Miss Lamers here, Miss Gow here, Miss Anderson, Miss Brosmer, Mr. Burbank, Mr. Fitz Simmons, Mr. Hobck, Miss Jameson,
Mr. Donimo, Mr. Lights, Mr. Mberg, Miss Morrisy here, Mr. Serret here, and Miss Whitick. All right, we do have a quorum. And then also in the room from staff, we have
Samantha West, Keith Abramson, Jinger, Ben Bartlett, Morgan Swank, Chelsea Molton, and Brianna Peterson. Thank you. Um, did everybody have an opportunity to
read those really good minutes that were easy to follow? No editorializing from me. Um, would someone like to make a motion that they be approved? Wendy Anderson move seconded by Bob Fitz
Fitz Simmons. Um, all those in favor I. Any opposed? Motion carries to approve the minutes from our June 4th meeting. We don't have anyone online. No one's attending remotely. No. Okay. No, we just have Chris Ryan from our
county attorney's office. Thank you. We are who we are then. So, we can move on to our first agenda item, which is Senate Bill 180.
Who is our presenter on this lovely item? That's going to be me. That is really loud. Um, so the governor signed Senate Bill 180 uh on June 26. Um, it does limit uh the county's ability to uh the
county is prohibited from proposing or adopting more restrictive or burdensome amendments to its comprehensive plan or land development regulations or procedures concerning review and approval of issuance of site plans, development permits, or developmental
orders uh before October of 2027. Uh the county may also not propose or adopt any moratoriums on construction, reconstruction or redevelopment of any property damaged by the reference hurricanes Debbie Helen and Milton. Um it also does include a provision that um
anytime there is um a hurricane uh that uh the tract is with 100 miles, there will be an additional one-year uh extension of that. um morator the the prohibition of
doing anything. Um so really for for ENRACH um that that is going to limit um what you all can do um especially the language in including proposing. So that means that while you all could as a group come up with uh revisions to the
ordinance um have discussions go through all of this you cannot propose that to council. You cannot have workshops with council. We cannot do anything um that could be perceived even as proposing these. Um even if you did meet with council, they would not be able to
comment. Um so even as of right now, the storm water ordinance that was passed is now uh it it now is void. Um the LI does still stand because it was voluntary. Um, we would potentially have the option
to propose changes to the ordinance as voluntary. The only thing I would caution against with that is if you propose something and it doesn't work out the way we're expecting or it has some kind of unintended consequence, uh whether we would have the ability to
then uh revoke that um after the fact uh is questionable because again you would then be doing something more restrictive while that was something that was out there. Um so it does limit what you're able to do. Um and uh so it really is
going to be kind of a limiting factor um at least until October of 2027 as they did previously. They did walk back some of the requirements last time around. It's possible that could happen. Um but again with the uh additional um language regarding the one year after any
hurricane event um that obviously is going to be something that's going to continue to be uh an issue. for the record. Um, on staff play, you can't hear. Okay, there we go. Oh, I
used to Okay. Um, for the record, uh, member Tyler Malberg has joined us, I think. When we just called to order and Clay Urban has come into the room and I think was Ben, did we have Ben? Okay. So,
hey folks, Michelle Wik is also online. We could not even under SB 180, we can't even we can do our work. We can keep doing our work, but we cannot other than through we can have no communication to
our elected officials about it whatsoever. Well, the issue is the language of proposed. So, even if you were to bring something up to council, um I I don't think they could provide you with any sort of response, recommendation,
approval, anything saying please go forward, please don't um because that's going to be a proposed um option. So, I think it falls under that. So, it does limit you. So, we couldn't even just publish our findings.
Uh I don't think you could because again, it's a proposal. So it's it's not just the actual ordinance itself. It's any proposal that would impact and be more restrictive than what is currently there. So anything that was put out there other than what's done within this
room uh is is subject potentially to being a proposal and it's void abio. So that means it it says if it doesn't exist. So the next question on that is what would be I guess the waiting game to see if this
would be cured in some way or amended in some way would either be through some kind of special session that the governor who just signed it would have to fall or in the next legislative session because that would correct. That would be
Thank you. And then um So, another hurricane within a 100 miles comes through and it extends another year and that's any category one hurricane within 100 miles or how's that work?
Declared a state of emergency than that. Clearly, so the elephant in the room is do we make a motion to adjurnn? Jessica and Tyler, I think we talked about this a few months ago and knew it was coming and I
think we said we don't want to stop the work even if we put it together and then pulled it. Um, but I thought we were aware that this was going to happen and that we were going to progress. I don't I don't think we knew about the extent because it was still in drafting of the
time period. So I I personally have some items that I think could be relaxed in our code that could be looked at. They're items that I've said I'm allergic to like trees, but that wouldn't be in conflict with this. So I think even beyond the items
that we could put on the shelf, there are some term modernization things that we could do. That may not be the popular sentiment of the committee, but you know that's one opportunity I can see for this.
