e e e e e for is hello hello before it was over so any
the microwave it never never sat right after that okay e e e e e e
e e e good afternoon good afternoon everyone Michelle thank you for sitting there ready to work thank you Jack for
sitting there ready to work Chelsea we do I counted eight I knew I was forgetting something yes I'm going to bring it here and leave it here when I bring back Samantha's wonderful bag okay I made a big stink about the gavl I
made such a big stink that Jack got the gabble so I am calling the March 5th 2024 meeting of enra to order please and I believe we now have a quorum so can we proce with roll call thank
you um miss lammer here miss gal here miss Anderson uh Miss brosmer is online so when after we do the roll call you'll have to make a motion for her to participate if that's
okay Mr Burbank Mr Fitz Simmons Miss Jameson don't see her online um Mr Dono Mr lights Mr momberg miss
morisy here but I saved Donna a seat she's supposed to be next to me she may still come we'll see I'm sorry oh no she's online no um Mr seret here and Miss Whit okay so let's see that we have a
quorum and if someone would like to make a motion for Miss brosmer to participate that would be good so moved do we have a second second moved by Tyler malberg seconded by Bill lights all those in favor uh any opposed Donna you can
participate online thank you thank you uh would any one like to discuss or make a motion regarding last month's minutes I will make a motion to approve them I second
one um motion was made by sarily morsy seconded by Tom Burbank all those in favor uh any opposed the February minutes are approved so discussion the floor is now open to discuss the February 11th County
council meeting I'd like to start though with a show of hands how many people were there watched it in real time or watched it after good thank you did you want me to give an overview or do you just want to have discussion how do you
if you'd like to give an overview that might be a good place I mean I'm I'm glad that everybody heard it so I don't necessarily have to go into any great detail but um so it was a special meeting Tad incredibly riveting presentation yeah t Tad did an amazing
presentation on the storm water changes and then I did a mediocre presentation on the liid changes um ultimately after uh significant discussion and I'm sure there'll be some um discussion here uh the council approved all of the
recommended storm water changes they approved the low impact development package um as a completely voluntary package with all of the incentives including the density bonuses that were discussed at U
pdrc that um the comprehensive plan amendment has been sent out to the Department of Commerce for review the expectation is that we will have a second meeting on that in April for the council to officially adopt those comprehensive plan
changes and the um ordinance and all of the the manual everything would go into effect 31 days from the date of that second hearing so thank you I uh would like to ask the question if anybody has an observation
from that meeting that would be helpful to this committee in our work that I think is the the question I would ask okay then we move on to Old business uh storm water and I would remind us and
someone told me if I miss if I misread the minutes Wendy had suggested last time that the uh chapter 50 regarding storm water was very Broad and a lot of a lot of things fit under it and we were
going to look at attempting to harmonize chapter 72 with chapter 50 and I think then we said but we might like to have a presentation from staff about any
discrepancies so is that where we're going Tad presentation uh actually the way I understood the uh what we were requested to do is take the language that been approved as a part of chapter 72 and put that into uh chapter 50 so carry over
what the recommendations were the uh um pull this up give me two seconds here please so what I've got is uh the chapter 50 language now we had gone
through this back uh I think was the second meeting we were talking about storm water we went through uh chapter 72 and chapter 50 uh they are very similar uh they're quite a few things that uh carry over from 50 into 72 but 72 has a lot more um in it than chapter
50 part of that is uh pretty straightforward it's how the county processes uh the applications and how that information gets conveyed to the county itself we did not spell that out in chapter 50 because we leave it up to the cities how they're going to obtain
or go through their permanent process and that type of thing so that's that's primarily the major difference um there were some more specifics as relates to storm water aspects um in terms of what was being
submitted uh to prove or um justify the storm water system that was being proposed that uh in chapter 50 was really left more to the city to decide what they wanted to see along those long run so um with regard to the proposed
language that was approved by the council um based on the recommendations of enra uh all the suggested language carried over with one exception uh regarding the uh number of Pawn borings
uh overall which U did go ahead and add in there just not in the same spot because it doesn't exist in chapter 50 so uh if you're call the uh different things that we approved the first one was the uh uh 6
in safety factor for the seasonal High uh and so on the screen here highlighted in yellow this is the same exact language that was included in chapter 72 that was approved by Council uh that uh makes that a
requirement the blue and the green were the second part of the discussion on the uh geotechnical sorry this is uh 72 but it or 50 pardon me but it's a 50-17 yes
ma'am so the other portion of the geotechnical aspects were that we required the two borings per acre of uh storm water pond that's section did not specifically have uh uh a requirement in chapter 50 where we' put it in our
chapter 72 so I added in this location it's a discussion about the seasonal High uh which is what we're basically setting as a part of your geotechnical borings so it seemed like the best place to go ahead and do that the blue is the language I had to add to make it cohesive um the green is the language
that was basically carried over straight from what we had recommended in the 72 yeah so can I just I I want to make sure I um are
youing are we are you adding that to uh a paragraph a heren one at the end of a like you just add all that language to the end of a that's how we did it on 72 okay okay and so I put the soil
boring aspect just following that having a conversation about geotechnical it seemed like the appropriate place in this language to do that uh let me scroll down just a little bit and uh under section c uh this is
where we added the language again it comes through just the same way it did C reads the same way it does in chapter 72 so just uh appended the language right to the end of it the same way we did previously and this has do with the location of the storm water Pond uh
within the site if the adjacent property is lower bouncing back and forth right and then uh the tail water and curve number information again it carries over to the
same spot that it did in chapter 72 under the runoff co uh computations which under three B so and again the same language that we carried over from 72 just uh just goes
