around, we have line item changes if not sooner. And Ryan, you know, from my perspective, you and I are going to get together every every
meeting to discuss these things because I want to be wellversed enough when we go over economic development and public works that that I can give you at least my intent hopefully gain consensus u before we move forward so you have an
idea in May and then you you can answer those questions as we go. I just la last year we were flatfooted throughout the spring and then uh uh September rolled around and we started maneuvering and I know that's uh it's a bad time of year
to be doing that. So hopefully we'll give you enough heads up. Thank you. uh uh just a a small comment uh to be clear that any uh information that's needed to feed back into the budget and when we get to that final presentation I will be leading that final presentation with all
the different departments and stuff unless there's um some nuances maybe the department director will get up but during these first five meetings the intent is for the departments and divisions to really be the one uh delivering >> whoever's standing up there. >> Okay.
Okay. We have a motion and a second on the floor to approve your schedule. We look forward to the hearings. All in favor say I. >> I. >> For the presentations, not hearings. Any opposed? And it's approved. 7 to zero. Item uh
nine. You've been here all day. Discussion request to modify code of ordinance chapter 72, regulations regarding digital billboards. Mr. Tiner. >> Thank you, council members. Uh this was
a request um by uh Cob and Cole I think approached y'all um representing a client to look at the possibility of having digital billboards within uh Valuchia County. Um then um council directed
staff to go back do some research. Uh we did do that. Um we uh met with uh several uh major um sign companies. uh we uh had uh really good discussions um about different operations and those
type of things. So if council did decide that we wanted uh digital billboards, there would be several sections of our code that we would need to modify. Uh in front of you here is a really good depiction of the green squares are the
county billboards that are existing on our major theors. Um, and these are where uh we would allow uh the digital billboards u where where they're proposed. Now, we do have some nonconforming billboards within these areas, too, but we also have conforming
locations of those billboards. So, where we're talking about is Interstate 4, Interstate 95, US Highway 1, US Highway 17, and State Road 44. Some of our major corridors to be able to have some of these digital billboards. Uh we did
start work on um looking at oper I'll talk about operation standards just briefly a little bit but um we um for the operation standards we're not done with work but we have started looking at different standards because digital
billboards like the luminance of the height and those type of things and we have been working with our uh billboard owners uh and companies on these standards. So if council wanted us to move forward, we will refine some of these uh that will be part of our part
of our code such as setbacks. And we're also utilizing FDOT standards too. They have uh some good standards on on electronic billboards. So, one of the I guess conversations and I know previously council had the uh
conversation with the swamp down um in the code um swap down meaning uh we do have non-conforming billboard. So, one option if you were going to allow a digital billboard, you would have to
swap down or get rid of four non-conforming, whatever that number is going to be. So, we did have some conversations with our several other billboards um companies and the 4:1 seemed pretty reasonable. We've done
research uh around uh the state and 4:1 seems like a pretty kind of standard middle-of the road uh um compliance uh for that. Uh, another option that was really interesting as our attorneys and
us worked on is that let's say you had a requirement of code for 4:1 and let's say you had a billboard company that did not want to do 4:1 and has another alternative. Well, state statute section 70.20
allows for a case-bycase statutory agreement that would be approved by council. So if you wanted to do something, let's say a company says, you know, I want to do one one. Well, okay. Well, you know, 4:1's in the code, but the code also is going to allow you
another option to do a statutory agreement. So staff would go back and work with the um with the company, come up with an agreement, approach council on that agreement, and council would have to prove that that special
agreement. So things in the agreement that that have been done throughout the state is that you know you may say okay the agreement is you you can do one to one but maybe you provide some civic or
community messaging at no cost to the county such as maybe it's five two week periods during each calendar year such as the ocean center. Let's say we want to do some advertisement. So it does have some options that um through that
statutory we uh agreement that we can do and then you know wherever we set or wherever you set the the swap down let's say you have a smaller company you know I I think it makes it more equitable too let's say you have a company that only
has a few billboards in this location and they might not have the ability to swap down. they can come and do a statutory agreement and come up with some some alternative agreement that council would approve for some of these smaller companies as well. So I think it
makes makes it a little bit more e equitable that that all billboard companies can participate in the program. So um we got lots of options I think um you know number one the first option for
for us is uh to give us direction. Do we proceed uh to allow electronic billboards in the county? And if so, um I think uh providing us some direction maybe on swap down, maybe there's a menu list of different items that would be in
the code. Um and then we can go back and and work on an ordinance and bring that to our planning commission and then and then council. So, we're here for any any questions. Okay, we do have let's take some questions for staff and we have two members of the public that would like to
speak. Uh, Councilman Robbins, you have questions? >> I don't have questions. I can make a motion. Uh, chairman, council, like make motion to approve uh digital billboards with an unincorporated valia
um with also a 2:1 swap down and owner to provide public benefit measures. Second, Johansson. >> Okay, we have a motion uh to uh approve digital billboards in unincorporated Valuchia County with a swap down of two
swap down of 2 to one. Second by Jake Johansson. >> Question. >> Other questions for staff? David Santiago. >> Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, regarding that statute that you referenced, um, is that something that would comply with the 2:1 motion uh, that's being
proposed? >> Well, what I heard on the motion was um, a 2:1 with a public benefit. >> Yes. >> Part of that. So, if that motion stands, we would go back and and create a draft, work with work with the assigned
companies to see kind of what that public benefit is. So if you had a 2 to one and we had a company that couldn't meet it, I would still recommend that we put the option as well for a statutory agreement 720. If they can't meet a
>> right >> then they can then they can fall to the statutory agreement >> and that public benefit would be some of the things like what you have outlined. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. >> Yeah, we can work with them to see if we can put that in there. And >> if I can make a comment, Mr. Chair, unless there's another question. I can amend my motion to add David if it helps
you out to add um >> Yeah, >> add the statutory. >> I think that's a good idea. That way you give staff some capability. >> Okay. So, you're amending it to uh ju just add the statuto everything I said plus the statutory. >> Yeah, the the statutory statutory
agreement >> agreement >> pursuant to 720. >> And then I just had a comment >> public benefit and statutory agreement. And um before your comment, Don, did you have a question for >> Okay, >> thank you.
>> Oh, I'm sorry. >> We have >> we have a couple members of the public want to speak to. Oh, okay. >> Go ahead, Don. You have a question for staff. >> Yeah. Quick question. How often do these signs these digital billboard signs flip?
Like if you have four advertisements, how long do they show on the sign and then till they switch to the other? >> The standard is eight >> seconds. >> No, eight eight um different um signs and it's how
many seconds? >> And it's eight seconds. >> Eight seconds. >> They'll stay up one one advertisement stay up for eight seconds. And there's typically eight different advertisements per sign. >> So the average uh driver going down the interstate is
only going to see maybe one or two of those images on the sign at best. >> I would think so if you're driving at 55 miles an hour. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So there would be six signs that >> you wouldn't see driving by >> possibly.
