Planning Board - Regular Meeting

No, we have we have the sheriff there five times a day, so they ain't staying there. Yeah. Okay. We'll call this meeting to order. This is a commission workshop. It is Tuesday, January 20th, 2026. It's 100 p.m. Yay, it's right. Well, actually, mine says Friday, January 20th. I know, but that's okay. Okay. If y'all will stand with me. Commissioner Palanteer, will you do the implication and Commissioner A lead us in the pledge? Yes, ma'am.

Lord, we thank you for allowing us to gather today and we pray for your guidance and making decisions for our citizens in our city. We thank you for our first responders and we ask that you bless them and their families, keep them safe and let them go home at the end of their shift. We thank you for our citizens and our employees that make Callaway a great place to be. and we pray you blessed them with peace and success. In Jesus' name we pray. Amen. Amen. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

City clerk, please do a roll call. Commissioner Bzel here. Commissioner Griggs here. Commissioner Piter. Commissioner Ay. Mayor Anderson here. Okay. As far as public participation, since I think we had technically two members of the public here, so we're going to be a little more lenient. So, we'll just kind of play it by ear as long as we can't let somebody just talk for an hour, but we'll be a little more lenient than typically with public participation if that's all right with the rest of the commission.

YEAH, NO PROBLEM. SO, WE will go on to our regular agenda item. It's item number one, 2045 comprehensive plan update. And I assume Mr. GREER, how did do y'all want to approach this? Do you just want to kind of highlight the changes or, you know, what would y'all like? I think we got to go through it, you know, because this is just reason over it. It's got a lot of little things. Well, but I mean, do we need to go through the changes is what I'm saying. We went through the whole document at the last one.

Do we want to just kind of focus on the changes that were made? I don't care. I'm happy with the whole thing. So, doesn't matter. Whatever you all want. Well, that's I didn't know if we had to, you know, go through it page by page by page again. We've covered I just I just have one question for for Ray. Okay. Yeah. Did everything we talked about at the last meeting you've already made those changes? Yes. Then you got the new packet. Did you get also the So we listed all the changes. Yeah. I've only seen a couple of small things in there. Ma'am,

I saw one thing on page six. There were two lights at 1.1.11. It was items H and I. The spacing was crazy in the lines and that was something that was going to get corrected and it didn't. That was the main thing I saw that didn't get changed. Yeah. With the spacing. So just the fact until I um take the structure underline off, even if I fix it, it's liable to come back somewhere else.

Okay. Okay, cuz I got to take the strike the underline off and then then we're going to have to format everything spacewise on the clean copy, but that can't happen till after we adopt it and the state approves it. Then I give it back to you in a clean version. But we'll fix this the weird space. Well, I just had curiosity once it goes to the state to approve it, it comes back to us. If something is found, what does it take to change? So does it have to go back to the state unless if it's not substantial?

So this is next week is a transmittable hearing. So we will transmit it to the state for review and they go to all the state agencies and they'll review it. They'll send it back with an ORC report and they'll list anything and this is all they'll list anything they find that you know they have questions or they want changed or it's not consistent with the statute. they'll list them and then we come back. We, you know, I'll make the changes, we'll adjust it, but we come back to you to commission. We bring it back to you and then that's the adoption area. So, and if there's anything that needs to be changed in between that and one then on your behalf, we can make those changes too. We just have to list it when we go to adopt it. So, the state clearly knows what we've changed when we send it adopt it to them. Okay. But then after that it's just a compound amendment to fix anything else. Okay.

Yeah. Anything I saw anything involving spacing and all that business and you explained that at the last meeting that all the red has to go in. So when the red comes out and things change things on various page numbers kind of change. They do. It will actually as you know when you take the structure line off it brings and the stuff that was deleted it all pushes the pages up. So page numbers change the spacing will change some of this. Sorry the weird spacing I don't know where how

so what did we add future land use element in front of goal. So we've got to identify these somehow and so the way I set we let each element has a goal and there you we start with goal one and then each the policies and everything after that objective and policies are then unique like future land use element is a law one you know housing element transformation they all have numbers that you know we all requested so they'd be unique the goals it's two we would have to have we would have too many 1.1.1 if we were make each goal unique. So what we did was set at the very beginning so you know where you're at with the future land. That's goal one and we did it with each element. Gotcha.

