YouTube transcript
Video ID: tZP8ZxxUq7g
Language: en
Captions: auto-generated

[0:00] Right.
[0:02] Amy Frell, budget director with Pasco
[0:04] County's Office of Management and
[0:05] Budget. And we left off here with
[0:07] [clears throat] the constitutional
[0:08] officer budget slide. And so here you'll
[0:10] see in FY2027, it's what's currently in
[0:13] the budget for each of our
[0:15] constitutional officers. The dollar
[0:17] difference and the percentage difference
[0:18] is the change from 2026 adopted.
[0:26] >> Any questions?
[0:27] >> Um, Commissioner W. Thank you, Chair
[0:30] Mike. Now's a good time to bring up our
[0:32] exhibit Chief Daniels
[0:35] for this testimony here.
[0:40] All right. So to kind of preface this
[0:43] going through budget line items and and
[0:46] and and looking at
[0:49] uh really the unfunded mandate portion
[0:51] and digging into it a little bit further
[0:53] and in light of amendment three um we
[0:56] were looking at structural balance
[0:58] particularly within the sheriff's
[1:00] department um when the sheriff during
[1:02] his budget workshop had a couple of
[1:04] slides. I don't know, Chase, if you have
[1:06] those with you or not, but in related to
[1:09] uh the teacher pay referendum, county
[1:11] attorney has an opinion on that. Uh and
[1:15] uh what what that can be used for. And
[1:17] then by law, the sheriff's department
[1:20] has to fund um school resource officers
[1:24] and crossing guards. and thinking about
[1:28] the future of of all the planning,
[1:30] especially if amendment three passes and
[1:32] what goes on. There's there's a delta
[1:34] there that our sheriff's department
[1:35] covers
[1:37] that's well through our budget that's
[1:39] roughly $5 million. And the teacher pay
[1:41] referendum, according to county
[1:43] attorney, uh does allow those deputies
[1:48] um and those services to be paid for out
[1:50] of that pot of money. And this, you
[1:52] know, the school district is not touched
[1:54] by amendment three should it be passed,
[1:56] you know, and then they have their their
[1:58] their millage rate on the ballot also.
[2:00] However, Pasco County government will be
[2:02] and we're going to have to look through
[2:04] things through a different lens. And so
[2:06] working with Chase, I'll let Chase
[2:09] explain the technicals on their side.
[2:12] Um, and Carbala has the details, Mr. has
[2:15] the details on and Chase does too on
[2:18] what the school district is currently
[2:19] paying, but the the percentage
[2:22] breakdown. Um,
[2:25] we really our side of of the house
[2:29] doesn't receive much benefit from those
[2:31] deputies with the work and how their
[2:33] work schedules are. So, I'll tee it up
[2:35] like that and let Chief Daniels take
[2:38] over.
[2:39] >> Thank you very much. Uh, Chase Daniels,
[2:40] Pasco Sheriff's Office. Um, so, uh,
[2:43] thank you very much, Commissioner. Um
[2:44] yes. So as the commissioner noted in our
[2:47] budget uh our current fiscal year 25 and
[2:50] 26 budget uh we have approximately
[2:52] $2,577,000
[2:55] uh for school resource officers and
[2:57] $2,432,000
[2:59] for school crossing guards. Um those in
[3:02] increase in our proposed uh fiscal year
[3:04] 2627 budget uh to 2.63 million and
[3:07] roughly 2.46 million. We do receive from
[3:10] the school district uh $4,90,155
[3:16] and that essentially pays for 180 days
[3:18] of an SRO uh at 8 and a half hours a
[3:22] day. Um we do uh have some costs when it
[3:24] comes to supervision such as our our
[3:26] captains and lieutenants and sergeants.
[3:28] Um but but essentially as as the
[3:30] commissioner noted uh the school
[3:31] district pays for 180 days out out of
[3:34] the year for those SRO. Um the sheriff's
[3:36] office is responsible for uh a variety
[3:39] of things that make up those other 185
[3:41] days out of the year. Uh so they will
[3:43] traditionally do their inservice during
[3:44] the summer. Uh they will use their pay
[3:46] tied off their pay tied off paid time
[3:48] off that they incur during during the
[3:50] summer as well. Um so realistically we
[3:53] have them uh in a patrol function two to
[3:56] three weeks a year. Uh we use them this
[3:58] year. Uh we heard from the from the
[4:00] board a lot of concerns about um ebikes
[4:02] and things like that. So, we will
[4:04] traditionally put them on special
[4:05] details like that uh during the time
[4:07] when we do have them. Um, but yes, we we
[4:09] do bear the cost of of all their
[4:11] inservice trainings and uh and and their
[4:13] paytime off because they traditionally
[4:14] don't take paytime off um during the
[4:16] during the school year. Um we have been
[4:19] working with with the school board when
[4:20] it comes to to the referendum. uh part
[4:22] of the referendum uh that that they
[4:24] expect to to see if if it should pass on
[4:27] on the renewal uh is an idea of paying
[4:29] for some extra SRO's because what
[4:31] happens right now is let's say an SRO is
[4:34] is out sick um or something like that.
[4:36] We will traditionally take a detective
[4:38] or or another officer from our agency
[4:40] and have them fill in in that SRO role
[4:43] during that time. Uh so there is that
[4:44] ancillary cost as well. Um because I
[4:47] said uh we pay for an SRO for for every
[4:50] middle or they pay for an SRO for every
[4:51] middle and high school for those 180
[4:53] days, eight and a half hours a day. Um
[4:55] but whenever it comes to uh you know
[4:57] fill-ins, floats, things like that,
[4:59] we're we're responsible for for those
[5:00] costs as well.
[5:01] >> I have Can I go?
[5:04] >> So I've noticed recently at football
[5:06] games because my son's on the football
[5:07] game, there are lots of
[5:09] >> deputies and SRO's. I I think Friday
[5:12] night there were like four of them. So
[5:14] is that on you when they need additional
[5:17] SRO books or
[5:19] >> Yes, ma'am. So So things like that uh
[5:21] and and thank you very much,
[5:22] Commissioner. So So things like that uh
[5:24] whenever it comes to school threats, for
[5:25] instance, or or deputies at at schools,
[5:28] um we do that based on on the threat
[5:29] environment. So if we maybe have
[5:31] received a threat at the school during
[5:32] that day, we we will surge e extra
[5:34] personnel there. Um but that is over and
[5:36] above the the one SRO that that the
[5:38] school district pays for. Um you know,
[5:40] uh so I was looking through the
[5:41] sheriff's budget letter here. So last
[5:43] year we had 365 school threats. Um so as
[5:46] you can imagine uh you know that
[5:48] requires a a significant uh response
[5:50] from us. We have to respond with
[5:51] detectives. Our threat management unit
[5:53] is is engaged look into it. Um obviously
[5:55] patrol units come because if we've got a
[5:57] report that there's potentially a gun or
[5:58] a weapon on campus for instance. Um we
[6:01] cannot be wrong on on those types of
[6:03] calls for service. So we surge a lot of
[6:04] resources there over and above the the
[6:06] one SRO on campus as well.
[6:07] >> You guys have to do a face to face to
[6:10] face clear each room, right?
[6:11] >> Yes ma'am.
[6:11] >> Yeah. Okay.
[6:13] >> So, chair,
[6:15] >> so basically,
[6:17] >> you know, if we can work depending on
[6:19] what what the future looks like and this
[6:20] is looking towards the future because
[6:22] the school district set their budget,
[6:24] but should next year's budget site
[6:26] budgeting be different, which I think
[6:28] irregardless, we need to have this
[6:29] conversation. I think the school
[6:31] district needs to pay more for those
[6:33] deputies. It's for them by law. It's an
[6:35] unfunded mandate. there's a millage rate
[6:37] on the ballot that, you know, this board
[6:40] approved for them to do and that money
[6:41] can be used to to pay for those costs,
[6:43] pay for those heads. And then that
[6:46] allows us the flexibility, allows this
[6:48] county the flexibility to free up money
[6:50] that we can put to work and what we're
[6:52] responsible for. And so it would be, you
[6:55] know, a a conversation with our school
[6:58] district partners to see what they might
[7:00] be able to do because they won't be
[7:01] touched by the amendment and they have
[7:03] the millage rate on there. And we'll
[7:04] we'll should should it pass, you know,
[7:07] we're going to have to figure out, okay,
[7:09] even though law enforcement's budgets
[7:10] are protected, we still have raises to
[7:12] contend with. We still have like this
[7:14] year $1.2 million worth of insurance
[7:17] claims we have to figure out a way to to
[7:19] make whole. that just under $5 million
[7:22] can go a very long way in helping keep
[7:25] the sheriff's department and their needs
[7:27] or other needs in this county whole. So,
[7:29] it's essentially, you know, working with
[7:32] uh you know, our our neighbors, another
[7:35] jurisdiction to that they they they're
[7:37] paying for what they're using and the
[7:39] uninorporated taxpayer isn't having to
[7:41] cover their use and they have the money
[7:44] have the money to be able to do that.
[7:45] So, um that's my thought process. It's
[7:49] really just teeing it up now to look for
[7:51] the future and and get the board's
[7:53] thoughts on the matter and um see where
[7:57] where it goes from there. But I think
[7:59] it's an important
[8:01] piece of our budget as we work to
[8:03] restructure it that we work to rectify
[8:06] or either get a higher percentage of
[8:08] reimbursement
[8:09] uh potentially from the school district
[8:11] to the sheriff's department since we're
[8:12] only getting these deputies for roughly
[8:15] two weeks a year.
[8:19] I I agree 100%. I think we should be
[8:22] looking to the state um even this coming
[8:25] year to to get make the change of policy
[8:27] anyway. Uh so we want to because we
[8:30] wouldn't be attacked by spending too
[8:31] much money, but this is just another
[8:33] unfunded mandate. We saw I think 1012
[8:35] million earlier today on a previous
[8:37] slide and now there's another five
[8:39] million that's not even listed which
[8:40] should be one of those unfunded mandates
[8:42] on our slides even separately that we
[8:45] need to address it. Um, now you just
[8:47] mentioned a thing about his insurance
[8:49] about 1.2 million. Um,
[8:52] and that's increased costs that we're
[8:54] going to be paying for the insurance for
[8:56] the deputy or for deputies of the
[8:57] sheriff's office.
[8:59] >> The claims
[9:01] >> the claims
[9:02] >> they add some illness,
[9:04] >> right? So the So go ahead and explain
[9:06] what we're doing and why.
[9:07] >> Yes, sir. So our our budget uh for last
[9:09] year we had um budgeted approximately
[9:12] $13.2 million. Our proposed budget this
[9:14] year is is 13.9 million. Um, and we are
[9:17] working in the future, we've been uh
[9:19] working with our insurance provider to
[9:20] try to uh get get our rates up to to
[9:22] better cover that gap. Um, but so we we
[9:25] expect uh or or we project that this
[9:28] year. Um, so like I said, our uh budget
[9:31] on insurance is approximately $13.8
[9:33] million uh in the proposed budget. Our
[9:35] claims we uh we expect I don't have the
[9:37] the the numbers in front of me. I like
[9:38] my phone at my seat, but uh but
[9:39] somewhere around 16 $16 million. Um so
[9:42] the thought behind the the additional
[9:43] 1.2 uh that came from a from a
[9:46] discussion uh with the county
[9:47] administrator and the sheriff earlier
[9:48] this summer um that initially based on
[9:50] the based on the growth um we were
[9:52] expecting maybe have about $4.5 million
[9:55] extra. Um so the thought was to take
[9:57] $750,000 out of that to get us from 2
[9:59] and a.5% raises to 3% raises to meet the
[10:02] board. Uh and then take some bit of that
[10:05] uh not the full 4.5 million but
[10:06] approximately 1.2 2 million to help get
[10:08] our delta down on that difference
[10:09] between uh our projected claims and what
[10:11] we're able to to budget um without
[10:13] having to to jack up rates too much on
[10:15] our on our members for for health
[10:16] insurance.
[10:17] >> Okay.
[10:17] >> And and so that that just helps cover
[10:19] that delta. And like I said, we are in
[10:21] the process of um getting our our rates
[10:23] in in a in a better place. Um but right
[10:26] right now we have seen an increase in in
[10:28] claims.
[10:29] >> So and the I think the board was and
[10:30] we're very equivocal. We wanted
[10:32] everybody to get the same percentage
[10:33] raise.
[10:34] As far as the rates go to deputies,
[10:36] everybody's 100% on board with that.
[10:38] However, last year we had an opportunity
[10:40] to actually you guys had an opportunity
[10:41] to work with us to
[10:42] [clears throat and cough] join our
[10:43] insurance rates.
[10:45] >> And looking at it closely with our
[10:46] personnel, you could have saved about
[10:48] $1,000 an employee joining our our our
[10:51] group
[10:52] >> as opposed to not never mind probably
[10:54] would have diversified even the numbers
[10:55] that you're going up escalation. Why
[10:58] haven't you joined us and would you
[10:59] could join us this year especially we're
[11:01] going to save the citizens the taxpayer
[11:02] rates?
[11:03] >> Yes sir. So we we uh I remember we had
[11:05] that discussion. I believe it was I
[11:06] believe it was this time last year. Uh
[11:08] so our HR teams got together and so what
[11:10] our what our HR teams found uh is that
[11:13] the county rates are are significantly
[11:15] lower on employees than ours. So it
[11:17] would have been a a significant rate
[11:19] increase on our members to join the the
[11:21] county's insurance is what our H
[11:22] charging found. We're certainly happy to
[11:24] let him finish please.
[11:26] >> No, but I think he said it that way.
[11:27] >> So So the the county subsidizes more
[11:30] poor employee than than the sheriff's
[11:31] office does. So it keeps those those
[11:33] rates lower, but we're not able to to
[11:35] pay that much as our agency. So our
[11:37] rates have to be higher. So to join the
[11:39] the county's insurance, it would have
[11:41] been a rate increase on on our members.
[11:43] So that's the argument I heard. However,
[11:45] talking to my HR director, our costs for
[11:48] insurance are about $1,000 less employee
[11:50] than what you're paying. So whoever
[11:52] subsidized and whatever, our costs are
[11:54] less than what yours are. So, how are
[11:56] you subsidized compared to we I don't
[11:58] know how that really goes, but our
[12:00] director working with your group showed
[12:02] you guys you could save $1,000 employee
[12:05] working with us. You guys chose not to.
[12:07] >> Yeah. And I'm certainly happy to to have
[12:08] our team re-engage with with your
[12:10] director. Absolutely.
[12:11] >> I'm I'm looking for more than
[12:12] re-engagement. I'm talking about real
[12:13] numbers that's out there affecting
[12:14] taxpayers. Barbara Hson's right here.
[12:16] Barbara, you want to come up?
[12:27] Barbara Hitzman for the record.
[12:29] >> Yes. If you Yeah, there couldn't say.
[12:31] Sorry.
[12:32] >> Yeah, we had a we had a good meeting
[12:34] last uh last year discussing the
[12:36] insurance. Uh there's some differences
[12:38] in their plans too. Um what I mean by
[12:41] the thousands, their budgeted numbers
[12:43] for each person. They just budget more
[12:45] per employee. And you are right. I mean
[12:47] you don't have to like every
[12:48] constitutional officer can set their own
[12:50] rates. So they could set their own rates
[12:52] completely uh how they want to. But
[12:54] again, we absolutely would be willing to
[12:56] sit down again and kind of discuss it
[12:58] against
[12:58] >> and you feel that would you be able to
[12:59] save them a lot of money by joining us
[13:01] compared to going the same way they are?
[13:03] It
[13:04] >> I mean that definitely is possible right
[13:06] now. I mean if it was this year, yes,
[13:08] absolutely based on the claims, but
[13:10] again I think we're all on Florida blue,
[13:12] so the numbers are essentially all the
[13:14] same in terms of the discounts that we
[13:16] get. Uh it would just be a matter of how
[13:17] we would structure the plans
[13:19] >> and Yeah.
[13:20] >> And and diversifying generally is good
[13:22] for risk.
[13:23] >> Yep.
[13:24] >> Okay.
[13:25] >> Uh Commissioner Starky then Commissioner
[13:26] Waitman.
[13:27] >> No, I was going to bring up exactly what
[13:29] you brought up and um
[13:31] >> yeah, it seems like if we have more
[13:34] people it the bigger the pool, the
[13:37] better off we all are.
[13:39] >> So wait, thanks. Yeah. So I had we
[13:41] explored this same subject matter start
[13:44] with Eric Bright and I get it wrong
[13:46] please correct me. So the county
[13:49] the county's insurance
[13:52] bucket foot locker if you will there's
[13:54] claims the Pasco County uh uh puts in
[13:59] $9500
[14:01] here. Correct me or you want to explain
[14:02] it and why the sheriff's can't because
[14:05] they don't have a reserve possibility.
[14:06] This is another budget structural
[14:08] conversation to try to prepare for this.
[14:11] So anyway,
[14:12] >> yeah. So for each for each person the
[14:15] county budgets $11,500 currently for
[14:18] insurance, right? And then what happens
[14:20] is um that's the budgeted numbers that
[14:22] are sent out like to the constitutional
[14:24] officers, obviously everyone but the
[14:25] sheriff at this particular time. And
[14:27] then the actual rates are really
[14:29] determined based on the plans that they
[14:30] pick. For instance, if everyone chose
[14:32] the family plan, then that would be a
[14:34] little bit higher and the constitutional
[14:36] officers would have to adjust those. If
[14:37] everybody chose the single plan, then
[14:39] obviously it would be lower. But right
[14:41] now, we budget $11,500
[14:43] per person to fund health insurance.
[14:45] >> But the but the sheriff's department, we
[14:47] have that reserve fund for claims
[14:50] because the my understanding is because
[14:51] the sheriff's department can't legally
[14:54] have a reserve fund,
[14:56] >> they can't budget how we do. And so
[15:00] moving forward for kind of these
[15:02] unbudget you never know what's going to
[15:03] happen cancer or shooting whatever goes
[15:05] on the course of the year which came to
[15:07] roughly 1.2 too if there is a way to
[15:11] work with as you know with MSTUs and the
[15:13] way that we're kind of restructuring our
[15:15] our budget to find a way to create an
[15:19] account or fund at a lesser amount since
[15:21] there's lesser people in the sheriff's
[15:24] department whatever that number may be
[15:26] for their head to start building kind of
[15:28] their foot locker fund for potential
[15:31] insurance increase you know if there's
[15:33] an insurance increase because when with
[15:36] 1.2 two went to Eric and said, "Hey,
[15:37] Eric, how much does a county have in its
[15:39] fund, right, with additional claims if
[15:42] that were to happen on our side uh of of
[15:45] the business
[15:47] based on what the rules that are there,
[15:49] that fund, that insurance fund can't be
[15:52] used for the sheriff's side because
[15:55] they're kind of classified differently.
[15:57] And so, we have a a structure in place
[15:59] in in our budget to help offset those
[16:02] costs. But due to the way that based on
[16:04] how the sheriff's budget is structured,
[16:06] they don't have the ability. And we know
[16:08] in the nature of law enforcement things
[16:10] are going to happen, right? And I think
[16:12] it would be critical
[16:15] that that whatever whatever rules are
[16:17] that we figure out a way to try to find
[16:19] a model like we have at our county for
[16:22] the sheriff's department. That way we
[16:26] can have a more
[16:28] uh preparedness when it comes to budget
[16:30] time. that way, you know, in some years
[16:32] there might not be anything. So that
[16:34] fund will compound, but then if they get
[16:35] hit with two million bucks three years
[16:36] from now, there might be a build up
[16:38] there and then it doesn't wonky up our
[16:40] budget process the way that it is. Um
[16:44] those are kind of outside of the
[16:46] sheriff's budget control, but if we
[16:48] structure the monies in a different way,
[16:50] it might be able to to help. So that was
[16:52] my thought process through insurance
[16:55] with the sheriff's department.
[16:57] Mr. Stark,
[16:58] >> um, a number of years ago, we upped the
[17:01] amount of employee contribution.
[17:05] Um, so what what is at the county,
[17:08] because Chase was alluding to something
[17:09] I didn't quite follow. What does the
[17:12] county pay per an employee pay for
[17:15] health insurance?
[17:16] >> Uh, it depends on the plan. So, we have
[17:18] five different healthcare plans. um our
[17:22] it ranges probably from about 650 up to
[17:27] about
[17:29] 1,700
[17:30] per month per person depending on the
[17:33] plan. So some levels are offset more
[17:36] than others. We happen to offset the
[17:38] cost of the employee plus children more
[17:42] than like an employee plus spouse. So
[17:44] there's really no unfortunately right
[17:46] one answer like how much because it
[17:48] really depends on the plans because we
[17:49] we you know it's the way we cost shift
[17:52] for those uh particular expenditures. So
[17:54] but it's about $650 a month. That's and
[17:58] what does this um sheriff do Chase?
[18:03] >> Okay. Okay. because he said that they do
[18:05] it differently and I I didn't understand
[18:07] if the sheriff covers more of the cost
[18:09] or the the employee covers more of the
[18:11] cost percentage- wise than that the
[18:13] county.
[18:14] >> Right. And I know we have five
[18:15] healthcare plans. I think they have two,
[18:17] but I would have to check on that. I'm
[18:20] not 100% sure. And
[18:21] >> and this is why the conversation of with
[18:24] the with the mill rate that's on the
[18:25] ballot, the amendment [snorts] three, we
[18:27] don't know what the future is. why it's
[18:29] important that if other jurisdictions
[18:33] need to need to cover their cost and we
[18:35] don't necessarily have to carry it.
[18:37] Obviously, there's probably a
[18:38] negotiation that goes on, but if it
[18:41] freed up that almost $5 million, it
[18:44] allows us much more uh flexibility in
[18:48] being being able to pay for these types
[18:50] of situations.
[18:52] >> Yes. And I apologize. I'm just uh trying
[18:54] to find a document in my email.
[19:00] >> It it doesn't have to be um to the
[19:03] penny. I mean you you mentioned a
[19:05] statement and I didn't follow it that
[19:07] you said do you guys pay more than we do
[19:10] or less than we do?
[19:12] >> Yes. So we have
[19:16] uh
[19:22] so we receive approximately $235,000
[19:25] per month uh in employee contributions
[19:28] for a total of our employees of
[19:30] $2,820,000.
[19:32] Uh and then the sheriff's office pays uh
[19:36] so um based on based on claims last year
[19:39] we paid 12,974,690
[19:43] um out of that 13,279.
[19:46] So our our employer our employee
[19:48] contributions uh made up about $235,000
[19:50] a month.
[19:51] >> So okay, I may not be answering my
[19:53] question right.
[19:55] >> Might be the answer.
[19:56] >> Huh? The answer wasn't my question.
[20:00] >> You didn't answer my question. I think
[20:01] um So, we used to pay less here. I don't
[20:05] know if y'all remember you, you weren't
[20:06] here, but we increased our percentage
[20:09] here. I think before Seth and Ron, does
[20:13] anyone not remember that? Who's been
[20:14] here a long time, right? We increased
[20:17] the our our contribution towards our
[20:20] health care benefits. I'm just wondering
[20:22] if you guys are somewhat at the same
[20:25] percentage as us because that would be
[20:26] important if we did a merger if you know
[20:29] if they're paying more or will they
[20:32] expect their deputies to pay
[20:35] to step up you their employees or are
[20:38] they paying less and it's I it's all in
[20:41] the negotiation I guess you don't have
[20:44] to answer [clears throat] specifically
[20:45] >> the only thing I I can say in relation
[20:47] to that because I think I know what
[20:48] you're asking is when we um had the jail
[20:51] come on board 101 and 22. There were
[20:53] very few people uh that had to pay more.
[20:56] Uh there was only one
[20:59] tier on one plan that was a little bit
[21:03] more for the jail folks. Everything else
[21:04] was a savings of money. So if what Chase
[21:06] is saying is that it's pretty close
[21:09] >> savings.
[21:10] >> It would be a savings for some of the
[21:11] employees, right? It would, you know,
[21:12] and you know, for the most part, again,
[21:15] it depends on the tiers because we have
[21:16] five plans. Um but I do say this, it was
[21:18] pretty close. I I don't think that
[21:20] anything was a major impact. And where
[21:22] there may have been a major impact, they
[21:24] were able to switch over the plans
[21:25] because we have five different plans
[21:27] that cover.
[21:27] >> Yeah, we we have three different plans.
[21:29] >> Well, what what does seem as a benefit
[21:31] to the employees of the sheriff's office
[21:34] and the sheriff is is that we have that
[21:36] pool.
[21:37] >> We have the reserve. Yeah.
[21:38] >> The reserve fund.
[21:38] >> Well, and I and I think when you look at
[21:40] there's actually one of the sheriff's
[21:41] employees, I think it's a joint venture.
[21:43] They could join e either insurance plan.
[21:45] They picked our insurance plan.
[21:48] So, tells me we're competitive.
[21:50] >> Yeah. And we we also do uh partner with
[21:52] the school district when it comes to
[21:53] using the the My Health on-site clinics
[21:55] um which is which is a cost savings for
[21:56] us as well. And I know that's something
[21:57] we had previously discussed with with
[21:59] Barbara. So, we we'll we'll make sure to
[22:01] to have that discussion again.
[22:02] >> Well, let's let's have a discussion
[22:04] about as far as the reserves go as far
[22:05] as Commissioner Wayne brought up. I
[22:07] mean, Barbara, if we're going to go
[22:08] through and set up a joint venture and
[22:11] and join forces as far as insurance
[22:13] goes, this is there any reason we can we
[22:16] can can we pick the number we want to
[22:18] put in reserves for excess claims?
[22:21] >> So, uh, we have we buy an excess policy.
[22:23] In fact, ironically, that was on the
[22:24] budget this the board agenda item this
[22:26] morning. Um, and then yes, we set a
[22:29] claim number, but because we're
[22:30] self-insured, the state of Florida makes
[22:32] us have a certain amount in reserve. So,
[22:34] we have to keep 60 days of claims at
[22:36] least in reserve. Uh, if the sheriff
[22:38] were part of that, obviously that would
[22:39] expand that number. But, yes, we could
[22:40] absolutely get together and and, you
[22:43] know, make that feasible for all
[22:45] parties.
[22:46] >> All right. So, so I'm going to say if
[22:47] we're going to move forward this 1.2
[22:48] that Amy's had to go work on other
[22:50] things to make this come in to go, which
[22:52] I was not aware of until this was coming
[22:53] forward just in the past couple of days.
[22:56] I want to make sure that if we do join,
[22:59] if we do have savings, that part of
[23:01] those savings goes right into the excess
[23:04] reserve fund that'll be there.
[23:06] >> And if that goes that way, I'm I'm
[23:07] comfortable keeping it just the way it
[23:08] is.
[23:11] >> Yes, sir. And I'm texting our our HR
[23:13] director now, so I will have her re
[23:15] re-engage with uh with Barbara Postace.
[23:17] >> Thank you.
[23:22] >> Thank you.
[23:27] All right.
[23:35] All right. I don't know if my thing woke
[23:37] up or not or if this was my friend Gina,
[23:39] but we got to the next slide. All right.
[23:41] So, our five-year capital improvement
[23:43] plan. So, there's really no change from
[23:44] this slide from the first public
[23:46] hearing. So, I'm going to go ahead and
[23:48] we'll keep it moving.