>> Okay. That's all I have. Thank you. >> Okay. Uh probably Rob, you'll be able to answer some of these questions, but we uh um we'll open it up to Rob Merrill who's representing Lumar Advertising. >> Lamar. >> Lamar. >> And it's Rob Merrell with Cobb Cole, one
Daytona Boulevard. Um thanks for spending the day with you guys today. I always enjoy it. Really don't have a whole lot to add other than to say we went through the the materials. Uh staff provided all the concepts seemed fair and uh we're ready to move this thing forward. Um certainly in favor of the
motion um and I think this sort of advances the cause that we talked about at length in October. So I don't want to rehash any of that. We talked about everything and we want to keep it moving. So appreciate you guys uh letting it keep going forward. That's it. >> Okay. Thanks. Thank you very much. Uh
the other public comment is from Greg Gimbert. Please don't make me come for another meeting again. If I got to sit here and listen to all y'all, y'all get to listen to me. Hey, Greg. Again, I work in the sign industry. This is my jam. I install these signs. I work for the biggest sign
company in Florida. And you should support this, but not with those restrictions. I've negotiated this very same thing with other communities trying to work with gas prices. And what I would like you to do is not hold these people's representation
hostage to the county where you've got to give them some little some little representation every little bit. I will say there is a a circumstance in which you should ask for some consideration and that's during declared states of public emergency. During those declared
states of public emergency, I think in exchange for changing the code that Lamar and any other digital advertising billboard company should give you the exclusive rights for messaging on those boards during declared states of emergency at no cost for as long as such
emergency goes on. I think the public would get tired of seeing it and probably want an emergency to get over with, too. Um, you're setting a precedent with this. Beyond the largest fish in the pond, which is Lamar, there are other people that may only have one. What are they going to do? Um, I would
encourage you to set one fair, consistent standard so other businesses do not have to engage land use attorneys and staff and a whole litany of other meetings just to conduct their business. Thank you for considering. Have a good day.
Thank you. Uh John Fight John Fight, Lake Helen, Florida. I work for Outfront Media. I'm the real estate manager for Central Florida. Uh I want to thank staff for including us in the in the uh discussions. The only concern that I have is the current zoning
classifications that you have, the B6, I1, and I2. If I remember correctly, there's not enough commercial uh zoning classifications that that we could if they if it was a two for one
trade, three for one, four for one, whatever the council decided, you know, um in our initial analysis, there's not enough commercial zone B6 that we could trade down for any digital locations. So
that's our only concern is that open up some more commercial on those corridors. We have to adhere to the state as well as your regulations and that's the only thing that we're asking is that give us the vehicle to get to that. We'll take
down signs more than happy. I've done personally five or six 7020s in uh Central Florida, working two right now, one in Winter Garden and one in Winter Park. So, you know, we're
accustomed to doing that. Just give us the vehicle and we'd love to trade down. >> Mr. Chairman, since he's an I would consider him probably an applicant. Also, can I ask him a question if you're willing to answer one if the chair allows? >> Yeah. Um, I want to make sure I
understand what you said because what you said that it sounds good, right, the 2:1, but there are certain areas where you already have signs >> that you would probably want to take advantage of this swap out, but the zone the underlying zoning on the property
does not allow the digital. That's what you said. So, we would >> or we're spaced out by our competition because they have to be so many feet apart >> and that's by code >> by state. state as well as local. >> Okay. >> So, >> we can't do nothing about state, but >> yeah.
>> Um Okay. So, so it it could potentially you're saying that we should look if we pass this, we should also look at how do we look at capabilities for you to do it based on county zoning? >> Correct. >> Okay. Thank you. Other than that, you don't have any problems with the other stuff? >> No. >> Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
>> Okay. Uh John Nicholson, and then if you'd like to make a reply response, I'll give you the opportunity. John Xenon, Daytona Beachside. Uh remember I was here the last time this came up. I don't want to go into Ladybird and uh her issues because most
of you weren't born 75 or really you're real young. Jake would remember. So um if this goes through, you're uh talking about uh several streets. Uh Daytona Beach has like four of them. So
this your would supersede Daytona Beach because we don't own 95. We don't own four, but we own the property on both sides. So you would then demand of Daytona Beach that all this garbage be put back in because we've fought for
years to get a diminished number of uh billboards. So now you're going to supersede the city and said, "Yeah, but we like billboards." So whether you like it or not, we're going to cram it down your throat that you have all of these billboards. All right. That part of it
I'm not quite happy with. No, I like the idea of buying down the old ugly billboards with the digital. That makes sense. Four, I'm not quite sure. When somebody says the middle, like my mayor, when he talks about being in the middle
of the city, the city is like 8 miles long. Two to him is middle. Well, two is not the middle between one and 10. So when he says the middle, what is the middle range? If he's talking four is is
three at one or two and 10 at 15 or 20. So is four at the middle. So I don't know exactly where the the majority the median the mean the mode all of that kind of stuff that goes into math. So what is the average number that when
they do buybacks? Two is definitely too small. All right. Um will new additional be permitted? All right. He's talking about there's not enough zoning. So, who gets to change the zoning in
inside the cities? Okay. Would Orman be okay with putting up billboards on A1A? You're fine with that? Okay. So, there are a lot of questions to these. Um,
when I go to uh North Carolina for my sister's birthday every year, when you go down 95 in Georgia, you will see two or 300 billboards for every mile. It is nothing but billboards all the way to Georgia. I mean, all the way to Atlanta.
That's that's a 4-hour drive of nothing but billboards. I don't really think that that's what we want in Valuchia County. So, I'm not opposed to changing it to digital. That's absolutely a lot better than what we have on a lot of these billboards. They want it, we want
it, but we realize they get one rental versus eight rentals. They want eight rentals. >> Thank you. The motion stated unincorporated Valuchia. Rob, do you want to you want to wrap this up real quick? >> Yeah. Um, just to address uh the emergency messaging, just to let y'all
know, when we met with um all of the uh sign company folks, they had they they were really okay for to do the non uh or do the emergency messaging, but that's something that we'll write in the uh the ordinance. And also to um I want to
address up front. So, um the gentleman that spoke representing upfront sign company, you know, if it if this changes the uh for digital billboards, um that person will be allowed to convert that existing billboard into a digital sign.