Do you want to go through and I mean said I don't know. Do you need to do Do we want him to point out the changes? I know they're listed here. Would it be helpful with the point? Does it matter or is everybody I'm happy good with

and so you know what what I did you know after a meeting I went through and went back through and um you know basically I you know made a list and we went back through and did every one of those and created this table. And so there was a couple like in the conservation element that um you know you brought them up some of those policies and they are you know as I mentioned they are very over they're they're beyond what the city actually could do. they're more state related. And so we went back and made sure if we fixed those and took them out that it didn't affect any part of statute and we didn't. Those we already had policies in there that those were off of and of beyond what the statute requires. So we removed them and they also went into permitting like DP farm environmental protection permitting which the city has no part of and so we just went ahead and removed all of them. those couple policies, we were able to just remove them. And then there was a policy too in the transportation element that the city was asking about with that list of roads.

And so, you know, took the list out, rewarded that entire policy itself and then left it. But all those little, you know, things that you had mentioned, we tried to we not tried but we went through and and corrected and fixed. Did anybody have any specific questions on any of the changes? I have two questions and I got page numbers. That helps you.

Page 42. Uh, sorry if that was on the old version of the 42. Took me a second to find where I was at. I was thinking I was prepared. What did I write here? Um, where we have policy 7.2.1.9, 2.1.9. We dropped the seven didn't make it onto there for that policy.

What page is that on? Um, I'm verifying right now, ma'am. It was supposed to be 42. It It is page 42. Right now, it's just labeled as policy 2.1.9. It didn't have the leading seven for the element. Okay. And then also in that same one, the that same policy we have uh we mentioned when the Northwest Florida hurricane evacuation study of 2004 is updated. So that was 20 years a 22 years ago. And has that not been updated in 22 years? Let me write this one down. What was the next one? I'm sorry.

All right. Same one. It's still on that same policy. Okay. Um, just the end of it mentions about the study from 2004. Okay. Published. If you look back at your previous version, this has been updated and we took that out and we added in the new stuff. But, um, as I mentioned in our last workshop, we I added back in what's actually required for your her hurricane evacuation times, which is, you know, based on the the new study. The only problem is it's going to be a conflict with Senate Bill 180 that you know we had talked about and so I took it and put it back. So if you look in your previous version you'll see this was changed.

Yeah. You had it what's current what's in this current draft completely redlined and had a whole thing and we took that out but we just put back in the old one and again it still reflects back to waiting on something from 2004.

Yes. Because if I if I I can't because it's Senate Bill 180. I'm not going to be able to I mean I could we've got to have this policy in here. It doesn't have to reference the the 2004 study, but that was the previous data. The new study, the hurricane times are are greater. So they're going to be they're going to consider that to be in violation with 180. That's going to be more burdensome than the previous. And so we're kind of it's one of those things where we're kind of stuck until Senate Bill, right? You said later this year 180. And there is I did see some

there's a bill out there. That's what I was going to say. There is a bill that wants to pull back on some of that language and it would free this up, you know, that would be in direct conflict with statute and not statute. I mean, this is statutoily. The city is supposed to do this, but we can't at this point. You can I can send it, but they're going to throw the compound over it. Ray, after we get let's say they go through and they get rid of Senate Bill. Are we going to need to come back and review this? Yeah. And as I mentioned, I think Mr. Griggs had asked about that. Um, I need cuz I also have the military overlay districts that we did for Kindle

that we need to add in, but we cannot add them in because they are more burdensome. So, we need to add that in. We need to fix some of this stuff that we were not able to fix. We can all do it. We can do it through another amendment as soon as you know 180 is they either remove North Florida from it or like they're proposing saying that the statutory requirements doesn't it expires in 2028. It's set to expire but there is legislation being proposed to help maybe June 2026. It was already accepted. So we just keep our fingers crossed. Yeah. And it's just I mean this is affecting compliance across the entire state.

Ray, two more questions for you. H74 for the private property rights element. We started with goal one and renamed it there which isn't consistent with the rest of the way we written it. It would everything else just started with go one because the title is already right above it. Yeah. The objective says 10.1. It should say 1.1. No, it still says 10.1 because we're in element 10. Is that how that go? Yes, sir. Yeah.