[23:52] Oh, no. I went too far. You did it. Ah,
[23:55] >> putting it down. It's you here on out.
[23:56] All right. So, our transfer. This is
[23:59] high. Sorry, guys. Oh, lunch was hard.
[24:01] All right. So, here's that
[24:03] transportation line. Here's that
[24:05] breakout. So, I did promise you all that
[24:07] you would have details of the 5-year
[24:09] TCIP as it shifted from the July
[24:12] workshop. And you will have that as part
[24:13] of your packets for this evening at the
[24:15] final public hearing.
[24:18] All right. So, then our tenative um
[24:20] millage rates from TRIM. This was what
[24:22] the board adopted in July and then again
[24:25] at the first public hearing.
[24:28] But the next slide is the recommended
[24:31] final millage rates that we will come
[24:33] back with a final budget for you this
[24:36] evening based off these millage rates
[24:37] which the big change here is taking the
[24:40] general operating millage down to the
[24:42] rolled back rate of 7.2488.
[24:47] All right. So now let's recap
[24:50] um consensus. So foot locker directive.
[24:53] We're going to maintain course and speed
[24:54] as recommended by the county
[24:56] administrator and we are going to come
[24:58] back with a reduced general operating
[25:00] millage of the rolled back rate. Does
[25:03] that sound accurate?
[25:06] >> Yeah. Yeah. Cool.
[25:07] >> Accurate Amy.
[25:08] >> Accurate.
[25:09] >> Accurate Amy. Yeah.
[25:11] >> Here [laughter] for it. All right. So
[25:13] later today at 5:15 p.m. in this room I
[25:16] will be back and together we're going to
[25:17] adopt a budget
[25:20] >> together. together. [laughter]
[25:22] >> Together, we're going to do it.
[25:23] >> Smiling all the way.
[25:24] >> I've been smiling all day. I'll see you
[25:26] all later. Thank you.
[25:27] >> All right. Thank you.
[25:31] >> And I'll go to public hearings. Item
[25:34] P50. Do we have proof?
[25:40] >> One moment. We do have proof.
[25:45] Item P50 was published in the Tampa Bay
[25:47] Times on July 22nd, [clears throat]
[25:48] 2026. The item was continued from the
[25:50] September 9th, 2026 BCC meeting to
[25:53] today.
[25:55] >> Good afternoon. Good [clears throat]
[25:56] afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Victoria
[25:57] Spito's planning development economic
[25:59] growth department. Item P50 is PD
[26:01] 260949.
[26:03] This is an ordinance by the Pasco County
[26:04] Board of County Commissioners amending
[26:06] the Pasco County Land Development Code
[26:07] amending section uh 403.5 construction
[26:11] plans section 403.7 mass grading and
[26:13] other sections as necessary for internal
[26:15] consistency providing for applicability
[26:17] repealer providing for severability
[26:19] inclusion to land development code and
[26:20] an effective date. This is the first
[26:22] hearing and so therefore there is the
[26:25] request to accept public comment and
[26:26] Patrick Dutter director of development
[26:29] review services is able to make a
[26:30] presentation if so desired. All right.
[26:34] >> [clears throat]
[26:36] >> All right. Uh, good afternoon. Patrick
[26:37] Dutter, Planning, Development, Economic
[26:39] Growth. Uh, long time coming. This
[26:41] probably won't be as exciting as talking
[26:42] about the budget. U, but I'll, uh, try
[26:44] and make it exciting.
[26:47] >> Um, so, there have been concerns raised
[26:49] by almost all of you about a lot of the
[26:51] construction traffic we've been seeing
[26:53] here in Pasco County. Uh, specifically
[26:55] on some of our local roads. Um Jack
[26:58] Mariano specifically in your district.
[26:59] You're seeing a lot of redevelopment or
[27:01] infill development where a lot of these
[27:03] trucks are using local roads to get to
[27:05] their project where they could be using
[27:06] collector and arterial roadways. Um we
[27:09] had nothing in our land development code
[27:10] that would prevent that. So uh what
[27:13] we're here today is to talk about adding
[27:14] some language to prevent that. Uh so
[27:17] first up um use this not this. So, if
[27:21] you have direct access to a collector or
[27:23] arterial road as a new project, you must
[27:25] use that road as access. You can't use
[27:27] the local road because it's a little bit
[27:28] more convenient for you. You need to use
[27:30] the collector or arterial road first. Uh
[27:33] only if there is no other option can you
[27:35] use a local road. Then, assuming you
[27:39] have to use a local road to get to your
[27:41] project, uh assuming there is more than
[27:43] one route, you have to avoid the route
[27:45] that has a school zone on it. Right? We
[27:48] often see construction truck
[27:49] construction traffic and school traffic.
[27:51] They kind of mix because they start and
[27:52] they start at the same time. Um so
[27:55] again, if they have to use a local road
[27:57] and there's more than one option, they
[27:59] have to use the one that does not go
[28:00] past a school zone. Uh and assuming
[28:04] there isn't an option and it does have
[28:05] to go through a school zone, we are
[28:07] requiring the developer to work with the
[28:09] school principal or the school board to
[28:11] stage uh either e either or to make sure
[28:14] that there are no issues in terms of
[28:16] getting trucks to the site.
[28:19] We're also adding language to prevent
[28:21] any staging or uh stacking in the
[28:23] rightway. We've seen projects where they
[28:25] stack up uh early in the morning trying
[28:26] to get on onto the site and they'll
[28:28] stack up back in the rightway and
[28:30] they'll prevent cars from from driving
[28:32] through the area. So the we have
[28:34] language to prevent them from stacking
[28:35] up before a project starts in the
[28:36] morning. Um also keeping the uh local
[28:40] roads debris free. Uh so whether that's
[28:42] a uh asphalt road or asphalt road, we'll
[28:45] ask them to uh sweep daily. And if it
[28:48] happens to be like a lime rock road,
[28:49] we're going to ask them to water daily
[28:51] just to make sure those roads are in
[28:52] good condition. if they have to use that
[28:53] local road, the existing residents
[28:55] aren't seeing, you know, gravel and
[28:57] rocks uh fly up if they're driving along
[28:59] it. Uh and then last, repair when done.
[29:03] Um so there's really nothing strong in
[29:05] our code right now where developers will
[29:07] might use our local roads where they
[29:09] have to come back and fix them. Uh we do
[29:12] have a substandard road review, but
[29:14] that's looking at the condition of the
[29:16] project before construction starts.
[29:18] During that construction period, we
[29:20] don't really capture all the truck
[29:21] traffic. So, um asking them to bring the
[29:24] road back up to repair from before they
[29:27] started is what we're going to ask them
[29:28] to do. So, they're going to be uh
[29:30] videotaping the roadway before they
[29:31] start construction so we can see, you
[29:33] know, what the road looks like. And
[29:35] then, uh public works also has a method
[29:37] of doing a review of the road. It's
[29:38] called a uh uh
[29:40] >> pavement
[29:41] >> pavement condition index. Thank you.
[29:42] Where they can do an assessment of a
[29:44] stretch of road to see what its
[29:45] condition is. So, we're going to ask
[29:46] that a developer does that upfront
[29:48] before they start construction and then
[29:50] after construction. And if there's a
[29:52] difference between the two, we're of
[29:53] course going to ask them to repair what
[29:55] um what issues we found.
[29:57] >> Quick question on that. Yes. And that's
[29:59] a great condition to put in. That's much
[30:00] better than just taking a video. So,
[30:02] great.
[30:02] >> I want to make sure that we are doing
[30:04] the testing, not the developer doing the
[30:06] testing.
[30:06] >> We are doing the testing. Uh public
[30:08] works will be going out and doing the
[30:09] review.
[30:10] >> Perfect.
[30:10] >> Thank you.
[30:12] Uh and then if non-compliance is
[30:14] observed, right, uh we're going to ask
[30:16] for signage to be put up at uh locations
[30:18] that uh they're not the trucks aren't
[30:19] supposed to be using, um we have the
[30:21] option to if they still continue to not
[30:24] um pay attention to that, stop work
[30:25] orders. And then um and ask them to
[30:28] employ offduty police officers. Right?
[30:30] If these trucks keep on using these
[30:31] routes that they're not supposed to, we
[30:32] can ask the developer to employ offduty
[30:34] police officers to make sure those
[30:35] trucks are using the right
[30:36] >> ask or require.
[30:38] >> Yes. Right. require or ask is a
[30:41] different
[30:42] >> require require if if it again right
[30:44] >> yes it's [laughter]
[30:48] >> yeah I don't know
[30:49] >> any anything on our code should be
[30:51] mandatory
[30:52] >> yes okay
[30:52] >> so again it's it's if we see
[30:54] non-compliance and it's a a continual
[30:56] thing and they're not addressing it we
[30:58] will make them hire offduty police
[31:00] officers
[31:03] so this is an example of what a plan may
[31:05] look like uh and it's not lost on me
[31:07] when I was reviewing this today that uh
[31:10] kitten trail is in the example and I
[31:11] don't know if that's the best one to use
[31:12] as an example. Um but this is not a real
[31:15] project. So just let me put that to bed.
[31:18] This is just an example that I created.
[31:19] Again, this project does not exist. This
[31:22] is just showing you what a plan could
[31:23] look like. So you see Hudson down there
[31:25] on the south and you see Kitten Trail on
[31:27] the north. The only way to get to this
[31:29] imaginary development is through one of
[31:32] two local roads. The local road going
[31:34] down to the south, the Hudson, and the
[31:35] local road going up north to Kitten
[31:37] Trail. You'll notice that the one to the
[31:40] south there is a school zone that
[31:42] location. So that means even though they
[31:44] might want to use Hudson Avenue, we're
[31:45] going to make them use Kitten Trail. So
[31:47] that's why you have the green arrow
[31:49] arrow going north. Uh and then of course
[31:51] once development is done, we're going to
[31:53] ask them to repair the road that they
[31:54] use to the north. So that's just an
[31:56] example of what these one of these
[31:57] plants might look like. And then I'm
[32:00] here for any questions if anyone has any
[32:01] questions.
[32:02] >> Any questions? Wait.
[32:03] >> Thank you, chair. No, very grateful
[32:05] y'all taken our good neighbor policies
[32:09] seriously. It's [snorts] particularly
[32:10] with these infield projects. Another
[32:13] example,
[32:15] uh we've had complaints particularly
[32:17] related to the infill projects
[32:21] if say the infill projects in a denser
[32:24] more dense neighborhood than like what
[32:26] you showed here
[32:27] >> and as they're clearing the site like
[32:30] this past year was hot and it was dry.
[32:33] We've had calls from adjoining
[32:37] properties neighbors.
[32:39] All the dirt from the site is windy
[32:41] blowing into these folks swimming pools
[32:44] and increasing. You know, those folks
[32:46] are there first and the project is its
[32:48] neighbor. And you know, large amounts of
[32:52] of of dirt [snorts] being blown in the
[32:55] wind off the sides, landing in folks
[32:56] pools, clogging up their pool pumps,
[32:58] blew a pool pump on another person.
[33:01] they're having to pay to have I mean
[33:02] it's impacting them in the code should
[33:05] situations like that happen.
[33:08] Do we have any ability
[33:11] to have the neighboring site become a
[33:14] good neighbor to offset the cost of the
[33:17] of the impacts on the neighboring
[33:20] properties that were there first? Pools,
[33:22] for example, the dust on the screens and
[33:24] everything else. if there's actual
[33:26] damage due to dust flying off the site
[33:29] or what what have you to be able to make
[33:32] that site that's under construction be
[33:34] good neighbor to the existing neighbors
[33:35] that were there first.
[33:38] >> Yeah. the kind of related thing we have
[33:41] to it
[33:41] >> instead of it becoming a civil matter
[33:42] because it's not those folks fault like
[33:44] for example these folks have lived live
[33:45] lived next to this site I'm referencing
[33:48] for 30 years
[33:50] >> and it was vacant until you know
[33:52] something came along and the project
[33:55] came and it just caused these folks a
[33:57] whole big old headache. Um,
[34:00] David, is that something that we
[34:02] >> It's just an example of another addition
[34:06] to good neighbor policies that we're
[34:08] working on here.
[34:09] >> Understood. You want to comment to that?
[34:12] >> I I missed the question. I'm sorry. I
[34:13] was reading the orders. What was the
[34:14] question?
[34:16] >> So, a real life scenario that happened
[34:19] neighbors to a a project site
[34:22] uh site was vacant. Neighbors lived next
[34:25] to it for 30 years.
[34:27] Project came in. Project cleared. Dirt's
[34:30] being brought in. Storm water's being
[34:32] dug. The dirt on the site, the wind was
[34:36] moving, blowing all over the place. The
[34:38] dirt was landing in the all three
[34:41] neighbors had swimming pools and the
[34:43] dirt was clogging the pools. One of the
[34:45] pool pump blow up. They're having to
[34:47] have the pool service come in more
[34:49] frequently, costing them more money at
[34:51] no fault of their own.
[34:53] Should situations like that arise and
[34:56] these folks went to the contractor said,
[34:58] "Hey, your project's impacting us. You
[35:00] help, you know, with my pool pump. I
[35:02] have to get a new pool pump now because
[35:04] it was it kept getting clogged so
[35:06] frequently or what have you."
[35:08] Instead of it becoming necessarily a
[35:10] civil matter, becoming people
[35:12] disgruntled with the situation within
[35:15] the code, can that project be
[35:18] responsible
[35:19] for helping those neighboring homeowners
[35:22] should those homeowners incur damage
[35:25] because of what's going on on their
[35:27] other side of the fence
[35:31] because it's going to it's this you're
[35:33] going to see these situations happen
[35:34] especially as infill projects. I mean,
[35:36] I'm a little bit reluctant to have our
[35:38] code sort of arbitrating a private
[35:41] dispute, but I guess I guess
[35:42] >> it's not a private dispute. It's just
[35:43] >> I guess my my underlying question for
[35:45] Patrick though is how does our code even
[35:47] allow the dirt to escape the site to
[35:51] begin with? I mean, because I clearly
[35:53] our code could regulate
[35:55] how they
[35:56] >> so they how they hold the dirt on the
[35:59] site and so the dirt shouldn't be
[36:01] leaving the site and and going to those
[36:03] pools. Well, there so there's silt fence
[36:05] and there's seating. We require seating
[36:07] or solding the property after a certain
[36:09] amount of time, but there is still that
[36:11] period of time where there is a lot of
[36:12] dirt on the site and we have windy days
[36:15] uh and you know you can't c catch
[36:19] everything with with those types of
[36:21] things. So I think inevitably there's
[36:22] going to be dirt that does drift off
[36:26] >> in these
[36:26] >> and I don't know how you prevent that
[36:28] >> in these particular home literally the
[36:29] fence separate it was literally a fence
[36:32] separating the site.
[36:33] >> So I I think the our code could say that
[36:35] they're responsible for any damage that
[36:39] occurs from the offsite discharge.
[36:42] The problem is is that I don't know that
[36:43] we can be the ones that adjudicate the
[36:46] dollar amount of those damages. In other
[36:48] words,
[36:49] >> not looking for that, but because of a
[36:51] whether it's a city or a county that
[36:53] reszones a property
[36:55] and it goes under construction, right?
[36:58] And that that those that contractor has
[37:00] to follow our rules and folks who've
[37:02] lived neigh neighbors to the project
[37:05] site that are immediately impacted at no
[37:07] fault of their own and it's costing them
[37:10] money. That's another piece of this good
[37:12] neighbor policy. If a if a project comes
[37:14] in and it [clears throat] not just
[37:17] disrupts inconveniently but causes
[37:19] physical damage to immediate adjacent
[37:21] neighbor
[37:24] code can say that they're responsible
[37:26] for any damages that occur from the
[37:29] discharge or the the dirt flying off the
[37:31] site
[37:32] >> and and I use the specific examples of
[37:34] pools and pool pumps and the filters
[37:36] because that's what happened. Windy
[37:38] days. We've had many windy days. the
[37:40] dirt was just blowing off and landing in
[37:45] the three immediate neighbors pools and
[37:49] it was
[37:50] >> I mean I guess I would I would even add
[37:52] to that even any type of fugitive
[37:54] emission whether it's particulates such
[37:56] as dust or or even fires which you know
[37:59] burning that's that's another that's
[38:00] another topic but I think the the
[38:03] question really is is what enforcement
[38:04] mechanism do we have because if your
[38:06] rules don't have teeth and I can't
[38:08] enforce that that that'll encourage the
[38:12] developer to put the necessary controls
[38:15] in place to keep the pool filters and
[38:17] those things coming in in into play in
[38:18] the first place.
[38:19] >> The reason I'm a little hesitant to get
[38:20] too involved in the private part of it
[38:22] is
[38:24] if that pool owner submits a million
[38:26] dollar claim to the developer for the
[38:28] pool because it was a goldplated pool or
[38:31] whatever. I mean, I don't know that we
[38:33] want to be involved in arbitrating the
[38:35] dollar amount of these claims.
[38:39] >> I mean, we can say the developer
[38:41] responsible, but I don't know that we
[38:42] can be the ones that adjudicate how much
[38:45] they need to pay.
[38:47] >> I'm not saying to do that. I'm just I'm
[38:49] [clears throat]
[38:50] my my thought process is to
[38:56] figure out a way to make as new projects
[38:58] come online that they are good
[39:00] neighbors. and because of the
[39:02] government's decision and the
[39:04] government's policies, but then
[39:06] somebody's negatively impacted and it's
[39:08] not their fault
[39:10] and then all a sudden they have however
[39:13] much, you know, the bill they have to
[39:15] fix when it was fined before. I mean,
[39:18] >> there's no question in my mind that from
[39:19] a private standpoint that developer is
[39:21] liable to them for damages.
[39:23] >> Yeah. But that's you know how that's
[39:25] going to go. It'll be litigated and it's
[39:27] going to neighbors don't get frustrated
[39:29] and they're going to be mad. It's not
[39:31] their fault.
[39:33] >> Let me hear from Starky. Wait.
[39:35] >> I don't want to go down that route. Um I
[39:41] I we got lots of complaints when they
[39:43] were clearing um new poor corners about
[39:46] the smoke, the fire. Um apparently we
[39:49] can't regulate that.
[39:51] >> Well, I'm not sure that we can't
[39:52] regulate it. We currently do not. defer
[39:54] to the division of forestry who issues
[39:56] the
[39:57] >> Well, I'd rather not burn if we didn't
[39:59] have to personally, but I think you're
[40:01] opening up a real can of worms if you go
[40:04] into that more. I think there there
[40:07] probably is civil
[40:09] uh remedies, but um frankly
[40:14] you move into a piece of property, a
[40:17] neighborhood, and there's vacant land
[40:20] next to you, you can unless it's Elamp
[40:23] or park, it's going to get developed.
[40:25] So, I think that's part of the risk you
[40:27] take when you pick where you live. Um
[40:32] but I don't think we should step into a
[40:34] civil civil issues between I think we
[40:38] need to make sure we require seating and
[40:42] water.
[40:42] >> And Patrick, do we have a clear standard
[40:44] in our code that says the dirt is not
[40:46] supposed to leave the site?
[40:50] >> Maybe. I I can't think of it off the top
[40:52] of my head right now, though.
[40:53] >> Commissioner, that's actually the more
[40:54] important thing because if we set a
[40:55] standard in our code that the juror is
[40:58] not supposed to leave the site, it
[41:01] actually makes it easier for them to
[41:03] litigate their private claim.
[41:05] Yeah, whatever the that's kind of that's
[41:07] what I'm saying. What whatever stringent
[41:09] rules we have, should a situation like
[41:11] that arise, our rules are in place in
[41:13] favor of the neighbor
[41:16] >> to be able to recoup their damages.
[41:18] >> If if that's your goal, I think the
[41:20] better thing would be to have a clear
[41:22] standard in our code that says the dirt
[41:24] is not supposed to leave the site
[41:26] [snorts]
[41:27] >> because then when the neighbor brings
[41:28] their private claim, they can say you
[41:31] violated the county standard,
[41:33] >> right?
[41:34] But I think that's is that not there
[41:36] now?
[41:36] >> That's why I asked is there a standard
[41:38] now that has that?
[41:39] >> I don't know off the top of my head. I'd
[41:40] have to double check. If it's not, we
[41:42] could easily add language
[41:44] >> that that's where I'm trying to get.
[41:46] >> So So the whole clear development would
[41:48] have to be seated even if they're
[41:50] building a house on
[41:51] >> if it's if it's if uh activity hasn't um
[41:55] continued after a certain amount of
[41:56] time, they're required to seed it in the
[41:57] early development code.
[41:59] >> I mean, I don't think you're you're
[42:00] saying the how. You're just you're
[42:01] specifying the outcome.
[42:04] No, nothing leaves your sight and then
[42:06] you you you promagate rules around that.
[42:10] >> I mean, that doesn't even work with
[42:11] hurricanes and my neighbor's porch
[42:14] blowing off and hitting my neighbor's
[42:16] roof and that's an act of God and my ne
[42:18] [clears throat] the one whose porch blew
[42:20] off isn't responsible for my neighbor's
[42:22] roof.
[42:23] >> A development side is not an act of God.
[42:25] That's a man-made issue. That's that's a
[42:27] government approving something and
[42:29] moving forward.
[42:30] >> Commissioner Jerger,
[42:31] >> very different. So, are they required to
[42:33] put, you know, any of that
[42:34] [clears throat] black mesh around the
[42:36] site,
[42:37] >> the silence?
[42:38] >> Yep.
[42:40] >> But I mean, it's in our
[42:42] >> Yeah. And it it's primarily to control
[42:43] storm water, but it it will contain
[42:45] other particulate, but once a good wind
[42:48] goes, it's really not going to stop too
[42:49] much dirt.
[42:50] >> So, was that in place, Commissioner
[42:51] Baitman, when it was, and still the
[42:54] same?
[42:55] >> Yeah, that's not going to help wind,
[42:56] though.
[42:57] >> Yeah, that won't be hot.
[42:59] Right. [clears throat]
[43:01] >> I mean, I like trying to control the
[43:03] uncom. I think it's important if we can
[43:04] put something in there. I mean,
[43:08] one of the developments we're talking
[43:09] about was over at the links and the back
[43:12] of the yard, they knew something was
[43:14] going to come, but one of the things
[43:15] that come up with this, they were
[43:16] supposed to use an alternative access.
[43:17] They use a regular access. So, what they
[43:19] did was they built a road coming in
[43:20] first where if they had the access road
[43:22] built, it would actually minimize some
[43:24] of that effect. And I'll touch on that
[43:26] later on. But I think somehow we've got
[43:28] to put that language in there because
[43:30] I've got I we had these people they took
[43:33] one of their big container trucks and
[43:36] parked it right in front of their
[43:38] backyard, right in front of the viewshed
[43:40] in a spot where it was like so
[43:41] disgusting [clears throat] why they
[43:43] would do that. So they took away their
[43:45] view, any type of view, even if they saw
[43:47] construction better than a big truck
[43:49] parked right in their viewshed and
[43:51] there's nothing we could do about it.
[43:53] They had all sorts of dust going on.
[43:55] They dug up to the edge of like 5t of
[43:57] the surface. Bam. Right down into a
[44:00] pond. Big issue. And all the dust that
[44:02] would blow. These people couldn't use
[44:04] their pool. Not only is it in the pool,
[44:06] it got on the house. The screen
[44:09] destroyed quality of life. So, I think
[44:11] if we do find a way, let's go look at
[44:13] that because they could have watered the
[44:15] site better. They didn't. They just kept
[44:17] on going and figured they had all the
[44:19] control. Well, that's why I make the
[44:21] point of of additional enforcement and
[44:23] and penalties that that you can actually
[44:27] >> deter. So, so one of the things you
[44:29] could do without having to deal with the
[44:30] civil part is if you are found not to
[44:33] control this in a minute we're not happy
[44:36] with. So, why we put that in in the
[44:37] language, but your permit's going to be
[44:40] put on hold until it's taken care of.
[44:43] That would get somebody's attention.
[44:45] That would get some better protection.
[44:46] Then again, those those sill fences that
[44:48] are out there, that is a storm water
[44:49] thing. It's not a thing for any wind
[44:51] whatsoever. Commissioner Oakley.
[44:53] >> Yeah. I think if you take care of that
[44:55] in your code, like if you've got dust
[44:58] and a lot of sand, you know, there's
[44:59] going to be dust and sand. If that's
[45:01] already in our code to protect that from
[45:03] leaving the site, then they water down
[45:05] the the new ground that they're going to
[45:08] be working on. So, it don't have that
[45:10] dust and all. It protects that neighbor
[45:12] the best you can. So other than that, I
[45:15] wouldn't I wouldn't do anything that
[45:16] cause us to get in litigation with a
[45:19] neighbor or private property.
[45:22] >> And around those sites and and sometimes
[45:24] techniques matter as well. Like
[45:25] literally this this one was coming
[45:27] through. They put this giant dirt pile
[45:30] that was probably 30 ft high that
[45:33] >> no film's going to block that. Any type
[45:34] of wind's going to go that would deter
[45:36] that type of behavior from going
[45:38] forward. They're going to think about
[45:39] how they do it differently. So that's if
[45:40] we can get that type of thing in there,
[45:42] I think it'd be great. Okay.
[45:44] >> Any more for this?
[45:45] >> I do have a unrelated
[45:47] >> issue. David um
[45:48] >> chair, if I if I may, David Allen, um
[45:51] assistant county administrator
[45:52] development services. So, um I'm hearing
[45:54] a couple of things. One is um we'll
[45:57] verify with code whether or not we have
[45:59] the ability to to regulate fugitive dust
[46:02] leaving the site.
[46:02] >> It's in state statute. [clears throat]
[46:04] >> And and then kind of layered on top of
[46:07] that, um then also as as Mr. Carbala
[46:11] mentioned um also looking at kind of
[46:14] burn processes too as well because I
[46:16] know that we've had similar types of
[46:17] complaints from neighboring project
[46:20] sites when they institute
[46:23] >> um the burns and so how do we uh
[46:26] minimize you know fugitive ash I guess
[46:30] from leaving the site too as well and so
[46:32] we're looking into that as well.
[46:36] >> Okay. Um, I'll just let me just touch on
[46:38] what you just mentioned might be
[46:40] interesting. So, if you're going to
[46:42] have, let's say, the construction go
[46:44] through and maybe we're limited to what
[46:45] we can go do.
[46:46] >> Can we put in the code if, let's say, a
[46:49] buffer is going to be in place before
[46:51] the heavy construction goes, etc. They
[46:53] put that buffer in place. If there's a
[46:55] fence that's supposed on the board of
[46:56] the property, we make them go put that
[46:58] fence in, too. At least we can minimize
[47:00] some of the effects. Can that be put in
[47:02] the code?
[47:04] I I I don't see any reason why not. Um
[47:07] it's something we can absolutely
[47:09] explore. I I don't see any issue with
[47:10] it. Just
[47:11] >> that might that might help a lot.
[47:12] >> Sure.
[47:14] >> Okay. Uh on this, I want to bring up one
[47:16] thing to you. Um and again, I I want to
[47:19] say I'm thrilled you guys are bringing
[47:20] this forward. It's well thought out,
[47:22] well set up, and much needed for
[47:24] especially these infill projects that
[47:25] are coming in. Sure.
[47:26] >> Uh that are coming forward.