So, I want to make that clear. But also too, it it's a good example of what I was talking about a little bit in the presentation where you may have some smaller sign companies that don't that the 2:1 may hurt them, you know. So, that's where you could probably go into
uh statuto agreement and come up with another alternative for that person. >> Okay. Thank you. All right. For >> Yes, please. >> What I'm what I was hoping you might say is response to his question about the
zoning because I knew there was some question about that. If the board's already there and it's in the wrong zoning, you can still replace it. Just want to make that clear for the record. The zoning doesn't control unless you're building a new one. If you're replacing it, the zoning doesn't affect it. It just has to be in one of the locations
that you guys determined were u allowed. They have to already be there. That's the >> Okay, that's that makes a difference. Okay. uh comments debate from council David Santiago. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and um thanks for everybody. It looks like everybody worked well together in this process. We
spent a lot of time uh working on it and I'm it looks like we're all in agreement for the most part. Um you know, I you probably seen in the last hearing I wasn't a big fan of uh of billboards and signs, but when I learned that it helps Don get where he needs to go, um I
changed my opinion of it. So, Don, I wanted you to know you changed my mind on that, too. though. Um I gentlemen, I think we're in a good place. There's going to be some public good to this. Thank you for staffs. I know they did a lot of work on it. Finding the statute is clearly the the state um uh statues
already recognized kind of sort of what we can do. So I think we should move forward and vote. Thank you to everyone's work. >> Councilman Dempsey. >> Yeah. Uh just as I discussed last time and thank you for remembering Dave. I I really propose a one for one swap and the reason being is uh I'm really
concerned that what was once a static sign that everybody could read going southbound on 95. Um that there is a a racetrack gas station three miles ahead and maybe you want to get a hot dog
while you're there, whatever. Now only every eight vehicles going by are going to see that sign or maybe every four because these are rotating signs. And my concern is that only
25% or so or maybe even 12% of the people going down the interstate are only going to see that sign because they're rotating. And then if you take half of those away by a two to one swap, now that's even less exposure. And the reason I'm concerned about exposure is
because billboards actually, in my opinion, do a substantial uh they're a substantial asset for business owners that are along the interstate. Um, restaurants, Ron Johns, I mean, you know, uh, Pedro south of the
border, Bies, hotels, gas stations, restaurants. I mean, they count on a lot of this interstate traffic, and if we limit their exposure on billboards, I think we're doing them a disservice. Even a onetoone swap, I think, is taking
away a large part of their ability to advertise to drivers on the interstate. Um, and that's why I really favor a onetoone. Um because I really think we need to let these all these businesses be able to be seen if they want to be
seen on the interstates and be able to advertise whatever their business is. The other thing that I'd like to just make sure that we're talking about not only the emergency announcements that they would be able to uh let the county advertise as needed, but I think this
serves a huge the digital I think serves the community even more than just for emergency announcements. We're talking about silver alerts, Amber alerts, uh possibly road closures ahead. If that's an issue, how many times have we gone down the interstate just to come into
gridlock because of an accident? Boy, it'd be nice if we could have some sort of signage say accident ahead, you know, maybe seek other routes. Exactly. So, um I'm not in favor of the blight payment. I don't really I just don't see the
necessity for that. I don't want to penalize these guys for the service they're providing to our community. Um I would like to see hopefully a commitment from them to help us make these emergency type announcements. And um so I mean if that's as much as we can do as a two to one that's fine. I'll go with
that. But I would really like to see a one for one. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Uh Councilman Robbins. >> Don, what kind of coffee did you drink today? >> Is there sugar? You have a lot of sugar.
>> Monster sugar. >> It was a monster. That battery was charged. >> Does any Does anybody have a problem with I want to get the show on the road. Does that Does anybody have a problem with uh a one to one to to help Mr. Don out? He's been taking a real >> It'll still be optional. Jake, I'm sorry
I jumped up you. They have the option if they want to exercise. That doesn't bother me. >> No. And I'm and I'm good with that. So, let's just call the question. And I have a follow-up motion as well. >> Okay. Jake Johansson, >> I have one quick question for Ray. How many how many billboards are we talking
about on the interstates? 4 and 95. >> Do we know? >> I'll be back. >> All right. It's more than four. >> 400. >> Okay. >> 400 in the county. >> Got it. 400 in the county. Got it. We
don't know how many on the interstate though. All right. Thanks. I'm ready to vote. Okay, we have a a motion on Did you just change it to one one to one? Good. We have a motion on the floor for unincorporated Lucia County uh 2:1 swap with public benefit and statutory
agreement. Uh Chris, would you call the role? >> Mr. Dempsey, >> no. >> Mr. Johansson, >> yes. >> Mr. Kend, >> yes. >> Mr. Reinhardt, >> yes. >> Mr. Robbins, >> yes.
>> Mr. Santiago. >> Mr. Santiago said yes. >> Sorry, Mr. Brower. >> Yes. So, the uh the motion carries. Chairman, I have I have another motion uh if you don't mind to uh have staff bring us back any additional locations
uh for the future um based on the zoning classifications and roadway types. >> Okay. Motion by Robbins. Would you restate that, please? Could you hold hold on guys listen to this because it was a long motion. >> I'd like to have staff bring us back any
additional zoning classifications or roadway types uh that we can consider eligible for uh is it off- premise? I mean do we open this up a little bit more uh to help out that the gentleman there that you know on the zoning on the
zoning issue. >> Okay. Yeah. look at potential other opportunities for >> other opportunities that are that are out there or any other zonings. >> Second. >> Okay, we have a motion and a second to look at other zoning clanification
classifications and roadway types that could be used. Um, is that is that good enough for you? >> All right. All in favor say I. >> I. >> Any opposed? and it passes six to one with one
dissenting vote from Troy Kent. Thank you. Okay, we have uh we have little time left. I think we have till 3:40. Um and this is item 10, request by council
on information on potable reuse and deep well injection. >> All right. Um thank you. Uh, Mr. Chair, members of council, Pauloria, senior assistant county attorney. Um, I will be real quick. Uh, so this uh this question or at least half of the
question was brought up in 2022 um when you know there's a few bills passed in the legislature. they were considered toilet to tap bills and there was questions about okay what's the what's the authority of the county to regulate the um uh you know potable reuse
countywide and it boils boils it down is that there's partial preeemptions um the county has the ultimate authority to regulate within its own you water utility service area so that's not the unincorporated that is its own uh uh utility service area um from reading the
statutes what what became clear is that uh the county did not have the authority to regulate um other municipalities water uh water utility service areas or private utility service areas. So it boils if you wanted to pass a resolution or draft an ordinance that says to your
own uh utility service area, hey, this is not a thing we're interested in, perfectly fine. But when you start to um regulate uh cities uh uh uh water utility service area that you know becomes problematic because there's
certain statutes that grant the authority to the municipalities and um if you essentially there's a requirement that says potable reuse may not be um disallowed from being part of your regional water planning activity when you get to the state level. Um, so
that's uh, you know, that kind of boils it down on your legal authority to regulate. You can look at your own service area. Um, but when you start to regulate outside of that service area, that's when, you know, the state steps in and starts preempting the county's
authority. So if you have any questions on operations of um potable reuse or some questions about um ASR which is aquafer storage and recharge um that is also another aspect that is um entire like
held by the state. You can regulate your own utilities um and your service area. You can't start regulating other utility service areas um because once again that's that's done at the state permitting level. none of the uh permitting for for um ASR wells or uh
you know anything for your water supply, you know, goes to the county for approval. That's all done at the state at the state permitting level. >> So, um >> Okay. Questions for Paulo? Uh Councilman Johansson? I don't know if it's for
Paulo or not, but um what projects in Florida um are are portable reuse projects? >> There have been a few pilot projects. Um but a true potable reuse um provision um
you know will take a while to to start up and running because the um as mentioned in the memo it mentioned something that in 2020 the legislature um mandated the department of environmental protection formulate rules regarding potable reuse. Those rules did
not go into effect until February of 2025. So, you know, this is a it's a very large set of potable reuse rules that requires at the very least like a 12month pilot demonstration project that you know demonstrating that you can do
possible reuse to the levels that the state is mandating and then you can proceed forward with the um the actual project. What um what is Deltona doing?