So couple of thoughts. Um, a couple months ago to what Jessica said a couple months ago when we decided to continue, I personally did not understand that we
would not be able to even make a report on what we would have decided and recommended if we were allowed to recommend. Not being able to do that and knowing that unless there is a change,
we can't even make a recommendation until our terms have expired, most of us that are on this committee. So, we're losing that. Ginger, just to clarify that, I looked that up today. Um, so as it stands right now,
everyone's term here expires in September, either September 3rd or September 30th of 2026. But the resolution says each member can serve up to three two-year terms. So, the original members could be reappointed for one more 2-year term,
which would carry through 2028, September of 2028. Um, but there would be a reappointment process in the middle, right? Everybody would need to be reappointed or, you know, council would have to take action in September of 26, which is during the whatever you
want to call this moratorum. Okay. So, that that is one. To me, it's it's a big deal that we can't even make a presentation on this um to tie and I feel that we're in a conflicted position
because we have an approved work plan about what we're supposed to look at from our county council and yet we cannot take that through to a conclusion. And that's more in response to Tyler. Um Jack, Ben, John, then Sarah
Sarah Lee, Jessica. I missed it. Uh the the timing is 27, right? What? When? In 27? October of 2027. So in October, you know, and you've got the potential
of a year on top of another hurricane. So, we've got a two-year window to potentially get another hurricane, which then puts us to a three-year position. I mean, it is getting pushed out and it's it's this is different than we said we just continue our work. I think I think
we've got to be realistic about this. Odds are two years been a 100 miles. I mean that you know realistically I'm not sure um you know I'm I'm not sure what we're
doing will be effective you know I I mean think we can talk about potential upside or whatnot but um you know it's it's disturbing to think that we go through it with you know even if we don't get anything
along the way we put everything in the file folder and wait and wait for the time and then we pull it out and say, "Okay, here's our proposal." Things could change in that. I mean, I I don't know. I I'm discouraged by it. You know,
I think it's particularly uh difficult not only that we were given the charge to do these things, but the issues within the county itself and flooding and all that and things, you know, when we're talking about serious problems
that could all be determined uh to be difficult uh for development which may foster these problems. I think it's, you know, that's that makes it particularly difficult to me. Uh, and and there's no there's no clause for an emergency. There's no, you know, there's nothing in
there. So, this is, you know, it's kind of a a blanket position and I know it wasn't purposefully designed for groups like us, but it sure kind of puts a pretty big hammer there. So, I I if we want to if we want to talk about, you
know, emotion and what we want to do, you know, I I'm not sure which way I'd go on it, but I'm not I I I feel discouraged thinking I'm going to be here two maybe three years before we can even propose something that could make a difference. That's why we're here.
Off my soap box. Thank you. Um John, Sarah Lee, Jessica. Um I guess I'm trying to understand what the scope is. I mean, When I look at wetlands, we could have been looking at wetlands
without any consideration of storms because we could be looking at wetlands as an environmental issue, right? Um I I understand, you know, flood hazard mitigation, you know, all that stuff, but
wetlands is an area that I don't know why we can't proceed. Uh, but I guess it's a question of what the scope is. Excuse me for interjecting, but our work product is to come up with ordinance recommendations and right now we can't
recommend ordinances. That just to kind of sum that up um thoroughly, Jessica. Okay. Well, to clarify, we can't recommend an ordinance that is more restrictive.
Okay. And that term restrictive is important. Um I I am extremely discouraged. Um and uh in all cander and honesty,
it's it's everything that's going on. Okay. And I think about um so I am not sure I still agree with where we were the last time we discussed
this happening. Um I um you know what saddens me a little bit to John's point is we have environmental standards that
have not been reviewed and updated some of which since they were adopted in the mid 80s. And regardless of why the legislature
decided to adopt this, um the legislation does not allow us to do exactly what you were suggesting, John. Um secondly, political appointments.
Um again, I'm feeling pretty discouraged. I am not sure where we are headed. And knowing that um my and all of your terms expire
in September of 2026, which is still more than a year from October 2027, we don't even know who's going to be on council, and we don't know what that particular council will want. I
mean, honestly, gang, it took the current council a little while to embrace, hey, I think you should make some changes to storm water and flooding, like it took them a little while to catch up.