But the goal there, the numbering wasn't quite the same, but it also, like I said, instead of just saying goal, it has words before it. Yeah, we put Oh, you've done that throughout some other stuff. Never mind. Yeah, we did on each one. Okay. We put the element in front of it just so you would know. And the last thing last two or last week we were talking about comp plan 2045 and now we've updated to 46 because it's a 20 year. It's a 20 year. So and I was going to mention that too and let you brought that up.

We're now in 26. We have to have a minimum and this is a the legislation that was passed in the last couple years where you have to before you only had to plan out 10 years minimum of 10 years. Now it's a minimum of 20. So because if we would have sent it in 25, we would have been okay. But because now it's 26, we technically don't have a 26 planning period. So I have updated also I didn't have time to to give it to you for this meeting, but updated the data analysis on to reflect 26. So we went through and added and changed it from 2045 to 2046.

So we could be 20 years out. That was all my questions. Anybody else have anything? Yep. Um, page one, policy 1.1.2, section 2, low density residential density. Um, I'm not sure why you repeat the density, but um, acronym need to put in there. the LDR I think or LDR is landed development regulation it is

or it it should reflect what your uh chart does on page page five. So if you call call it an RLB or an RHD or whatever um I think that corresponds correctly. Yeah. Well, the the chart on page five, and we had talked about this in the LA in our last chalk, that's actually that that this chart is from a um state by set agreement off a land use change that was done back in what 2002 2003. Mhm.

The state this was negotiated between at that time would been the department of community affairs and the city and the applicants. They had all these language changes they made. So this is actually in there per the stipulate sum agreement and so I guess you it was brought up about the density numbers and stuff and because this was done through a stipulate some if we change it then this wouldn't reflect the

I wouldn't change the chart but um instead of low density residential change it to residential low density to reflect what your chart is and you can get rid of the last density and then you can do uh residential medium density and that will reflect if it's in the chart. I don't see it but you do have high density and that's on the next page. So just put residential out in front. So you want to do acronyms for the the landscape,

right? Because it explains what that is if you do it correctly here on uh page one. I don't think we've done that through the compliment. I mean, I can add that if you prefer. Yeah, that's the only place I saw it. So, do you understand what I'm saying? Yeah, you're talking about adding the acronyms for resial and in the correct order, but residential low density. Well, they don't match is what he's saying right now between that chart and here they use different terms over the same resity. Yeah, it's just making it match and making it easier to understand. I see. I see what you're saying.

I guess I didn't come across correctly last time. Are we good on that? On that page? Are we good?

That's what I mean. On that page one, what do you got on page two? Right. Uh, page four, policy 1.1.9. Yes. SPA number four. I think that's SAP number four. That's how it's listed on my SAP. It says SPA in the second sentence. Second sentence. Yeah, it says SPA.

Auto correct. And this is where I had a question about the SAP's um special area plan. We don't have a map for that in the back. Should we have something that reflects these SAPs? Just a question because I went through our maps in the back and I didn't see SAP in there. Yeah, it's not on there.

Should we have a map in the back and we can I'll go back and pull I can pull this where it was originally done too. I mean you might be able to add it to one of the other maps back there and said, "Hey, this is the SAP 1, 2, 3, and four." Yeah, cuz this would have, as I mentioned, this was a large scale. Yes, sir. So, there had to be a map that went with it to identify these areas.

Okay. Page page 10 POLICY 1.7.1 says capabilities should that be capacity I'm sorry which policy um policy 1.7 7.1. Okay. It says capabilities, hurricane evacuation capabilities and it I think it should say capacity.

Uh I mean it could be either it could be either way. Capabilities would be I mean it's just it's a level of service to evacuate. It's a number of hours. you know, it's the hours that are set that

take a look at it and you make the determination. Um, it just when I read it, it capabilities didn't make any sense, but the capacity made sense. I think capabilities reads normal to me though like you said it's the level of service that's being provided not how many people necessarily living in the home.