>> I'm going to be speaking outside of my wheelhouse, so I'll have to um defer to Ben Bar. >> Ben, I've asked you other questions, so just answer them. >> Yes, sir. Uh Ben Barlo, public works director. Deltona has pulled two permits.
um one for ASR and one for um uh an injection well for aquaer recharge. The ASR permit is older. >> Please say ASR. Oh, >> I'm sorry. It's um aquaer aquifer storage and recovery. So that basically ASR allows you to inject either uh
surface water, storm treated storm water or uh treated waste water to a drinking water standard into the aquifer. you essentially stays down there and you use it as a storage tank and you can pull that back up and use it for um supplementing irrigation or potentially
um if you were permitted for using it for drinking water. Uh they have a permit to do an exploratory well for that. Um however they have not chosen to move forward with that. They have a sec. >> Yes, sir. they have an exploratory
permit to do that. Can you expand on what that is? >> Correct. So, um before you put any kind of ASR injection well into operation, you have to essentially go through a testing phase where you're testing to
see if um the well will function as intended. The hydrogeeological conditions in the aquifer support that type of activity. Um, and during the testing phase, uh, their permit only allows during the testing phase, uh, to
do a surface water, uh, injection. >> And where are they getting that water from? >> Uh, according to that, they're getting it from Lake Monroe. >> Lake Monroe. >> Now, they have a second permit, which is a newer permit. This is the one that they've actually received a grant for from the state, which is funding, which
is only to do uh, aquaer recharge via injection. So, it's not technically ASR. They're just basically pumping surface water treated to a drinking water standard into the aquifer and it's just for recharging the aquifer. So, uh that
also has a testing phase and both um to test to see if the hydro geological conditions are conducive. Um but in order to place that well into operation, they'll have to meet all the FD conditions of their permit. it would go operational and once operational it
would still only be surface water injection and nothing they would not be pulling that water out. Those are the two permits that they have pulled to our understanding. So the county then doesn't have any projects that we're aware of,
municipality or or or us as a county that are using treated affluent for possible drinking water later. Correct. The only the only um
uh operation or of anything of that type that was in place in Val County was Daytona had a pilot project which has since been shut down >> right >> for portable reuse. >> There have been four uh ASR wells permitted in Valuchia County. None of
those have been placed into operation. Is it safe for me to say, you know, I'm a a strong proponent of of our our septic to sewer and and we talk about it all the time up here. Is it safe to say that that
septic tanks, old septic tanks that that are leeching, um I know we got quite a few in the in the um Blue Springs Basin, right? um that that that is a form of of
black untreated water filtering through our our uh our land back into the aquifer. >> Yes. >> And and is that one of our priorities here at the county and in the cities and with the state to try to get people off
of septic or to go to the new septic tank so we don't we don't do that? >> Yes, sir. concern with septic systems, uh, traditional septic systems, older ones, is the nutrient loading that they, uh, you know, put into the ground in terms of nitrogen and phosphorus.
>> The state has concerns with how that affects the springs. Um therefore the state has come in um through our three springs and said you know and identified the source of the nutrient pollution as uh mostly septic systems in all three
and is basically mandated mandating a reduction either through septic to sewer projects or conversion of those septic systems to uh advanced treatment systems that remove nutrient. Is it safe for me to say that that that's been our kind of number one priority as far as uh
cleaning up our springs and making sure our water is as fresh it can be coming out of our wells? >> Yes. >> Thank you, >> Councilman Santiago. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Could you describe again the for so for better clarity for
me the surface water? What what would they do with the surface water? And I I thought there was different layers of the aquafer and stuff like that. Can you explain all that? >> Yes, sir. In the in the permit that Deltona appears to be pursuing that they actually have funding for from the
state. They are the the the permit only allows them to pull surface water from Lake Monroe. They have to treat it to a drinking water standard and they are injecting it into what we call the upper floor dan aquifer for aquafer recharge. So the upper floor dan is the aquafer
where we pull our drinking water from primarily. You have a surficial aquifer which is above it and then you have a lower Florida aquifer which is below it. Um but their project is mainly to recharge the aquifer as an alternative water source by pulling surface water
out of the lake out of Lake Monroe which is essentially the St. John's River which essentially flows to the ocean and putting it into the aquifer as recharge. >> Yeah. and and is this this initiative is a statewide initiative that's that's happening. Am I correct to understand that?
>> Yes, sir. The state is you know wants all utilities and water users to pursue alternative water sources uh as a method of supplementing or reducing the amount of groundwater we're pulling out of the ground. Um this has been um a strategy
and a and an effort by the state for probably multiple decades now. Um and so they have you >> say multiple decades. >> Yes. >> And they have given grants for uh various alternative water supply a major alternative water supply that's been
kind of you know implemented throughout the state but also in in Valuchia County is uh the use of reclaimed water to supplement irrigation. So you're irrigating lawns with reclaimed water versus pulling fresh water out of the aquifer to to to
irrigate things like that. >> Does the state think this is dangerous? >> I can't speak for the state. Obviously, they view it as a viable um method of uh of alternative water supply. I would anticipate that's why they're giving
grants to utilities to pursue such methods. >> Okay. And then I have a question for legal. Thank you, Ben. Thank you for you helped clarify a few things for me. Okay, Paulo, um you did very good in in making it brief. I appreciate it, but I
want to dig back a couple things that I think you said. Did you say and correct me that the state preempts all water decisions? I don't want to put words in your mouth. >> No. uh they have a uh water's one of
those strange things where it's it is very preemptive un unless it's not. So the general rule is except for water quality all decisions you know on waters of the state are preempted to the state. So when I say water quality that's what
Ben was talking about are your total maximum daily loads and trying to make sure that we're lowering that aspect. Um so the state has granted to each um water uh utility water utility provider the authority to basically operate its
own water supply system, you know, and that's in that's under chapter 180. Um, so when you start trying to regulate countywide and put in a one-sizefits-all rule for all of your um various utilities and your utility service
areas, that's when the state kind of steps in and says, "Wait a minute, you know, your authority is in your service area. does not apply to other service areas because you know when when they get a permit for a modification to a a
treatment plant or modification to their water supply that just goes through the state permitting process. They are very um covetous of the permitting when it go when it comes to public water and the public water supply.