So, um, as much as I enjoy all of you and contributing in a meaningful way, I drive over here, it takes not quite an hour, but almost, and it is a half-day
commitment, and I'm sorry, um, a little bit to what we were talking about before. Um, I'm questioning the value of my time. Now, Tyler brought something up that I
think might be worthy of some discussion. Um, but before I jump there, I forgot what my third point was in looking over at staff. My third point was,
and I say this as somebody who was dedicated to a very large organization and supported citizen committees for almost 30 years. This is a huge amount of work for staff
to support us. Okay? Every single time we meet, it's not just the time in the room that they are spending with us. It's whatever directive we give to them that involves research, extremely time consuming, has
a deadline associated with it because we meet monthly and ends up reprioritizing whatever else they have going on. And I truly don't believe that they are sitting waiting for us to give them directives. I think
they have other things going on. Um, so it is not lost on me what kind of commitment the staff has to make and I have no idea how you know staff on a you know at any given time
one of us emails or calls them and that's additional work even if it's just conversation. So I think it's incumbent on us to think about that perspective as well as um
other things. Uh lastly, I I did want to jump on, you know, Tyler brings up something that I think is at the very least worthy of conversation. Um because if we thought we could contribute in a
meaningful way productively that obviously can't be more restrictive. I'd be interested in talking about that. But not trying to be Debbie Downer. I was never that person. But I got to tell you,
it's pretty hard right now with everything that's going on. Jessica, Tyler, Wendy, Bob, John, one, I think at some point the draft of the bill and it was taken out to the commentary before um had an exception
for storm water related moratoriums and that did not make it in the final version. I just checked. Um, I do think that there are some things like wetlands when we talked about shifting to kind of the state definitions and process that simplifies a process. So there's a
benefit there, but I it's a long time and I'm wondering from a I raised my placard to say from a procedural standpoint, is it possible if it's the will of the committee to say we're pausing because we're kind of
inactive. Can we talk to council about tolling our terms and say we can't do anything for a year and a half, we'll restart our terms as they are now at that time? Yeah, I I did bring that up as an option to leadership and um Morgan was going to
um look into, you know, how would that work? Ultimately, whether the committee continues is up to the county council, right? Um but this discussion about your thoughts is important, I think, to them. Um so, yeah, I think there are a couple options. Keep keep going and just don't
make any official recommendations. You know, the council could say, "Uh, we don't need ENREC anymore and disband it." Or I think there's that third option which is maybe go on hiatus and pause everyone's terms and so like maybe in January of 27 if we haven't had a storm and it hasn't moved out a year and
all the ifs then you know start again in preparation for October right because we know it takes a little while to get a thing done. um that could be one option and if everyone's terms could just stop if you would still be eligible to come back if at that time you still wanted to
right I mean that's a long way away things happen but I think maybe that's the third option thank you Tyler Wendy Bobby thank you Bill didn't realize quite how compreh comprehensive the communication bans were it's crafted in a way that I
expect it won't end in 2027. I kind of agree with the expectation of us being in a declared emergency. They include more counties than they have to typically for the purpose of if there is something somewhere that comes up we can get reimbursed for it. So just looking
at reality I our original charter we probably can't fulfill and so I think to some extent we do need to go to council and ask them is there some other area of the goal of finding ways to better
prevent flooding better protect our natural resources that our committee can add value and if not how do we you know proceed I I kind of agree like I spent at least a week full-time of my time trying to put together storm water code
last year that's now in the trash and you know however valuable that may be to me it's it's painful to see your work get killed so I share that sentiment I see a few limited things that we can still do with I don't I use the term
relaxing it could just be streamlining and so one of the questions that I have is can we make things cost more but easier to get to a permit. I mean, you know, like so with trees, like can we make it more of a replacement cost, less of a protection
of existing, but there's a bigger fee with it? I would say no because it talks about you can't adopt anything more restrictive or burdensome. So, if you're increasing a fee, that's a burden. So, I I would say that no, we probably can't do that either. Okay. So, I'm trying to play attorney
here and that's not my skill set, but Um, anyway, that's why I'm asking the attorneys, but so I think we have really limited opportunity to do much. And I think that there's a level of compromise that's required for almost any of the