[47:28] Um, I want to make sure that like in at
[47:31] the the estates when we had a decision
[47:34] that was made by a board that said you
[47:36] were going to build a construction road,
[47:38] it was going to go a certain way on
[47:40] certain road and internally staff change
[47:43] that.
[47:44] >> I want to make sure that staff cannot
[47:46] change any of those things that are done
[47:48] in a public hearing where the people
[47:49] already spoke, decision was made that
[47:52] staff cannot go back in and change it as
[47:54] the code was modified a few years ago.
[47:56] unbeknownst to me and a few others.
[47:58] >> Sure. Yeah. That scenario cannot will
[48:00] not occur like it did back then.
[48:02] >> Is it in this code the way it's set up
[48:04] right now.
[48:05] >> So there there was a lot that changed
[48:09] procedurally in those years that
[48:12] essentially now the way the process
[48:14] works it it wouldn't have it wouldn't
[48:17] have hurt the same way. So what happened
[48:19] at Beacon Park
[48:20] >> won't happen again.
[48:21] >> Yeah.
[48:21] >> Okay. All right.
[48:24] Again, I greatly appreciate the
[48:25] attention to this, David.
[48:27] >> Um, Patrick, the school zone
[48:28] protections, um, I think it's a good
[48:31] idea, but I guess my question for you is
[48:34] why do you not have it applying on the
[48:36] collectors and arterials? Because some
[48:38] of our school zones,
[48:40] the school zone is actually on the
[48:42] collector.
[48:45] Um, we were honestly focused on the
[48:48] local roads in terms of protecting those
[48:50] over the collector and arterial roads.
[48:51] But I guess we could assuming the board
[48:54] have the same issue
[48:56] where the construction traffic is mixing
[48:58] with the traffic on a collector
[49:01] >> and it could impede the traveling
[49:03] public. [laughter]
[49:03] >> Okay.
[49:04] >> I would think that you'd want to protect
[49:06] it even if it was on a collector as
[49:08] well.
[49:09] >> Is that something you can look at?
[49:11] >> Absolutely.
[49:12] >> I'm I'm going to give a thought. I don't
[49:13] know if you can do that. I I think you
[49:14] need to think about it just because if
[49:16] it's on a collector and it's a school
[49:17] there, you may be having to use
[49:19] alternate residential roads and so
[49:21] you've got to balance that out. Um
[49:23] >> a collector is designed for these heavy
[49:25] trucks. So what you want to keep if the
[49:27] school zones there's three lanes of
[49:28] traffic that
[49:30] >> well all but all it requires if is that
[49:33] if the they work with the school school
[49:37] try to avoid drop off and pick times. So
[49:41] I'm not sure that that's the end of the
[49:42] world even on a collector.
[49:44] >> You can put them to avoid that, but
[49:46] again to expect them to go differently.
[49:48] >> I'm not saying they should avoid the
[49:49] collector road. I'm saying
[49:50] >> they just avoid travel during
[49:51] >> dismissal drop doing their construction
[49:54] the same time,
[49:55] >> okay,
[49:55] >> that the school's doing their drop off
[49:58] and pick off
[49:59] >> even if it's on a collector.
[50:02] >> Okay.
[50:05] >> All right. Any other questions? Um, I
[50:08] just have a comment.
[50:09] >> Yes, Mr. St.
[50:10] >> I just want to say I listen to the
[50:11] planning commission
[50:13] >> and I'm glad you're bringing forth staff
[50:15] recommendations
[50:17] because they chewed that thing up and I
[50:21] I mentioned this to the administrator
[50:24] and um the
[50:28] I love our planning commission
[50:30] and they're all volunteers but they're
[50:32] not the elected officials. That's right.
[50:34] >> And I want to be sure that what we're
[50:38] directing
[50:40] comes back to us and if they have a
[50:42] different recommendation, we'll put it
[50:44] alongside ours if it's substantially
[50:47] different because they were really
[50:49] messing with this and this is pretty
[50:51] clear that we want this. So, just heads
[50:54] up.
[50:55] >> Okay. Yeah. Uh very much appreciate the
[50:57] planning commission and what they do. Um
[50:59] there were two other are the items that
[51:00] were a companion to this. Yes. That we
[51:02] tabled. Um because I think
[51:04] >> well what does tabled mean?
[51:06] >> Uh this was priority. We wanted to move
[51:09] the planning commission was fine with
[51:10] this one. Uh wooden bridge prohibition
[51:13] and street trees was something um that
[51:15] they weren't comfortable with. So we
[51:17] just knew we needed to get this
[51:18] approved. So we moved this forward while
[51:20] we reassess uh what
[51:22] >> sometimes when you table something it's
[51:24] a way to make die.
[51:25] >> Sure.
[51:26] >> So under no circumstances do I want
[51:29] street trees to die.
[51:30] >> Understood. I mean, I thought we fixed
[51:31] that 20 years ago. So,
[51:33] >> yeah, the main point the planning
[51:35] commission had, and I don't necessarily
[51:37] disagree, is what our code does require,
[51:39] it requires a tree in the front of a
[51:41] home, not necessarily in the right of
[51:44] way. So, the planning commission said,
[51:46] well, if it's in the front of the home,
[51:48] it's still technically it could cover
[51:50] the street. Yeah.
[51:51] >> Providing that canopy. So, we have that.
[51:53] >> The intent is to get a canopy and how we
[51:55] arrive there.
[51:55] >> Sure.
[51:56] >> Just figured that out,
[51:57] >> right?
[51:57] >> Yeah.
[51:58] >> Okay. All right. Thank you.
[52:01] >> Thank you. No action required here. Item
[52:04] P-51. We approve.
[52:05] >> We do. Item P I'm sorry. Item P-51 was
[52:09] published in the Tampa Bay Times on July
[52:10] 22nd, 2026.
[52:13] >> Public comment.
[52:16] >> Oh, do we vote on Oh, we do vote on
[52:19] that.
[52:19] >> There's no action. There's no
[52:20] >> action. So, you do need to take public
[52:22] comment.
[52:23] >> Is there any public comment for item
[52:24] P50?
[52:26] >> No. The audience coming? Anyone online?
[52:28] Everyone's online
[52:30] public comment on C-51. We got approved.
[52:33] >> Yes, Jerry.
[52:39] >> Are we ready?
[52:41] >> I'm ready. Okay. Sorry about that.
[52:43] >> Ready to approve. Sorry.
[52:44] >> Okay. Okay.
[52:44] >> I skipped planning development economic
[52:47] growth department. Once again, item P51
[52:49] is PD260025.
[52:51] This is an ordinance by the Pasco County
[52:53] Board of County Commissioners amending
[52:54] the Paso County Land Development Code.
[52:56] Section 204.3 General functions, powers,
[52:58] and duties. Section 304, public notice
[53:01] requirements. Section 402.3 conditional
[53:03] uses. Section 407.2
[53:06] zoning variances. Section 407.4
[53:08] alternative relief. Section 407.5
[53:10] alternative standards. Section 503 AC
[53:12] agricultural district. Section 504 AC1
[53:15] Agricultural District. Section 505 AR
[53:18] Agricultural Residential District.
[53:19] Section 506 AR1, Agricultural
[53:21] Residential District. Section 507, AR5,
[53:24] Agricultural Residential District.
[53:26] Section 508, AR5, MH, Agricultural
[53:29] Mobile Home District. Section 509, ER,
[53:31] Estate Residential District. Section
[53:33] 510, ER2, Estate Residential District,
[53:35] section 511, RMH, Mobile Home District.
[53:38] Section 512, R1MH, Single Family Mobile
[53:41] Home District. Section 513, R2MH, Rural
[53:44] Density Mobile Home District. section
[53:45] 514 R1 rural density residential
[53:48] district section 515 R2 low density
[53:51] residential district section 516 R3
[53:53] medium density residential district
[53:55] section 517 R4 high density residential
[53:58] district section 518 MF1 multiple family
[54:01] medium density district section 519 MF2
[54:04] multiple family highdensity district
[54:06] section 520 MF3 multiple family
[54:09] highdensity district creating section
[54:11] 408 reasonable accommodations section
[54:13] 530.26 26 standards for community
[54:16] residential homes large. Amending
[54:18] appendix A definitions and other
[54:20] sections as necessary for internal
[54:22] consistency providing for applicability
[54:24] repealer providing for severability
[54:26] inclusion into the land development code
[54:27] and an effective date. This comes with a
[54:30] recommendation to accept the public
[54:31] comment and adopt the proposed land
[54:33] development code amendments and
[54:34] ordinance by roll call vote. Uh there is
[54:36] a presentation of so desired and uh if
[54:40] not desired uh there's an update post
[54:42] planning commission that needs to be
[54:44] provided to the board. Let me just ask a
[54:46] quick question before we get into it.
[54:48] [clears throat]
[54:49] That takes about three minutes to go
[54:50] through that whole thing and that
[54:52] happens now and then. Is there anything
[54:54] legally we can do to change it? Kind of
[54:55] like we used to we used to have to read
[54:57] at the budget hearings. We'd have to
[54:59] read the whole resolution and about
[55:01] seven or eight years ago they changed it
[55:03] where title only. Is there something
[55:05] that can be done to
[55:07] >> spare that?
[55:08] >> I'm all for it.
[55:09] >> Or summarize summarize it.
[55:11] >> Um I'm not sure that you can avoid
[55:13] reading the title difference. Although
[55:14] I'm not sure the title needs to be this
[55:16] long. Um
[55:18] there probably was a way to shorten this
[55:20] title.
[55:22] I don't want to get into how they could
[55:23] have done it, but
[55:24] >> let's if you would have the
[55:26] conversation. Let's see if there's find
[55:27] a way to make it easy for this guy.
[55:28] >> Okay, no problem.
[55:31] >> Mair
[55:33] chair. Hey [laughter]
[55:34] Terry, look.
[55:36] >> Now that the robot language is done
[55:39] speaking code out there, but
[55:41] >> Oh boy.
[55:41] >> It's not It's not easy either.
[55:43] >> No, [laughter] no, not at all.
[55:45] >> You got to stay in line. Anyway,
[55:47] >> so my my understanding with 51 is this
[55:49] this is to become compliant with changes
[55:51] that the state made. And within this
[55:55] provision, it deals with um
[56:00] halfway houses, whatever you want to
[56:02] call them, that are in residential
[56:04] neighborhoods.
[56:05] >> Correct.
[56:07] >> Uh community residential homes. Yeah.
[56:10] >> Res [snorts]
[56:11] you you know the the product like in Quo
[56:13] Hollow for example, there's a a home for
[56:17] troubled youth. It's in a residential
[56:20] neighborhood.
[56:20] >> Yes. And the state was talking about
[56:23] increasing the level and the problems
[56:25] are still compounding and it's impacting
[56:26] all you know this is
[56:28] >> this is a problem house in a residential
[56:30] neighborhood. This ordinance
[56:34] has something to do with that. Correct.
[56:36] >> Yes. It it deals with um those types of
[56:39] uses.
[56:39] >> It makes it compounds already tough
[56:42] situation that we can't control. Makes
[56:44] it worse.
[56:46] >> Yes or no? has the ability to because
[56:49] they can have more heads and beds.
[56:52] >> I don't know that it doesn't necessarily
[56:54] require you to approve
[56:57] >> those types of uses. What it requires
[56:59] you to do is
[57:01] >> you know the case I'm talking about.
[57:03] >> I'm aware of it, but it I don't know
[57:04] that it required you to approve those
[57:06] uses. What it requires you to do is
[57:09] follow Fair Housing Act and ADA criteria
[57:12] when you're reviewing them. But there's
[57:14] nothing in here that requires you to
[57:16] approve that a a conditional use or
[57:22] so. So so I don't think this is saying
[57:24] that you have to prove something, but
[57:26] you have it's saying that if you're
[57:27] going to deny it, you got to base it on
[57:30] the criteria that are in the code which
[57:32] follow the Fair Housing Act and the
[57:33] Americans with Disability Act and state
[57:36] law.
[57:37] >> So if we approve this, then we're really
[57:40] handcuffed.
[57:42] I'm not sure that you're any more
[57:43] handcuffed than you are under the FHA
[57:45] and ADA. Now,
[57:49] >> in other words, you were already
[57:50] handcuffed by the FHA and ADA,
[57:52] >> but we approve this. It makes the rules
[57:54] more stringent.
[57:57] >> It I think in my opinion, it makes the
[57:59] rules [snorts] more compliant with the
[58:02] FHA and ADA and the new state law.
[58:05] I'm not sure it's any more stringent
[58:07] than what because that project that
[58:10] you're talking about it arose because we
[58:13] got a complaint under the FHA and ADA
[58:16] that we were violating the FHA and ADA.
[58:18] That's how it got approved in the first
[58:20] place.
[58:23] So, and because the the argument was our
[58:26] code didn't comply with the FHA.
[58:28] So, I think what staff is trying to do
[58:30] is bring forward to you a code that does
[58:32] comply with the FHA and the ADA so that
[58:35] if we deny a project like that, we can
[58:37] easily more easily defend it.
[58:40] >> Are you sure?
[58:42] >> Yes. Because we weren't we weren't able
[58:44] to defend that one when we got approved
[58:46] because our code did not comply with the
[58:48] FHA
[58:49] or the ADA.
[58:51] >> I like your passion. I'm just making
[58:53] sure that you [laughter]
[58:55] >> I'd rather I would rather defend a
[58:57] denial under this new code than under
[58:59] our current code if that's your
[59:00] question.
[59:01] >> Yes, that's Yeah. Okay.
[59:05] >> All right. Thank you.
[59:06] >> Do we need a presentation?
[59:09] >> No,
[59:10] >> Mr. Chairman.
[59:10] >> Question.
[59:11] >> There's one thing to note that the since
[59:14] the uh first hearing of this item uh the
[59:18] text was updated. There was a divergence
[59:21] at the planning commission from the
[59:22] original recommendation where they
[59:25] wanted to have uh certain uh reasonable
[59:28] accommodations uh heard through public
[59:30] hearing but further legal research
[59:32] identified that um that that should not
[59:35] happen in that way to be consistent with
[59:37] case law and with uh federal
[59:39] requirements etc. Uh so it would the
[59:42] text that's presented to you today has
[59:44] reverted back to the original
[59:46] recommendation from the department to
[59:48] make these not go to public hearings.
[59:50] >> Okay. And this a recommendation for
[59:52] approval now.
[59:52] >> Correct. Yes sir.
[59:55] >> Very good. Is anyone here from the
[59:56] public to speak to this item?
[59:59] Is there anyone online?
[1:00:01] >> No one's online
[1:00:01] >> to the board.
[1:00:02] >> Move approval.
[1:00:03] >> Second.
[1:00:04] >> All in favor say I.
[1:00:05] >> I. Any opposed by roll call.
[1:00:07] >> Roll call.
[1:00:08] >> District one. Commissioner Oakley.
[1:00:10] >> Hi.
[1:00:10] >> District two. Commissioner Weightman.
[1:00:12] >> Hi.
[1:00:12] >> District three. Commissioner Starky.
[1:00:14] >> I.
[1:00:14] >> District four. Commissioner Joerger.
[1:00:16] >> Hi.
[1:00:16] >> District five. Chairman Mariano.
[1:00:18] >> I. Motion passes 50. Item P-52.
[1:00:22] >> Item P-52 was published.
[1:00:25] >> Sorry. The item was advertised on the
[1:00:27] county's website [clears throat] via the
[1:00:29] column application on September 10th,
[1:00:32] 2026.
[1:00:36] >> Born. Mr. Chairman, uh, board of county
[1:00:38] commissioners. U Adam Thomas, tourism
[1:00:39] director uh for the destination
[1:00:41] marketing organization for Pasco County.
[1:00:43] Uh before you today is a little a
[1:00:46] shorter title uh to read. Um but it is
[1:00:49] DMO26-0130
[1:00:53] is a public hearing to amend the
[1:00:55] ordinance of uh number 9010 codify in
[1:00:58] chapter 102 of the Pasco County code of
[1:01:00] ordinance by amending section 102 to 190
[1:01:03] to amend and update the tourist
[1:01:05] development plan for Pasco County. Uh
[1:01:07] just a little bit of background um on
[1:01:10] the tourist development tax and the TDC
[1:01:12] for for Pasco County. Um it was
[1:01:14] established back in 1990 uh by the board
[1:01:16] of county commissioners of Pasco County
[1:01:18] to authorize by section 1250104
[1:01:21] uh of the Florida state statute to
[1:01:23] establish Pasco County's first uh
[1:01:25] tourist development council and adopt
[1:01:27] the first tourist development plan by
[1:01:29] ordinance 90 number 9010. Uh since then
[1:01:32] um the adoption the destination
[1:01:34] management organization has been
[1:01:35] actively executing strategic plans while
[1:01:37] also identifying new opportunities to
[1:01:39] strengthening the promotional aspect and
[1:01:42] the destination development. Uh and
[1:01:44] since then the the destination tourism
[1:01:46] plan has been updated several times.
[1:01:48] Back on April 23rd, 2024, uh the Pasco
[1:01:51] County Board of County Commissioners
[1:01:52] approved the amendment of chapter 102
[1:01:55] article 1021 190 of the Pasco County
[1:01:58] Code of Ordinance to adopt the
[1:02:00] destination management organization
[1:02:02] 5-year strategic plan
[1:02:04] as the 2024 2028 strategic tourist
[1:02:08] development plan. And the four strategic
[1:02:11] goals uh set before you today are
[1:02:13] tourism industry trends, research and
[1:02:16] stakeholder insights. That gives us four
[1:02:18] strategic goals of deploying destination
[1:02:21] uh marketing, sales and service
[1:02:23] programs, advancing impactful
[1:02:25] destination development and engaging
[1:02:27] influential DMO advocacy and stakeholder
[1:02:30] rel relations and then lastly obtain
[1:02:33] optimal DMO resources and performance
[1:02:35] management results.
[1:02:37] So, we are uh recommending two new
[1:02:40] categories to be added into the
[1:02:42] strategic tourist development plan um
[1:02:45] for elig eligible expenses. And the
[1:02:48] first one is the one-time cultural
[1:02:50] heritage sponsorships. And this is going
[1:02:51] to be capped at 250,000 to support
[1:02:54] films, documentary, or episodes series
[1:02:57] rooted in Florida's cultural heritage
[1:02:59] and directly tied to Pasco County's
[1:03:01] history, natural assets, or identity as
[1:03:04] a destination. Uh this onetime
[1:03:06] expenditure is designed to generate
[1:03:07] measurable tourism promotion benefits
[1:03:10] and long-term visibility for Florida
[1:03:11] sports coast. And the second one kind of
[1:03:13] supports the first one and that is
[1:03:15] operational support for museums. This
[1:03:18] funding for publiclyowned and and
[1:03:20] nonprofit
[1:03:22] museums open to the public consistent
[1:03:24] with state statute to include staffing,
[1:03:26] maintenance, exhibit development, pro
[1:03:28] promotional activities that directly
[1:03:30] advance tourism promotion within the
[1:03:32] destination of Paso County. So we are
[1:03:36] requesting a recommen recommendated
[1:03:39] recommendation board action to wave
[1:03:41] introduction and accept public comment
[1:03:43] on the amendment to chapter 102 article
[1:03:45] 4 section 10290 adopt the ordinance
[1:03:49] amended to chapter 102 article 4 section
[1:03:51] 1021 190 of the Pasco County Code of
[1:03:54] Ordinances by roll call vote and
[1:03:56] authorize the execution of the ordinance
[1:03:59] by the chairman and direct board records
[1:04:01] to transmit the ordinance to the
[1:04:02] department of state by electron IC mail
[1:04:04] within 10 days after the adoption of the
[1:04:06] ordinance.
[1:04:08] >> Okay. Thank you. Any questions for Adam?
[1:04:12] >> No. Okay.
[1:04:13] >> Gave us a cool cup. So,
[1:04:16] >> got off easy.
[1:04:16] >> We got to bring them over. Uh, is anyone
[1:04:19] here from the public here to speak to
[1:04:20] item P-52?
[1:04:23] Is there anyone online?
[1:04:24] >> No one's online.
[1:04:26] >> Move approval.
[1:04:26] >> Second.
[1:04:27] >> Second.
[1:04:28] >> Roll call vote.
[1:04:29] >> District one, Commissioner Oakley.
[1:04:30] >> I.
[1:04:31] >> District two, Commissioner Waitman. Hi.
[1:04:32] District three, Commissioner Starky.
[1:04:34] >> Hi.
[1:04:34] >> District four, Commissioner Joerger.
[1:04:36] >> Hi.
[1:04:36] >> District five, Chairman Mariano.
[1:04:38] >> I motion passes 5.
[1:04:40] >> Any sir?
[1:04:43] >> Now proceed with the public hearings.
[1:04:45] Clerk will conduct the swearing in.
[1:04:48] >> All right. If you are here to speak on
[1:04:49] the remaining items, please stand and
[1:04:51] raise your right hand.
[1:04:56] >> All right. Okay. All right. Very good.
[1:04:59] Do you swear or affirm the testimony
[1:05:01] you're about to give is the truth? So
[1:05:03] help you God. Thank you.
[1:05:07] >> Okay.
[1:05:10] >> Those who are in person is
[1:05:11] pre-registered to speak to any of the
[1:05:12] items in
[1:05:15] first is item P-53.
[1:05:18] >> Item P53 was published in the TEA Times
[1:05:21] on May 27th, 2026 and by affidavit of
[1:05:24] certified mailings and site postings.
[1:05:26] The item was continued from the August
[1:05:28] 11th, 2026 BCC meeting to the August
[1:05:30] 25th,
[1:05:32] 2026 BCC meeting where it was continued
[1:05:35] to today.
[1:05:37] >> Item P5 is playing tomorrow economic
[1:05:40] growth. Again, PD26
[1:05:42] 7901 is item P53. Uh it's a zoning
[1:05:45] amendment in the name of Mitrous Family
[1:05:46] Extended LLC Mitrus project. It's a
[1:05:49] change in zoning from AR uh agricultural
[1:05:51] residential district to highdensity
[1:05:53] residential district. This is being
[1:05:55] recommended to continue the item to the
[1:05:56] October 20, 2026 meeting at 1:30 p.m. or
[1:06:00] soon thereafter say may be heard in
[1:06:01] Neworichi.
[1:06:03] >> Okay. A motion to continue.
[1:06:04] >> Move.
[1:06:05] >> Second.
[1:06:06] >> All in favor say I.
[1:06:07] >> I. I.
[1:06:09] >> Item P-54.
[1:06:11] >> Item P54 was advertised on the county's
[1:06:14] website via the column [clears throat]
[1:06:15] application on September 3rd, 2026 and
[1:06:18] by affidavit of certified mailings and
[1:06:20] site postings.
[1:06:21] Item P-54 is PD26CU11.
[1:06:25] This is a conditional use request in the
[1:06:27] name of Guardian Angel Senior Living,
[1:06:29] the Jono Plaza LLC. It's a conditional
[1:06:32] use to develop a residential treatment
[1:06:33] and care facility in an AR1 agricultural
[1:06:35] residential district and R1MH single
[1:06:38] family mobile home district in South
[1:06:40] Central Pasco County on the west side of
[1:06:42] Wilson Road 2525 ft north of the
[1:06:46] intersection of State Road 54 and Wilson
[1:06:48] Road containing approximately 8.97
[1:06:50] acres. This comes to you with a
[1:06:52] recommendation to approve the
[1:06:53] conditional use request with conditions.
[1:06:55] Uh and there is a presentation if so
[1:06:57] desired.
[1:06:58] >> Like a presentation.
[1:07:02] >> Okay.
[1:07:03] >> Presentation.
[1:07:04] >> Presentation.
[1:07:05] >> No.
[1:07:06] >> Oh. Uh one note, one thing to note about
[1:07:08] this. There was an opposition email sent
[1:07:10] to the commissioner, uh Commissioner
[1:07:12] Jerger, which staff, uh is noting on the
[1:07:15] record, and it's been sent to the
[1:07:17] clerk's office as an exparte.
[1:07:19] >> Okay.
[1:07:21] Is the applicant here?
[1:07:25] Yep.
[1:07:35] >> Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman,
[1:07:36] commissioners. My name is Tumai. I'm
[1:07:38] here representing the applicant. Um, we
[1:07:40] did receive the um concerns noted by the
[1:07:44] residents. I'd like to address those
[1:07:45] concerns um based on the land
[1:07:47] development code. Concern number one
[1:07:50] regarding the scale of development. The
[1:07:52] residential treatment and care facility
[1:07:54] are expressly permitted as a conditional
[1:07:56] use within the both within both the AR
[1:07:59] and AR AR and R1 MH zoning districts um
[1:08:04] subject to the board's approval. The
[1:08:06] applicant is proposing to accommodate a
[1:08:08] maximum of 125 beds developed in two
[1:08:12] phases. Phase one would be would be 45
[1:08:14] beds and phase two would be 80 beds
[1:08:17] which is considered very small in scale.
[1:08:20] Additionally, the subject property was
[1:08:22] approved by the BCC with a special
[1:08:24] exception 1473 in 1981 for a child care
[1:08:29] center and then special exception 2721
[1:08:32] in 1984 for a convolescent home.
[1:08:35] Historically, the site safely operated
[1:08:37] as a central Pasco Girls Academy under
[1:08:41] the Florida Department of Juvenile
[1:08:42] Justice. Transitioning this site from
[1:08:45] the state-run juvenile residential
[1:08:47] program is a to a passive senior care
[1:08:50] community represents a significant
[1:08:52] reduction in the oper in the operational
[1:08:54] intensity for uh Wilson Road. Number
[1:08:57] two, concern concern regarding the
[1:09:00] traffic on the dead-end road.
[1:09:02] Residential um treatment facilities are
[1:09:04] typically gener typically generate lower
[1:09:07] peak traffic um than other institutional
[1:09:10] um commercial uses. The applicant
[1:09:12] submitted a timing and phasing
[1:09:14] application as well as a substandard
[1:09:16] road application prior to the submission
[1:09:18] of the conditional use application.
[1:09:20] staff formally issued an exemption
[1:09:23] because the project volume is safely
[1:09:25] less than 50 peak treat um 50 peak hour
[1:09:30] trips threshold AM or PM. Staff also
[1:09:33] included that in your board um package.
[1:09:36] This exemption formally proves that the
[1:09:38] traffic um does not negatively impact
[1:09:41] the function the functionality of the
[1:09:43] surrounding roadways. Um concern number
[1:09:45] three regarding noise. This facility is
[1:09:48] considered a um is not considered a high
[1:09:51] noise generator um under the land
[1:09:53] development code. Furthermore, this
[1:09:55] specific facility is dedicated solely to
[1:09:57] the use for the senior community. Any
[1:10:00] foreseen noise violations would be
[1:10:02] entirely enforceable post development
[1:10:04] through standard code compliance
[1:10:06] channels. Lastly, number four, concern
[1:10:09] that the facility may operate as a drug
[1:10:11] treatment or re rehabilitation center.