Does our does our charter circumvent state law? >> No. >> So anything in our charter that's in contradiction to state law is illegal against the law. I don't know what kind
of consistent with state law. >> It's not consistent with So it's >> it limits your power. So I mean you can have for example we have provisions in our charter right now that because of amendment 10 is technically in conflict with state law. So when when you do the
conflict analysis state law prevails. >> So basically >> state law what state law prevails you know so you know as long as we don't try to enforce that you basically it's a state law just kind of ignores the inconsistent provisions in your charter. And then I guess right now for the last
question for me would be >> it sounds like we can dictate what we do in our utility as a county utility system. >> Okay. >> That's where we have our authority as as a body. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yes. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> Councilman Dempsey.
>> Yeah. You said if you've go through the the analysis for preeemption, I guess was the word. What what have you guys done an analysis on control of deep well injections or >> so deep well injections actually falls
under that that larger preemption because once you get once you're outside of your public water system um that's the state's water. So that's um you know when you're dealing with aquafer you know the upper aquifer and like that is
where the state will have its pro most protection in terms of what it allows local governments to do when you're dealing with like your your cups your consumptive use permits um and uh anything related to your cups because
the aquifer is that's that's a state's water. Okay. >> Do we as a county have a right to um let's say prosecute polluting the aquafer? >> Yes. Because that if as long as it deals with water quality issues. So your in
our in your charter you've got your pollution control provisions that you know uh makes it uh separate cause of action to you know uh go after polluters. Um so the issue is okay the
state has said that the use of reclaimed water this the state talking you know is uh considered environmentally acceptable and not a threat to public health and safety. So that's you know section 403064 reuse of reclaimed water and they have
so that's the state talking about how they consider use of reclaimed water >> to a certain standard. >> Yes. so long as it's permitted by the state. So it's like I'll read the the legislature further finds that those wastewater treatment plants permitted and operated under an approved reuse
program by the department reclaimed water shall be considered environmentally acceptable and not a threat to public health and safety. So as long as it's permitted by the state, you know, the state allows it. >> So now if I could ask Ben to come back up real quick. Sorry about that. Um Ben,
this water that they're proposing that we be able to uh inject under the aquifer, um is that allowed to be injected also into the rivers? Now, um there is a uh provision in state law
where they're wanting to uh eliminate uh surface water discharge from wastewater plants. >> Okay. So basically, >> so currently today it's allowed by permit if they're permitted, but I believe the state is working to uh eliminate surface water discharges.
>> So basically, and that and that's because of the nutrient concerns. Uh a lot of the surface waters are impaired for nutrients, nitrogen, phosphorus, those kinds of things. That's what they're trying to reduce. >> So they don't want us they're working towards not allowing us to take this reclaimed water and put it into the
rivers. Correct. >> Okay. And has, to the best of your knowledge, I know Jake brought up Blue Springs, have they done any type of deep well injections under springs anywhere in the state that you're aware of? >> Uh, I'm not aware of any specifically within the spring shed off the top of my
head. >> Okay. No, we have a BMAP that is designed to protect um basically the Deleon Springs. >> Correct. >> Okay. Would they allow us to inject this
reclaimed water into the BMAP area? Well, what they would do, and I'm not advocating to do that, but what they would from through the permitting process, is they would require if you were to try to go that route to get a
permit to do uh an ASR, an aquafer uh storage and recovery system that allows you to inject reuse reclaimed water, treated waste water into the into the aquafer, you would have to treat that to a certain
standard. that the that the state would require. >> Is it a higher standard if it's near >> a drinking water standard? You'd have to treat it to a drinking water standard >> if it's near a spring. >> If it's anywhere, >> okay, >> just not in a river right now or just
not in a river at that time. >> Well, you're not effluent being discharged into the surface water is not treated to a drinking water standard. If it was, would they be allowed to do it? If it >> I mean, potentially they would. I mean, they would. It would have to go through
the permitting process. What they're trying to do is reduce the the nutrient loading. So, there's a difference between reclaimed water and water treated to a drinking water standard. >> Yes. >> But that water to a drinking water standard, can it be pumped into the
rivers? Um, I would defer to the D on that. Okay. >> Um, I'm not 100% sure. Um, you'd have to go through the permitting process. Um, I'm sure they would require certain, you know, standards probably greater than
what traditional reclaimed affluent is. >> All right, that's all. Thank you, Ben. Thank you, >> Councilman Rin. Vice Chair Reinhardt. >> Thank you, Chair. Ben, question for you. I I know the answer I believe but just because I've gotten so many questions thinking the county because of its size of government that we control water
they're getting the answers today. Um we're not in the water business per se. I mean we have a utilities area but we only control about 7% I believe it is of the >> yes service area accounts for% the other 93% is up to the municipalities and
>> it's either they're either in areas that aren't served by utilities or they're in areas >> um that are served by other in fact >> and to to you know to follow up on what Paulo said the county has no regulatory authority they don't come to us for a permit for modifying their drinking
water plants or drilling wells. We have no permitting authority uh right now on any of those. >> I think I know the answer to this question already, but the areas there are some areas in unincorporated Valuchia County that fall within near or close to a city that we actually
purchase the water from that adjacent city. Correct. >> Yes, sir. So, we have um uh at least two um >> uh consecutive water systems where they are our service area. So, one would be Stone Island, >> and then the other would be uh the
southeast uh uh system, which um is mainly Oakhill and portions of Edgewater. Those systems, we don't actually produce the drinking water. We purchase it um from Deltona in the case of Stone Island and we purchase it from the city of Edgewater. >> So, that being said about Deltona, do we
have any because we purchase our water, we don't have any say if they went that road. Well, the requirement for Deltona is they have to produce water that's, you know, meets all the regulatory requirements associated with drinking water. >> We wouldn't have a say in saying no, you can't do that. I mean, it's their it's
their we're buying the water from, what they get it from is >> correct. If we didn't like the water they were supplying, our only choice would be either to turn the service area over to Deltona or to construct a water plant. >> Water plant. >> Our own water plant. >> Thank you. The same would apply for Edgewater Water, right? >> Yes, sir.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Um, let's go to the public and then we'll debate. Did you have another question? >> Question for Ben. Yeah. So, Ben, um, going up Highway 17, we just installed a water system that's attached to the lands system. Correct,
>> sir. >> Okay. So, the Leon Springs is an unincorporated area of Valuchia. Correct. >> Correct. And if somebody wants to open a business up or build something along that 17 corridor, they have to opt into