changes that I would be suggesting to actually, you know, be codified that we're cut off from. That staying where we are with code is probably what we're going to be stuck with. So the question is are there components of other county
programs that we bring any value to you know to to me if not I'm kind of in agreement that I don't see our path forward and I know that Echko and Valuchia Forever have a lot of money behind land acquisitions and other things and I I don't know if that's
something that you know is fully supported or not but that may be Yeah. And I I I just I don't know what I don't know, but that's kind of the question is what would council like to see from us,
Wendy? Then Bob, and thank you, Tyler. So, so I understand Sarah Lee's point. Our, you know, for all of us, our time is valuable. We're professionals. We have lots of other things we, you know, could be doing with this time. You know, same for me. Um, you know, I I
definitely appreciate everything I have learned being on this committee, learned from all of you, learned from staff, um, and, you know, the other people who have been brought in and, and I think it has helped us, you know, in many ways beyond the proposals that
come formally from this committee, you know, in just having conversations with our, you know, with our representatives to help them make better decisions as well. So, I mean, I I think that the time has been well spent in many ways. Um, I agreed with Tyler's original point
this morning or this afternoon, you know, that we do still have a lot of housekeeping work to do. You know, the the stuff that hasn't been looked at for 30 or 40 years that probably just needs some some tidying up, you know, so maybe we have a couple three more months worth of work just to do some of that. You
know, we we do we did leave a lot of stuff hanging with the tree um the tree chapter. Um, you know, to Jack's point, I think that, you know, yes, it is a realistic expectation that there will be more storms,
but to me, that's exactly why we have to keep at it. There will be more storms. This is our new normal. We do need better policies that respond to this changing weather pattern. And at some
point the state will have to acknowledge that it is time to update. So I just I just wanted to spend a moment to remind us and please you know forgive me if I get my history wrong. You know I'm going to play the I'm not from here card but you know it's my understanding that
after Hurricane Andrew and then the hurricanes in 2004 that we had um big leaps in um in advances in Florida building code. Right. And and I'm just going to guess I'm just going to guess that maybe builders were a little bit um
unhappy or angsty about having to you know change everything about how they operate. But you know what that's the new normal and and you know and and because of that we have a more resistant and resilient product you know out there on the landscape now. Like that was a
good thing after Hurricane Irma. the state required um the utilities to harden their infrastructure, even allowed the utilities to pass that cost on to to rateayers for better or for worse. I'm not saying I agree with it, but I mean the state has time and time
again made actions to help this state respond better to these to these natural disasters. And so it is baffling to me that, you know, that Senate Bill 180 is saying, you know, you can't you can't
make your communities more resilient. I'm wondering, and again, I'm just speculating, I'm wondering if the state has some intention of actually creating state level statutes that have to apply to everybody that will increase the
standards for storm water. Like maybe we don't need to peacemeal this county by county, city by city. Maybe there's something bigger coming from the state. I doubt it. But if you look at the past, that has been the pattern. Like they have actually brought forth those
things. I mean, is this something we need to be lobbying our delegation to Tallahassee for? Um, so so I mean I'm not I'm not that discouraged by it because maybe there's something better coming. Maybe I'm just being polyiana. But um but on the other
hand, maybe we won't have another storm in the next 2 years. Maybe the people who are seated on the council starting in 2027 will have the wherewithal to jump right on the proposals that INRA has been, you
know, kind of, you know, steaming away trying to make trying to make, you know, ready for action. And you know, and and as Ginger said, it takes a minute to get this work done. And and in in 2027, we'll be here before we
know it. So, I guess I would just appeal to all of us to stay the course to continue the work we're doing. Maybe don't hesitate to take a month off every now and then if you know, if it's Christmas or, you know, or something where, you know, a lot of us are going
to be gone, like maybe we drop back to meeting every other month or something. But you know there is work to be done and at some point we are going to need to have these changes in place. So would encourage us to continue. Thank you Wendy Bob then Jessica then
Melissa. So unlike Tyler I'm not allergic to trees. I probably should be but I'm not. Uh, and Tyler brought up a good point and I think we have some agreement on it and that is that there are probably a lot of things that can be done to
streamline to modernize um, without creating a burdens, you know, anything more burdensome or adding new regulations and really focus on helping staff do their job and meet their objective in a more sensible way.