in this location there was no change to the way C reads otherwise so that was really the last section that we made any changes to so realistically it's basically the same thing with that one small exception just
to make sure that the boring requirements was uh outlined May so in a we dealt with the ordinance before we dealt with the overarching is chapter 50
which governs every municipality not just unincorporated areas chapter 72 is unincorporated areas correct correct so chapter 72 is very detailed prescribing how things are going to be done and
we've taken that language and put it into chapter 50 whereas a lot of chapter 50 talks about the goals and the objectives of having a storm water ordinance in addition to prescriptive changes
yes so this is good that it makes consistency between the two documents but I think that on febru in our last meeting and reiterated at the February 11th meeting we were not satisfied that we
were going far enough with storm water and so we can discuss this vote on this but I think there's still question mark hanging in the air or not just putting that out
there um I I'm not sure I agree I first of all chapter 50 is the minimum standards so this is across the entire
County um and I felt like the issue was more about Li and because it was voluntary than it was about the storm water
ordinance and the only other thing I would add is I not sure adding more to chapter 50 before you get an airing on chapter
72 like I I don't know um forgive me but I the first hearing of of chapter 72 I thought that was a February I realize but I I mean if we're making additional changes to chapter
50 without considering changes to 72 no we we we went backwards we did 72 before we looked at 50 because our we were advised that 50 would have to go out to the municipalities and generally
we were going to look at ordinances and not look at minimum standards in the very very beginning and so we attacked storm water as chapter 72 at the ordinance level not at the minimum standard level but as we move through that the the question was raised about
whether we needed to also look at at the minimum standard level and what Tad has done is to take what what we approved from chapter 72 and place it appropriately in chapter 50 which we can just go ahead and say
that's fine and and call it a day or discuss so just mechanically 50 includes not only the storm water but also the environmental and the trees and all that we are just focused on the storm water part of 50 okay and then to her Point
Sarah Le's um does it need a second reading 72 72 does and that's what oh no sorry no that was that's not a comp plan yeah okay can we I thought I had a copy of this part of 50 with me but can we just
scroll through it and see these changes in context sure and just to be clear that um on February 11th the council adopted the changes you recommended to the storm water ordinance and they are in effect okay so chapter 50 like most of the the
rules uh goes ahead and gives set definitions to begin uh if uh there were any penalties any of the background uh goes into the first portion of it so the purpose the objectives are all outlined if you want to go through that we can certainly do
that but uh pretty sure if I read that much to you you're going to go to sleep so I I do want to keep going but I did have a question okay all right uh we go ahead and outline the objectives the whole purpose behind the rule the intent what
we're trying to in case there are any questions about the interpretation of rules what we're trying to accomplish to help govern if there's a gray area uh and talk about the adoption by the municipalities as required uh again
that's more just background it's really not until we get to 105 that we actually start talking about things that are truly related to storm water um in terms of practice and the first thing in there is listing out the prohibited acts uh again unless you stop me I'm just
going to hit the highlights all right and then the exemptions things that don't require a permit uh this would certainly be one of the areas that uh I would recommend to enra in the future if you want to keep looking at different things there are
several exceptions that probably make good sense to either modify or remove um at some point in the future we get into the performance standards so this is talking about how you would go about um handling storm water issues and the
goals that you would have for them overall so in your first section there you're talking about the uh storm water runoff that it has to be handled by a best management practice prior to discharge um and then we go ahead and make our
statements about how that system would be modeled with regard to the safety Factor uh and then the soil boring so that you know what the existing condition is so you can properly set up the model for the computation so again the yellow is
straight forward that's straight from what we did in 72 language is the same it fits in the same spot that we had in 72 it's really the blue and the green but we've just had to put them in this location because it makes the best
sense because that portion of 72 doesn't exist in 50 and it was really talking about what's required in the calculations in chapter 72 which we don't spell out here we leave that to the cities to make their final determination is what they want to to
prove that the storm water system is meeting the presumptive rule right and a little bit farther down we're talking about the design of the water and retention uh or detention systems and uh this is where we talk
about where the pond needs to be located so already talking about the the storm water Pond the release of water those aspects establishing minimum Sid slopes this is one of those areas where chap chapter 72 for example the county spells out that pawns side slopes are going to
be a 4 to1 maximum if they're not uh or they would only allow certain exceptions and they Define what the exceptions would be here they leave it to the local government to make that call as to what they're going to accept um some of that is some cities uh
don't like fencing around storm water pond so they might require 4 to1 Max period if they don't have a problem with sensing they would allow you to potentially go steeper even to wall situations that type of thing so you know it's a it's an aesthetic just as much as it is a performance standard
so correct and they may have planting requirements that type of thing you know as long as the pond system functions in the model the way it's supposed to then uh and I'm sorry Tyler has his card up did you have a question on okay thank you
I was going to comment earlier on the chain of conversation that was happening I think we've moved forward okay B is the question here to the committee um a recommendation just to take what
we've already done to 72 and incorporated into 50 the minimum standards actually I would say there was no question is what we put we were asked to to go ahead and okay provide the language from 72 and put it into 50 so that might be considered in the future by the cities and the county all right
and I misunderstood then where this whole started Melissa because it sounded to me like you wanted something more or that wasn't what tad just described wasn't the Avenue you wanted to go down no sorry for confusion I just I just wondered if we wanted to do anything