the city's water supply. Correct. You have to tap in. >> Correct. That's the only service utility service provider in that area. >> Okay. So, if I as a property owner don't want to go into the city's toilet, the tap lack of our better word,
but I mean I don't want to >> to my knowledge the land's not pursuing anything like that. Now, correct. Yeah, I agree. I just want to make that clear. Imply >> perpetuity generation. Correct. Um, let's just talk about that couple hundred years from now. If somebody
wants to build something along 17, >> they can't just opt out of tapping into Dan's water supply. They they can't do a well, right? you if you're near a water supply, >> there are um state requirements, state regulations and county requirements too that if you're within a certain distance
of central water and sewer, you have to connect. >> Correct. So, if you live in the county and you want to build on your property, but you don't want to drink the city's whatever water, um you don't have a choice. You have to tap in if you
>> if you're if you're within a certain distance. >> Correct. You don't happen to know what that distance is, do you, Bunny Chan? depends on what you want to build. If it's a single family, the the it has to be right next to your property, 50 or more, it has to be within 50 feet. And
then the larger development you get, then you look at like half a mile. So, it depends upon the the the demand that you're pulling um and whether or not you know uh what there's utilities that are available and how close you are and the
size of your development. >> Okay. All right. Thank you guys. appreciate you. >> Okay. Uh I've got four members of the public that want to speak. Um before we start that, uh can I get a motion to uh add more
time to uh >> 4 p.m. or whatever? >> Move to extend till 4 p.m. >> 4 p.m. >> Second. >> Have a motion and second to extend a meeting to 4 p.m. All in favor say I. I >> I
>> Any opposed? Okay. Uh you each have three minutes. Uh John Nicholson John Beachside questions. All right. Because I'm going to be getting these questions. Um I've heard several times
the injection is to the quality of drinking water. If I'm not mistaken, uh, drinking water is used in submarines, correct? Uh, cruise ships,
spaceships. So, we're already using toilet tap in confined areas or on ships. Now ships have what 7 to 10,000 people in the newer larger ones
which is a little bit bigger than Deion Springs. So when you talk about this people are always referring toilet to tap toilet to tap. It's something that's been in use I don't know what 40 years it was in use
when I was a kid. All right. Daytona Beach dumps uh or was dumping three million gallons a night into the river from our plant on the river. Um it create pardon.
Oh yeah, reclaimed. Now even in that reclaimed it's not I mean we use it on our lawns all the time. We use it in the public uh parks. It doesn't kill anybody. It doesn't hurt anybody. It's just little signs that say do not drink reclaimed water.
Is there any way of informing the public every time somebody says toilet the tap because we've got a commissioner that brings up toilet to tap. I don't want to drink out of a toilet. Right. This is not that. And then there is a possibility in the future as much water as we have. I spoke
to staff who says, "Oh, no. We've got plenty of water. you you'll never run out of water in in Daytona Beach. Well, I I don't believe that. Okay. Uh I've looked in uh at uh Orlando. When I moved here, Orlando had what? 10,000 people.
It's a little bit larger. Uh when I was born in Miami, uh they had 100,000 people. They are approaching 4 million. So that we will never grow to this point. I'm not saying it's never going to happen or that it will happen, but
we've got to be prepared. We cannot do what's happening out in uh Arizona and New Mexico where they run out of water, California, they can't water their uh fruits and vegetables, we as a uh community have to be prepared. So, I would ask you if this is
to the quality of drinking water. Now, if I can drink it above ground, well, I absolutely can drink it when it's below ground. Thank you, >> Michelle Letter. You will be followed by Suzanne Shyber.
Okay. I can't believe I'm having this discussion about tap I mean, uh, waste of tap water. I think it's absolutely absurd. You know, you talk about the science, you talk about government. I listened to you last last time. And do you really
think that you want to drink that when you know that there's a lot of people who are still producing spike mRNA in their body? Although that the science says that it's not possible and it only lasts in your body for a couple of days.
Why am I still making it 1,849 days still in my body and push me into cancers? Are you willing to see what future generations what's going to happen? What are the indications? What is going to happen? Nobody knows. Are
you going to have a consent form to give to all your constituent all the residents? Are you going to give them a form and guarantee them that there's nothing going to help them just like the co 19 vaccine? Are you going to do that? Are you going to let me sign a consent and say if anything happens, we're going
to pay for it because guess what? Laws are put into place to protect the government because people like me, I'm screwed. But anyway, to go on with that, do you really think this is should
happen? Are you going to be able to be absolutely purified? Can you ensure that the water is going to be completely purified? Is there data available that's going to be available to the public so they can
see this? My testing I have to get in Germany because if you look it up here, the science, it says that you're not supposed to be making spike, but I am. They only have a spike antibbody test. So, do they have a test that's going to
be able to test for somebody like me that is using the toilet and going through whatever? It does say when you look it up, I've looked it up all over the place. It does say that there can be mRNA contaminants still left in the water even though you have the UV lights
and everything else. Do you want to jeopardize your family? Do you want this for future generations? and what is going to happen long term and you better have a consent form
because if you put laws into place and people are getting sick this is going to be a huge thing just like the co the COVID catastrophe. I don't want this for my grandchildren, my great grandchildren and I don't want them from your kids or any other family
members because guess what? If anybody else gets sick, then I guess I need to play God and tell you where to where to get your testing done, what doctors to see, what labs need to be done. I can be nice, but I can be a real witch, too. So, I think that we should work
together. You like that one, don't you? I think we need to work together and think better because you know what? Anything that I looked up in here, it says that I'm not supposed to be making Spike because, you know, the data says, the science says I'm not supposed to.
Guess what? I I'm guess I'm an anomaly because there's people here in Valuchia County that don't even know that they're making spike. They have no clue. So, I don't want this to happen at all. And if you need any information, you want Latapo here, I'll bring him here because I know where he was last week and I know
where he is this Wednesday. I have no problem. You want scientist, I'll get you scientist. I have no problem. Thank you. Thank you, Suzanne Shyber. Good afternoon, council. Suzanne Shyber, Dream Green, Belalucha, Orman Beach. If we're talking about
running out of water and taking action, this is referred to as a humanitarian crisis. This is what we're talking about, correct? A crisis of what happens when we run out of water. A discussion on portable reuse and deep wall injection. the item on the agenda. The
issue is serious, no doubt. Raise your hand if you want to drink treated waste water as portable water. People are not lining up to support this. Are we admitting exploitation of our natural resources out loud? Where and when will we see a serious plan for water
conservation with this discussion? Without a plan, the damage doesn't end with a council vote or talking about banning toilet to tap. The biggest question of all is where is the crisis plan involved in discussing the crisis?