[1:10:14] Again, this application before the board
[1:10:16] is for a residential treatment and care
[1:10:19] facility as defined by the land
[1:10:21] development code. This classification,
[1:10:23] this classification is not synonymous
[1:10:25] with the drug abil rehabilitation
[1:10:28] center. Um the facility providing
[1:10:31] detoxification or substance abuse
[1:10:33] treatment would require different
[1:10:35] licensing, different disclosures, and
[1:10:37] potentially different use um land use
[1:10:39] approvals. The county evaluates the um
[1:10:43] use exactly as submitted. Um operating a
[1:10:46] materially different use would
[1:10:48] constitute a violation of the
[1:10:49] conditional use approval. Um in summary,
[1:10:52] staff has reviewed the application under
[1:10:54] the applicable provisions of
[1:10:56] [cough and clears throat] the Pasco
[1:10:57] County Land Development Code. The
[1:10:59] planning commission recommended approval
[1:11:01] with conditions. The concerns raised um
[1:11:04] relate to the issues that are thoroughly
[1:11:05] addressed in the site development review
[1:11:08] where the applicant must prove their
[1:11:10] development plans explicitly in line
[1:11:12] with the uh land development code prior
[1:11:14] to permit issuance. Therefore, I
[1:11:16] respectfully request the board's
[1:11:17] approval. Thank you.
[1:11:19] >> Thank you. Any questions for the
[1:11:20] applicants?
[1:11:22] >> No. I I had looked at this property when
[1:11:25] I we got a letter that it was for sale.
[1:11:27] I think the federal government owns it.
[1:11:29] Is that right, Mike? Mike and I went and
[1:11:30] looked at it. We wondered about a fire
[1:11:32] station over here.
[1:11:34] >> Um, but I think this is a good spot for
[1:11:38] something like this personally. Yeah.
[1:11:39] >> Right.
[1:11:41] >> All right. Time for public comment for
[1:11:43] item P54. Anyone here from the public to
[1:11:45] speak to this item? Please come forward.
[1:11:52] >> For the record, if you could state your
[1:11:53] name, address, and then state if you've
[1:11:55] been sworn.
[1:11:57] I know you have been, but
[1:11:58] >> Betsy Law Lamoy and I'm on 3150 Wilson
[1:12:02] Road in Land of Lakes. Um, and I was in
[1:12:05] your
[1:12:06] >> Yes. And chairman and commissioners,
[1:12:08] thank you for allowing me to address
[1:12:10] issues or concerns on this property.
[1:12:16] 40 beds doesn't sound like a large
[1:12:18] facility on an 8 acre parcel. However,
[1:12:22] if you've looked at this parcel as you
[1:12:25] say you had, Miss Starky, there's a
[1:12:27] large pond that takes up quite a bit of
[1:12:29] that. There's um I'm not sure I'm I
[1:12:33] don't know how much of acreage the pond
[1:12:35] is, but it is a small property. The road
[1:12:37] is small there. There's no center line.
[1:12:40] It's a dead-end road. I I live toward
[1:12:43] the end of the road, and there are only
[1:12:46] there are seven families toward the end
[1:12:48] of the road. We've been impacted when
[1:12:50] the juvenile detention center was there
[1:12:52] with trucks that are delivering items to
[1:12:56] the facility. They park in the road and
[1:12:59] we can't get around when we're trying
[1:13:01] to, you know, leave and come back to our
[1:13:04] homes. Um,
[1:13:07] the noise level is a concern and I
[1:13:09] understand that that would be addressed
[1:13:11] at a later time if that in fact was a
[1:13:13] was an issue. Um, my main concern is the
[1:13:17] amount of traffic that vehicles aren't
[1:13:20] allowed, delivery trucks and other
[1:13:22] vehicles aren't allowed to block the
[1:13:24] road and lawn services. That's another
[1:13:28] issue. Um,
[1:13:30] I was hoping for that they would show a
[1:13:33] picture. Okay. So,
[1:13:37] um, so the road is paved
[1:13:41] south from 54 for about a half a mile to
[1:13:44] 3/4 of a mile. Then it becomes Lime
[1:13:45] Rock. And so I'm on the at the end of
[1:13:47] the Lime Rock Road. And um, oh, I've
[1:13:50] been there since 81. I knew when it was
[1:13:52] a property and I grew up on land
[1:13:55] adjacent to that.
[1:13:56] >> So I've been in the area since pretty
[1:13:59] much all my life. Um, I knew the people
[1:14:02] that lived in the house where this
[1:14:03] property is and then it was sold and
[1:14:05] sold again and it's become in 81 was a
[1:14:08] um child care center and then gradually
[1:14:12] has evolved and then the juvenile
[1:14:13] detention center. Um
[1:14:16] it just it is the road is just very
[1:14:20] narrow right there and I I don't know
[1:14:22] other than complain every time something
[1:14:24] blocks it. But you know that's also
[1:14:26] blocking access to our houses for fire
[1:14:31] and emergency services. Just these are
[1:14:35] things I would I would like you to know.
[1:14:37] I am I am the writer of the email to
[1:14:39] Miss Joerger and I am happy to hear it
[1:14:42] the it is referred to as a passive
[1:14:45] senior care facility and doesn't have
[1:14:49] anything to do with um drug treatment
[1:14:51] but I know things can change too because
[1:14:53] this has evolved through the years as a
[1:14:55] as different kind of um a center.
[1:15:00] I would also like to request stop signs
[1:15:02] at their driveways so that staff and
[1:15:04] other vehicles leaving the property stop
[1:15:07] because you know our we're on the road
[1:15:11] and they're coming out from there. This
[1:15:13] has happened when it was operating as a
[1:15:15] different kind of facility. So,
[1:15:18] and the signs that are put up, I don't
[1:15:22] know if y'all can see that, but they
[1:15:23] kind of droop. They aren't like the old
[1:15:25] yellow signs that used they used to put
[1:15:27] up. This is the original one and about
[1:15:30] two weeks later it was unreadable.
[1:15:33] >> You want to submit those?
[1:15:35] >> Um well, if you want me to. I It's just
[1:15:38] I think
[1:15:39] >> I don't know.
[1:15:40] >> I would say yes. Um move to receive and
[1:15:42] file. Second there.
[1:15:43] >> All in favor say I. I.
[1:15:45] >> That'll make it part of the record.
[1:15:46] Thank you.
[1:15:52] >> Thank you.
[1:15:52] >> Anyone else here to speak to item P54?
[1:15:56] >> Is there anyone online? No one's online.
[1:15:58] Okay,
[1:15:59] >> it's to the board.
[1:16:01] >> I have a question for the applicant.
[1:16:02] >> All right, question for the applicant.
[1:16:03] Please come forward.
[1:16:08] >> Um, given the concern about drug
[1:16:10] treatment, would you have any concern
[1:16:12] with changing condition one to say
[1:16:15] congregate care facility instead of
[1:16:17] residential treatment and care facility?
[1:16:19] >> Uh, the reason why it was um labeled as
[1:16:22] a residential and care facility is
[1:16:25] because of the land development code. it
[1:16:26] was labeled that way. Um, we don't have
[1:16:28] any
[1:16:29] >> Well, my only concern is that definition
[1:16:32] includes drug treatment and
[1:16:36] it includes drug treatment and
[1:16:38] rehabilitation. And I know you said
[1:16:39] you're not doing that,
[1:16:42] but I think the objector is technically
[1:16:44] correct that it could
[1:16:46] it could be converted to that. So that's
[1:16:49] why I'm asking the question,
[1:16:52] are you willing to limit condition one
[1:16:54] to
[1:16:56] So it's not that broad definition.
[1:16:59] >> Yes sir.
[1:17:00] >> I mean because the agenda amendment says
[1:17:01] you intend to do a congregate care
[1:17:03] living facility.
[1:17:04] >> Is that accurate?
[1:17:06] >> Right. But when we went through site
[1:17:08] development review or review with staff,
[1:17:10] they labeled it as um a residential and
[1:17:13] care facility based on what we were
[1:17:15] proposing in the land development code.
[1:17:17] So that's why we
[1:17:19] >> I'm just saying to truly narrow it to
[1:17:22] the use that you're proposing and not
[1:17:24] have it potentially be drug treatment, I
[1:17:26] think that would have to be changed to
[1:17:28] congregate care facility
[1:17:31] and I I want to know if you were okay
[1:17:33] with that change.
[1:17:34] >> Yes.
[1:17:34] >> Let me before you you agree to that, let
[1:17:36] me just bring up one thing if I could.
[1:17:39] So my dad just being in in a ALF um he
[1:17:43] went in for rehab. He had people that
[1:17:46] were in there that were going to be in
[1:17:48] there as an assisted living facility and
[1:17:49] weren't pretty much coming out. My dad
[1:17:51] was only there for a couple of weeks.
[1:17:53] So, I'm fine to protect it against the
[1:17:56] drug rehab, but I think some of those
[1:17:58] people will come in, have a fall, had
[1:18:01] have a surgery, they have to
[1:18:02] rehabilitate themselves. So, it's not
[1:18:04] drug rehab, physical rehab, which I
[1:18:07] think is fine to have in there. Yeah.
[1:18:08] >> So, I don't want to make sure you don't
[1:18:09] restrict yourself on that.
[1:18:10] >> Right. Yes. Well, I mean it could say
[1:18:13] congregate living facility, skilled
[1:18:14] nursing facility or convolescent home,
[1:18:17] which is the other things that are
[1:18:19] listed under that definition
[1:18:22] or similar facilities. The problem is
[1:18:24] that definition also includes drug
[1:18:26] treatment and rehabilitation.
[1:18:27] >> Right? So, I'm just trying to get to the
[1:18:29] right definition but not not prevent
[1:18:31] them from the uses that it's probably
[1:18:32] going to happen or be bene beneficial to
[1:18:34] happen. So my recommendation then would
[1:18:36] be to change it to say that it's limited
[1:18:38] to adult congregate living facilities,
[1:18:40] skilled nursing facilities, convolescent
[1:18:43] homes or similar facilities.
[1:18:45] >> Okay.
[1:18:46] >> Would you be okay with that?
[1:18:47] >> Yes.
[1:18:50] Chair, what about the uh since it is a
[1:18:53] narrow road, [cough] the the the ability
[1:18:56] to
[1:18:57] bring in your you know, if there's a
[1:18:59] tractor trailer bringing in food or
[1:19:00] whatnot, is there a ability to unload
[1:19:03] and pull out without blocking the other
[1:19:07] neighbors? So to address the neighbors
[1:19:11] concern about um delivery, we're only
[1:19:14] proposing um like meal prepping as far
[1:19:17] as like using somebody would bring in
[1:19:20] the meals and they would just microwave
[1:19:22] it. It's not, you know, constant
[1:19:24] deliveries of supplies or anything like
[1:19:26] that for for the facility.
[1:19:28] >> Okay.
[1:19:29] And then as far as the roadway, there is
[1:19:32] um there is a condition on the approval
[1:19:35] that we um convey 60 ft right of way,
[1:19:39] which we did. We submitted a revised um
[1:19:41] conceptual site plan um for the um the
[1:19:44] proposed widening of Wilson Road um down
[1:19:47] the road.
[1:19:49] >> Um let's go a little further with that
[1:19:51] if I could. Um when you're saying that
[1:19:54] right now, is it a dirt road all the way
[1:19:55] through up to your property?
[1:19:57] >> No, it's not a dirt road. It's a
[1:19:59] collector road. Yes, sir.
[1:20:00] >> Okay. So, then after that
[1:20:01] >> after that property, you're going to
[1:20:03] give that away in case we ever do decide
[1:20:06] to pay to go.
[1:20:06] >> Yes. That was a condition of approval
[1:20:08] which we um agreed to and we provided a
[1:20:11] conditional um a convention uh I'm
[1:20:13] sorry, a site plan, a revised site plan
[1:20:16] to show that um conveyance.
[1:20:18] >> Okay. As far as access management goes,
[1:20:20] it's probably for staff to make sure
[1:20:22] that if they do have trucks coming in,
[1:20:24] they're not going to be parking on the
[1:20:25] roadway.
[1:20:25] >> Correct. Yes.
[1:20:26] >> And staff agrees with that. if you want
[1:20:27] to not. Okay. Okay.
[1:20:31] >> And then just quick question. Um would
[1:20:33] now be the time to also address um the
[1:20:36] resident's concern about the stop signs
[1:20:38] >> or not.
[1:20:39] >> Sure.
[1:20:41] >> That would all be uh under site
[1:20:43] development review um for um access site
[1:20:46] access. So yes,
[1:20:48] >> I just wanted to clarify.
[1:20:49] >> Yes, it would be it would be um
[1:20:52] implemented.
[1:20:56] >> Okay. Anything else the applicant or
[1:20:58] staff? Okay, it's to the board.
[1:21:02] >> Move approved.
[1:21:03] >> Second.
[1:21:04] >> Is that with the rec the change to
[1:21:05] condition one?
[1:21:07] >> I read into the
[1:21:08] >> Yeah, I'm good with the new wording on
[1:21:10] that.
[1:21:11] >> Okay.
[1:21:11] >> Okay. A motion to second with the
[1:21:13] attorney's language to protect the use.
[1:21:18] All in favor say I. I.
[1:21:20] >> Any opposed?
[1:21:22] Okay.
[1:21:24] Item P-55.
[1:21:27] >> Item P-55 was published in the Tampa Bay
[1:21:29] Times on July 8th, 2026 and by affidavit
[1:21:32] of certified mailings and site postings.
[1:21:34] The item was continued from the August
[1:21:36] 25th, 2026 BCC meeting to today.
[1:21:39] >> Item P55 is PD267926.
[1:21:42] This is a zoning amendment in the name
[1:21:44] of Landmark LLC, Kitten Trail Farms.
[1:21:47] It's a change in zoning from an AC
[1:21:49] agricultural district to an AR
[1:21:50] agricultural residential district in
[1:21:52] northwest Pasco County. on the south
[1:21:54] side of Kitten Trail, approximately one
[1:21:56] mile east of the intersection of Kitten
[1:21:57] Trail and Hicks Road, containing
[1:21:59] approximately 14.57 acres, discuss with
[1:22:02] the recommendation to approve the zoning
[1:22:03] amendment. And there's a presentation if
[1:22:05] so desired.
[1:22:07] >> Anyone presentation?
[1:22:10] >> Okay. All right. Thank you.
[1:22:12] >> To the applicant.
[1:22:19] >> Hello. Good afternoon, chairman and
[1:22:21] county commissioners. Um, this is my
[1:22:23] second time here. I was here for the
[1:22:25] first hearing. Uh, I'm the owner of
[1:22:27] 11,000 Kitten Trail, 14 12 acres. I'm
[1:22:30] requesting today for the property to be
[1:22:33] reszoned from AC to AR because currently
[1:22:36] you can only put one home on the entire
[1:22:38] property. Everything around us is
[1:22:41] consistently AR. And uh it's a minimum I
[1:22:46] believe of 2 and 1/2 Yeah. 2 and 1/2
[1:22:48] acres is what we're asking for um for to
[1:22:52] be divided under the AR code as we go
[1:22:56] forward for that to be permitted.
[1:22:59] And I'm happy to answer any questions.
[1:23:01] >> Any questions?
[1:23:03] >> How many what's the two and a half
[1:23:05] >> two and a half acres of lot size
[1:23:07] >> lot
[1:23:08] >> for each lot?
[1:23:08] >> For each lot.
[1:23:09] >> Oh yeah. That's that's good size lot. I
[1:23:12] want to thank you for bringing it
[1:23:13] forward to go to that size
[1:23:16] >> as all these infill properties come in
[1:23:18] makes it difficult between traffic and
[1:23:20] everything else. So I appreciate you
[1:23:21] bringing this forward the way you have.
[1:23:23] I think it's very reasonable.
[1:23:24] >> Yeah.
[1:23:24] >> Thank you sir.
[1:23:26] >> Yeah chair and just
[1:23:29] you know staff has worked on minor rule
[1:23:31] subdivisions. Let's give her a good
[1:23:34] experience with the minor rule
[1:23:36] subdivisions that that they've done here
[1:23:39] because we'd like to see more of these
[1:23:41] come forward. Excellent.
[1:23:46] Okay.
[1:23:46] >> Thank you.
[1:23:47] >> Thank you.
[1:23:47] >> Thank you.
[1:23:48] >> All right. This is a public hearing.
[1:23:50] Anyone here for item T-55?
[1:23:53] >> Anyone online?
[1:23:54] >> No one's online.
[1:23:55] >> Move approval.
[1:23:56] >> Second. Have
[1:23:57] >> a motion to second. All in favor say I.
[1:23:59] >> I.
[1:24:00] >> I. Any opposed? Motion pass. 50. Okay,
[1:24:03] that'll do the public hearings. And now
[1:24:06] we're going to move back.
[1:24:08] We're going to go to R48.
[1:24:10] Michelle W.
[1:24:12] >> Yes.
[1:24:18] Do
[1:24:18] >> you have a presentation
[1:24:20] >> or the staff person?
[1:24:21] >> A second. Go ahead and pull that up,
[1:24:24] please.
[1:24:26] >> You want You wanted something to do till
[1:24:28] 5:15.
[1:24:29] >> I'm not I'm not going to sleep tonight.
[1:24:35] >> Good afternoon, commissioners.
[1:24:38] Connor Donovan with County
[1:24:39] Administration. I was really Yeah, we
[1:24:41] have a title slide. I was really hoping
[1:24:43] to go in the morning so I could steal
[1:24:45] Adam's credit for the cups. I was going
[1:24:47] to say they were from both of us.
[1:24:48] >> There you go.
[1:24:49] >> That didn't happen, but at least my
[1:24:50] title is short. BCC meeting time review.
[1:24:54] >> So, this is just going to be a brief
[1:24:56] presentation that outlined some highle
[1:24:58] alternatives to our current meeting
[1:25:00] times.
[1:25:02] The first thing we did when the board
[1:25:04] tasked us with this earlier this summer
[1:25:06] was look at what our surrounding
[1:25:08] counties in the Tampa Bay area were
[1:25:10] doing for their meeting times. And so
[1:25:12] just as a note before we dive into it,
[1:25:14] we did merge some terminology for the
[1:25:17] sake of this summary. So in some
[1:25:19] instances where you see public hearing
[1:25:21] that might be more focused on land use
[1:25:23] only or vice versa. Ultimately, if you
[1:25:26] guys wanted to move forward with any of
[1:25:27] the alternatives we're going to talk
[1:25:29] about today, we would come back to you
[1:25:30] with more concrete language. So, don't
[1:25:32] get bogged down with the legal jargon.
[1:25:35] Uh, the first county we're going to go
[1:25:37] over is ourselves. I think just
[1:25:38] something interesting to note is that we
[1:25:40] are the only county in the Tampa Bay
[1:25:42] area to have our regular meetings in two
[1:25:46] different locations to accommodate
[1:25:47] residents on both sides of the county.
[1:25:49] So most other counties just kind of pick
[1:25:51] a centralish location and they operate
[1:25:53] out of there full-time. Obviously we
[1:25:55] have our east side and westside
[1:25:57] meetings.
[1:25:58] Additionally, not all counties have a
[1:26:01] time certain for public hearings that
[1:26:03] you can always count on. Some of them
[1:26:04] they're just going to roll their
[1:26:05] meetings and whatever it happens
[1:26:07] happens. So I just thought that was kind
[1:26:09] of two interesting things we did to try
[1:26:11] to maximize accessibility in our current
[1:26:13] meeting state.
[1:26:15] So, Penllis is a little bit more uh
[1:26:18] complex. They're going to have two
[1:26:20] regular meetings just like we do in one
[1:26:23] location. One of them is going to begin
[1:26:26] at 9:30 a.m. and that's intended for all
[1:26:29] regular business other than contentious
[1:26:31] public hearings. Their second meeting of
[1:26:34] the month is going to begin in the
[1:26:36] afternoon. They're going to break at 5
[1:26:38] and then they're going to come back in
[1:26:40] the evening for public hearing items and
[1:26:42] particularly anything they deem possibly
[1:26:45] contentious as far as public hearings
[1:26:47] go. What makes Hernando unique is that
[1:26:51] they have three meetings per month. So
[1:26:53] rather than mess with um an evening
[1:26:56] meeting or different meeting times, they
[1:26:58] just say, "Hey, let's have one meeting
[1:27:00] additional typically like when we would
[1:27:02] do a workshop um or work session in the
[1:27:05] middle of the month just focused on
[1:27:07] public hearings." And as I go through
[1:27:08] these, I know I'm moving a little quick.
[1:27:10] We'll kind of get into the pros and cons
[1:27:12] of each of these in a little bit.
[1:27:16] Moving on to Hillsboro, very similar to
[1:27:18] what we just talked about with Hernando.
[1:27:21] uh they're going to have three meetings
[1:27:22] per month. They're all going to start at
[1:27:24] 9:00 a.m. Um there's not typically a
[1:27:27] break, right? They afford their chair
[1:27:29] and the board that kind of flexibility
[1:27:31] to determine, hey, based on the amount
[1:27:32] of stuff we have at the meeting, we may
[1:27:34] not break for lunch. We may break for
[1:27:36] lunch. Um when it comes to pulk, very
[1:27:39] straightforward. We're getting the two
[1:27:41] meetings per month, just like us, but
[1:27:42] they're all going to start at 9:00 and
[1:27:44] that's for all business. Again, no break
[1:27:47] in there. Um,
[1:27:49] Citrus County, very similar to us, but
[1:27:53] starting in the afternoon. So, rather
[1:27:56] than starting at 10:00 a.m., they're
[1:27:57] going to start at 1:00 and then
[1:28:00] occasionally if they need to break, they
[1:28:02] can, but typically there's no break. And
[1:28:03] then at 5:00, they're going to dive into
[1:28:05] their public hearings. So, that's kind
[1:28:07] of their way.
[1:28:08] >> They have no lunch.
[1:28:10] >> Typically, that I think they would say
[1:28:12] 1:00 you're having an early lunch.
[1:28:14] you're getting the early bird uh you
[1:28:16] know brunch or something like that. Um
[1:28:19] because they start at 1.
[1:28:21] >> We would bring snacks.
[1:28:22] >> That's not healthy.
[1:28:22] >> We bring snacks.
[1:28:23] >> That's not healthy.
[1:28:25] >> Uh and then Manatee County. Manatee
[1:28:26] County. Uh again, three meetings a
[1:28:28] month. They're all going to start at
[1:28:30] 9:00 a.m. But they do have that
[1:28:31] additional month or additional month,
[1:28:34] sorry, additional meeting just like
[1:28:35] Hillsboro and Hernando do kind of
[1:28:37] dedicated to land use.
[1:28:43] So, what we have before you today very
[1:28:45] similar to kind of what we saw in those
[1:28:46] other counties, we have five options for
[1:28:48] you. Um, we labeled them 1 A, 1 B, 2 A,
[1:28:51] 2 B, and three because I can't count to
[1:28:53] five. Um, but based on the alternatives
[1:28:57] we talked about, um, that's kind of
[1:29:00] where we derived these. So, option 1 A,
[1:29:02] that's really the same thing we do now,
[1:29:05] but starting an hour earlier to ensure
[1:29:07] that we get through our regular business
[1:29:09] in the morning session. So today was
[1:29:11] kind of a good example where, you know,
[1:29:13] we had our resolutions, you had public
[1:29:15] comment, you kind of ran out of time
[1:29:17] right before lunch. The logic here is
[1:29:20] what some of the other counties do
[1:29:21] starting at 9:00 a.m. in order to make
[1:29:23] sure, hey, in the morning we're covering
[1:29:25] everything other than public hearings.
[1:29:27] So the advantage of that is that it
[1:29:29] aligns with our current model.
[1:29:32] Disadvantage of that is that really the
[1:29:35] genesis of this presentation was trying
[1:29:36] to make things more accessible. Doesn't
[1:29:38] really change a whole lot. uh for
[1:29:40] working residents and families.
[1:29:45] Option 1B, earlier start times roll into
[1:29:48] public hearings. So that's kind of the
[1:29:49] same thing I just described, but you
[1:29:52] lose the set standard time of when
[1:29:54] public hearings are going to be, and you
[1:29:56] gain the flexibility of determining as a
[1:29:59] board when you want those breaks to be.
[1:30:01] So again, you look at today as an
[1:30:02] example, you guys could say, "Hey, let's
[1:30:04] take a later lunch. Let's work through
[1:30:07] the entire budget presentation." um and
[1:30:10] then break a little bit later. Again,
[1:30:12] part of the disadvantage with the 9:00
[1:30:14] am meeting, in addition to not really
[1:30:16] addressing the working residents, um
[1:30:19] 9:00 a.m. meetings are going to cause
[1:30:20] some significant traffic issues for
[1:30:22] somebody trying to get over here from
[1:30:24] Date City or Newport Richie to Dade City
[1:30:26] and vice versa.
[1:30:30] Option 2 A. So, we actually had a a
[1:30:33] public commenter address this today. Um,
[1:30:37] and that would just be holding public
[1:30:38] hearings in the evening, right? And so
[1:30:41] we see it in a couple different county
[1:30:43] examples in our area where they're
[1:30:45] holding their public hearings or
[1:30:46] particularly contentious public hearings
[1:30:48] at 5:00 p.m. or later. The obvious
[1:30:50] advantage of that is that it better
[1:30:52] accommodates working residents and
[1:30:54] families that may not get off work until
[1:30:56] 5:00. Um, disadvantage of that is that
[1:31:00] for every person we accommodate with a
[1:31:02] new start time, you're probably creating
[1:31:04] another schedule conflict for somebody
[1:31:06] else because then it's it's not work,
[1:31:08] it's I got to make dinner, I got to go
[1:31:10] to soccer practice and all that other
[1:31:12] stuff.
[1:31:16] >> Option 2B, add a separate third monthly
[1:31:19] meeting for public hearings. So again,
[1:31:20] we saw that with three counties in the
[1:31:22] area where they say, "Okay, instead of,
[1:31:25] you know, having different meeting start
[1:31:27] times or anything like that, let's just
[1:31:28] add a dedicated meeting to public
[1:31:30] hearings or to land use." Um, and so the
[1:31:34] nice thing about that is that it does
[1:31:36] provide a focus for each meeting, right?
[1:31:38] You know, you're going to talk about
[1:31:39] regular business. It would provide more
[1:31:41] time for presentations
[1:31:43] um and clarity for the residents on
[1:31:46] what's going to be talked about when.
[1:31:48] um disadvantage is that once you add
[1:31:51] that one monthly meeting, then you're
[1:31:54] only having one opportunity for public
[1:31:56] hearings to move forward. And so you're
[1:31:59] kind of losing maybe some speed of that
[1:32:01] process because you just have that one
[1:32:03] opportunity. And then also there's kind
[1:32:05] of a geographical fairness concern being
[1:32:08] that is the one meeting a month going to
[1:32:10] be over here and then if I'm in Dade
[1:32:11] City, I got to wait, you know, 45 days
[1:32:14] to have a public hearing near me. And so
[1:32:16] that could be a potential issue.
[1:32:22] Option three, monthly meetings with
[1:32:24] different start times and structure.
[1:32:25] This was the second example we talked
[1:32:27] about in Penllis, right? So we would
[1:32:29] have, this is just an example. We could
[1:32:31] have any variation you guys would like,
[1:32:33] but in this example, we'd have one
[1:32:34] monthly meeting. It would begin at 10:00
[1:32:37] a.m. It could look very much how we do
[1:32:38] it now. And then the second monthly
[1:32:41] meeting would begin in the afternoon and
[1:32:43] we could either roll into public
[1:32:44] hearings in the evening, take a break at
[1:32:47] 5:00, come back at 6 or something like
[1:32:49] that. Again, we're allowing one meeting
[1:32:52] a month to kind of guarantee some
[1:32:54] afterwork participation.