we probably have, you know, the ability to do that and propose things along those lines. Um, so I would kind of think that, um, and I think you said this, Sarly, that or we've got to go back to council and get
direction and we probably need to get together and kind of brainstorm a little bit and go, what is it exactly we think we can do? uh you know where we value our time because I'm with you Sally. I mean this is a half a day commitment. Um
you know I've got lots of things on my agenda I could go do right now. Um but I'm here because I'm I'm hopeful that we can contribute something. So yeah, I'm definitely open to discussion. I definitely would like to see us move
forward if we can put together a mindset of where we're going to go. we take that to council and see what happens. I was going to say I think there are also pieces of it that are unknown and will probably remain unknown for quite a bit until they're until lawsuits happen
um for interpretation or a special session or the early session next year starts in January. Um because one of the things is we talked about fees. Um and I've always read the statute as not including things like impact fees, regular increases for
infrastructure. But then where does that line fall? And I know at some point we have talked about whether there needs to be a storm water program fee and changes there. And whether that would be included or not is a question we won't have the answer to until somebody asks
it to a court. Um, but I I do like the thought of taking some time to clarify and simplify the things we can. Wendy said 3 months. I don't know. It's a little fitting. If we keep rolling with that and we end in October and take a a
year toll, then we're back at October 2020 six and see what we can do. Right. So, so what this committee Thank you, Jessica. What I think every single
person on this committee has in common is that we care a lot about our community. That's why we're here every month, month after month after month. And whatever difference of opinion we may have, we're here because we have a
drive to serve, as do our staff members, who are public servants. And I want to thank every one of you for that. I am beginning to we're all kind of thinking the same things. What what you know is it worth
our time to continue and if we do continue, what should we do? I'm starting to fall into the camp of yes, we do have to go to council and we should have a proposal to them about what it is that we think we can do to add value if we find what that is and
that we'll be mindful of staff time as well so that it's of benefit to the community because that is what we care about again um to devise what it is that we might suggest to them that we could
do uh And if we come up with something great and if we come don't come up with anything then we could ask for the pause because I think what does set our work on this committee apart from the work that many of us do in other areas of our
lives is actually being able to effect a change which we don't do in our when we're just advocates which many of us are in in other areas of our life. So, I'm kind of I like I like the idea of let's figure out if we can add value at
all and take it to council. Thank you, Jack. Bob sound like a mom. I um I Yeah, I agree. I mean, we're going to we need a proposal to them. I I think they may come back and say, "Yeah, I got an idea. How about you in guys hitting the road?" They wanted to do
that before. they'll do it again. Um, but without without that consideration, the um, and this this probably has its own problem. But, you know, one of one of the things that bothers me is not just the timing, but
as we work through them and we get these things, then you we've got to we've got to grind it, you know, until we come up with that and hope there's not another hurricane. And you know it's like the implementation has to happen pretty quickly. And if you
remember like when we went through this before and then it got pulled back and we said ah there's we should have a greater sense of urgency. Well, you know it didn't happen. I mean we didn't we didn't get there till this happened now, right? But if if we were
to go through it and and and streamline, I I like those ideas, although I I wonder if any of them will be interpreted as being restrictive when we get down to it, you know? Oh, it's streamline. Yeah, but it's got a restrictions. And who interprets that? But what if we were to move on just like
we're working now, knowing we can't do it, knowing knowing it's not going to work, and put it in a voluntary sense. In other words, propose it to be voluntary. Okay? Knowing no developer is going to restrict themselves, but
basically put it in place to trigger when in fact an opportunity presents itself because it's almost like we're starting over when the when the gates are open and we start working and working and working and and it doesn't happen. So, could you
put it in a voluntary position, not unlike we've done before, uh, and then and then make it mandatory when in fact the opportunity presents itself and and county council agreed. Bob, Tyler,
uh just to comment on Jack's uh thoughts for a second. You know, the voluntary I, you know, we've watched that over the years not work very well and incentives sometimes work depending on the incentives. So, you know, combination thereof. Um but the other thing that I
was going to say is, you know, maybe trying to figure out where who we what we want to be, who we who we are. um that you know we all submit and I'm sorry that creating more work for staff
uh you know yeah Morgan's got hers up um you know our thoughts on what we might be able to accomplish along these lines uh so that we can put together something. Thank you Bob. I think um our legal would like to orient us a little on these things.
Um so uh 180 doesn't have the ability for future triggers. So if we did it voluntary, it would have to be voluntary and then we would have to go back after the fact um after it's six after uh October of 2027. The other concern um
with something like that is if we put it voluntary and it has an impact that we didn't foresee or it does something we don't anticipate it doing, we may not be able to walk that back because then anything we do after the fact is more restrictive. So if you put something out
there that's voluntary, it has some unintended consequence. We're kind of stuck with that potentially. So it it could again that's just thinking kind of broad terms, but that's something that that could be a problem.