We are at the mercy of the conservation program and the policies approved by the council. And what do I mean by water crisis? Municipalities in trouble did the following. Established a commercial water use expectations and limits.
Limited swimming pool sizes. Restricted car washing. Incentivized removing turf. stopped new developments from using grass, stopped use of fountains and decorative ponds, changed HOA policy, stopped leaks on sidewalks, issued fines for abuse. They recognize the value in
land conservation, water recharge areas, and wetlands. Perhaps the governments that opted for these actions understood their lack of options. Is anyone in Valuchia County going to lead a holistic conversation about water for our future?
Freedoms and liberties come with responsibilities or they are supposed to. Literally, no one wants to drink treated wastewater. Signing a petition isn't difficult. I can do that right now. Anybody can do that. Everyone in the chamber can sign
right now. That does not address the water shortage, water pollution, policy deficiency, or support funding for land conservation, which we already voted for. It is contradictory to support a toilettotap ban and not support land conservation. And what happened to
credibility? The frustration is that treated wastewater for portable water is a real issue. So is the need to respect land conservation. Water management must be prioritized for public health, quality of life, agriculture, and economic impact. Everyone remembers
economic impact. Respectfully, we deserve an action actionable emergency conservation water policy now, the land conservation program we voted for. And this has been our consistent message for seven years. We do not deserve to drink
treated wastewater. So, I ask this question again. Where is the crisis plan involved in discussing the crisis? Thank you for your time. >> Thank you, uh, Greg Gimbert. and it's been a long day waiting for
this one. Thanks for showing up today. Um, a lot of important speakers that came before. I'll just sum up everything they said is yes, the state wants us to drink sewage for developers. The same way the state has preempted us and said we got to flood grandma for developers
with Senate Bill 180. What I'm asking you to do today is to take the barebones minimum step to the tiny little sliver that the state has allowed you to have to reserve important protections for your residents. We have a lot of problems in Valuchia County before poopy
water came along and we're going to have a lot of them after this is resolved, but none of them are any excuse not to reserve this important protection for our residents today. The prior county councils have tried to gaslight this issue off the dis and into the back room
so they could just keep doing business as usual. And the cities have been snookered into thinking that's okay. But here we are admitting what's right before us now. It's not going to happen sometime in the future, somebody else's lifetime. It's happening right now. I personally would love to see you guys
take the bold step to put the countywide ban on it. Just like we ban when you can put fertilizer on your ground or when you can run your sprinkler or anything else. Just like we can all decide whether we put fluoride in our water, we can decide whether we put sewage in our water. And with respect to the
attorneys, they gave you some information, but not all. That Mr. Dempsey tried to dig into the question a little deeper. Yes, it's true. You cannot outright ban poopy water until you've studied it. Until you've considered it, actually, I
think the wording is. And Daytona has done more than considered it. They tested it. We have been considering this thing for going on 10 years. And we've got Daytona's results. We can move forward to ban it. Period. And we should. But before you all take that
action today, I want you to take the safe, the minimum, like minimum standards. Today, you should put forward a version of our ban on toilet to tap. And toilet totap is a catchphrase. It's an umbrella. It is not a singularity.
Toilet to tap is a concept of taking treated sewage, treating it. It'll kill you. It'll kill you. It'll kill you. Oh, it's just over the line. You can drink a little bit. Now, it's a drinking water standard. Doesn't say it's clean water. It says the government said, "All right, we'll let you get away with it." Don't confuse the two. Don't confuse the two.
When you folks take the step that your staff has clearly told you you could do, and that's the first step, is to put a ban on toilet to tap and all that such entails, whether it's direct to customer or greenwash through the aquafer. It's important we reserve these protections
today. And this charter amendment draft will prohibit it, direct customer, and put through the aquafer. I hope y'all have some questions for me because I'm out of time, but I'd like to talk to you about the farce of the
confining layers and there's anecdotal evidence to show it just like I shared with you earlier in the spending. Thank you. >> Thank you for your comments. Uh, okay. We'll open it up for discussion. Uh, Jake Johansson. Yeah, I'm I don't recall ever sitting up here um
and and saying we have a a huge water we're an extremist here to the point where we want to resort to anything similar to this. Are we are we making strides to
lessen our water somewhat? Somebody brought up a good point. I've I've lived all around the world, places where you can't have grass. Go ahead, tell Floridaians they can't have grass anymore. See how far that gets you with the state right now. Maybe
in 10 years it'll be a little bit different. Um, tell Disney that now. Um, I I see this as a concern. I see it. something that that is on the 128 got
scale of my radar scope. It isn't in at the at the 50 or or 25 mile point yet where where it needs to be acted on. I don't see anybody trying to attempt toilet to tap or anything close. Uh I
see cities working hard to try to get their treated effluent out of the Spruce Creek, Halifax, and the and the St. John's. Um, I see us trying to get rid of the the most notable
black water to drinking water issue, which is septic to sewer. Um, and I think we're doing a good job at taking incremental steps toward preserving our water. I ask everybody this every time.
How many people run their showers for 5 10 minutes waiting for hot water and they let it go down the drain? That's that's wasted water. Um um we don't by habit take our rainwater and reuse it until we can make
some arrangements in our culture um hopefully not by law but by culture uh to start preserving water then then it's not a big deal and people aren't going to drink toilet to tap and they're not going to entertain it and and we don't
have any projects on the horizon that are dealing with it. So, I see it as a I don't want to react um but I don't see a reason to be proactive to the point again where
the state does a massive state preeemption on something because we just decided to stop doing or not do something. If we're going to do that, I would also like to restrict the use of autonomous vehicles
that float above the ground because they're going to be tremendously dangerous if we don't wear helmets and a bunch of other stuff that isn't happening that that may cause concern in in the future. Um I I just think we're a
little early on this. I think it's a a watch. Um uh but I don't think it ought it comes up every election year as a issue that's eminent like tomorrow we're going to be drinking you look at social
media it's bottles of water that are brown um which is far from the truth. Um, so, uh, I'm I'm not I'm not I'm not really moving forward with anything from
the county on this that, oh, by the way, only affects the county right now. Really? >> Thank you very much, chairman. You're welcome. U, Jake, the last time I brought this up to the county council, that's what I was
told that it's it's not going to happen and it's it's not eminent. It's not even going to happen in our lifetime. But you are incorrect. It is here. It's being done right now. There's a proposal in Deltona to do it. There's a proposal to do what sir
>> in to inject >> treated lower. >> No, I'm not going to lower my voice. To inject treated sewage water into our aquifer, which is >> more harmful. I'm I'm speaking. I'll call you when you're done.