[1:32:57] Um, disadvantage there is that it is a
[1:33:00] little bit confusing to have two set
[1:33:02] standard meetings a month, but the
[1:33:04] second one is going to start at a
[1:33:05] completely different time and the breaks
[1:33:07] are going to be different.
[1:33:10] Last but not least, this is just for
[1:33:13] awareness, our city meeting schedules. I
[1:33:15] think we want to be mindful no matter
[1:33:16] how we move forward not to step on the
[1:33:18] toes of any incorporated municipal
[1:33:20] residents that also pay taxes into the
[1:33:23] county and then put them in a position
[1:33:25] where they have to decide which meeting
[1:33:27] they want to attend. Um, so this is more
[1:33:29] just for awareness. I'm not going to
[1:33:31] dive into each one, but this is when our
[1:33:33] cities currently meet.
[1:33:36] And with that, I'm going to turn it over
[1:33:38] to the board for discussion, unless you
[1:33:40] guys have any questions.
[1:33:43] >> Question discussion. Commission, start
[1:33:44] it out.
[1:33:45] >> Yeah. No. Uh, Connor, thank y'all for
[1:33:47] taking a look and see what what's going
[1:33:49] on around. Um, since coming on the
[1:33:51] board, I often
[1:33:53] thought the 10 o'clock start time was a
[1:33:55] bit late. I mean, we all go to meetings
[1:33:57] from 7 a.m. 8:00 a.m. in the morning and
[1:34:00] try to have, you know, efficient use of
[1:34:03] time. I'm also not a fan of the hour and
[1:34:05] a half recess either. Um, you know, we
[1:34:09] often
[1:34:10] don't get enough work done in the
[1:34:12] morning when, you know, everybody's
[1:34:14] might think firing on all cylinders and
[1:34:17] coffeey's flowing and we're able to get
[1:34:19] get some good work done. So, I I like
[1:34:21] the idea of starting earlier, cutting
[1:34:24] lunch down to an hour. Um, and also not
[1:34:28] opposed to having an evening meeting for
[1:34:32] land use. I mean, we we're seeing due
[1:34:34] process in in in certain instances being
[1:34:38] eroded away from Tallahassee. And we
[1:34:40] hear folks all the time, hey, I wish I
[1:34:42] could come to the meeting, but you start
[1:34:44] at 10:00 in the morning, right? So, that
[1:34:47] this whole exercise is about finding the
[1:34:50] best best way to balance due process and
[1:34:52] access for folks uh and also becoming uh
[1:34:56] more efficient with the board's day. Um,
[1:34:59] I've been consistent about
[1:35:02] those at least the start time and the
[1:35:04] lunchtime since joining the board. Um,
[1:35:06] but uh I think folks are becoming more
[1:35:09] engaged and they're enjoying citizens
[1:35:12] academy and joining uh leadership Pasco
[1:35:15] Leadership Tampa Bay and they want to be
[1:35:18] able to be a part of our meetings
[1:35:20] especially with land use items, right?
[1:35:23] And uh sometimes I don't think we see um
[1:35:28] the full the the full temperament of
[1:35:30] folks and neighbors. I mean it's folks
[1:35:32] have to really work to get here. So, uh,
[1:35:35] our job is to be, I like to think, as as
[1:35:38] accessible as possible and allow folks
[1:35:40] the due process to to be able to speak
[1:35:43] to an item that impacts them and uh, you
[1:35:46] know, comment on on like the good
[1:35:49] neighbor policies that we're bringing up
[1:35:50] here today, which is a great step
[1:35:52] forward and and quality of life here in
[1:35:54] our county. So, grateful for your work
[1:35:56] on this, Connor, and your team and
[1:35:59] bringing it up for discussion of the
[1:36:01] board. may would have been done how it
[1:36:02] was done in the past uh in the county. I
[1:36:05] don't I don't know. But um it's great to
[1:36:08] see these options and
[1:36:11] see what everybody else thinks.
[1:36:15] >> Any thoughts?
[1:36:18] >> Well, um
[1:36:19] >> I have a couple thoughts. Um
[1:36:22] and I personally think we should wait
[1:36:24] and wait on two two different things to
[1:36:27] finish. Um, one is the comp plan changes
[1:36:31] because I think we'll have a lot less
[1:36:33] public hearings once our comp plan is
[1:36:36] updated and we won't have all these comp
[1:36:37] plan amendments.
[1:36:39] Um, see what that looks like. And two,
[1:36:42] I'm just I drive 52 to get to the
[1:36:45] meetings as Sir Commissioner Oakley
[1:36:47] does. And um, I I personally do not want
[1:36:50] to be driving 52 in the dark
[1:36:53] >> back and forth. And nor do I want my
[1:36:55] constituents driving 52 in the dark. So,
[1:36:58] I would say let that road get built and
[1:37:02] be less dangerous. It's terrifying when
[1:37:04] I drive home in the dark on that road
[1:37:07] and um and keep everybody safe. That
[1:37:11] what these other some of these other
[1:37:12] counties don't have is the ability to
[1:37:15] join remotely and we do. So, that helps
[1:37:20] in that situation. So, that's where I
[1:37:22] am. Thank you.
[1:37:24] >> Sure.
[1:37:24] >> I have a suggestion. So if we if
[1:37:26] [clears throat] we did a third monthly
[1:37:28] meeting, if that's Commissioner Stark's
[1:37:30] concern, could we use the central where
[1:37:33] we have our board workshops for our land
[1:37:37] use meeting?
[1:37:39] >> So then it's a central location for east
[1:37:41] and west.
[1:37:42] >> Talking at the utilities building. Yeah.
[1:37:44] [clears throat] I mean, I don't see why
[1:37:46] not. I mean, we're able to have and
[1:37:48] record. I would probably make sure the
[1:37:49] clerk's operations uh could be done.
[1:37:52] Otherwise, you could do them anywhere.
[1:37:53] It's a public forum. it's publicly
[1:37:55] accessible.
[1:37:55] >> My only my concern is
[1:38:00] if
[1:38:03] I I'd want it to be like a pilot program
[1:38:05] like the gentleman said earlier. Let's
[1:38:06] see what our what our numbers are,
[1:38:08] right? [snorts] I mean, we could do it
[1:38:10] for six months, a year, what, you know,
[1:38:12] whatever. But, um, I just think
[1:38:14] something centrally located so the east
[1:38:17] so if it's on the west, then the east
[1:38:18] side people aren't waiting a month to
[1:38:20] come over here, etc. So, I think
[1:38:22] something Midount A would be good and B
[1:38:28] um I would just say only land use items
[1:38:31] if you guys agree because that's what
[1:38:33] really people are concerned about. The
[1:38:35] other things, you know, they just leave
[1:38:37] after that. So the place is empty. So
[1:38:40] we'd be literally holding our meeting
[1:38:42] for nobody. So that's just my two cents.
[1:38:47] >> Thoughts on that?
[1:38:48] >> Yeah. Um,
[1:38:50] I'd look at I pretty well like the way
[1:38:53] we have it set up with our meetings. Uh,
[1:38:56] I see quite a few times seems like
[1:38:58] lately that it takes a little bit longer
[1:39:00] than um the two hours to lunch to finish
[1:39:05] the early morning the morning events. I
[1:39:08] think if we started at like 9:30 then we
[1:39:11] could but I don't I like I believe other
[1:39:14] commissioners have meetings prior to the
[1:39:17] meeting of that day for
[1:39:20] people that are staff that need to talk
[1:39:22] to you before you see a a some item come
[1:39:26] up before you and and a lot of times I
[1:39:29] use that 9 to 10 to uh see those folks
[1:39:32] but I also could do that in 30 minutes.
[1:39:35] I could do that from 9:00 to 9:30 and
[1:39:37] start meetings at 9:30 instead. Then you
[1:39:40] wouldn't run over. We've run over I'm
[1:39:43] sure this year it seems like we've run
[1:39:44] over I know four or five times into the
[1:39:48] afternoon public hearings which
[1:39:51] interferes with that a little bit but
[1:39:52] it's been that just that little 30
[1:39:54] minute period we needed to finish that
[1:39:56] morning. So, but the hour and a half for
[1:40:00] lunch, a lot of us have I think we have
[1:40:02] meetings during lunch a lot of times and
[1:40:04] it's hard to get in and out of
[1:40:05] restaurants and get back in time. Um,
[1:40:10] you know, when you're having that. So,
[1:40:12] uh, don't public hearings always being
[1:40:15] at 1:30 I think gives our public the
[1:40:18] awareness that it's going to happen.
[1:40:20] It's going to be at 1:30. So, when we
[1:40:23] delay it, it it kind of interferes with
[1:40:25] it. But there's people that take can
[1:40:27] take off and be there for that public
[1:40:29] meeting that afternoon. So I see people
[1:40:32] doing that. Uh I'd rather do have them
[1:40:36] do that than nighttime meetings because
[1:40:39] definitely I don't want to drive at
[1:40:40] night and um
[1:40:44] same with my staff. They don't need to
[1:40:45] be, you know, driving at night. It's
[1:40:48] just late. You spend a lot of time. But
[1:40:50] I've heard in the past when they did
[1:40:51] have night meetings, they ran so late
[1:40:55] that it actually cost staff
[1:40:58] like a day and a half of time because
[1:41:02] you prepare for the night meeting which
[1:41:05] you're using all for that. So then you
[1:41:08] stay there and sometimes they would last
[1:41:10] 12 1:00 in the morning.
[1:41:12] The next day,
[1:41:15] staff might come in at 8, but they're
[1:41:17] not going to be very well that day
[1:41:19] because they they haven't got any rest.
[1:41:21] So, you end up losing time. And and
[1:41:24] we're going to sense that we're going to
[1:41:26] uh be tightening up our belts and
[1:41:29] watching how we spend money. We don't
[1:41:31] need to be wasting staff time on that
[1:41:34] type of thing, but we need to tighten up
[1:41:37] our belts and do the right thing and
[1:41:39] make sure that every moves made by staff
[1:41:42] is working toward the end result of
[1:41:45] helping the public get their
[1:41:46] developments and ordinances done for
[1:41:49] them. So, I think we're doing it a good
[1:41:52] way. And I I see I know every now and
[1:41:54] then you'll hear that somebody can't
[1:41:56] come to the meeting because of work.
[1:41:58] Well, the gentleman that said he
[1:41:59] couldn't ever come to the meeting, work,
[1:42:01] he got off work today to come because it
[1:42:03] was very important for him to be here to
[1:42:05] say what he said today. But he got off
[1:42:08] and was here. So, it's hard to, you
[1:42:12] know, change a lot of things to night
[1:42:14] meetings when
[1:42:17] everybody has the possibility of of
[1:42:20] getting off work. So, so I I think what
[1:42:24] we do normally, if anything, I'd I'd
[1:42:27] change to 9:30 in the morning or
[1:42:28] something like that, but keep the hour
[1:42:31] and a half for lunch. And then our two
[1:42:33] meetings separate with East West saves
[1:42:36] all of our citizens the long drive for a
[1:42:38] project that's in their area and in
[1:42:40] their neighborhood. you hear it right
[1:42:42] locally where where you're at rather
[1:42:44] than you having to drive from east side
[1:42:47] of Pasco all the way to west side to
[1:42:49] hear item that actually affects east
[1:42:51] side. So I think we do a good job at
[1:42:54] separating our stuff by 4 44 or 41 at
[1:43:00] separating the different east west part
[1:43:03] of the procedures. Okay.
[1:43:07] Now, years ago with the land use
[1:43:09] decisions, we did them twice a year.
[1:43:12] You'd have like 12, 13, 14, 15 items and
[1:43:16] you do it in a day.
[1:43:17] >> Oh, yeah.
[1:43:18] >> And then you do it again.
[1:43:21] And those were like they were big big
[1:43:23] deals. And we changed all that. And and
[1:43:26] I'm going to say it's it's actually
[1:43:27] weakened the public debate to it knowing
[1:43:31] what was going on. Um I I like the 10:00
[1:43:35] start. reason is um if you're coming
[1:43:39] from one side of the other makes it
[1:43:40] easier.
[1:43:40] >> Oh yeah.
[1:43:41] >> Number two and then if you're going to
[1:43:42] schedule meetings and a lot of times
[1:43:44] like you know I had a conversation with
[1:43:46] Brandford this morning and 9:30 might
[1:43:49] have been a little bit tight but to to
[1:43:51] [clears throat] make it happen but I
[1:43:52] think you know we we get our interviews
[1:43:56] Fridays with Mike. um you got the
[1:43:58] weekend to review a little bit more, dig
[1:44:00] a little bit more, and then Monday
[1:44:01] morning you got to make some calls and
[1:44:03] you may not get the answers. It may take
[1:44:06] till Tuesday. So, I think the the later
[1:44:08] time at 10:00, I'm I'm fine with that.
[1:44:11] >> The amount of times we go over um I'd
[1:44:15] say it's probably 50/50. Yeah.
[1:44:16] >> But it's okay. I mean,
[1:44:18] >> I understand doing the things I
[1:44:20] generally speaking, I don't I don't
[1:44:21] think there's too many nights around
[1:44:22] after 5:30,
[1:44:23] >> right?
[1:44:23] >> So, I don't think it's outrageous in any
[1:44:25] way at all. So, I wouldn't change that
[1:44:27] dynamic. That's better for the work
[1:44:28] schedule for the, you know, for our
[1:44:30] staff as well. And you did bring up some
[1:44:32] good staff things about the night
[1:44:33] meeting. So, let me just talk to the
[1:44:35] night meeting. I think you could do it.
[1:44:37] And I like having the land use on one
[1:44:39] side of the county or east of 41, the
[1:44:41] other side west of 41. That's that's
[1:44:44] mandatory. Now, there may be sometimes
[1:44:47] you might be dealing with, let's say, a
[1:44:48] Heritage Springs where they got
[1:44:50] something coming in there. That doesn't
[1:44:53] have to be at night if it's pretty much
[1:44:55] them. So, you could find a way to make
[1:44:57] exceptions to have it in the morning if
[1:45:00] that's the prominent. So, those seniors
[1:45:02] don't have to drive. But for the
[1:45:04] majority of these decisions, it's
[1:45:06] usually involving families. It's
[1:45:08] involving younger people as well that
[1:45:10] just can't get the work off. I mean,
[1:45:12] this is a tough state to work when no
[1:45:14] unions pretty much and you got to show
[1:45:16] up when you got to show up and you're
[1:45:17] not going to give your time off because
[1:45:19] they want you there, etc. And it's hard
[1:45:21] for someone who's not making a lot of
[1:45:22] money to be able to force their way
[1:45:25] through. The executives can do it a lot
[1:45:26] easier. But the the the the middle class
[1:45:29] and and the poor, they're going to have
[1:45:31] a tough time making those meetings, but
[1:45:32] it may be very important to them. We
[1:45:34] could be talking about, you know, you
[1:45:36] know, what's going to come in where
[1:45:36] there's going to be fields and parks and
[1:45:38] libraries, etc. That's important.
[1:45:40] they're not going to be able to make it
[1:45:41] in the morning. They may have to miss,
[1:45:44] you know, a soccer game. They may have
[1:45:46] to miss a baseball game. But when
[1:45:47] they're dealing with their neighborhood
[1:45:48] and it's going to be no more than, you
[1:45:51] know, for that one big hearing that's in
[1:45:53] the neighborhood, etc. If it's important
[1:45:55] to them, they're going to show up and
[1:45:56] you give them the opportunity.
[1:45:57] >> Right.
[1:45:58] >> Now, Beacon Woods was one before I even
[1:46:01] got on here. What I heard we're here
[1:46:02] till like 11 o'clock at night when
[1:46:04] Walmart was coming in, etc. I don't
[1:46:06] think there was another one that I can
[1:46:08] remember that went anywhere near that
[1:46:09] late. Sometimes they do, but pretty much
[1:46:13] I think six o'clock is probably a good
[1:46:15] time to start it. Um, and if you do it
[1:46:18] every other side of the county in the
[1:46:20] same buildings we're doing in right now,
[1:46:22] it's strong. It's predictable. And I
[1:46:24] don't think it's a problem for the
[1:46:25] development community to wait an extra
[1:46:26] 30 days to hear it from one side, but I
[1:46:29] think it gives our citizens a better
[1:46:31] participation. And I would much rather
[1:46:34] deal with citizens right in front of me
[1:46:36] with all the information. They can see
[1:46:37] the presentation. They can see our
[1:46:39] dialogue and then the developer gets to
[1:46:42] hear it too. And you know how hard it is
[1:46:44] to get developers to do anything right
[1:46:46] until they feel pressure. But when they
[1:46:48] feel the pressure, they react.
[1:46:52] >> And we're taking that away not only from
[1:46:54] the citizens but from us to get I think
[1:46:57] what's the best development we can get.
[1:46:59] So I think we should stick with the 10
[1:47:00] o'clock to add the extra meeting every
[1:47:03] month one side the other side started at
[1:47:06] six o'clock and just for the land use
[1:47:09] because the land use is the one thing we
[1:47:11] can just say we don't like it and we're
[1:47:13] done. We have a lot of flexibility with
[1:47:16] that.
[1:47:18] >> That's my thought.
[1:47:20] My thought is to have the third meeting,
[1:47:22] central county, so then people's
[1:47:24] projects aren't being held up waiting
[1:47:26] the extra month and then it's centrally
[1:47:29] located for everybody, east and west.
[1:47:31] Knock it out.
[1:47:35] I I like I personally like the midcount
[1:47:37] idea using the utility building.
[1:47:40] >> You're saying don't have the afternoon
[1:47:42] meetings.
[1:47:43] >> What I'm saying is no, have our night or
[1:47:45] evening meeting. So, so our afternoons
[1:47:48] are the land use meetings. So, we would
[1:47:51] just have the 10 to 12 meeting in Date
[1:47:53] City
[1:47:55] >> just once a month. All of our land use
[1:47:57] for east and west would be at that one
[1:47:59] meeting.
[1:47:59] >> What and what would be in the afternoon
[1:48:01] and the other two meeting other two
[1:48:03] meetings?
[1:48:04] >> Nothing,
[1:48:05] >> right?
[1:48:06] >> You'd have to finish up your morning,
[1:48:07] >> right? You have to finish your morning,
[1:48:10] >> which means you wouldn't need an hour
[1:48:11] and a half lunch break.
[1:48:13] >> I I don't know why. To me, it's not
[1:48:15] broken.
[1:48:17] But again,
[1:48:19] >> Clark, you can make a do a pilot. I
[1:48:21] mean, you could
[1:48:22] >> When would that night meeting be? Would
[1:48:24] it be if you wouldn't have anything in
[1:48:25] the afternoon? You mean you're going to
[1:48:26] get there? Like if y'all go to the east
[1:48:29] side, you're going to wait all afternoon
[1:48:31] to have the night meeting for your
[1:48:32] public hearing. I think the way it's set
[1:48:35] up is the way it keeps people from
[1:48:37] having to drive so much
[1:48:39] >> and actually you're there. So,
[1:48:44] we got a pretty good setup.
[1:48:48] Great. Thank you. I appreciate the
[1:48:48] opportunity to talk because it does
[1:48:49] affect my team as well.
[1:48:53] >> So, um, we don't right now budget for
[1:48:57] overtime. So, I would have to ask for
[1:48:59] amended budget for overtime if we went
[1:49:01] to evening hours. And, um, while I was
[1:49:04] not here when there were evening hours,
[1:49:07] um, we our supervisor that was here at
[1:49:09] the time who now is retired
[1:49:10] [clears throat]
[1:49:11] said that they would go, as Mr. Oakley
[1:49:14] had said on until like 1 and 2 a.m. in
[1:49:17] the morning. It got it got rough. So, um
[1:49:20] if there's parameters around it to make
[1:49:23] it not do that, I think that would be
[1:49:24] good. But it was a struggle. Um my team,
[1:49:28] not my team, but Jed Pitman's team would
[1:49:30] be there until the wee hours of the
[1:49:32] morning to come back into the office and
[1:49:34] start the day. So, that was very
[1:49:36] challenging um and and difficult for the
[1:49:39] team. The other thing that is available
[1:49:42] to public, which was not available at
[1:49:44] that point in time, was virtual
[1:49:47] attendance,
[1:49:48] >> which I just don't know if that's
[1:49:50] advertised enough because I don't think
[1:49:51] the public takes as much advantage of
[1:49:53] that. Um, and maybe to have that more um
[1:49:57] out there so that they know that that is
[1:49:58] an option. And it's so easy to, you
[1:50:01] know, be at work and just jump on when
[1:50:02] you're ready to go, when your name is
[1:50:04] called rather than to take the time off
[1:50:06] work to come. And I think that employers
[1:50:08] might be more accommodating for that.
[1:50:10] But I don't know if the public is very
[1:50:12] much aware of our virtual option that
[1:50:14] started because of COVID and we and you
[1:50:16] have kept it and I think that is a a
[1:50:18] great option
[1:50:20] >> and that's what these other counties
[1:50:21] don't have but we have
[1:50:23] >> right I agree.
[1:50:25] >> Yeah.
[1:50:27] >> If you're if you're a painter, a
[1:50:29] plumber,
[1:50:31] not be wait for your time to be called.
[1:50:33] You could be in the middle of a job. You
[1:50:35] be talking to a customer, etc. you could
[1:50:37] be doing retail stuff and to be able to
[1:50:39] say, "I'm going to be able to take the
[1:50:40] break." It's one thing if you're working
[1:50:41] an office job and you you're just
[1:50:44] sitting there doing your stuff and you
[1:50:45] can listen to it as it's going on, but
[1:50:47] that's not 20% of the population. So,
[1:50:51] for those people,
[1:50:54] >> so comment or question really. Um,
[1:51:00] this is obviously a decision for the
[1:51:01] board and I'll show up wherever you tell
[1:51:02] me to show up, but um,
[1:51:05] I just want to clarify when you say land
[1:51:07] use agenda because you there's a lot
[1:51:09] that's on your public hearing agenda
[1:51:10] that is not resonings, you have CDD
[1:51:13] petitions, you have rideaway vacations,
[1:51:16] you have land development code
[1:51:18] amendments. There's a lot of things that
[1:51:19] are on your public hearing agenda that
[1:51:21] are not what I would call typical land
[1:51:24] use. So, are you saying that all of
[1:51:27] those things would go to this
[1:51:30] >> just land use?
[1:51:30] >> I'm hearing you say land use. So, to me
[1:51:32] that would specifically be comprehensive
[1:51:34] plan amendments and resonings
[1:51:35] >> and conditional uses. So, you're just
[1:51:37] talking about
[1:51:38] >> Yes.
[1:51:38] >> resonings, conditional uses and comp
[1:51:40] plan amendments.
[1:51:41] >> No,
[1:51:41] >> no,
[1:51:42] >> just land use period.
[1:51:44] >> Well, that's
[1:51:44] >> Well, those would be land use. But for
[1:51:46] instance, today Mr. Thomas got up and
[1:51:47] spoke about DMO that would we would hold
[1:51:49] that
[1:51:50] >> comprehensive plan.
[1:51:52] Some people would argue some people
[1:51:53] would argue that your land development
[1:51:54] code amendments are land use. That's why
[1:51:56] I'm asking the question like you had you
[1:51:59] had a land development code amendment
[1:52:01] today to talk about construction route
[1:52:03] traffic. Well, that affects land use.
[1:52:06] So, somebody could argue that's land
[1:52:07] use. So, that's why I'm asking for
[1:52:10] clarification. When you say land use,
[1:52:11] what do you mean? Do you mean
[1:52:16] just resonings and compound amendments
[1:52:18] or do you mean everything that would be
[1:52:19] on your public typical public hearing
[1:52:22] agenda in the afternoon.
[1:52:24] >> That's what I think it would be.
[1:52:26] Everything on the public hearing agenda
[1:52:28] would be that tonight.
[1:52:30] >> I mean, I guess I would, if I could
[1:52:32] offer this, I mean, typically what at
[1:52:34] least the premise that Commissioner
[1:52:35] Weightman started out as is is usually
[1:52:37] these are dealing with land use,
[1:52:39] adjacent properties, and the development
[1:52:40] of property. And so, what I'm hearing
[1:52:42] him say is those are the types of items
[1:52:44] that these night meetings would be
[1:52:46] helpful for. While LDC amendments are
[1:52:48] technically land use, yes, they affect
[1:52:51] development, yes. But we rarely get any
[1:52:54] public comment uh when it when it sits
[1:52:57] for that,
[1:52:57] >> which is ironic because the only one the
[1:52:59] statute tells you that you're supposed
[1:53:00] to have after 5:00 is land development
[1:53:03] code amendments. It's not it's not the
[1:53:05] other ones, which is I find ironic
[1:53:08] >> and budget.
[1:53:13] Chair Michelle
[1:53:14] >> Connor, what time does you said
[1:53:15] Hillsboro has a third meeting. What time
[1:53:17] is their
[1:53:19] their BOCC starts at 9ine and that third
[1:53:22] meeting is it what time?
[1:53:23] >> I don't believe there's a difference in
[1:53:24] time.
[1:53:24] >> They all start at 9:00.
[1:53:25] >> Hillsboro, they all start at 9:00.
[1:53:27] >> Yeah, they start at 9:00 and they roll.
[1:53:35] >> So, back to the land use. I don't
[1:53:37] consider what we
[1:53:40] pretty much look at for land use being
[1:53:42] sane. I'm looking at the comprehensive
[1:53:44] plan amendments. Those are the ones I'm
[1:53:46] talking about where I think the benefit
[1:53:48] of the night meeting is fine. And I
[1:53:50] think if you've got one that you could
[1:53:53] say is uncontested,
[1:53:55] there's been no objections to it, then
[1:53:57] let it stay regular.
[1:54:00] But that's the only thing I think we
[1:54:02] need to hear at night. I don't think the
[1:54:03] others matter to the same degree because
[1:54:06] you got flexibility with that land use.
[1:54:08] People can make a difference. When
[1:54:09] someone's got zoning already and they're
[1:54:11] looking for little changes, conditional
[1:54:13] uses, etc. I I don't think you need that
[1:54:16] attention to to shift the whole thing.
[1:54:19] >> The thing that comes to mind is the fact
[1:54:21] that you've got public hearing item.
[1:54:24] It's not land use, but it's public
[1:54:25] hearing.
[1:54:26] >> And you're going to have two public
[1:54:28] hearings. and the public hearing that
[1:54:30] you're going here in the afternoon is
[1:54:31] still one that a citizen can't be at
[1:54:34] unless it was at night.
[1:54:37] So that that gets to be an issue if you
[1:54:39] put part of the public you going to keep
[1:54:41] some of the public hearing items in
[1:54:43] daytime. They'll never make those. All
[1:54:47] right. So let's look at the one we just
[1:54:48] had in Hudson.
[1:54:50] They first came in for a land use
[1:54:53] change. The one on on Denton and Mattis.
[1:54:56] They came in for a land use change and
[1:54:58] they were going to go to 1,600 homes,
[1:55:00] right? There was enough affluent people
[1:55:02] that were able to come out and speak to
[1:55:04] it. What you had happen from that point
[1:55:07] is you took that whole item from
[1:55:10] [clears throat] 1600 and they realized
[1:55:11] they can't get all they wanted and they
[1:55:14] backed it down to sticking within their
[1:55:16] land use ukes that was already there to
[1:55:19] be granted.