more with chapter 50 and like I said I do have a few questions that may or may not matter then uh continuing through on the standards they uh have some pretty basic language again not nearly as uh detailed as what we
have in chapter 72 but uh not that much different either we go ahead and Define the storms that are uh utilized periods of time that they're utilized for the modeling purposes for meeting the presumptive standard and then the calculation of the
runoff and uh this is where we had put the language with regard to the tail water condition noting that it has to be approved by the county before you move forward uh if there's no County approved Basin study to set it that city engineer we're in the city um
in that case yes it could be change the city because you don't want City projects coming to you to establish the tail water large part of that will depend on who owns the discharge system that it's going to most of the uh larger canals are the counties
so so maybe yes but maybe sometimes correct that's why we want the Basin studies to be the primary point then you don't have to worry about setting that each individual times Jessica has a question comment a question on that point if they under current I conditions
if they drain to a County facility you guys are already involved in the review because of that or correct okay any work they do within the county right of way or easements they're required to pull a use permit so we have been charged with
looking at 50 at least the engineering part and this could be I guess I have two comments or questions one this could be super simple and we could just do this and vote on it and then this and I guess my next question is do the cities
already do this and what kind of push back are we going to get from this and also I'd like to hear from the engineers uh the rules as they're proposed I'm not aware that any city is doing these things in particular um
certainly not adding uh a safety Factor on the seasonal high now new smura beach did make some changes to their storm water rules and uh they did not did not state it the same way with regard to a safety Factor on the Geotech
but with the way I read what they've done it almost equates to the similar similar thing that's that I'm not aware of any other City doing anything like that uh as it stands and they also added a uh one foot of freeboard if I recall right um they use
a different storm they got uh some tighter restrictions on different things than we do uh but uh as far as the number of borings requiring two per acre no nobody is requiring that uh as I'm aware and uh the curve number with the
ad soils or BD soils I'm not aware that they're specifically doing anything along those lines as it based on their rules to me this is one of those things should be doing professionally as the engineers for the project both either the city or the
developers engineer um really what we've done is we've just codified it and taken away the Judgment aspect of it basically said you're going to do it and you're going to treat it this way so um and at the last meeting you know
we provided the Matrix two matrices one that compares the County ordinance to all of the cities and one that compares our County ordinance to the other counties so um that's available to you um to know kind of what the cities are we don't necessarily know what kind of feedback we're going to get from the
cities until we go talk to them we yeah we haven't yet no we will there's because we we want to know what your recommendations are before we send anything
out yes apolog for being late um my question is you know with with all of the flooding we've had over the last two years and with a lot of the cities um you know coming to the meetings uh
coming to County Council meetings and saying you know this this isn't just one city issue or another city issue and that and they've been asking that you know we all work together as a county to address this um I was just wondering if
anything has progressed with that if there's been any con conversations or workshops with the city cities all involved with the county on this storm water issue so before we ever come to them with you know proposed changes on
50 that they've already been working together collaboratively and are in more of an agreement um because right now within the different cities I can only speak for South East belua there's a lot going on and some of them believe in
engineers and some of them don't even believe in Engineers so um I think if if there was a more of a a collaborative effort um for you know Unity on this whole issue and I'd heard rumors before I went on vacation that there there were
some conversations about having some workshops with the county you know and all the cities together to work together and you know I don't know I've been gone so I'm just asking where we are and and all of that just real quick um it's somewhere in the minutes but I can't
find it just now clay Irvin did tell us last time that there's a mayor's Round Table okay that's discussing this vCard also has been has been doing some work certainly um Tyler and
Jack so to comment on changes we made to chapter 72 they're applicable chapter 50 I expect there's a couple of these that there will be cities that push back on new samna for example may have a different approach to accomplishing the
6inch seasonal High goal for example and so I think that there could be some potential conflict with those codes but that's something that the process is designed to work out we kind of picked some pretty generic items that have a high level of Common Sense and a low
level of potential conflict to move forward in 72 I think they Mak sense to move forward to chapter 50 as a result the a you know adbd soil thing is one of them that I expect there to be some controversy on but I kind of think this
is a smart approach I I I'm not in disagreement with it just I expect there to be some items that there's push back and some discussion on some of this is pretty technical what I saw at the council meeting was that for the most part the council members didn't
understand some of the finer details of what was being discussed they kind of trusted staff enra so on and so forth and voted to move forward with it but um we're dealing with a lot of folks that don't understand the finer details of this that are going to be getting
engaged when we go to the city level and I think that's just something to keep in mind is that there's some of this that really should get put in 50 and there's some of it that if we lose it that might be okay but I think we I personally think we should move forward with
everything that's been presented so far I assume that that was everything that you put together so um the other comment that I was going to have um regarding should we be doing more my opinion has been I spoke at Council to this effect
that the countyy is going to spend a lot of money and time developing flood studies and there may be some additional things that we can come up with before those flood studies are completed to add but this is one of those cases we're doing too much could be just as bad as