>> Pardon me. It is water from Lake Monroe. >> Okay. No, no, you're you're misreading it. And it's all it's already being done in other places in Florida, too. >> So now you're going you had your time to
inject treated sewage water into our aquifer is far worse than just saying, "Oh, it's clean enough. I'm going to give it to my own residents to to drink." Somebody drink puts it in our aquifer. I got to drink it because I have a well. I feed my animals with it
on an organic farm. I feed my my kids drink it. I drink it. Everybody in Valuchia County drink it. We're spreading pollution to the whole county when we do that. We can take the simple step. Yeah. Do we need conservation?
Granted, we do. Are septic systems putting pollution into the water? Yeah, they probably are. But we have an opportunity to stop putting this into hypers speed and making it far worse for our county. We ought to do that simple
step that Mr. Gimbert brought up that the county attorneys told us that we could do for our service areas in Valuchia County and take the lead and set a standard for the rest of the county and then let Daytona Beach do it and Edgewater and New and and and Orman
Beach and all the other cities that ought to protect be protecting their citizens at Well, would you put that uh o that overhead up that I gave you? Here is is the ballot. I took this ballot to our county attorneys and I said, "Can
you take this and make it acceptable to this this smaller uh target, which is our own service areas?" County attorney said, "Yes, I can do that." Uh, and then we can't vote it on it tonight because that's our rule. I can't put something
up brand new and vote it on the same night. It's not fair to the public. So, they'll bring it back to the next meeting. That gives the public time to look at it. And if I'm asking somebody to make a motion, if you won't, I'll pass the gavl to to put this ballot,
send it to the county attorneys, let them bring it back and make it legal for what the state allows us to do because Jake, you're right. The state is going to preempt us from doing anything. There's bills right now that we're trying to stop. So, we've got to stop
that. Somebody Suzanne said petitions are easy. Petitions are not easy. It takes 32,000 vote uh signatures to get the petition. This county council has it within our ability to take this petition
and when it's brought back to vote would be a supermajority vote to put it directly on the next ballot so that you and I aren't decided for all of our residents, but the residents of Valuchia County get to decide, do I want to drink
cleaned up sewage water? Do I trust that there's not, uh, pharmaceuticals, um, insecticides, PAS chemicals that we already know can't be taken out of the water. So, let's not make it worse by
injecting it into the aquifer. We need to vote to send this to the council, bring it back, and then we get to vote. Do we want our own constituents to be able to vote on this or are we going to tell them no because we don't think it's
coming? It's already here. Councilman Dempsey. >> I'll make that motion. Chair. >> Thank you. >> Second. >> Okay. We have a motion and a second to put this to the county attorney to bring it back >> as a county ordinance.
>> Pardon me. as a county ordinance >> as no as a charter amendment >> so that our citizens get to vote on it. >> Can we make this a county ordinance as well that on the unincorporated areas that we not allow this type of
>> treatment so it takes effect as soon as possible? >> Can we do that? >> You you >> we can do both. >> Okay. And it uh the charter allows you to place things on a ballot as it >> and it would apply to Valuchia County
Water Utility Service Area. >> Chairman has a seconder. I'm okay with that. >> Okay. >> And I'll explain why if you if you're curious. I It sounds to me we're talking about Daytona experimenting with this in St. John's Water Management. That's why
I want to get through this as quick as I can. Um we're talking about Deltona testing it. It doesn't sound like it's a triedand-trude system or formula. It sounds like we're still in the experimental phase. And I want to do this because I don't want the
the state again or St. John's water management again saying, "Hey, let's go down to Valuchia County and let's test it on their property and see how it goes." No, I want to put up some sort of hurdle. I understand that we have preeemption. They can preempt us. That's why I don't like these conservation easements. Miss Sh hopefully Miss Shy
will be here when we talk about conservation easements because I want to protect our water from the state with these conservation easements. That's another discussion next time. But I don't trust the government. I really don't. And I don't blame you people that distrust me
because I'm with the government. But understand, you know, the engineers of the Titanic said it was unsinkable and it sank. this fine lady right here and the rest of us were told how great the vaccine was going to be and she was completely victimized by those that
misinformation. I don't trust it. And if we can throw up a roadblock so that the state may not want to fight to try an experimental system in Valuchia County, yeah, let them go to Marian or let them go, you know, some other county and do their experiments and prove to us maybe in 40
or 50 years. The reason I like it as a council decision to The reason I like this as an ordinance because future generations, I'm not talking about perpetuity. That P word is not coming out of my my mouth. Maybe in a hundred years it might be a rock solid science,
but I'm not convinced right now because we're all in the testing phase. I don't trust their science and I don't want my family to be the guinea pigs for their science because I don't want them to turn out like these people that are victimized by the vaccine or that were
victimized by the Titanic or whatever. I don't want to be the guinea pig. So go somewhere else and do your testing and 100 years from now you might be able to come back and convince the council at that time how we're going to handle it. And I will say this, I've never voted for a moratorum,
but I'll tell you what, if this, like I said last time, if this becomes an issue of more houses versus drinking this reuse water and deep well injections and all these other acceptable water supplies, I'm a no. I mean, I I don't want any more building.
>> Okay, I'll shut up. >> Vote on it. >> Yep. >> We only have We have less than a minute if we want to call a question. >> I can I just add one 10-second thing. My concerns is if this comes back, I don't have an issue with making that decision. I don't like the verbiage as it is that we have a right to review the verbiage
and the lang the presentation of the ballot. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> Okay. Uh the the motion on the table is to send it to the attorneys. They will bring it back for a charter amendment
and a um ordinance. Uh all in favor say I. I. Any opposed? So, that's done. Uh, thank you very much, council. I appreciate it. >> Mr. Chair, if I could just say, and >> you can blame Russ for making you late.
Um, so what that will will be is we'll work on an ordinance and we'll work on what a charter amendment could look like. I'm in agenda conference preparing for the next meeting in less than two days. So realistically, it will not be next, maybe be the following meeting,
which is fine. You're good on time. Um, and that that way you have it in advance of the meeting, everyone sees it. Um, if you do want to put it on the charter uh ballot by charter, you're authorized to do that. It's a twothirds vote, so it'
be five. A vote of five, >> right? >> Thank you. >> It's a high bar. Okay. Um I haven't heard a motion to ex to extend again for closing comments. I think everybody just made their closing
comments. So we have a motion to adjurnn. All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. We are adjourned at four o'clock on the dot.