[1:55:21] That's the type of one you can affect
[1:55:23] when you get a a zoning coming in like
[1:55:25] an like the ALF we just had coming right
[1:55:28] through. They were perfectly entitled to
[1:55:30] come in there. We can work on
[1:55:32] conditions. We got them. But you don't I
[1:55:34] don't think you need the night for that.
[1:55:36] That can be something I understand but
[1:55:39] less it's it's less significant. Land
[1:55:41] use is big. There's a reason they had
[1:55:43] these things only twice a year. What
[1:55:45] we've gone to is gone to a commonplace
[1:55:47] thing where it's every month you get to
[1:55:49] go do it.
[1:55:50] I mean had somewhere they tried to do on
[1:55:52] the other side of the gy like the Kent
[1:55:53] Cro one heard over there when it should
[1:55:55] have been over here right and I thought
[1:55:58] the two guys were there was on consent
[1:56:00] because they thought they had worked out
[1:56:01] the details
[1:56:03] now it's ironic those people were able
[1:56:04] to show up but they didn't but again
[1:56:07] just the the comprehensive plan land
[1:56:09] amendments those are the ones we have
[1:56:11] the missile flexibility and people can
[1:56:13] affect it the others they don't have as
[1:56:15] much
[1:56:15] >> so Mr. Cher, to be clear, I don't know
[1:56:17] that you can separate complaint
[1:56:19] amendments and resonings because
[1:56:22] as you know, you have a number of
[1:56:23] applications, particularly PDs, where
[1:56:26] they're coming to you on the same
[1:56:27] agenda, the comp plan amendment and the
[1:56:30] zoning. And I'm not sure you want to
[1:56:32] make the public have to show up two
[1:56:33] different
[1:56:34] >> meetings. So, I'm okay with those being
[1:56:36] heard at the same time like we do. That
[1:56:38] that that I'm okay with because it's the
[1:56:39] same thing.
[1:56:40] >> They have to be.
[1:56:41] >> Yeah, I'm good with that.
[1:56:42] >> Yeah.
[1:56:45] >> [snorts]
[1:56:46] >> Sorry, I was conferring with Connor.
[1:56:47] What were what were you good with, sir?
[1:56:50] >> So, when when we do the comprehensive
[1:56:51] land amendments, a lot of time MPD is
[1:56:53] coming with it. We hear them usually the
[1:56:55] same time. I think we should do that.
[1:56:57] >> So, if there's a companion together,
[1:56:59] >> yes.
[1:56:59] >> Okay.
[1:57:00] >> So, what I Okay. So,
[1:57:01] >> what I'm hearing you say is that the
[1:57:03] ones you would want to go tonight would
[1:57:04] be either comp all complaint amendments.
[1:57:08] >> I understand that, but I'm just
[1:57:09] understand what his request is. Your
[1:57:11] request is all comp plan amendments
[1:57:14] and any resonings that are with comp
[1:57:17] plan amendments.
[1:57:18] >> Yeah, they're companion MPUDS or or
[1:57:20] whatever they are.
[1:57:21] >> But if it's not if it's not related to a
[1:57:22] comp plan amendments,
[1:57:24] you'd be okay just being on a normal
[1:57:26] >> Yes.
[1:57:27] >> 1:30 a.m. 1:30 p.m. agenda.
[1:57:30] >> Yeah.
[1:57:31] >> Do you want to do 1:30 or were we going
[1:57:33] to have that meeting roll because that
[1:57:35] makes a difference when you advertise.
[1:57:37] So, couple things. Connor, can you
[1:57:39] summarize what you've heard so so far,
[1:57:41] please?
[1:57:41] >> Yeah. So, what we've heard so far is
[1:57:42] we're going to keep our two regular
[1:57:44] meetings starting at 10:00 a.m. In
[1:57:46] between those, we're going to have a
[1:57:47] separate third meeting dedicated to comp
[1:57:50] plan updates and their companion items
[1:57:51] in the evening. We'd have to determine
[1:57:54] what day of the week we want that to be
[1:57:56] standard as far as the month goes. Um, I
[1:57:59] think I've heard three as far as
[1:58:02] consensus goes. Obviously, to
[1:58:04] Commissioner Stark's point, you'd want
[1:58:05] to vote on it.
[1:58:06] I
[1:58:08] >> Yeah, I've got lots of board commitments
[1:58:10] and stuff and I don't think I
[1:58:11] >> Well, to be clear, when we start, this
[1:58:13] could also be discussed. So, we're we're
[1:58:16] putting the we've we've punted the board
[1:58:19] next year's board calendar on purpose,
[1:58:20] waiting for the board to kind of discuss
[1:58:22] this. I do have it teed up for October
[1:58:24] 6th, but I may have to look at that. So,
[1:58:26] how we start this, if this is the will
[1:58:29] of the board, you know, that's
[1:58:31] completely up to you. we could we could
[1:58:34] push it out a little bit further because
[1:58:36] there's going to be noticing
[1:58:37] requirements. I don't know what we have
[1:58:38] in the queue in terms of of of other
[1:58:41] items. So there's you you still retain
[1:58:43] some flexibility on that to Commissioner
[1:58:45] Starky's uh concerns. Don't it doesn't
[1:58:48] have to start January 1. It could start
[1:58:50] June of next year. uh for example,
[1:58:53] >> and Mr. Ro, I would uh I would
[1:58:57] appreciate us all thinking about it
[1:58:59] again and bringing this back and and
[1:59:01] really hashing out some more after we we
[1:59:04] we've set our piece about each one of
[1:59:06] us, but feel what really works for each
[1:59:09] of us and then could bring it back and
[1:59:11] and discuss it for a final vote. So,
[1:59:15] >> um
[1:59:16] >> um I do want to ask you about overtime
[1:59:19] and what's the impact on the budget
[1:59:21] because
[1:59:22] I didn't know we had extra money laying
[1:59:23] around.
[1:59:25] >> So, I I'd have to I'd have to take a
[1:59:27] look at that. Um, most of the people I
[1:59:29] see here are salaried uh with with some
[1:59:31] exceptions. Guess we'll put Gina on
[1:59:33] salary, too. We'll fix that problem. No,
[1:59:35] I'm kidding. We'll we'll take a look.
[1:59:37] >> Okay.
[1:59:38] >> Chair chair me.
[1:59:40] >> Um, do
[1:59:42] >> I I I I do want to um point out a couple
[1:59:45] of things. Um I think it's important
[1:59:47] particularly if we're looking at the
[1:59:48] land use or or some version of the land
[1:59:51] use in the evening is that the comp plan
[1:59:54] primarily deals with future land use
[1:59:56] changes. And so that that occurs when
[2:00:00] when the proposed use is not compatible
[2:00:02] with with the current future land use in
[2:00:05] the comp plan. And I think our goal with
[2:00:07] the the the Pasco 2050 is to reduce the
[2:00:12] number of future comp plan amendments.
[2:00:14] Um at least in the short term. Um I
[2:00:16] think I think that you know further that
[2:00:18] you get away from the adoption of that
[2:00:21] the likelihood that those may start
[2:00:22] creeping up because you know you're 10
[2:00:24] years out or or or eight years out. But
[2:00:27] I do want to note for the board in
[2:00:30] particular is when we're talking about
[2:00:31] resoning um and I think uh Mr. Goldstein
[2:00:34] was mentioning this is that as we look
[2:00:37] at MPUDs, these could be projects where
[2:00:40] the future land use um or or the MPU is
[2:00:44] consistent with the current future land
[2:00:47] use and therefore comp plan amendment
[2:00:49] may not be required. And many times
[2:00:51] these are the large projects, these
[2:00:53] larger MPUDs are the ones that
[2:00:55] potentially have contentious issues with
[2:00:57] neighbors and and and the community. And
[2:00:59] so I think that for for our purposes,
[2:01:02] for staff, it would be real helpful to
[2:01:04] really
[2:01:06] provide that distinction between these
[2:01:07] larger projects versus like a more
[2:01:10] simple reasonzoning like we saw this
[2:01:11] afternoon from an AR AC to an AR.
[2:01:15] >> Well, I think commot Commissioner Oak
[2:01:16] brings up a good point about
[2:01:19] waiting waiting to go through this. This
[2:01:21] is a great dialogue we've had.
[2:01:23] >> Yeah. um appreciate you bringing this
[2:01:24] forward, Commissioner Wayne, because
[2:01:25] it's something that I've always felt
[2:01:27] that our people aren't getting enough
[2:01:30] time with us and we don't have enough
[2:01:32] push for the developers to get the stuff
[2:01:34] we need because of the different uh
[2:01:36] regulations from the state. So, I I
[2:01:38] think it is good for us to wait. Uh
[2:01:40] Nikki [clears throat] says budget
[2:01:41] hearings as well. Uh, amendment three
[2:01:43] might be a factor as far what we look
[2:01:45] at, but I think the dialogue is good and
[2:01:47] maybe some more thought from everybody
[2:01:50] about what they think because I will
[2:01:51] tell you, uh, I was very pleased with
[2:01:53] every little idea that came through
[2:01:54] because a little bit different, a little
[2:01:56] twist, little twist. So, I think it's
[2:01:57] good to let all these things gel a
[2:01:59] little bit. Let's think about a little
[2:02:00] bit more and maybe bring it back in
[2:02:02] December or something and see where see
[2:02:04] where we go from there.
[2:02:05] >> Yeah, chairman, it it's important. You
[2:02:07] know, there's folks that take off work.
[2:02:08] I mean, if you're working hourly
[2:02:12] and they take off their prime, you know,
[2:02:14] they're taking off three, four hours to
[2:02:17] to come and share how, you know, the
[2:02:20] government's going to impact their life
[2:02:23] and uh they'll feel that or sometimes it
[2:02:26] may take all day and it shouldn't cost
[2:02:30] people money to have to come here and
[2:02:33] speak to us and um so I I think it
[2:02:39] good of this board to figure out a way
[2:02:41] to to make it work for folks and not
[2:02:44] have to take off work and be your
[2:02:45] retirees or salaried people. I you know
[2:02:48] a little bit different but folks who are
[2:02:50] working hourly um or you know even if
[2:02:54] you know they're a salaried project or
[2:02:57] person they may have big projects that
[2:02:59] day they have to get done they can't be
[2:03:01] here so I think evening an evening
[2:03:04] conversation is important. Okay, she
[2:03:06] >> I think in the meantime until we uh take
[2:03:09] this up again that we take um
[2:03:13] your suggestion of really getting the
[2:03:16] word out there. Um doing a big social
[2:03:19] media push of saying, you know, can't be
[2:03:21] there, join us online, come virtually.
[2:03:24] um you know maybe and not that we could
[2:03:28] make appointments or placeholders but
[2:03:30] maybe you know we could say develop
[2:03:32] something that says hey which I know
[2:03:34] would be hard because of discussion and
[2:03:36] stuff like that but when it comes to
[2:03:37] public hearing they sign up for a time
[2:03:39] slot so then if they are at work that
[2:03:42] they know that they're not going to have
[2:03:43] to be on hold forever. I mean I don't
[2:03:45] know I'm just throwing it out there but
[2:03:47] a social media push definitely until we
[2:03:48] pick this back up. I have a relating
[2:03:50] comment that I'm sorry.
[2:03:54] Uh, one thing that's very important, I
[2:03:57] think we need to stress this a little
[2:03:58] more to our citizens that if they will
[2:04:02] direct their emails or their calls
[2:04:06] >> to their district commissioner
[2:04:09] who knows the area they're in and they
[2:04:11] cover like I do,
[2:04:14] I know if they make a call to me, I know
[2:04:16] where to tell them how it can be fixed
[2:04:18] or what to attack on it to help that
[2:04:21] citizen. But if if you're in Newport
[2:04:24] Richie on the coast over here somewhere
[2:04:27] and you give me that email and that
[2:04:29] call, I don't have a clue
[2:04:31] [clears throat] because I'm not aware of
[2:04:32] the the way the landl.
[2:04:35] But I can handle my district. And if
[2:04:37] more people will do that, they'll get
[2:04:39] the answers they want quicker than even
[2:04:41] waiting for a public hearing or a
[2:04:43] meeting. and we'll know prior to those
[2:04:46] public hearings how our citizens feel
[2:04:48] when they reach out to in their district
[2:04:51] like that.
[2:04:52] >> So, it's half the county taken care of.
[2:04:54] >> Yeah.
[2:04:55] [laughter]
[2:04:58] >> Mr. Turkey,
[2:04:59] >> you know, um, someone sent us an email.
[2:05:01] I think we all got it about structure
[2:05:04] and emails and, um, I don't think we
[2:05:06] have the capability now. I'm hoping one
[2:05:08] day we'll get smarter using AI for some
[2:05:11] of the things that we do. But um
[2:05:15] part of the suggestion in that email was
[2:05:17] that that emails that come in somehow
[2:05:20] get categorized and compulated for that
[2:05:24] issue for that date.
[2:05:26] >> And I think I thought that was a good
[2:05:27] idea.
[2:05:28] >> So they then they don't get lost in the
[2:05:30] shuffle. Um and that we you know we're
[2:05:32] we're seeing what our public's saying if
[2:05:34] they can't be here. So, um
[2:05:38] I don't I don't think we have the
[2:05:39] ability to do that now. Um unless you're
[2:05:42] having our staff categorize
[2:05:44] >> I think we manually I think if we get
[2:05:46] emails I believe they are attached to
[2:05:47] the record if we have email opposition
[2:05:49] that we're able to
[2:05:50] >> you attach it.
[2:05:52] >> I've seen them attach that land use
[2:05:54] items before.
[2:05:54] >> We don't see that. I mean I don't see a
[2:05:57] compilation of emails that come to me
[2:05:59] before you the day of a hearing or
[2:06:01] anything like that. I mean, I see them
[2:06:03] when they come in randomly, but I
[2:06:06] thought that was a good idea. And I
[2:06:08] think that would also help our citizens
[2:06:10] think they are make sure they know their
[2:06:12] voices are getting heard.
[2:06:13] >> There's some way to
[2:06:16] >> Well, nothing being in person and
[2:06:18] hearing folks is so much stronger than
[2:06:20] an email. Emails get lost into outer
[2:06:23] space. To have somebody physically take
[2:06:26] their time and show up and care
[2:06:30] brings so much more value into the
[2:06:33] decisions that we all have to make. When
[2:06:36] someone takes time out of their day to
[2:06:39] do something that they don't want to
[2:06:40] have to do, they only reason they're
[2:06:43] coming to the government is because
[2:06:46] there's a problem and they're impacted.
[2:06:48] They're not here because they're happy
[2:06:50] to be here. And there's an email AI.
[2:06:57] None of that will ever replace having a
[2:07:00] human being in front of each other, eye
[2:07:02] to eye, sharing their feelings or their
[2:07:07] thoughts on a matter. It that will it
[2:07:10] will there's there's no comparison
[2:07:12] there.
[2:07:14] Dude, I think the social media for the
[2:07:16] virtual option is a good idea, but the
[2:07:18] way most applicant the way most
[2:07:20] neighbors find out about these hearings
[2:07:22] is the mailed notice from the applicant.
[2:07:25] So, I think that if you really want to
[2:07:27] get the word out, then staff needs to
[2:07:30] have the applicant start putting the
[2:07:32] virtual option somewhere in their mailed
[2:07:34] notices
[2:07:36] to the neighbors. Um because otherwise I
[2:07:39] mean that's the main way that most of
[2:07:40] them find out. So I don't you know if
[2:07:44] David heard that or one of the David's
[2:07:46] heard that but if you it's probably how
[2:07:48] you're going to have to get the word out
[2:07:50] I think or maybe even on the sign that
[2:07:53] gets posted because that's how most
[2:07:55] neighbors find out about
[2:07:56] >> Yeah, there's a lot of opportunity that
[2:07:58] I think we could we can exploit on that.
[2:08:01] >> Um Mr. Chairman, David Engel, planning
[2:08:03] and economic growth director. I I just
[2:08:05] want to like indicate to you we don't
[2:08:07] lose emails. They don't go missing.
[2:08:10] Emails come in. Uh if it's direct from a
[2:08:13] citizen or it's through a commissioner's
[2:08:15] office or the county administration,
[2:08:17] it's part of the official record.
[2:08:20] >> That wasn't what I was saying.
[2:08:21] >> Yeah.
[2:08:22] >> I I was saying this gentleman suggested
[2:08:24] to do a compilation.
[2:08:26] >> Well, I didn't say you guys do that, but
[2:08:27] >> I I didn't say you said it. Um but
[2:08:29] somebody said, "Oh, yeah, you could lose
[2:08:31] an email." We don't lose the emails.
[2:08:33] Now, is that part of the actual
[2:08:35] presentation? No, it's just part of the
[2:08:37] actual official record that the board
[2:08:39] has access to. So, we could do a
[2:08:41] compilation. Sure.
[2:08:42] >> We could have a um
[2:08:45] >> they do that like that
[2:08:46] >> folder that we can access or something.
[2:08:48] I don't know.
[2:08:49] >> You could have it's actually I I can
[2:08:50] show you. It's actually in the agenda
[2:08:52] record. It's it's online as an
[2:08:54] attachment to the agendas. I know some
[2:08:56] of you have hard copy agendas that your
[2:08:58] staff uses if you access through the
[2:09:00] board portal. Uh those there are a lot
[2:09:02] of items that are in there scanned.
[2:09:04] >> I review all these items in civic clerk
[2:09:06] and I often see compilations of correct
[2:09:08] [snorts] email objections
[2:09:11] >> in civic clerk
[2:09:11] >> 14 years.
[2:09:12] >> You know Amazon has a solution. Um if
[2:09:15] you try to buy a popular item and they
[2:09:17] have like a thousand people giving it
[2:09:19] four stars. If you go down AI goes
[2:09:22] through all the comments and they
[2:09:24] extrapolate and summarize.
[2:09:27] >> So you wouldn't be acting on it but
[2:09:28] would tweak your interest and you could
[2:09:30] look into it. We could do that.
[2:09:33] >> All right. I'm going to look and see.
[2:09:35] I'm on the online
[2:09:37] >> agenda.
[2:09:38] >> Well, to be clear, not everyone has
[2:09:40] email comments, but you'd have to you
[2:09:42] have to look at one where there's a lot
[2:09:44] of objection to it.
[2:09:45] >> You would typically see email comments.
[2:09:48] >> So, what I'm hearing is come back in
[2:09:50] December. You said December. That'll
[2:09:52] give us some time. Um, I'm seeing us
[2:09:56] narrowed from five options to maybe two.
[2:09:59] um one and a half, but we'll we'll we
[2:10:03] will we will look at that. And I think
[2:10:04] what we'll we'll come back with are some
[2:10:06] uh some options for how to do that third
[2:10:09] meeting. Location would be an option.
[2:10:11] We'll we'll look at costs, Commissioner
[2:10:13] Starky, because I do think if we do go
[2:10:14] to a different location, there would be
[2:10:16] some technology upgrades that would be
[2:10:18] necessary in order to to do what we do
[2:10:20] in these in these in these areas. So,
[2:10:23] we'll we'll be sure to pull all those
[2:10:25] together and um we can have a more
[2:10:27] focused conversation because now we're
[2:10:29] we've narrowed it down to what it is. In
[2:10:32] the meantime, however, I am going to
[2:10:33] push forward with the next year's
[2:10:36] calendar as we're currently doing
[2:10:38] business and then if the board decides
[2:10:40] to adopt and do something different, we
[2:10:42] can amend that calendar um at the
[2:10:44] appropriate times so they don't conflict
[2:10:46] with existing published public hearings.
[2:10:49] >> Sounds good.
[2:10:50] >> Sounds good.
[2:10:51] >> All right.
[2:10:52] Thank you.
[2:10:53] >> Thank you.
[2:10:54] >> Thank you team and thank you board for
[2:10:58] brainstorming here.
[2:11:00] >> Yeah, good brainstorm.
[2:11:00] >> I don't think the planes landed but
[2:11:02] we're flying.
[2:11:03] >> Great discussion though.
[2:11:04] >> All right, we'll close that and now
[2:11:06] we'll go to our 49 Jagger.
[2:11:08] >> All right. Well, I uh just wanted to
[2:11:10] make it clear on our board rules uh when
[2:11:13] we are speaking for the board or
[2:11:17] speaking for us as elected individual
[2:11:19] commissioners. So, I asked uh county
[2:11:23] attorney if he could help with that.
[2:11:28] >> So, I did um Commissioner Jagger did ask
[2:11:31] me to draft a rule to address um
[2:11:34] primarily issue of
[2:11:38] when the board is out in the public um
[2:11:41] acting on behalf of the board under what
[2:11:44] circumstances do you have authority to
[2:11:46] speak for the board as a whole? Um, so
[2:11:50] I've tried to draft a rule to address
[2:11:52] that situation.
[2:11:54] First I tried to address the situation
[2:11:56] where you're attending a groundbreaking,
[2:11:58] a ribbon cutting, some celebration, etc.
[2:12:02] Made it perfectly clear that in those
[2:12:03] situations that you do have authority to
[2:12:07] express appreciation on behalf of the
[2:12:09] full board. You don't need any delegated
[2:12:10] authority to do that. You can speak for
[2:12:12] the board at those ceremonial events. I
[2:12:16] don't think there's much controversy
[2:12:17] about that because you're probably doing
[2:12:18] that now. Um
[2:12:21] the more difficult issue to deal with,
[2:12:23] okay, what if it's a policy issue? So,
[2:12:26] um what I've tried to draft here if it's
[2:12:28] a policy issue is a limitation that you
[2:12:32] not speak for the entire board unless
[2:12:36] the board has voted to take an action on
[2:12:38] that policy issue and delegated
[2:12:40] authority to one of you to speak for the
[2:12:43] board. So, for example, I'll give you an
[2:12:45] example. Say it's the board's
[2:12:46] legislative agenda and the board adopts
[2:12:49] the legislative agenda and they send one
[2:12:51] of you up to DC or Tallahassee to speak
[2:12:54] in that legislative agenda. That would
[2:12:56] be an example of a situation where the
[2:12:58] board has voted on that legislative
[2:13:00] agenda. They delegated authority for you
[2:13:02] to advocate for the board for that
[2:13:05] legislative agenda and you have that
[2:13:07] delegated authority to speak for the
[2:13:08] board in that circumstance.
[2:13:11] If you don't have that delegated
[2:13:12] authority, what this rule says is that
[2:13:14] you can still speak on policy issues.
[2:13:16] And you all have the first amendment
[2:13:18] right to speak on policy all you want.
[2:13:20] But it says that if you're going to do
[2:13:22] that, you make it clear that you're
[2:13:23] speaking either in your individual
[2:13:25] capacity or in your capacity as a
[2:13:27] commission commissioner of your
[2:13:29] individual district and not for the
[2:13:31] entire board.
[2:13:32] >> Question. If I use the word I, what does
[2:13:36] that mean?
[2:13:37] >> I think I is in your individual
[2:13:39] capacity. Thank you.
[2:13:41] >> Um, now what this does make clear though
[2:13:44] is that if you're speaking in your
[2:13:45] individual capacity that you not use
[2:13:48] your board elected position when you're
[2:13:52] when you're engaging in that um in that
[2:13:55] individual capacity. So the theory is
[2:13:58] because if the board has elected you to
[2:14:00] be either chair or vice chair or second
[2:14:03] vice chair that is a board-eleed
[2:14:05] position that you all sort of
[2:14:07] collectively agreed elected you to that
[2:14:09] position. So if you use that term the
[2:14:12] public may believe that you are speaking
[2:14:14] on ta behalf of the entire board if
[2:14:17] you're using that elected position.
[2:14:19] >> Even if I use the word I all through my
[2:14:21] statements or through someone's
[2:14:23] statements. If you're only using I,
[2:14:25] you're not using chairman, I don't think
[2:14:27] then I think that you're just speaking
[2:14:28] in your imageable capacity.
[2:14:30] >> If someone's reading a letter and
[2:14:32] they're looking at the letter I, that
[2:14:35] pronoun meaning one person, it goes
[2:14:37] through the whole thing. When you get
[2:14:39] down to the very end, whether it says
[2:14:41] what district you're from or the chair
[2:14:42] or vice chair, doesn't really matter.
[2:14:45] >> What this rule says is that if you're
[2:14:47] using chair, that implies that you're
[2:14:50] speaking on behalf of the entire board.
[2:14:52] >> Use the word chair.
[2:14:54] If you if you want if it's I what this
[2:14:56] rule says you should be saying either
[2:14:58] just commissioner Mariano
[2:15:00] >> if I was represent the board I would
[2:15:02] would say we
[2:15:06] >> is there any way to clarify like if I
[2:15:08] was writing something I would say I you
[2:15:11] know am speaking on behalf of
[2:15:17] >> I guess I guess my question back to you
[2:15:19] is if it is just in your individual
[2:15:21] capacity
[2:15:23] Why do you feel like the need to put the
[2:15:25] word chair? Why do you feel the need to
[2:15:27] sign it chair at the end?
[2:15:31] >> Don't was just announced that. So if
[2:15:33] that's the only problem, I'm okay with
[2:15:35] just leaving chair or vice chair when
[2:15:36] you're writing your own stuff. I don't
[2:15:38] care.
[2:15:40] >> That's the per the primary purpose.
[2:15:42] >> That's all we need though. We don't need
[2:15:43] all the other mumbo jumbo to go with it.
[2:15:45] And [snorts] I think I don't even need
[2:15:46] you to put something in writing. That
[2:15:48] could be just the policy we do. If we're
[2:15:49] going to write something on our behalf,
[2:15:51] we can say the district we're from and
[2:15:54] leave it at that. Why do we get more
[2:15:56] complex than that?
[2:16:00] >> I mean, it's up to the board of whether
[2:16:01] you want to put me in your rules or not.
[2:16:04] I think Mr.
[2:16:06] >> Chair,
[2:16:08] >> I remember when I when I was chair, the
[2:16:10] only time I actually uh spoke for the
[2:16:13] board was when someone asked me to write
[2:16:16] a letter or something of that in support
[2:16:19] and I'd always ask for a vote and we all
[2:16:21] voted and that's when I would use it as
[2:16:24] speaking for the board. I never really
[2:16:27] spoke for the board other than being
[2:16:31] recognized as chair and you're speaking
[2:16:34] groundbreaking or something of that
[2:16:35] nature. You know, you would normally
[2:16:37] speak that way because you're chair and
[2:16:40] you would be given that privilege to do
[2:16:41] so, but other times I'm speaking as Ron
[2:16:45] Opie, commissioner of district one and
[2:16:47] that's that's it. So,
[2:16:50] um
[2:16:51] >> yeah, I think there is a distinction
[2:16:54] when you're talking about a policy
[2:16:56] >> versus
[2:16:59] add a ribbon cutting or
[2:17:01] >> right something. You certainly
[2:17:03] >> there is a difference.
[2:17:04] >> Shouldn't be speaking about a policy and
[2:17:07] then putting the word chair unless it's
[2:17:10] a policy that the board has voted on
[2:17:13] >> which makes it real difficult during our
[2:17:15] meetings because the chair is the chair
[2:17:18] but he's also a spokesman for his
[2:17:20] district. So at a meet board meeting
[2:17:23] like this if you're speaking sometimes
[2:17:25] you will be recognized because you're
[2:17:27] chairman as speaking for the board
[2:17:30] whether you are speaking for yourself or
[2:17:32] >> that's different because we're all here.