doing too little and the taking a more methodical approach to me seems like the right way to do it so I I'm more inclined to wait for those flood studies to move forward or until we have um you know other fact based reasons to make changes to suggest additional changes to
72 I think we should always be looking to 72 before 50 if if it doesn't make sense in 72 definitely doesn't make sense in 50 thank you Jack then Tom yeah yeah I agree with that and I think uh that Point's well taken and Bliss
you're right we talked a lot last time about the interface between the cities and getting ahead of that and making sure that it's not offensive to the cities that we're just implementing rules and that we're working together trying to put that together I I thought it was good and the
Matrix laid it out basically to what where where there might be potentially more restrictive issues um but I was pleased to see that it didn't look that way until until you just said that where you mentioned several things that there
may be more issues um than I thought were indicated in the in the Matrix itself and part of it was that they look at things differently in other words it's not because they're more restrictive or less restrictive it's just different um and I I think in a way
that's good and and my question is when there are differences are there are occasions in which the cities have have a difference that is an improvement than what we're talking about and and you know we we're not the all believing of
this thing so so perhaps there's a place I'm not sure which city that would be that's looking at it differently that we should embrace and say okay maybe there should be a tweak an adjustment to to R50 rules um because they've got a better idea um
either way I think that it's a uh I I think it all needs to proceed we need to deal with 50 even though I did walk away from it because they were so similar I walked away with um perhaps we're not going far enough uh with our storm water
work as a as a lead to the county that then goes to the city level because there there weren't more conflicts or things that were trying to pull them further along particularly in light of of the flooding and all the issues of today where everyone says oh we really
need to do something and uh and yet you know I found what we're doing to be minimal um but still a step in the right direction so uh I I leave I leave it to the engineers on whether there's another um that some of the uh the prospects as
they've outlined them in the uh on the city level potentially are better than what we've suggested I I I can't I can't grab on to that myself but I but I thought it should at least be said sure one thing i' I'd note on that Jack you part of the idea behind the county
minimum standards is that we set a Baseline and then a particular city has the opportunity to go ahead and tighten those rules up I me you see it in the trees but it's also that case in the storm water and the highlighting of the differences between what we've got and what new smrna beach has was pointing
out that in certain cases they have tightened up they have done just that and uh you know I would argue uh that that's how you want the system to be uh you can be you know Tyler mentioned it a little bit earlier you can put down really tight
rules and uh that apply to the entire County but you're going to have certain areas of the county where you don't need them that tight I mean the storm water situation in Pearson is not going to be the same as it is in new smna beach and so allowing those cities to craft their rules to be more appropriate for their
particular location or situation I think is the better way to do that or I would I agree I think there's a there's a customization in that and and it makes sense uh but there may also be an overview that in general something is
applied whether it's in Pearson or Edgewater or wherever it may be may actually apply in general to a better minimum which is why we took a look at what new smab beach had proposed I mean we want to know what the cities are doing it wasn't to say hey are they making sure they they're getting around
our standard that's not way we look we look because we want to say hey we know we don't know everything and you know if somebody's got a better way to do it I'd much rather steal an idea than come up with my own so okay so Tom then Jessica then
Wendy thank you Tad's right um there are 14 municip municipality write it down 14 municipalities in bla County and of them I imagine maybe half of them have got expertise inhouse they could even understand what we're talking about and
that's generous uh most of them do rely on consultants and most of those Consultants getting them to come to a table to discuss these items with us is an expense that most of these municipalities do not want to make so what I would propose is um uh especially this would be a good time for doing this
because it's pre-budget time for these these these elected officials they've got the time as we put together some kind of a traveling show and we get ourselves invited to the various City commission meetings and at they opening the meeting give a presentation and in a sense kind of put these politicos on
kind of a hot seat saying okay we're willing to work with you here we are in public saying we're willing to work with you will you come to the table with us and um that's just me thinking like a politician that's pretty much it um anything else yeah and and offer an
offer assistance and some of them will actually take us up on because they don't have the people thank you um I will say that the elected officials Round Table is happening Monday coming up um the 10th I don't
know whatever Monday is coming up um and Tad's doing a presentation of what was adopted in chapter 72 Samantha is going to do a presentation of uh our liid so we are going to the cities as early as Monday now we're not talking to them about oh and hey we're proposing to make
those as minimum standards uh but at least presenting what the county has done and opening that door to we're going to want to discuss you know with your staff and and the elected eventually about upcoming changes to minimum
standards it's uh Monday from 9 to noon in the McGee room at the airport and they have their um subcommittee that's looking at um flooding and storm water and there that subcommittee is going to report out as
well to the um elected officials Jessica then Wendy yeah I was just going to say is that overall I agree with the general comment and direction of building this language in so that where you know it says County if it can just be city um I
think there's a site to CBE in the other section that would be I think city or county development engineer um because I think I want I would hope that we would draft these in a way that's protective of the city's Design Elements and procedures so like the the pond being
located on the perimeter of the site if possible the if possible gives the city the leeway to say if it's downtown and we have an intent there and we want it in the front or something like that they can be built in um I wanted to ask on
the six Ines of safety factor that we built in if we pull that into the minimum standard and it applies to a city that has a higher standard already than the county in terms of storm water design which we saw in that chart a lot of them do should we build in an