Tyler Bill, thank you again, Bill. What it sounds like to me is the only thing that we can do on the code side would be additional options of paths to a permit or to compliance. So we have the rule that's today and if we were looking at modifying the rule and making part of it
softer and part of it more strict, we could do maybe an or and say you either meet the rule or you pay or or you you know provide you know XYZ of additional mitigation or some
other isn't that exactly what the LI stuff that was voluntary incentivized criteria It did. But it's totally voluntary. You're talking about an or like with fees or something that we couldn't do anything that's more burdensome. So
you can you can do the current code or you can do this other thing. So that that ore is a voluntary fork in the road that a developer would face. So if there you know and I'm thinking about like so I'll be specific to the tree item. I really hate that we protect large laurel
oaks as specimen trees to the extent that we do. I think that some of them are probably specimen trees, some of them are not. I think we should have more codified methods to bypass the protection of some of those trees personally. So right now that's not more
burdensome. However, I don't think that necessarily the whole committee would agree with the position that I would want. So recognizing that there's some compromise that would probably be necessary in finding a path. It's a, you know, I don't think a tree that's going to live another 30 to 40 years is
something that should be considered a specimen tree. That's my personal opinion on it. And so, how do we get something that's going to live a 100red years or 200 years and provide the alternative path while still leaving the original rule as like an optional path
to the permit? And I think all I'm sorry, I think all of our code areas probably have some, you know, it's like an additional chute to get to the permit. Bill, then Melissa, then Keith, or I'll Keith go before.
So, um, can somebody remind me how it got walked back last time? There was a special session and they revised it to say that it only applied to a smaller subset. Yeah. and and um I really did like the
way that we went ahead and made it voluntary and we did succeed on the LI. We do have a bill, I mean an ordinance, and people are going to try it out. Um I'm probably not very interested in
being on it to work through additional um restrictions and then put it on the shelf. I don't think that's probably um you know, never getting to the end just doesn't seem palatable to me. But if we
could do some voluntary stuff, I might be worthwhile to do that. Keith, Jessica, then Melissa, the tree ordinance seems to be getting beat up today. Um
the the tree code already has that built into it. Um I I'm hearing a lot about the codes that we have. The codes that we have in my opinion are actually pretty good to be honest with you. Yeah, I haven't seen a specimen tree waiver turned down
in years. So I I think it's less of an issue. I will state that we have a directive from council already and it's not less protection. Jessica, then Melissa, I think when we're thinking about proposals to council, um my hesitation
on creating things now that can't be looked at two years from now includes the fact that that is two legislative sessions away. that is to major potential changes in stormwater rules or any other regulation that we will it's
not a waste of time but we are creating a product that then can't be used. The county has a lot of master plans that are no longer valid. We have a lot of rules that you know need to be updated. So that would be my caution on continuing through the entire list is by
the time we get to the end of it what we did may not be usable. I guess my question is as much for Morgan as anybody. Some of the things that we were talking about in the last 10 minutes or so
would in some ways modify what we were created by a resolution and how much of a departure we'd be making from that resolution and still be within the resolution. In other words,
guidance. If we do try to come up with something to take to council as a proposal, we think we can do this work. We think it'll take us three months and then we pause or whatever our proposal would be. Does what fits under that resolution
that created ENRAC? Well, and that would be something you'd want to have in the motion for council going through what you think you can do and what what direction they're willing to give you. and then the resolution may need to be addressed, but that would be I think based on what council directs
you to do, what they want to have happen. So, okay. So being practical, we could begin to whiteboard things that we might be able to do over the next month or two and and then go to council and say, "Look, we can't do
exactly what our establishing resolution asked us to do or or tasked us with doing. We think we could do this. We think it has value because of XYZ." And then they could vote to modify the
resolution or to pause us or to disband us. Yeah. Yes. They can make the decision on how to proceed. Just as a reminder here, here are the duties as set forth in the resolution. The committee shall work with the professional staff of Valuchia County in
recommending minimum standards for the protection of the environment under applicable provisions of the Valuchia County Charter and for making recommendations on the corresponding implementing ordinance. Uh, of course, council has, you know,
over time since the resolution went into effect given specific direction, right, to pay attention to storm water or pay attention to to the flood plane. Um but the so the first task is changes to
the minimum standards to protect the um natural resources, protect the environment and then corresponding changes to 72 and the changes to chapter 50 um would be a little weird, right? like
uh if we're talking about saying maybe it's less restrictive or maybe it's streamlining or something in chapter 50, then that means cities have to potentially change their codes, right? And then then the cities may be bumping up against like interpreting how it fits
with 180. Um, so, you know, if you're looking for here's how we feel like we could be effective while 180 is in is, you know, in effect, um, I think those would most likely be chapter 72 changes, not chapter 50
changes, right? And you know, if you're thinking about the work that we've done so far, I mean, of course, the storm water work that you did and got adopted by council, that's now voided. Um, unfortunately, because the, you know, the bill says anything adopted
since August of 24. So, it's retroactive. Um, so we think about some of the other things we've talked about though that maybe haven't gotten all the way through council. Um some things we talked about streamlining like we we could uh add new
ma'am into the wetland code and we could um you know we talked about organizing the tree code in a way that if you're you know doing a single family tree permit you know these are the sections that apply to you and um so so there there are those things. Um the question
is whether you go through the entire process of opening up your code, modifying your code, all of the things or for those items um when we can still work with the code that we have. We we've been working with
it forever, right? So So I think there is a little bit of a cost benefit there. Like there are some of those things you could do and I think um you could probably uh get past the 180 test. Um although I don't I don't know like what that looks like like legal would have to really be looking at okay does this in
any way you know could someone interpret it as is not meeting 180 but there is the cost benefit are those changes worth you know is the juice worth the squeeze on that right Jessica Melissa as the outgoing guy I just want to say
this right now no one knows what the hell 180 is going to do to local governments. Uh we had Deltona the other night approve a moratorum in face of their attorney saying don't do it.