[2:17:33] >> It's happened. Yeah. And we're all here
[2:17:36] >> right.
[2:17:37] >> Yeah. I mean, I think it's I I think it
[2:17:39] can't hurt to have,
[2:17:41] you know, just safeguards in place, but
[2:17:44] that's just my opin opinion because I
[2:17:47] would just me speaking as for
[2:17:51] commissioner in my district, I want to
[2:17:52] make sure that nothing is said on my
[2:17:55] behalf like that that is that may be
[2:17:58] that person's feelings but not my
[2:17:59] feelings. So, and um especially, you
[2:18:03] know, when it comes to policy, I may
[2:18:06] have a diff a different opinion than
[2:18:09] someone else. So, I would want to just
[2:18:11] make sure that they're speaking for
[2:18:13] themselves and not for the board. So, I
[2:18:16] I think safeguards are are good. That's
[2:18:19] my opinion, but it's the pleasure of the
[2:18:21] board.
[2:18:24] >> I'm Mr. W. I'm indifferent, but I'm kind
[2:18:27] of on an island sometimes on policy
[2:18:29] matters anyway. Um,
[2:18:33] whatever makes the majority feel
[2:18:36] comfortable
[2:18:37] where I am with it.
[2:18:39] >> So, there is a change. Uh,
[2:18:42] >> I don't think there's anything wrong
[2:18:43] with what this is saying. It's for for
[2:18:45] all of us.
[2:18:46] >> Oh, I thought it was two pages.
[2:18:50] >> We need a recess to read this. chairman.
[2:18:53] >> Well,
[2:18:54] >> I tried to put it in large
[2:18:54] [clears throat] print so that you could
[2:18:56] change my font and that pages.
[2:18:59] >> Yeah, I I tried to change the font so it
[2:19:01] was readable.
[2:19:01] >> These would be these size 18.
[2:19:02] >> I I will tell you that a a situation
[2:19:04] came up when I was chair I got a phone
[2:19:07] call that asked me to sign something
[2:19:11] I won't say here. Um, but I refused to
[2:19:14] sign it because even though I was chair,
[2:19:18] my board had not voted on it. And I
[2:19:21] said, "I will not do that to my board."
[2:19:23] >> Yeah.
[2:19:24] >> And um really shame on you for asking
[2:19:26] me. And um it wouldn't have in my
[2:19:31] opinion it would have put everyone in
[2:19:33] jeopardy and I wouldn't I wouldn't do
[2:19:35] it.
[2:19:36] >> So that's there's discretion in
[2:19:38] everything to do, right? That was good
[2:19:41] discretion.
[2:19:42] And I I can appreciate it and and again
[2:19:45] I don't think
[2:19:47] >> and that was a powerful person who was
[2:19:48] asking me to sign something. Let me tell
[2:19:50] you.
[2:19:51] >> So I just think that
[2:19:54] if you're going to be speaking for
[2:19:56] yourself [snorts]
[2:19:58] and you want to put your district down,
[2:19:59] so be it. Leave it at that. Just don't
[2:20:01] mention your chair or vice chair and let
[2:20:03] the pronouns say what you're saying. And
[2:20:06] I'm okay with changing that. Do I do you
[2:20:08] think I need a big page document like
[2:20:10] this? I really don't. I think we just
[2:20:11] got to agree. I'm not going to do that.
[2:20:13] >> Right. Yeah. Yeah.
[2:20:15] >> That's understandable.
[2:20:17] [snorts]
[2:20:21] >> All right. Anything else on this issue?
[2:20:22] >> Well, I haven't I have
[2:20:24] >> Well, I guess I just need to know
[2:20:25] whether um am I you all asking me to put
[2:20:28] this in your rules or not?
[2:20:30] >> I'm not
[2:20:33] >> I don't know.
[2:20:34] >> Let me let me reread it. We've had a
[2:20:36] good conversation. I'm not sure that's
[2:20:38] so necessary, but
[2:20:41] >> All right. Well, I think
[2:20:42] >> I think we all have discussion on that.
[2:20:45] >> Good point.
[2:20:46] >> Yeah. And um and I I just have a a
[2:20:49] little thought. Um
[2:20:50] >> Mr. Shy,
[2:20:51] >> thank you so much, Chair. Um
[2:20:54] and that was on really the
[2:21:00] um how do I say this? Uh Robert's rules
[2:21:03] on on how to run a meeting. And
[2:21:05] >> well, that's his rule. So, let me pass
[2:21:07] this one out. Yes,
[2:21:13] >> this one's shorter.
[2:21:14] >> Yes.
[2:21:17] >> Well, I have a way I do it here. This
[2:21:20] >> one goes to me.
[2:21:21] >> It's even smaller. [laughter]
[2:21:22] >> No way.
[2:21:24] >> And it's red.
[2:21:27] [laughter]
[2:21:27] >> You can put this on 60 pages.
[2:21:29] >> I'm doing my best.
[2:21:30] >> So, before you before, Commissioner
[2:21:33] Stark, let me just explain what I
[2:21:34] drafted here. So you already had an
[2:21:37] existing rule in your rules of procedure
[2:21:39] which is rule 9.4 that says that members
[2:21:42] shall be recognized by the chair. Um so
[2:21:45] it's already in your rules but that rule
[2:21:47] wasn't clear that it apply also applies
[2:21:49] when you're questioning applicants staff
[2:21:52] or witnesses during public hearings. So
[2:21:54] that's was added but then the more
[2:21:56] important change is that it doesn't
[2:21:57] really address the order in which um the
[2:22:01] chair is supposed to recognize members.
[2:22:04] So, this attempts to do that in a way
[2:22:06] that's generally consistent with
[2:22:08] Robert's rules of order. Um, but I'll
[2:22:11] let Commissioner Sty add to that if she
[2:22:13] wants to.
[2:22:14] >> Well, that's it because I
[2:22:16] >> Thank you so much. So, we we've we've
[2:22:17] had some meetings that I thought were
[2:22:21] running might have been running uh a
[2:22:24] foul of Robert Fools on how to run a
[2:22:27] proper meeting. And so,
[2:22:30] um, and I'll just I'll just go, by the
[2:22:32] way, I I was running it when I was
[2:22:34] chair, and I'm not saying I'm perfect,
[2:22:36] but I have studied Robert's rules a lot
[2:22:39] since I've been on too many zillion
[2:22:41] boards. Um, and that is that when the
[2:22:44] chair opens up a topic for discussion,
[2:22:48] it should start. Now, I I chose to start
[2:22:52] geographically.
[2:22:54] I started there, then there, then here,
[2:22:57] then there, and then chair,
[2:22:59] >> and then a lot of times you missed me,
[2:23:01] Mr. Ro.
[2:23:01] >> I [laughter] I tried hard. Well, no, I I
[2:23:05] started just starting with you.
[2:23:07] >> I want I want one, too. But
[2:23:09] >> But when I always start that way now,
[2:23:12] when you start engaging in more debate
[2:23:13] than just opening debate,
[2:23:16] >> um you have to look both ways all the
[2:23:18] time. And I and that's why sometimes I'm
[2:23:19] like this, too. But um um I just think
[2:23:23] that
[2:23:26] this is the proper way to run a meeting
[2:23:29] and and be respectful that when you're
[2:23:31] chair it's you should in my opinion you
[2:23:35] really shouldn't go first. Uh chair
[2:23:38] >> should be going last.
[2:23:39] >> Um and you need to hear the opinions of
[2:23:43] everyone needs to be able to have their
[2:23:45] say um before that happens.
[2:23:50] Commissioner Oakley, you gonna give a
[2:23:51] permission to speak now? [laughter]
[2:23:54] >> Yeah. Can I have permission? Okay.
[2:23:56] >> Um,
[2:23:57] >> we could do that button thing.
[2:23:58] >> The fact of it is when when I'm chair, I
[2:24:01] recognize other members other than me
[2:24:03] because sometimes we all don't have
[2:24:05] something to say, but one or two might.
[2:24:07] So, you recognize those members. uh when
[2:24:10] I was chair of uh Swift Mode way back in
[2:24:14] 2010,
[2:24:16] there was a certain person on the board,
[2:24:18] they're a board member, but if you
[2:24:21] recognize them every time they raise a
[2:24:22] hand, they would be running the meeting
[2:24:24] and the meeting wouldn't go through like
[2:24:27] it should. So, I use Robert's rules to
[2:24:30] recognize each person and let them speak
[2:24:32] prior to that person being able to speak
[2:24:35] again.
[2:24:36] >> Yes.
[2:24:36] >> And it it did control the meeting. So,
[2:24:39] but I always recognize if I'm chair,
[2:24:41] I'll try to recognize the members uh
[2:24:44] before myself. So, yeah, I think that's
[2:24:47] the right way to do it.
[2:24:50] >> So, and I agree that's the way you're
[2:24:52] supposed to do it.
[2:24:53] >> Whoever has to me whoever's got the hand
[2:24:55] up first, that's where you call. And you
[2:24:57] may not see it. Sometimes you may miss
[2:24:59] somebody. So, you got two sides if
[2:25:01] you're in the middle. So, you may not
[2:25:02] piss pick it up, but I go whoever is
[2:25:04] first and I go from there.
[2:25:05] >> Yeah. Um, and as far as, you know, to to
[2:25:08] bring up members being recognized by the
[2:25:11] chair, that is the number one violation
[2:25:14] that that goes on. And and Commissioner
[2:25:16] Stark, you in all fairness,
[2:25:18] >> that's me
[2:25:19] >> that you are it [laughter]
[2:25:20] and and it's I mean, you just literally,
[2:25:24] we could be in the middle of discussion
[2:25:25] and bam, you're you're popping in. So,
[2:25:27] it's like to bring this up. I'm glad
[2:25:29] you're recognizing
[2:25:30] >> it that way. [laughter]
[2:25:31] >> Okay. But we're now board members and
[2:25:33] we're not supposed to do it that way.
[2:25:34] supposed to go and wait and listen
[2:25:36] >> and then we go we call. So I mean I I
[2:25:38] think and I think it would do better and
[2:25:40] I tell we sit on other boards too where
[2:25:41] it just go goes rapid fire just people
[2:25:43] oh yeah fire in fire out but I think
[2:25:45] here we can go. Now, let me ask this
[2:25:47] because we don't always do this, but I
[2:25:49] try to um because some sometimes Mike
[2:25:51] will even jump in when he's when he sees
[2:25:53] an issue, but do we if a if a staff
[2:25:56] person wants to speak um do we want to
[2:25:59] take the break, give them the permission
[2:26:01] to go forward? If they're start talking,
[2:26:03] do you want me to stop them till I get
[2:26:04] their attention, recognize them, or how
[2:26:06] do we want to handle that? because that
[2:26:08] that is a thing that we can do
[2:26:10] differently. But how do you want to
[2:26:11] handle as far as like if staff wants to
[2:26:13] interject like David Allen did a couple
[2:26:14] times today got something to add that
[2:26:16] was good David come up
[2:26:18] >> I would recognize him and let him speak
[2:26:20] right
[2:26:21] it's in the flow because what's happened
[2:26:24] is David's heard something from the deis
[2:26:26] up here
[2:26:27] >> that that has keyed something that he's
[2:26:29] thinking about that brought it to his
[2:26:31] mind. So let him speak because that fits
[2:26:34] in
[2:26:35] >> okay
[2:26:35] >> the conversation. So, I'll ask staff
[2:26:37] just get the attention of the chair to
[2:26:39] be able to speak and then go, not just
[2:26:41] jump into the conversation. Now, David,
[2:26:42] I had to stop you a little bit because
[2:26:44] at one point I had two commissioners
[2:26:46] wanted to speak and you wanted to speak,
[2:26:47] but
[2:26:48] >> I thought that that that needed that
[2:26:49] commissioners needed to go first.
[2:26:51] >> I agree with that. I apologize for that.
[2:26:53] >> Commission, you're okay. Um, I want to
[2:26:56] say that, um, if you've listened to the
[2:27:00] planning commissioners
[2:27:03] and there, um, and Chuck's been a
[2:27:05] awesome chair for many, many years.
[2:27:07] >> Oh, yeah.
[2:27:08] >> But something's got gotten away from
[2:27:10] them as far as discussion.
[2:27:14] Um, what aas here have been to the
[2:27:16] planning commission meetings. and David
[2:27:17] Engel. I mean, there are it's not I
[2:27:22] don't know if it's appropriate to put
[2:27:24] some boundaries on them, but sometimes
[2:27:28] some of those members go on for hours
[2:27:30] and and it to me it's it's it it
[2:27:33] shouldn't be like that. You're there.
[2:27:36] >> I'm there, but I'm not the chair. So, I
[2:27:38] mean, the chair ultimately has to has to
[2:27:40] be the one that reigns that in.
[2:27:42] >> Yeah.
[2:27:45] I mean, Robert, I mean, you don't have
[2:27:47] unlimited hours of speaking time to ram
[2:27:50] your point through and frankly insult
[2:27:52] some of the staff because I've seen him
[2:27:55] doing that.
[2:27:57] >> But, you know, each and every
[2:27:59] >> doesn't have good ideas. Each and every
[2:28:00] one of us have things to say at times,
[2:28:03] but it may be Miss Jagger or Miss Starky
[2:28:07] that that'll say something that actually
[2:28:10] hits hits a little spot in my mind what
[2:28:13] I'm thinking that makes me want to talk
[2:28:15] where before I might not have wanted to
[2:28:17] speak at all.
[2:28:18] >> So, but it it happens.
[2:28:21] >> No. And then the dialogue can go from
[2:28:23] commission to commissioner. You go like
[2:28:24] two or three times. There's nothing
[2:28:26] wrong with that. And then sometimes just
[2:28:27] something else will come up and go.
[2:28:28] >> Yeah. But I I I generally speak the way
[2:28:32] we respect each other going through
[2:28:33] other than the jumping in
[2:28:35] >> is we I think we do it pretty well. I I
[2:28:37] really do and I and I'm very happy with
[2:28:39] that. But yeah, we just get make sure we
[2:28:41] get the attention of the chair. I think
[2:28:42] it's a better way to run the meeting. It
[2:28:44] makes it better for the staff, the
[2:28:45] clerk's office to keep recording who's
[2:28:47] who's speaking at what time. So they got
[2:28:49] to flip around like who's saying what.
[2:28:51] >> That's the that's the point of it. So we
[2:28:53] can document the meeting,
[2:28:54] >> right? So
[2:28:56] >> Mr. starting
[2:28:57] >> um when we're at like our big commission
[2:29:00] meeting uh with the three commissioners
[2:29:03] or if you're down at um I think it's the
[2:29:05] region regional planning council. No, um
[2:29:08] at the TMA meetings.
[2:29:11] So, so when we want to speak, we have a
[2:29:13] thing that goes like this, right? At
[2:29:16] when I ran TBarta and the TMA meeting.
[2:29:19] So, you can put your name tent up.
[2:29:21] >> Yeah. and you get the attention or um at
[2:29:24] at those other meetings you press a red
[2:29:27] button and a light shows up. But all we
[2:29:30] have is to go like this.
[2:29:32] >> I I don't think that's such a great I
[2:29:35] don't know. Is there a better way?
[2:29:37] >> It's a small board. I mean again with
[2:29:39] the flexibility of turning around look
[2:29:40] looking for one side to the other side.
[2:29:42] I mean like I said sometimes you'll miss
[2:29:43] one to the other. You get my two hands
[2:29:44] over here and all of a sudden you're
[2:29:45] getting nowhere there. So I mean that
[2:29:47] can happen but it's a small board. It's
[2:29:49] not like a a giant room where the
[2:29:51] Roberts was really written for as
[2:29:53] >> I might bring something that gets
[2:29:54] attention. I won't tell you what it is.
[2:29:57] >> Oh, [laughter] I think you're going to
[2:29:58] be fine.
[2:29:59] >> I think you're going to be fine.
[2:30:02] >> Starting the show bullhorn.
[2:30:07] >> Head on a swivel, right? [laughter] Head
[2:30:09] on a swivel.
[2:30:11] >> Little horn.
[2:30:14] [laughter]
[2:30:15] >> Oh, this is great. We have we get to
[2:30:17] pick on each other without getting mad.
[2:30:19] >> So
[2:30:20] >> like let Nikki help you actually. She
[2:30:22] put a hand up. There's one over there.
[2:30:26] >> So am I amending the rules to this or
[2:30:30] not? I guess I'm
[2:30:31] >> This is good. Don't you think that's
[2:30:32] good? I think we should put that in.
[2:30:34] >> I don't know.
[2:30:35] >> We don't We We have rules, but they're
[2:30:38] just There's nothing. This is not just
[2:30:41] for us. This is for future boards. What
[2:30:44] would we do with Robert's rules?
[2:30:46] Generally
[2:30:46] >> that is Robert's rules.
[2:30:47] >> I know. So what do we need to redo it
[2:30:48] for?
[2:30:49] >> It's not strictly in accordance with
[2:30:50] Robert's rules because what Robert will
[2:30:52] say is that
[2:30:53] >> sorry is that you're supposed to
[2:30:55] recognize the motion maker first and
[2:30:58] then go to competing sides of the debate
[2:31:00] which I didn't put that in here because
[2:31:02] I don't [clears throat] we don't always
[2:31:03] know who the competing sides of the
[2:31:04] debate is. So I just said motion maker
[2:31:06] first and then whoever raises their hand
[2:31:08] next. I thought that'd be easier to
[2:31:10] administer. So, it isn't strictly in
[2:31:12] accordance with Robert's rules, but it
[2:31:13] it's a slightly modified version of
[2:31:16] Robert's rules.
[2:31:17] >> And and again, I don't think we need to
[2:31:19] get into that. I mean, I I think the way
[2:31:21] we do things, we call in who's pretty
[2:31:23] much hands up and that the conversations
[2:31:24] go and sometimes someone fires up
[2:31:26] something else that you didn't think of
[2:31:28] and go. So, I I mean, it's a small
[2:31:30] board. It's not designed for Robert's
[2:31:32] rules, but I don't think you need to get
[2:31:33] that specific to all this here. I think
[2:31:35] generally speaking, we run a meeting
[2:31:37] that's pretty good and everybody gets
[2:31:38] their hand in, everybody gets a dialogue
[2:31:40] and I got to say, especially this board,
[2:31:42] the dialogues that go through here, I
[2:31:43] think are phenomenal.
[2:31:44] >> Is that for me,
[2:31:44] >> Commissioner Oakley?
[2:31:45] >> I think a good example of what we're
[2:31:47] talking about, how to run a meeting is
[2:31:49] actually happened today because I feel
[2:31:51] like it's gone very well today.
[2:31:53] >> Yeah, we really do.
[2:31:56] >> Yeah. Chairman,
[2:31:58] >> and every chair is going to have a
[2:32:00] different management style.
[2:32:02] >> Who's that next time? Well, you get a
[2:32:05] red light, [laughter]
[2:32:07] Commissioner Starky. Whatever Whatever
[2:32:09] she has laser pointers, [laughter] star
[2:32:13] it be Star Wars up here, you know.
[2:32:15] >> Oh, wait a minute.
[2:32:16] >> Yeah,
[2:32:17] >> this would be the first time that comes
[2:32:19] over and sits me.
[2:32:21] I I I think I think this board has
[2:32:24] fantastic
[2:32:25] >> long time
[2:32:26] >> dialogue and I think this board
[2:32:30] has fantastic open dialogue and we get
[2:32:33] through whatever the issue is at hand
[2:32:35] fairly smoothly no matter the case and
[2:32:40] um it can get a little hectic sometimes
[2:32:42] but overall everything runs
[2:32:46] smoothly
[2:32:47] >> I think so.
[2:32:48] >> Commissioner Oakley
[2:32:50] Well, I'm just [laughter] I was just
[2:32:53] curious why every time um
[2:32:56] Miss Starky was a swing person ever
[2:32:59] every time a new com
[2:33:00] >> I'm a swinger
[2:33:01] >> chairman come she [laughter] she comes
[2:33:03] once it brings me back to 10 years ago
[2:33:06] when one of our first meetings that I
[2:33:08] had and I was here and Stark had been
[2:33:10] here and she came in someone had
[2:33:12] mentioned that she'd come in a little
[2:33:14] late a lot of times and so the first
[2:33:17] time she came in it was about 10 minutes
[2:33:19] after we started or may not have even
[2:33:22] started yet, but I leaned over to her
[2:33:24] and said, "Welcome to our 10:15
[2:33:26] meeting." [laughter] So, but it was all
[2:33:29] in fun and it's all been good. So, good
[2:33:33] relationships.
[2:33:35] >> Mr. Goldstein,
[2:33:37] >> um, I don't really need to amend the
[2:33:38] rules until whenever you make a decision
[2:33:41] on the board meeting times, which is
[2:33:44] December. So if you all want to just
[2:33:46] think about if this is not an issue by
[2:33:48] December and you would don't want to
[2:33:49] amend the rules, we can just evaluate.
[2:33:51] I'm saying if you want to just defer
[2:33:52] this issue to whenever December comes
[2:33:54] around and we have that discussion
[2:33:56] again, I'm fine with that.
[2:33:57] >> I think we should table.
[2:34:01] >> It's up to the board though.
[2:34:03] >> I have to count.
[2:34:05] >> I'm just saying I'd like to not have to
[2:34:06] amend the rules multiple times. So I'd
[2:34:08] rather just
[2:34:09] >> do it once in December when or whenever
[2:34:12] we're going to amend the meeting time.
[2:34:14] might be a good time to partner it with
[2:34:16] the meeting schedule. Anything that
[2:34:18] deals with board policy and meeting and
[2:34:20] and structure, any of those items, I
[2:34:22] think they should come as one package.
[2:34:27] >> Yeah, we can we can certainly
[2:34:28] >> I don't necessarily think we need to
[2:34:30] rule, but if it's the schedule or any
[2:34:32] other management policies that the board
[2:34:36] feels it needs to to discuss and if that
[2:34:39] if that due date's in December,
[2:34:42] right, county attorney? Well, that well
[2:34:43] that's what I'm hearing. They're going
[2:34:44] to bring back to you the meeting time
[2:34:45] discussion. So, my point is if you amend
[2:34:48] your meeting times, I have to amend the
[2:34:49] rules because your meeting time.
[2:34:53] >> Yeah,
[2:34:53] >> I'd have to amend the rules.
[2:34:55] >> I'd like to I'd like to just do any rule
[2:34:58] changes all at the same time is my
[2:34:59] point.
[2:35:00] >> So, I think David's just asking if
[2:35:01] you've got any more in mind, let me
[2:35:04] know. And then
[2:35:05] >> think about this one or any other rule
[2:35:07] changes.
[2:35:08] >> I'd like to just do it all whenever we
[2:35:10] do that larger change to the rules. that
[2:35:12] same conversation now.
[2:35:14] >> Well, I wouldn't
[2:35:19] Mr. Chair [laughter]
[2:35:22] >> I wouldn't call that a rule change.
[2:35:24] That's a clarification of a properly run
[2:35:26] meeting.
[2:35:27] >> That's just
[2:35:28] >> I don't know if we need to do that.
[2:35:32] >> That's just Robert's rule.
[2:35:34] >> That's just that's that's the way to run
[2:35:35] a meeting.
[2:35:37] >> Well, now that we're going to be calling
[2:35:39] and being recognized, I think we're
[2:35:40] going to go a lot smoother anyway. It'll
[2:35:42] be good.
[2:35:42] >> Do you have to stand up when you want to
[2:35:44] be recognized or you What do you do?
[2:35:46] >> I'm standing to stretch. [laughter]
[2:35:50] >> No, we have commissioner items.
[2:35:52] >> I'm sure the chair will stay here.
[2:35:54] >> All right. So, we're done with this.
[2:35:55] >> Yeah.
[2:35:55] >> All right. Let's move on. Commissioner
[2:35:56] items. Commissioner,
[2:35:58] >> I have not.
[2:36:01] >> I've enjoyed the meeting today. Very
[2:36:02] good.
[2:36:03] >> All right. Commissioner W.
[2:36:04] >> Yes. One thing. So, [clears throat] the
[2:36:05] 10 with the ten of budget 101 start date
[2:36:09] in instruction. And I've talked the cat
[2:36:11] administrator and county attorney about
[2:36:12] this. I think we need to you know we're
[2:36:15] a $2.4 billion organization and this
[2:36:18] board has uh you know essentially two
[2:36:21] direct employees, county administrator
[2:36:23] and county attorney. We have a new
[2:36:24] county attorney and you know hopefully
[2:36:27] to see
[2:36:29] you know some great progress
[2:36:32] moving forward and streamlining
[2:36:35] everything that needs done within the
[2:36:36] county attorney's office. I think I'd
[2:36:39] like this board to consider having
[2:36:41] annual performance reviews in a more in
[2:36:44] a formal fashion for the county
[2:36:46] administrator and the county attorney
[2:36:48] and develop something in in um maybe in
[2:36:53] Q but make it make it an actual policy
[2:36:56] so no matter who's on the board that the
[2:36:59] administrator and the and the attorney
[2:37:01] have a have a formal annual review
[2:37:03] process and then as we figure out what
[2:37:06] we're measuring for the performance
[2:37:07] performance reviews, give each
[2:37:09] department time, top three things, type
[2:37:12] five things that we're measuring off of.
[2:37:14] Um, to go through the reviews and then
[2:37:17] with their compensation packages and
[2:37:19] that sort of thing. So, organization
[2:37:22] this size, I [clears throat] think it'd
[2:37:24] be appropriate for this board to
[2:37:25] actually have a more formal process and
[2:37:28] it be codified in in rule that we we do
[2:37:31] that. So, I bring that up to see what
[2:37:33] everybody thinks. We used to
[2:37:35] >> Comm.
[2:37:37] >> We used to do that. Um, but I haven't
[2:37:39] done a performance in a decade.
[2:37:42] >> That's we did it at uh Tampa Bay Water
[2:37:44] did that.
[2:37:45] >> Yeah.
[2:37:46] >> Yes. Yeah.
[2:37:47] >> Same on you,
[2:37:47] >> Chair. Point of order.
[2:37:49] >> Yeah.
[2:37:49] >> Are we going to follow these rules or
[2:37:50] [laughter] not? I just want to know.
[2:37:52] >> What are we going to do?
[2:37:54] >> We're just going to talk to [laughter]
[2:37:56] you.
[2:37:56] >> He's hidden behind set.
[2:38:01] [laughter]
[2:38:02] Use your right in me. Easy to smash mand
[2:38:06] me to move me [laughter]
[2:38:07] move me back. But the water management
[2:38:09] district when I was on the water
[2:38:11] governing board, there's an annual
[2:38:12] performance review process and a a form
[2:38:16] that the board each board member fills
[2:38:17] out, but it's done annually and it's and
[2:38:20] there's metrics tied to it, the
[2:38:21] executive director's raise or what have
[2:38:23] you. It's it's a very formal process and
[2:38:27] I feel that that we need to do this do
[2:38:29] this here especially as the county
[2:38:32] grows, government grows and you know it
[2:38:34] becomes a more uh corporate style
[2:38:37] professional organization and uh there's
[2:38:39] accountability on the elected body and
[2:38:41] there should be uh a formal
[2:38:44] accountability measure to its two
[2:38:46] designated
[2:38:47] uh hires.