exception to say this only applies where you're using the 24hour 25 gear like we are no I would not recommend that aspect because it's not tied to the size of the storm okay there's a there's a big difference between using the 6 inch and
using a different design storm uh the issue with the design storm is that uh the volume that you hold back is greatly controlled by the existing soils conditions so in areas
where they already flood prone usually the reason you're flood prone is because your soils are so bad at percolating water and run they create more runoff than they they soak in so your curve number is higher which is similar to Asphalt and those types of things so the ponds in those areas is you're looking
at a smaller difference between uh that you've got a cold because so much runs off in the first place you know higher design storm you're not going to impound that much with the difference than than you would with the smaller storm um because the conditions already create so much more on the 6 inch you're already
you're always good soils bad soils you're going to retain an extra six inches of water in your site so it uh it's there no matter whether you've got good flow conditions or bad flow conditions for the storm water run off so uh it's it's not tied to a storm or a
certain condition we had considered and the council or the committee did not go forward with it potentially making a separate one for a closed Basin we Stu with the the 6 inch across either Basin type but it's every system not just if
you've got a 25 24 100 Year 24 100y year 72 or anything along those lines comp extra foot of freeboard uh the extra foot of freeboard creates a situation where you would um
hold more water in your pond such that it does not flow flood the roads of the particular development does not change your discharge control structure elevation so it stays in that case um at elevation five and your top of Bank um
would be set over your max stage your max stage is usually going to be above your discharge control structure so five or six uh then you've got the extra foot there well you know water still running off your site and still going Downstream so it's a the the negative effect that would be occurring Downstream if you're
at a larger storm goes that way uh goes to the residence down Property Owners Downstream the extra six Ines stores it no matter what and your discharge control structures they're basically six inch higher so that's why it's different
slash better than the for freeboard Wendy uh so two things um quickly Ginger you said Tad and Samantha would not be telling the mayor's round table that we're working on chapter
50 I they're not going to be presenting recommendations on chapter because we don't have them yet right right right but but you'll tell them we're working on it okay like this is a public meeting it's not like we're hiding anything here okay um just wanted clarification on the
question of are we going far enough of of course everybody knows that I never think we are so you know I'll just move past that but we haven't gone far enough in this chapter but this chapter doesn't lend itself to much more and I think that
particularly the list that councilman Kent gave um earlier in the spring you know if that was the January meeting or whenever when he yeah at the moratorium meeting when he said you know and I want no more building in wetlands and I want you know he gave his list
most of which I would say is L but whatever we can we can talk about that we're going to get to those chapters where we can do more when we get to Wetlands when we get to flood plane hazards when we get to some of those other chapters that are on our work plan
we can and should and will do more than what the storm water chapter currently provides wiggle room for so I would say let's wrap this up and get on with those other things where we can get busy and do more on that note some ah
Bob say do we need a motion to incorporate uh all of the changes we made in 72 to chapter 50 second motion with the notations City slcounty and correcting that aspect yeah so what he said also yes okay so
motion made by Bob pit Simmon seconded by Jack seret all those in favor uh got a discussion in between sorry with the modification for City County I almost actually like it having more of a deferral level from the
county um there are and I I don't know if it's actually necessary but there's a lot of situations where the discharges to a county maintained Canal or a do maintain Canal to infrastructure that's
not under the city's jurisdiction and so in those cases I don't like the idea of the city review staff getting the jurisdiction over the county review staff if the goal is countywide flooding prevention I don't know how we identify
that Nuance but I kind of have a little bit of hesitance just with the modification I I think we can take a crack at that aspect I was going to change it from County to the owner of the uh facility I would wouldn't say regulatory agency
because the regulat I mean the Water Management District is a regulatory agency and then if it's in a city it's the city and to to Tyler's point if we have a canal going through a city we're going to want to set the tail waterer condition that they have to use in those calculations um one in particular if
we've done a basin study we're going to need we're going to have some background for why that tail water condition should be such and I don't want the city not knowing or thinking about that to uh or understanding those aspects to to make a call on that on one of our facilities so
much the same way that they have to come to see us if they're going to drive on our roads or have a driveway connection same counil Bob did you have a comment or that's still up from when you made your motion okay any additional discussion
John uh it seems like we've lost a word non-study based Tidewater conditions are to ser sured by a licensed surveyor aren't they don't we need a verb oh line
142 in the section so that's B yeah runoff computations so section I mean it doesn't matter but and and I had another kind of thing uh um that which
is in both but not in terms of the stle boring and again this is I'm not you know I'm not a word person but uh this just kind of was uncomfortable but not less than a minimum of two less than the minimum of the same so we got to Red you
know now it doesn't matter we might want to keep it redundant uh but you could either choose one or the other and grammatically it has to be fewer not less than because it's a number it's countable did you finish yeah I'm sorry y
behind seeing no further cards up for further discussion all those in favor I any opposed motion carries I didn't catch the second though the second was Jack
okay Mr lights so now that this is our official enra recommendation you can mention it to the city's at this meeting and say no uh because we haven't shared this with our leadership it would be very uncomfortable for us to share it
with the leadership of other cities first so um you know we have our internal process that we'll follow let our leadership know that you've made recommendations and find out how they want to proceed with the road show so to speak and um reaching out to the cities
so it doesn't mean we aren't going to mention it basically they've approved if they ask for a copy we'll provide them a copy are all the cities participating everybody will be