Um so I think we're going to get a quick answer out of that. I think that may set up giving this group more parameters to work within. At the very least, you're
going to have to send something to the council. Whatever you send has to be created by this group. Right now, you need to kind of come to a consensus as to if we're going to continue on what your mission is. What I'm hearing is a discussion on the standards and
processes to see what could be done to improve the efficiency streamlining and bring them up to date. That would that's a valid function. it sounds like it's consistent with our interpretation of 180. That could be something that you send forward. So then that way while
we're waiting for the courts to work through on Deltona's moratorum, we could take it from there. Once Deltona's moratorum decision is clarified, then we will have better direction. And more importantly, y'all as a standing
board that's, you know, candidly in 26, you've got county elections, you've got national elections, you got other things going on that may shape the direction you get
from a council that's going to be sitting come January 2027. So that's just something I would put in in your ear to think about as you're going forward so that that way you're making the most efficient time of your
use of your time now and being able to have the far sight for the long play. Thank you Clay. Jessica, Melissa, then Tyler. I was going to say I think in terms of the proposal to council
when we look at kind of shaping the efficiency side of things if we if we go that route. I don't know that the current structure we have is needed. And I will say that because staff can do that on their own. Yep. You guys don't need us to micromanage the draft
ordinances. So maybe it's one meeting or two to say here are the ideas we have that we would like to see. for streamlining and then we put it in your hands while we take a pause because we've given direction and I don't know that there is value in us sitting here
combing line by line on creating more efficiencies in the code. I think that's an inefficiency. Thank you Jessica. My comment was kind of along those lines. um you know the work that was done we were confronted with the problem that
regarding low impact development there were ordinances that were already supportive of low impact development techniques and there were ordinances that were blocks that were barriers to employing low impact development techniques
staff did the work to find those things staff did the work to write the manual that I think is wonderful because it appears to be kind of one-stop shopping. And when we talk about something like the tree ordinance, it the ordinances
are confusing to to comb through because they're written as ordinances. They're not written for a lay person to understand. They're all for Jessica. Um and Exactly.
Yeah. So I mean we can we we we give direction on on things like that and we and and we we approve it. I would call the low impact development sort of a
streamlining but we don't do that work. The work that we have done as a committee is to hear the pros and cons of different changes to ordinances and
in great detail discuss those and come up with a recommendation of what an ordinance should be, which is a different kind of a different kind of work. And Clay just Clay just made the case for hanging tight a bit. I that that you
know that's what I'm hearing. Things are going to shake out. We don't know how they're going to shake out. Let's not be premature in in saying all is for not. Um let's go into it with our eyes open and do a few things that we can do like
directing to change the language to you ma'am when it comes to to wetlands. The other thing, and I'm sorry to bring this up, but um if we think about storm water, lead plane and wetlands,
another we watch those council meetings, meeting after meeting after meeting after meeting of inflamed and hurting fellow citizens who were suffering the impact of flooding on their property. And that drove the council to belatedly
recognize that ENRACH actually had something to do to to update those ordinances and those standards. I don't know what the public's going to say about 180 when they understand what's happened, when they understand that they've been stripped of their
protections. I don't know what the public would say if they heard the recommendations that we've already made about flood plane. We still had more things to do a bit more and we had a bit more things to do about wetlands but we've been working for our fellow
citizens in that and for the council and so that in a way I'm kind of not I I you kind of turn me around Mr. Irvin. Um, I'm kind of like there's still value in in doing a little
bit more of this work in defining what we can do, as we've just said, defining to council what it is we think we can do to add value, but also maybe going forward with the with the task that we had set out for us for today, flood plane, and wetland,
because these are these are very relevant topics and and needs in our community right now. And maybe things change swiftly and those recommendations can be acted upon. I don't know. Perhaps I'm being naive. But
Keith is telling me I'm being naive. He's laughing at me. Spit it out, Keith. Um, so that's just something else to consider. Some people actually watch these meetings. Thank you. Wendy said something earlier I really agree with. This has been a really
educational committee for me to be a part of. I think all of us have learned a lot. I think that it has brought value in what we've worked on in the conversations at council. I think we have to an extent served a purpose that has been somewhat the rug pulled out