Just take a look at it. See what you think. Page 15. Okay. You have peak hour level of service. Where do we explain what DD and E stand for? um that it's actually defined by DOT of transportation, but it's not in here. It's actually those are level service numbers. They're volumes that are in the D is a level service volume,

right? I understand what they are. I'm just Should we explain what those are if we're going to list them? They're in the data analysis. Um but that's not part of this. And then we I think they make Yeah, I mean we can make a policy and and just list what they are. I could probably add it to this table actually cuz it's a range. It's a level. I figured it was a range. Well, I'm looking at I'm trying to range in there. Yeah, that's I think it' be the easiest way is add it to the table. Okay. Be the easiest way to do it.

Thank you, sir. Let's see. PAGE 17 52.5.4 updating the head bike trail master plan. Never heard of that. Yeah, that's the TPO has tpo and they're actually updating that right now. Yeah, we're right in the middle of it, right? Yep. Okay, cool.

Yeah, we wanted to we was hoping it'd be done so we could just add it in the new stuff, but it it wasn't finished.

Okay, page 18. See, policy 1, it'll be 3.1.3. Right here, we go into uh the city will provide land use designation designations for multifamily housing structures which allow construction for housing units for very low moderate income families. Now, that's good. But the explanation of what that means doesn't come until 8.1. So shouldn't that explanation come first instead of later on 3.8.1

I would you know because that's the first time you see it and then later on you can just reference it. or put C at the end of it. Put C8 dot. You could do that if you wanted to. At the end of it, you changed one of those and you have to do the references back and forth. So, it's best just to move it up. I thought about that, too. But that way, we would have to correct it if we make one change or delete one of them. So, move the explanation up to that one. And then on 8.1, put C You could do that 3.1.3

but just take a look at that. Yeah, we I can move it. This is all statutory. I mean this is all that's required by chapter 163 to have in the housing amendment. Okay. He's just looking at it as in layman person looks at it. So a lot you knew what it was. I didn't. So yeah, you know, some of those things just come to you as you're looking through it and I'm like, that mentioned before 8.3 made that change.

What else you got, Commissioner? I'm going through it.

Okay. Journey to be quick. I like the way you you did goal, objectives, and policies of the sanitary sewer sub element. Um, but that's I think that's one of the first times you did that. Um, would that be useful to put that right after each of the elements, just say goal, objectives, and policies for the infrastructure element or something like that? So, it would give the reader an idea how you're going to break them out. I mean, if you don't want to do that, that's fine. What page?

Um, that's page 24. Yeah, the infrastructure element. So, it's one element, but it's got the sub elements in it. And the reason that it was listed that way, it was listed that way in the original plan, which is left in that element. Just so you know, when you change to the the next sub element inside the overall infrastructure,

I recognize that, too. Um this is one of those areas on policy 1.5.1.1. You see Callaway hereby adopts 80 gallons per capita per day as a level service for wastewater treatment. But later on you say we're going to do 120 gallons per day per capita for potable water. So shouldn't they kind of equal each other? dialed up because one of them is with a half again more than the other. Yeah, we were fix we were going to fix these numbers and this is one of the things I can't change but we have your new water and sewer data.

Yes, sir. And so this isn't so much correct anymore, but this is an area with Senate Bill 180. If I change it, they will they'll throw the compound out. They just did too restrictive. Is that it? Havens. So if you made one of them less restrictive, but the two So you say one and now one is waste water and one is p water and so they're not the same level of service. Okay. But if you're given 120 gallons of potable water, wouldn't you expect 120 gallons to go into the sewer? Because I mean no because yeah the

water sewer if you look at where the city actually runs at what they average your portable water your usage is higher than your what you're taking in through the waste water. Okay. And it's like that all the cities are like that. Okay. Just because of more of an educational thing for me. So yeah irrigation. Yeah that's irrigation and the different uses of water that doesn't lock back up in the sewer. Okay. Fire to parking. Just fire to parking.

Can you remove that? And I say you went through and tried to fix all the acronym areas. Found a ton of them afterwards. Went back and looked at them again. You found the update.

Yeah. Well, you know, for flu, it's spelled out all over the place. And LDR is spelled out all over the place. But then you go back to LDR. Then you go back to regulation. So um I know I've tried to fix some of my my plan my planner has been working on this. Um yeah, it's been trying to catch it and then it's all over the complex. It is. It is where something's not I'm not going to spell that out. Yeah. Now if you click flip I can show you how to do that. Huh? I can show you how to do that. Find and replace. Find and replace. That's it. Find and replace.