there regular basis I can't remember it's every other month or every quarter of what it is but I don't think some of the smaller cities go right da yeah the Round Table's been going on for a long time and sometimes there's an
agenda for it so adding this at this date would probably not you know mentioning it's one thing but as an agenda item it's probably not appropriate but we are interested in how uh you all decide to proceed with
the cities and some of us may in fact like wherever we live we might want to go so you know once that is discussed you know either if it's appropriate email communication or presentation to us and I think we'd all
be interested in that piece of it yeah so what I'll do is um once we have a little bit more info I'll we'll send out an email um because hopefully it'll be before our next meeting so we won't have to wait till the next meeting to give you an update on that
um the other thing I wanted to mention is that tentatively on April 1st there'll be a presentation to the County Council about the seven six7 items that uh six that Mr Kent put
forward and then the seventh from the chair from the moratorium meeting there'll be a presentation on this you know sort of what they presented and what that looks like um so we're expecting that to be on April 1st but
the agenda hasn't been finalized yet so stay tuned we'll let you know once we know for sure but so um I would uh be presenting on the two Wetland items that were brought up the no fill of any wetlands and no use of um off-site
mitigation and then of course the attorneys will um uh have information on each item and then t and Ben are going to be presenting on the storm water items that were brought up and oh not Tad uh and
clay or somebody from growth and resource um depending on if Clay's back will present on the items about Phill and those sorts of things so so that's in process right now thank you and
Jessica just a quick note in the at some point during this review of all of these factors I think we looked at compliance with the minimum standards that it the local governments have programs in place that comply with the minimum standards um there's a the section on maintenance
which I'm glad it's up um which I love because if we might recall vCard recommended every local government have emergency easements over storm water which is actually what that says and so I'm just wondering if this gives the local governments The Authority or if every code should require those
easements as set forth in this standard I don't know that this by itself gives the city Authority I think they have to copy this and put it in their own ordinances for them to have that Authority but I'm not an attorney and I didn't stay at holiday
end if we only had an attorney in the room um I would argue that the uh municipalities would have to have it within their own um in order to uh to enforce that but I can look into it further and bring back some information so I would agree with that I'm just
wondering if we can remind them that a minimum standard Tyler so from my not an attorney more of a question for uh the attorneys in the room since we have at least two um when
I worked at do conditions of the driveway permits stormw water connection permits other permit conditions were explicitly allowing to take certain actions it didn't necessarily allow them to take action across the entire development site however related to the
connection and onto the development side as necessary and that seemed to stand up legally so I think there is some ability for it to not necessarily be an easan I just like that's way outside of the area of expertise as an engineer you don't want me as grammar or legal
representative um so the the real comment that I was going to make is I I've been thinking a lot about like conceptually how as the flooding in the county happened and a lot of what we've seen you know if we think of our closed basins as kind of like an ego waffle you've got all of these or Belgian
waffle you've got all these little bowls and you've got these Ridge lines that divide them and if you pour serup across it you're going to have a spot that even after it all drains through it kind of stays wet those are your wetlands and the area that got wet initially that's your flood level and how much syrup you
po that's the size of your storm and so to some extent what we're having is the different storm events of the same size are resulting in different flooding conditions because we have different preceding conditions for soil saturation and you know if you think of it as the
waffle there's so many different variables that you can play with with how it floods but now we also get into we can move the ridgelines around we can pump from one cell to another to to outside and there's a lot of things that we can do and I'm having trouble with
you know there's a lot of pressure from the public of we need to do more and it's not that I don't want to do more it's that I have trouble when I think about how complicated it is even when I try to give an example of how do you think of this conceptually of how to actually come up with something without
a study and I don't want to just be like stuck on that but a lot of the things that we talk about have implications like I I'm really terrified of the idea of a ban of construction on Wetlands because it means that we can't ever build a new boat ramp we can't ever
build like there's a lot of things that get restricted by that unless we start having exceptions and so the unintended consequences of some of these restrictions are things that like I don't think Troy Kent would be okay with there not being another boat gramp you know I don't think that's what his intent is but when he says that that's
what a lot of people are hearing and so I I kind of have that feeling that um I'm interested in the discussion of more but I'm a little anxious about the discussion of more because I I feel like it's out of a feeling of fear and not
out of feeling a purpose I have a a kind of a a question so and it feeds off of Wendy's last remarks when we're talking about the storm water
ordinance we're talking about engineered Solutions which is just one of the one of the responses to a problem and it has its limits I love your waffle uh example by the way that's awesome need night
time yes and enough for everyone and the syrup and the syrup but we felt from the outset that we wanted to take a holistic look I am still sorry to bring up last meeting but I'm still a little bit
um not clear on last meeting so correct me if I'm wrong but it seems we said we'd look at Miller Lake because an examp example would allow us to see a holistic issue with Holistic Solutions is that what you were thinking Tyler
yeah and I think the reason meler lake is a good example is there's a lot of pumping involved in that Basin already and I really do think that one of the things that is hard for me to account for in that conceptual model I I'm going to think about the other Basin that we
talked about the the Basin the um between Taylor and blue Lake and Kepler where we've got the Victoria Park subdivisions that are being accused of flooding the neighbors and the amount of rain that's Fallen hasn't changed that Basin hasn't recovered I mean you drive through there the ponds are still high