[2:38:50] >> Commissioner
[2:38:50] >> um I want to say we did that in the
[2:38:52] school board as well.
[2:38:53] >> Yeah. like so and it was very effective
[2:38:55] and I think it's a great idea so I'm all
[2:38:58] for it
[2:39:00] >> and I'll agree too regional planning
[2:39:01] council does it so I think it's it's
[2:39:05] it's a nice easy measure if we can
[2:39:07] compare what the other counties do might
[2:39:08] make it easier rather than reinventing
[2:39:09] the wheel so I bring those back to us
[2:39:11] take a look at it
[2:39:14] anything else commission
[2:39:16] >> that's it thank Mr. Stark
[2:39:18] >> so on that same note I recall telling
[2:39:21] Mr. Feinstein that I was going to ding
[2:39:23] him in his review. So, we used to do it
[2:39:25] if he didn't hire more attorneys. So, I
[2:39:29] know we I know we used to do it, but we
[2:39:32] got away from him for whatever reason. I
[2:39:34] think we got went into the automatic
[2:39:36] rollovers, which we shouldn't be doing.
[2:39:39] All right. Um so Spectrum, our friends
[2:39:42] at Spectrum asked me to participate in a
[2:39:45] TV show um that dealt with a land
[2:39:48] remembered and um our involvement in it
[2:39:52] and and um so I hope you all know this
[2:39:54] is Kathleen Tomco, one of the producers.
[2:39:57] I can't remember her name right now.
[2:39:59] >> Josie Tomco's mom.
[2:40:00] >> No, no, the other one.
[2:40:01] >> Oh, her.
[2:40:02] >> No, that's Kathleen. But what's her
[2:40:04] name?
[2:40:04] >> I forgot her name.
[2:40:05] >> I can't remember her name either. She's
[2:40:07] she is a longtime producer. She lives in
[2:40:10] Panelis County, I think. So, we've had a
[2:40:12] show going on Spectrum and um you can
[2:40:15] just Google it. It it's um people see it
[2:40:18] all the time and call me or or ping me
[2:40:21] that they're they're watching it on
[2:40:23] Spectrum and uh so that's nice. We're
[2:40:25] getting a little coverage there. Um
[2:40:27] then, um
[2:40:30] uh it's not there's nothing here, but
[2:40:32] the um gentleman who heads up the Rails
[2:40:35] to Trails
[2:40:36] I don't I don't know. See, I don't know
[2:40:37] if I'm supposed to follow my pictures or
[2:40:39] my paper. I'll follow my pictures and
[2:40:41] see what happens. Um,
[2:40:43] uh, Commissioner Weightman and I, uh,
[2:40:46] both attended the John Hopkins milestone
[2:40:49] moment. They got a humongous donation
[2:40:53] from, um, a family. I can't remember the
[2:40:56] name now. Um, starts with a G. They um,
[2:41:00] their charity is to donate to children's
[2:41:02] hospitals. And we have joined,
[2:41:04] >> I think it's five or six other top
[2:41:07] children's hospitals in the country and
[2:41:09] sort of a a group that are all um all
[2:41:12] have been donated by this family. They
[2:41:15] started the company called Paycheck and
[2:41:18] um so $40 million going to our hospital
[2:41:22] chapel. I think it's their largest
[2:41:23] donation ever and um so it was nice to
[2:41:26] be there. Um,
[2:41:29] and this is uh during the FAC conference
[2:41:34] in Jacksonville. Commissioner um Jagger
[2:41:37] and I are there. Uh, we toured their um
[2:41:41] automated
[2:41:43] uh Oh, they got it with the thing right
[2:41:44] in front on on the top. People mover,
[2:41:47] whatever that is. We toured their um
[2:41:50] facilities and uh this is a an
[2:41:53] authority. So, it has taxing authority,
[2:41:54] but it's also funded by federal and
[2:41:57] local grants. They're apparently have a
[2:42:00] little bit of financial issue, which
[2:42:01] came out after our meeting, but it's
[2:42:05] pretty cool. These are these are
[2:42:07] autonomous vehicles, but they do have
[2:42:09] someone writing in the front seat. Um,
[2:42:12] and there's a lot of construction going
[2:42:13] on in downtown Jacksonville, so it's
[2:42:15] affected their writership. But this
[2:42:17] circulates all around downtown and it's
[2:42:20] it's free for young people and older
[2:42:23] people. And then it you can get a
[2:42:26] sliding scale of a monthly ticket or
[2:42:29] something. But um the the one up on the
[2:42:33] top is an interesting study and how not
[2:42:35] to do something is because they built
[2:42:37] this giant people mover thing and now
[2:42:39] that company's out of business and it's
[2:42:42] so proprietary
[2:42:44] um with the way that system is on that
[2:42:47] one with that one company. So they're
[2:42:49] trying to figure out what to do on their
[2:42:51] people mover that moves people downtown.
[2:42:54] Um let's see. So what else what else
[2:42:58] went on in fact? Oh yeah. So, we had a
[2:43:00] pro some forums on property tax and um
[2:43:05] also Axon did one on on for some a AI
[2:43:08] stuff. But let me tell you that the one
[2:43:11] that was on uh land use was interesting
[2:43:15] and I don't really understand this but
[2:43:17] we need to pay attention is that um the
[2:43:20] the vice president Lenar was there and
[2:43:23] in charge of their government relations
[2:43:26] and then we had a couple senator for
[2:43:28] county commissioners who are former
[2:43:29] senators up there and the the industry
[2:43:33] is lobbying for land use decisions to go
[2:43:36] to a magistrate. So then we won't even
[2:43:38] have to have those uh nighttime meetings
[2:43:40] because they won't be decided by the
[2:43:42] elected people. They'll decide decided
[2:43:44] by a judge. And um Ralph, were you in
[2:43:47] that meeting when they were saying that?
[2:43:48] So um this is apparently going to come
[2:43:51] up in this session
[2:43:52] >> that they move across the state that
[2:43:56] land use decisions. Do I have that
[2:43:58] right? Is it all land use decisions?
[2:44:00] >> It was land use and um a judge or a
[2:44:03] magistrate.
[2:44:04] >> Yeah. To a magistrate.
[2:44:06] So, um, that was really something.
[2:44:09] >> That's greedy. That's greedy. Due
[2:44:11] process taken away.
[2:44:13] >> The, um, the the gentleman from Lonard
[2:44:17] did talk about a story I figured out
[2:44:19] with St. Lucy County where they had
[2:44:22] worked for three years on a project. It
[2:44:24] was 3,000
[2:44:26] acres. I think that's what it was. And I
[2:44:29] don't remember how many homes. They had
[2:44:31] the zoning and they had the underlying
[2:44:34] comp plan amendment, but they were doing
[2:44:36] an MPU, so they had to go through a
[2:44:38] process
[2:44:40] >> and they had it all approved and then,
[2:44:43] you know, red shirt showed up and some
[2:44:46] of the commissioners who were running
[2:44:47] for election
[2:44:49] um called them up and said, "I can't
[2:44:52] vote for this now. I'm afraid I won't be
[2:44:54] reelected." And so they were very very
[2:44:57] upset. They I I understand they spent a
[2:45:00] lot of money. It was already
[2:45:04] they had everything they really needed.
[2:45:05] I don't maybe they were just changing a
[2:45:07] little bit of the matrix which is why
[2:45:08] they're going to MPU. Um apparently in
[2:45:11] within those three years this county
[2:45:14] approved a BIES
[2:45:16] and
[2:45:19] a BIES and a Super Walmart on the same
[2:45:21] intersection that this neighborhood
[2:45:23] needed to go through. and then the
[2:45:25] people who were complaining about the
[2:45:26] tra what the traffic was going to bring
[2:45:29] and they were there in the process
[2:45:31] before the bies and the super
[2:45:33] [clears throat] but those guys as the
[2:45:35] LAR guy said did not have to go through
[2:45:38] a comp plan amendment change because
[2:45:39] they already had the zoning there for
[2:45:42] what they wanted so
[2:45:45] I don't know we have to be careful that
[2:45:47] we follow follow the law that was a big
[2:45:49] discussion that that um you you know if
[2:45:53] if it's in your comp plan and it's in
[2:45:55] your zoning, you have you have to follow
[2:45:59] that. You can't be messing around with
[2:46:03] uh development. So that's and that's
[2:46:06] where one one county does something and
[2:46:09] then we have unintended consequences for
[2:46:11] the whole state. All right. Um I was
[2:46:15] inter interviewed by this student,
[2:46:17] Lillian. She's St. Pete College student.
[2:46:19] She's doing a a piece uh a paper on
[2:46:22] ebikes. So, and I think she interviewed
[2:46:24] some other staff. So, looking forward to
[2:46:26] her her report on how to help regulate
[2:46:29] ebikes. Um, to honor, you know, we we
[2:46:33] voted on this a while ago. I'm just
[2:46:35] bringing it back to you that um the the
[2:46:38] county parks want to change the name as
[2:46:41] well. Um, so this is what they have
[2:46:43] suggested. Map call district park at
[2:46:46] Starky Ranch. The reason why is
[2:46:49] apparently there's a lot of confusion
[2:46:51] between Starky Park and Starky Ranch
[2:46:54] District Park and even our own staff is
[2:46:57] sending and doing things and going to
[2:47:00] the wrong place. We see it a lot in
[2:47:02] tournaments. So they asked our family if
[2:47:05] we minded if if it that wasn't called
[2:47:08] Starky Ranch District Park, but we went
[2:47:11] to the full name change and we we
[2:47:14] agreed. So this is what the sign will
[2:47:16] look like. Um and u we will have a
[2:47:20] dedication ceremony. If you remember he
[2:47:22] passed away very young from pancreat
[2:47:24] pancreatic cancer. So um I wanted to
[2:47:28] bring to your attention that the tree
[2:47:29] there's a tree giveaway going on. Um
[2:47:32] it's taking place October 10th at it's
[2:47:35] at Cruz Lake Park, JB Starky Wilderness
[2:47:38] Park and with Luchi River Park. They're
[2:47:40] doing it differently this time. There's
[2:47:42] a lottery selection. You know, last time
[2:47:44] they they like doubled or tripled the
[2:47:46] trees and they ran out of them like it
[2:47:48] was like crazy. Like crazy. So, they're
[2:47:50] doing a lottery. You have to sign up. Um
[2:47:53] there's red cedar, red maple, magnolia,
[2:47:56] and dahoon holly. And these trees are
[2:47:58] being funded by the um uh tree
[2:48:02] mitigation trust fund. Um, last last
[2:48:04] week I was shopping up at Ridge and
[2:48:07] Little and um I I drove by Chesco Middle
[2:48:11] and Chesco Elementary, which I think is
[2:48:12] your district.
[2:48:14] >> Is that right, Jack? Is that
[2:48:15] >> Yeah. And um I noticed all these parents
[2:48:18] trying to go pick up their kids from
[2:48:20] school, a lot of walkers, but there is
[2:48:24] no sidewalk on the north side. And
[2:48:26] that's where that a lot of the they're
[2:48:28] coming from the north side to get across
[2:48:30] the street to get their kids. And there
[2:48:31] was a poor guy. I watched him going and
[2:48:33] then I watched him coming. He is in a
[2:48:36] wheelchair, an electric wheelchair
[2:48:38] trying to navigate the grass on the
[2:48:41] north side of Ridge to get to a crossing
[2:48:44] place where he could get over. When I
[2:48:46] saw him coming back, he was with his
[2:48:48] kids on the sidewalk, but he was going
[2:48:50] to have to come back and go on the grass
[2:48:51] on Ridge Road. So, I would love it if we
[2:48:54] could put that in um for
[2:48:57] the state, you know, whatever that Yeah.
[2:49:00] Look,
[2:49:01] >> I did I did
[2:49:02] >> there's no sidewalk on the north side.
[2:49:04] >> I did talk to it stops.
[2:49:08] >> I think I talked to you, Mike, about the
[2:49:11] we talked about the cones that were
[2:49:13] there and what we could replace because
[2:49:16] parents were cutting onto the grass and
[2:49:19] we were talking about how much it would
[2:49:20] cost to put a sidewalk.
[2:49:23] >> I mean, it's mindboggling. The only
[2:49:25] sidewalk that's there is right in front
[2:49:27] of Dixie Bell.
[2:49:28] >> Yeah. So, I'd love to help those
[2:49:30] families out. That was disturbing to
[2:49:32] watch.
[2:49:32] >> Okay, that's it for me. Oh, no. I'm
[2:49:35] sorry. I I gave I gave you this bold
[2:49:37] here. I got to hear this.
[2:49:38] >> You know, we do want to stress before
[2:49:40] the next meeting, right?
[2:49:41] >> What when do we start?
[2:49:43] >> 5:15.
[2:49:44] >> Okay. Um, this is what I talked to you
[2:49:46] about.
[2:49:47] >> U, this was this was with uh this is the
[2:49:49] group that we that we met. Um, so
[2:49:54] I don't really know. They said we were
[2:49:56] the first ones in and they're concerned
[2:49:57] about this. So, is this are they wanting
[2:50:00] us to not advocate for the capped
[2:50:02] Medicare? Is that what this means to
[2:50:05] you?
[2:50:05] >> Yeah, I I I started reading it and to me
[2:50:09] it conflicts. So, I want to talk to some
[2:50:11] people in the industry first to really
[2:50:13] kind of learn what it is that they're
[2:50:14] advocating and bring that back to us as
[2:50:16] part of our federal platform because
[2:50:18] when I read it, the first one, the 6%
[2:50:20] tax, that's kind of what we're doing
[2:50:22] with the direct payment provider
[2:50:23] program. So, do they want to get away
[2:50:25] from that? And then I have questions
[2:50:27] over who where's that 6% levied? I have
[2:50:30] a number of questions. So, I'd like to
[2:50:31] talk to some industry folks. Okay. On
[2:50:33] those three options before we bring it
[2:50:34] forward perhaps even as part of your
[2:50:36] federal platform, but make sure there's
[2:50:38] no conflicts there.
[2:50:39] >> Yeah. I really um wanted to understand
[2:50:42] what they're asking of us and wanted you
[2:50:43] to see this. They're making a push in
[2:50:46] the state and I really didn't know what
[2:50:48] it was they were looking for, but they
[2:50:50] said we were the first ones to sign on
[2:50:52] before.
[2:50:53] So, I don't know. All right, I'm done.
[2:50:55] >> All right, Mr. Jagger.
[2:50:56] >> Okay, so the only thing I have is our
[2:50:59] public [snorts] my public safety update.
[2:51:02] So, I'll start with the let's see,
[2:51:07] fire rescue stats. This is for the last
[2:51:10] 30 days. Total calls were 8,926,
[2:51:16] motor vehicle accidents 344,
[2:51:20] structure fires 25, and special ops
[2:51:24] calls 149. Those are huge numbers. Um,
[2:51:28] it'll be interesting when the census
[2:51:30] comes back to see actually how large our
[2:51:32] county has grown. And for the sheriff's
[2:51:36] office, it is over the last two weeks,
[2:51:40] they have responded to 13,700
[2:51:43] calls for service. These calls for
[2:51:45] service include a deputy involved
[2:51:47] shooting where a shield saved the lives
[2:51:49] of two deputies, numerous school
[2:51:51] threats, and missing people. And there
[2:51:53] is an update on the uh school threats.
[2:51:57] So, they recently arrested a student um
[2:52:01] because he was making these false
[2:52:03] threats. So when when they make a threat
[2:52:06] like that, they have to take every
[2:52:08] threat serious and it could take three
[2:52:11] hours to clear the building. So these
[2:52:13] one, the kids get the students get
[2:52:15] frustrated because they get upset like
[2:52:17] we have to sit in here for three hours.
[2:52:19] They don't know if it's real. And um the
[2:52:21] sheriff's office does does a great job
[2:52:23] clearing the buildings, but um
[2:52:25] thankfully they arrested the the kid who
[2:52:27] who did that because it takes a lot of
[2:52:29] class time away from the students and a
[2:52:31] lot of resources for law enforcement. Um
[2:52:34] because they literally for the Riveridge
[2:52:37] Middle and High School, they have to go
[2:52:38] to every single door to clear it before
[2:52:40] they can release those students to make
[2:52:42] sure the building's safe. So um that is
[2:52:46] all I have.
[2:52:47] >> Okay. How do you administer? Three
[2:52:50] things. First, I want to thank thank the
[2:52:53] team, especially Tony Stilo, Stilo and
[2:52:56] Sarah Sukram. Uh they teamed up with
[2:52:58] Life Church's food pantry in Spring Hill
[2:53:01] and served over 725 households uh for
[2:53:04] the Farm Share program. So, that's a
[2:53:06] pretty pretty good thing. Secondly, I
[2:53:08] want to give kudos to um our our public
[2:53:11] safety folks, our fire our fire guys,
[2:53:13] specifically Brian Spooner, uh Jess
[2:53:16] Walker, Chad Carver, and Jared Kelly.
[2:53:18] They were part of a deployed unit that
[2:53:21] went to North Texas to help fight
[2:53:23] wildfires, notably the Ross fire and the
[2:53:26] Bug Beach fire. And during that two-e
[2:53:28] deployment, uh they supported line
[2:53:30] construction, exposure protection, water
[2:53:32] supply operations, and tactical
[2:53:34] adjustments based on the incident
[2:53:36] management team direction. Again, it's
[2:53:38] just another example of the
[2:53:39] professionalism and the expertise that
[2:53:42] our team has and and and attracts the
[2:53:44] talent that we do that we can actually
[2:53:46] afford to go and and support. We came at
[2:53:48] the we came at the request of FDM. They
[2:53:50] they asked for us and uh they answered
[2:53:52] the call. So very very happy, very very
[2:53:54] proud of them. Uh thirdly, I wanted to
[2:53:57] just make sure I was clear on um this
[2:54:01] idea of town halls for amendment three.
[2:54:05] I've I've I've sent you an email and and
[2:54:07] attorney Goldstein also kind of opined
[2:54:10] on just some general concerns on a fine
[2:54:12] line between educating and advocacy. And
[2:54:15] so I I just I want to ask the board, you
[2:54:19] know,
[2:54:21] we can we can I I I can always put
[2:54:23] together a very neutral presentation at
[2:54:25] a town hall kind of event. Uh which is
[2:54:27] what the majority direction appeared to
[2:54:29] be at the time, but town halls can go
[2:54:34] places where maybe you did not intend.
[2:54:36] We've seen that in other places. And I
[2:54:38] just want to ask the board if they want
[2:54:40] to consider or think about alternative
[2:54:42] approaches to education that could
[2:54:44] perhaps mitigate mitigate that risk.
[2:54:46] Static websites are are one thing when
[2:54:48] we go to live presentations that that's
[2:54:50] a different it's a different thing. And
[2:54:51] so county attorney had some concerns
[2:54:54] after I was thinking about it. I've got
[2:54:56] some concerns too. So I just want to ask
[2:54:58] the board is there any any additional
[2:55:01] direction on that change of direction
[2:55:03] thoughts on the matter?
[2:55:07] Um I agree with I agree with you. Um I'm
[2:55:11] not a fan of the town halls. Um things
[2:55:13] that I've gone to recently with the
[2:55:15] temperature of of the country. There's
[2:55:17] been a lot of um
[2:55:20] things pop up. So um I I would never
[2:55:23] want to put county staff in that
[2:55:26] position. And um
[2:55:29] me personally, I'm for putting
[2:55:30] information on the website and things
[2:55:32] like that. And if people have [cough]
[2:55:33] questions, they can reach out. That's
[2:55:36] just my opinion.
[2:55:40] >> M Sh,
[2:55:40] >> when I um asked everybody at FAC, it
[2:55:43] wasn't real scientific the way I did it.
[2:55:45] I would have liked to have gotten more
[2:55:46] responses to see what other counties are
[2:55:48] doing. I I will tell you that the the
[2:55:51] public relations person they hired and
[2:55:54] the um
[2:55:56] um person in charge of this at fact uh
[2:56:02] when I said got a little contentious I
[2:56:04] heard at the Largo town hall they said
[2:56:06] we love that it's earned media it's fine
[2:56:10] the city of Largo did absolutely nothing
[2:56:12] wrong so that was they liked the idea of
[2:56:16] getting media to to hear it.
[2:56:21] I I have another one tomorrow night. Amy
[2:56:23] will be there with my leaders from the
[2:56:26] Trinity the
[2:56:28] um what I the um holiday area, but um
[2:56:33] you know, I'm not going to
[2:56:34] [clears throat] if no one else wants us
[2:56:35] to do it, that's fine. Um but I don't
[2:56:39] think there's anything wrong with having
[2:56:40] the public learn about our budget
[2:56:44] personally.
[2:56:49] I think the town hall is a good idea.
[2:56:51] I'm a little fearful as far as the
[2:56:53] feedback, the dialogue. Um,
[2:56:56] but I do think they need to know what
[2:57:00] the budget would mean if it went
[2:57:01] through. And I think especially now that
[2:57:04] we know amendment one, everyone familiar
[2:57:07] with amendment one?
[2:57:08] >> Yep.
[2:57:08] >> All right. So, they got reserves. They
[2:57:10] max out. They want to go make it part of
[2:57:12] the constitution where it's mandatory to
[2:57:13] put more reserves in. Now, part of the
[2:57:15] reason all of our budgets have gone up
[2:57:17] is because we put reserves in place. So,
[2:57:19] they're saying we don't want you to go
[2:57:21] have reserves and be financially strong,
[2:57:23] but we're going to get stronger and then
[2:57:25] we can go fill back fill what needs to
[2:57:27] be backfilled. Um, and I think if the
[2:57:30] public actually got wind of even both of
[2:57:32] those right now, they would say, well,
[2:57:35] why are they saying they're spending too
[2:57:36] much money and you guys have too much
[2:57:38] money and now you only have too much
[2:57:40] money, but you want to go spend more
[2:57:42] money?
[2:57:42] >> Yeah. I mean, it's like ridiculous to to
[2:57:45] the situation they're putting us in, but
[2:57:47] they're [snorts] taking the opposite
[2:57:48] approach to make them financially more
[2:57:50] viable to take care of problems that may
[2:57:52] happen after this thing passes. It's to
[2:57:56] me, I think people are just going to get
[2:57:57] frustrated. And I think it's okay to
[2:58:00] share the information one way or the
[2:58:01] other, but I think even if you just did
[2:58:04] one town hall and say, "Look, because of
[2:58:06] everything, maybe we don't have input
[2:58:08] back. We're not going to respond back
[2:58:10] because we don't want to put opinions
[2:58:12] out there. We're just going to show you
[2:58:14] what the facts are and we're going to
[2:58:15] know.
[2:58:16] >> I I just want to be clear what what
[2:58:18] Commissioner Starky is is doing with
[2:58:20] her. Bear in mind, you as elected
[2:58:22] officials in your capacity have a lot
[2:58:26] more flexibility than myself or my my
[2:58:28] team when they go out because they are
[2:58:30] paid government employees. The advocacy
[2:58:33] is is it's it's certainly different. And
[2:58:35] so, you know, for example, if if um you
[2:58:38] know, Amy comes out to one of your
[2:58:40] events, she's she's strictly there
[2:58:41] presenting the information. You're
[2:58:43] moderating a session with your
[2:58:44] constituents. And that's that's a
[2:58:46] different that's a different story from
[2:58:47] education and advocacy. When we do a
[2:58:49] town hall that is sponsored by Pasco
[2:58:51] County and we're saying that it's a
[2:58:53] Pasco County sponsored event.
[2:58:56] You guys, you may be there, you may not
[2:58:57] be there, you may be two of you may be
[2:58:59] there, but it it becomes a Pasco County
[2:59:02] paid event. And I think that was sort of
[2:59:03] the impetus of where David and I had the
[2:59:06] concerns about paid staff and a fine
[2:59:09] line between advocacy and education. You
[2:59:11] saw that in the Largo. There was
[2:59:12] accusations that staff were advocating
[2:59:14] versus educating. And I get great
[2:59:16] probably a lot of great media coverage.
[2:59:18] And of course, who wouldn't who wouldn't
[2:59:19] like that? I don't know what the impact
[2:59:21] to staff or what what the ramifications
[2:59:23] were internally on that. That's my
[2:59:24] concern. I'm not suggesting that we
[2:59:26] don't support staff would clearly
[2:59:28] support any sort of town hall that you
[2:59:30] and your individual commission aspect
[2:59:32] would want to support 100%. I'm just
[2:59:35] saying that a county sponsored one
[2:59:37] starts to walk that line that we were
[2:59:39] concerned about. So what if we tried
[2:59:41] this? What if you put something together
[2:59:44] as the presentation and then we could
[2:59:47] actually take that, put it on the
[2:59:48] screen, show it to people as it's this
[2:59:52] is what staff says. staff doesn't even
[2:59:53] have to come out and then a commissioner
[2:59:56] can have their own dialogue with
[2:59:57] whoever.
[2:59:57] >> I'm all for if you want materials, we
[3:00:00] have those ready for you. We can provide
[3:00:01] that 100%.
[3:00:03] >> I think maybe I don't know if you want
[3:00:04] to do a slideshow or just a video, but
[3:00:07] >> slides would certainly be faster and
[3:00:08] easier.
[3:00:09] >> Okay.
[3:00:10] >> All right. Mr. Ster,
[3:00:12] >> you were um I thought we talked about
[3:00:15] staff or someone going out to the Rotary
[3:00:17] clubs, etc. Did that happen?
[3:00:19] >> Well, no. That's kind of part of this is
[3:00:20] how aggressive did we want and then we
[3:00:22] ended up landing on on workshops or I'm
[3:00:24] sorry these town halls and that would be
[3:00:26] the same question is is do you do you
[3:00:28] want staff to do that? I mean I haven't
[3:00:30] been invited. I mean that's one thing uh
[3:00:32] versus actively pinging that's that's
[3:00:36] the that's the question here.
[3:00:38] >> Uh you know what I'm wondering if we ask
[3:00:40] the chambers to sponsor a budget night
[3:00:45] then it's not the county doing it.
[3:00:49] Well, to be clear, even if they're
[3:00:51] sponsoring, if staff is going there and
[3:00:53] you're paying staff to go there, it
[3:00:56] still implicates the statute if they're
[3:00:57] advocating.
[3:00:58] >> No, no, no. Not that not to talk about
[3:01:00] amendment three to talk about our budget
[3:01:04] and [clears throat] where the money
[3:01:05] goes. I I tell you the my my first group
[3:01:08] in Trinity Odessa, they were fascinated
[3:01:11] and loved it and thanked me and um as a
[3:01:15] matter of fact, I had some people that
[3:01:16] had to leave that meeting in the middle
[3:01:18] of her presentation. They're coming
[3:01:20] tomorrow night because they wanted to to
[3:01:22] learn more about how we do our budget
[3:01:25] because they're reading stuff online and
[3:01:28] it's not true.
[3:01:29] >> Do you have that taped?
[3:01:31] >> No.
[3:01:32] >> Do you have social media where we share
[3:01:34] it? No, I don't do social.
[3:01:37] >> Don't share.
[3:01:39] >> So, David, what if we
[3:01:41] >> I hate social

[Transcript truncated]