from under us so to speak. I am having trouble seeing a beneficial purpose that justifies the amount of work of staff and all of us to be present for these meetings that can't be handled through other processes that are in place. I
fully agree with Jessica's sentiment on that. That's why I raised my placard is just hearing the comments I'm I'm coming into agreement. What I do see is there are still some non-development items that nag me in my brain that could be
worked on that I do see maybe a purpose for us to not say we're done to have a sharing of some potential notes to have a brainstorm like a one-hour type of meeting next month and go to council,
you know, tell them in the time period we're going to look at what we can do, but if you guys have any other ideas, we'd also be open. Um because I personally also believe irrigation is a big problem. I still think that our use of turf grasses that
require such substantial irrigation is a problem. I've had a couple people that have asked me to come look at the flooding that they've experienced and the first thing I observe when I get out of my truck is that their sprinklers are running, their lawns look amazing, their house floods, and I, you know, so I just
I I have these things that I I go, "Okay, well, I'm probably not going to be the engineer you hire at the end of this conversation, but let's have it." Um, I I can't help but think that there are items that we could work on. they're just going to be really limited and it's not what's in our approved work plan.
100% of a path forward that I see unless we disband requires us to go to council and I mean just bluntly I'm not prepared to put all my ideas forward today. I want to try to poke holes in them first. So um you know that's my two cents. If
if I were to make a motion it would be that we plan to do some homework for next month. And I would also ask that staff look at what we've we have in the work plan that they have already put together and see what of it could still be viable. I mean, you know, just take
the the red marker through everything and um I don't want to make a motion yet because I don't want it to shut down conversation, but that's kind of the direction I think we should go. Mr. Irvin, take this out of our paint. Well, uh, as Tyler was making that
making his point, I asked Morgan, is restricting the amount of sod that can be on a single family lot more restrictive or less restrictive than our current code. And so that's the
unfortunate thing is that the language that was utilized by the legislature in coming up with this law is horrible. And so it it's created a really bad situation for locals. The other thing
that I wanted to point out that I completely forgot to make sure y'all are aware of, uh, the growth and resource management department last year hired a firm, Plant Moran, to come in and do a fullscale analysis of what we do. and they've
identified changes in regards to process and effectiveness and everything else that we're in the midst of implementing. So, in regards to process and requirements, we're already
given the directive by the council and we already have the plan in place and we've already started the implementation. So, what I see as far as value is looking at what's already been covered, identifying those changes that
could be potentially made at this point and bringing those forward to you next month so that that way y'all can make a final decision and then presenting something to the council asking them for direction. Is anyone interested in turning
something like that into a motion or would we like to have more discussion? Hey Melissa, this is Michelle. I'm online. I can you hear me? Hello Jessica. I'm either gabbling out or you're going to say something.
You said I'll try. No, nobody else puts up and we can discuss it after a motion is made I suppose. But right now, I would lean towards what Tyler was saying and make a motion that we adjourn a little early today. Um, so
that Keith can go on vacation, part of the official motion. Um, and come back next month with our ideas of topics in the code that we would like to see streamlined that we could work on. uh along with any questions we have to
council on further direction for us because I do think there are some unique things that we could be tasked with that are outside of the land development code or comp plan specifically um meet next month and put that together with the intent that at the end of next meeting
we will have a proposal to take to council I'm trying to think of dates maybe in September for it would be the uh September 16th meeting would be the first one okay that you would be able to to potentially
was Was that a It was a very long motion. Okay. Yeah. When do I get to ask if you would consider an amendment to that motion? Okay. I'm going to ask if you would consider as I ask. Thank you. Thank you, Tyler. Would you consider amending that just a little bit to
include also asking staff to come back what they think we could address? I will amend it. Will my second amend it? Great. We have an amended motion made by Jessica G, seconded by Tyler Malberg. All those in favor? I.
Anybody again? Motion carries unanimously. Thank you. So we have concluded our business for today. Uh Bill Lights
clarify. So, we're going back looking at things that we can do positively or streamline and then staff's going to look at it and then next week, a year, month, we're going to decide and then take it
to council. Okay, that is correct. Nobody leave just yet, please. One, I haven't yet adjourned. If it's okay, if you really we we can adjourn, but I would ask you to stay for just a moment. So, I'm adjourning the meeting
officially and asking you to stay for a moment, including Mr. Irvin. What? Recorded