there's still water in people's yards that water would have gone away if this flooding condition wasn't going to happen due to the rain or due to pumping it's one of those two things that's caused it it's not a storm water design change and a land use change that
suddenly created more water and that whole base and more groundwater and an elevated groundwater table elevation like that's coming from something else and so if it if it's not just a natural condition that would have occurred otherwise which I think a basin study
can identify then then it has to be due to pumping and so Miller Lake is the opposite we have a lot of pumping out of the Miller Lake Basin and we have a lot of changes and where that pumping is gone and we've seen other drainage problems that have come from it and that's one of the interesting things
about it I apologize I had two weeks that I was sick in the last month where like we got Co and flu um yay two-y old child uh so I just I didn't have time to gather some of the documents and get them sent out to everybody but I do
think that there is more complexity to how our communities are built out and how they function today than what the general public appreciates and I think that that that's really why I pushed so hard last month and you know like I said I apologize I intended for us to have
some information to discuss on it but I've just in the past couple weeks been thinking about how to present the conversation today of hey this is somewhere that we can go and I'm not confident that I have a solution you know I'm not confident in the ideas that I can bring forward and as an engineer I
shouldn't be bringing the ideas forward if I'm not confident in them and so I do want to look at that Basin and I do want to talk through it but I think that it's more because I want everybody else to understand where my anxiety is coming from not so much because I think it's going to lead us necessarily to a clear
answer and I I kind of want to make sure that you know I state that that I don't want to be promising answers I I wanted to respond to something and I and I don't know if you I don't know exactly who who the
that were responding from fear I don't I don't necessarily think we're responding from Fear I think we're or many of us at least responding from an intense desire to try to get it as right as we can um and and it's
challenging storm water has been particularly challenging for me because it's highly Technical and it's not something that I've ever looked at before uh that has that has been difficult there are other things I'm
more prepared to talk about but I I and I agree with Wendy when we look at the other things on the list the next one is flood Hazard management and that'll be very interesting um it'll help us
broaden our lens a little bit the public though very clearly first of all thought that has continued to believe that we're dealing with present day flooding which we can't and we know that and they found the
technical nature of the store storm water regulations to be a bit confounding to them because they expected oh we're going to put in a dam and your problem is solved and that that that was not a very it's an understandable expectation
given the discussions that have taken place Council meetings but it's not really what is going to happen because we're trying to deal with the future situation so it is challenging when we speak to the public
and that's why I think we're intent upon getting it as good as we can so there isn't really a next on the agenda so we've made progress um I think it's worth talking
about where we want to go from here I mean if we want to um have this case study of Miller Lake I guess the it sounds to me like you want to move forward with these changes in chapter 50 any discussion of Miller Lake or future changes to the storm water stuff would kind of come after some of these studies
or whatever but but we're not waiting for that and we said that to council staff said that those of us gave okay so um I think we have consensus that we've for at least for now U finished with
topic one on our work plan all right so uh you can see what the order we had them uh the the next topic so we had flood Hazard management then we had the reclaim water irrigation Landscaping which is kind of a um continuation of we talked a little bit um that Tyler brought up and then Wetland permits um
and so obviously this is the order that Council saw it they didn't make any changes um the only thing I will say is that after this is when they came up with the six7 thing and and one of one of those
things yeah they came up with the six7 things and then they didn't this and the next day or two days later we presented our priorities alter and they made no move and and honestly I was a little
surprised that they didn't move Wetlands up based on that discussion and so I don't know if this committee wants to maybe look at Wetlands next or if you want to continue in this order until further Direction um we'll know a little
more in in April or hopefully we have that April 1 agenda item um but we do want to kind of decide what we want to talk about at our next meeting which is what April
[Music] 5th April 2nd so it would be the day after think Jessica then then bill then Tom then Bill and Jack a quick question then if I'm
starting the flood Hazard management would that cover like regulation and development in the flood plane so that will tie into the priority on the no faill and developments those will be very close there disc gu okay then I think that one fits well
I still think that irrigation and Landscaping can be between the two one I think Wetland is going to be a big discussion and we'll have policy input um and I think the irrigation Landscaping goes towards the water-wise and water usage that we're kind of tying into the other
ones um Jack or Jack Bill Jack Bill Tom Jack Bill hello um expertise again many of the people in this room do not have the expertise that well back up I think
Tyler's got a wonderful idea it might not be a bad idea if staff could potentially put together something a quick history of Miller Lake and when the problems first became noticeable and how they progressed and what's being done about now it may give us all a little better understanding of what may
be on a smaller scale what we're looking at on a larger scale is that something that you guys can do I mean you guys know a lot more about I'm just now hearing about mid middle EG to me is an orange City I did not know there was one in the land but I see it's
connected there's one up here by the speedway like Town Mage you see what I'm talking about uh would that be what do you think anybody somebody yeah the uh there is a study
going on taking a look at uh Miller Lake is what I understood from my last discussion with Ben Bartlett on the topic so we are looking at that uh and uh as a part of that we would evaluate any potential controls so
um I don't know what the timetable is on that Basin study that would be the primary issue um if it's something that's going to be years or so I don't think it is but we could certainly take a look at bringing in certain elements because they'll get more detailed than
than I think this group wants to get in the first place um but uh you most of what it's going to show and I think Tyler hit on it earlier was that you know people don't realize exactly how big the Basin is that sends water to Miller Lake and uh you know that's going
to be the driving force behind all of it because it's not just the runoff it's the groundwater which is why you if you shut the pumps off and the water level still continues to rise you don't see water flowing in above ground it's coming from below ground and there are no controls on that that is what would
have happened in the sore condition you know part of what we probably need to do and may tie into part of the flood Hazard management discussion is you know uh establishing um flood elevations that
uh May differ from the 100-year 24hour that FEMA typically uses um it's not going to help you in terms of flood insurance or those types of things but it could be something that uh uh building departments uh use or Engineers use for setting finished floor elevations for structures in those
challenged areas um aside from that though you know you're going to get Solutions but uh uh they're going to be specific to a particular location and something like Miller Lake it's not going to be cheap I mean you're talking about a large amount
of water and you know you've got to balance that um and when you take a look at Miller Lake for example and I don't know all the particulars so I just give it broad strokes but a vast majority of the people affected have no problem with
their homes they have water higher on their property it was access was a problem because it was over the entry road which is a serious problem but you know a vast majority of the time we concentrate and focus on trying to address the problems where people cannot
get in or cannot live in their homes and tackling those first and foremost so you know you got to balance what are the problems that that particular flooding is causing versus the cost to solve said particular problem um there's always a
pol political aspect to everything as well that gets thrown into the mix just for fun um so those are the things that could come out of a study overall we could certainly identify the Basin figure out what the flows are coming to an area along those lines um I think
that's predominantly what you're going to see out of something quick and simple other than Bas set Jack and Bill yeah um just a quick comment but I I like the idea of moving the uh
Wetlands alteration permits up and the reason I do is it it better reacts to the issues the six or seven issues that came up and I I agree that the the reclaimed water is relative but it's not as relative to the Common Man I mean
they won't see it and yet wetlands and the fact that that Troy Kent has made that point I think it's good that this committee reacts to what the County Council saying is potential recommendations for flooding today and that and that does that and so it'd be
nice to be able to say we have reprioritized based on your interest at addressing the wetlands permits and so I think bringing it up one in the priority list is a good idea if nothing else to show the council that were serious about
facilitating and helping their cause I was going to say I think that um doing the flood Hazard management first before we get to Wetland alteration will be very um educational because people
tend to link those Wetland um impacts to flood plane impacts and flooding and I think that they're not quite as linked as people think um so I would like to continue down the way the way we have it
I'm not sure about reclaimed water or pumping into a basin but yes I'd love to do flood Hazard management first I I also concur with Jack and with
Bill um and I I would definitely not want to discuss the web before the April 1st County council meeting because I'd like to hear what's presented to Council in that meeting I think it'll help inform our
conversation so yeah um just as a little preview uh what I anticipate presenting to council about the Wetland um part is of course what what Mr Kent said which was you know zero Wetland impacts and and then
the second part about how you mitigate for impacts which if you don't have any impacts you really don't have to worry about mitigation but um I think you know this this was said earlier like that means no new docks no new seaw walls no
new boat ramps I I don't think that was necessarily what he intended um but all of those types of things you know a path from your house to your dock through the Wetland and the Wetland buffer is a wetland alteration perment I don't think that's what the council intended
necessarily so we're going to talk about what what they said what that looks like in reality right do you do you really mean that nobody can have a dock and if so I mean we we take direction from the council but like here here are the kinds of wetland impacts we
see um a little bit about what we do now in particular about avoidance and minimization of wetland impacts and so we have some examples of recent projects where um we've really worked with the um the applicant to reduce their Wetland
imp to the that only that that's required um we're presenting again this is all theoretical right it hasn't been the presentations haven't been approved by leadership but um the things that this committee
already made recommendations on Wetlands right because we talked about Wetlands at six meetings already six meetings um and so you already took votes on some things on the Wetland ordinance and so uh I was going to um highlight those
things um uh and some of the things that staff had proposed that you hadn't yet voted on right so um and we're trying to be very clear about these are things enra already voted on and these are things
that could be done but enra hasn't yet voted on so um that's what I think is going to happen at that meeting hopefully on on April 1st so they'll know that we've already discussed it here you've made some recommendations you just haven't finished the work
because we got you know redirected onto other things um so if that is in fact what gets presented then and they react to it at the meeting then after that we should maybe have some good direction about how
to go on Wetlands so if we planned on talking about uh flood Hazard management at the next meeting which would be you know a presentation from the staff about what we have now right right we we go back to that model of an education of
what exists in the code now um identification of any things that we know or have heard that might be important to change and then discussion from the committee of any things that you all want to see changed if we go
back to that model I think the next meeting would mostly be educational did you have a comment Tom or just still have your card up so I will ask the question does What ginger just outlined sound
good does that mean we're just close to a journ today before we even have our break oh if we're going to talk about that can we get where the code is and yeah of course we'll send out um the existing codes early so you have that to review um we
can do that as you know as soon as this week if you want you know traditionally we give you everything at least the week in advance if you want that earlier it's fine um you won't get minutes of course bu by now is a power user of munic code
I we don't usually have a a a motion to adjourn we just adjourn so meeting adjourned e