Yeah. And hopefully it does it correctly. No, you can you can you don't hit correct all. You look at each one of Yes. Except except except except except if you have a list of them. I mean, I'd be glad to Oh, they're all over the place. Yeah. If you had some or if you had them marked Mhm. what I did, you know, because I didn't get this in time to really go over it thoroughly, so I just went over the other one more thoroughly. Um, so check that's why I'm having to go back and try to grab all those. Oh, yeah. So, on page 38, you're going to review this and I see you made a bunch of changes.

So, that's everybody good with those on 38? Yeah. So some of these are the this is the policies that doesn't have to be in there. They're over restrictive and so we adjusted some of them um were recommended to be adjusted.

All right. Um page 40 policy 7.6 6.1. It says, "As part of achieving future land use element objectives 1.6." Last time I checked, there was no 1.6. 40. Where you at? Page 40. Policy 7.6.1. So, I went back and looked for it. Couldn't find it. So, in the other document. So, if it's not in that one, it's not going to be in this one.

So, you could probably just eliminate the 1.6 and just just take a look at it and report it. Yeah, I'm looking forward. Figure out where it's at. Yeah, objective 16 is on page 10. Yes. Okay, that's now I did go back and look for that, but

that's on page 10. It was see on page 10 of the other document where it was referenced there is no objective well there is an objective six but not a 1.6. Oh that's because we added the one for being the first element where we added the element numbers. Okay. So that's going to match up now. And it does.

Okay. Thank you. On page 42. Let's see. Did you delete that? You may have deleted that totally. So, what I was looking at in this, there's a 12-hour evacuation time listed for CAT 5. Mhm.

And then in a previous objective, um, objective nine. So, that Yeah, we had updated that, but we had taken it back out because of the Senate bill. Gotcha. 180 because it was it's more Okay. they would find it more burdensome if we tried to adopt the current standard.

So in objective 7.9, you say maintain roadway clearance time for hurricane evacuation of 17 hours for a cat 3 storm at high tourist occupancy, but you don't list cat 4 or cat 5. Um, and when I referenced the other one that you deleted, you referenced the cat five there and a time period. Should you list the other ones? No, because somewhere again that Senate Bill 180 trying to fix I I understand what you're saying, but trying to fix it, it's going to it's going to trigger it's going to make it worse. So, should you delete it?

No, because we have to have it in here for a cat 3. No, we have to have evacuation times. Okay. But you could eliminate the cat 3 part. Yeah, I would I would recommend leaving it like it is until we get past in the bill 180. Okay. I I wouldn't recommend, but that's maybe an area we need to go back and look at. Well, we need to take strike all this and add the actual stuff that applies then based on the new study. that new language, the language that was in the other previous document is what needs to be back in here once Bill 180 is gone. Okay,

you need to add that back in, which is your actual which is what the county evacuates at and that time set by the state. Okay, page 45. So ready, have you got anyone ready to go whenever 180 comes out? I'm see I'm seeing some dollar signs right now. Could we just extended our the old one out two or three years till we get past 180. Feel like we're going to be redoing this again completely.

Oh, it's a mess. I mean, it's so bad. It is for it's prohibiting you from updating your comp plan. I mean and it's like this all over the state. It just it is ridiculous. I mean what's going on how Senate Bill 180 is being implemented. I mean I understand the theory behind what they tied it to but I mean they're grabbing all the comments.

Okay. Page 44, objective 7.1, uh, excuse me, 7.16 says, "Incorporate the recommendations of the local mitigation strategy into the comp plan within one year of its adoption. Do we want to obligate ourselves to doing that? Basically, you've done this, but and if you want, I can take that back out. We took them out on the rest of them that

I just put it back the way it was. Okay.

We did it on the rest of them. Um, where there was dates. I'll just take it out. There was one thing I thought about while I'm going through all this. There's a bunch of terms in here that are kind of hard to understand. Would it be beneficial to put a short page of definitions for terms that we're using that are not common like concurrency? That was just an example. You also add some you have some Latin terms in here, I think. Um, amend them or whatever in here. Um, instead of using Latin, maybe go to the English unless you're required to use the Latin.

Yeah, let's see where it was referenced. Now, will chapter 163 does have definition section of most of these terms. Remember this stat this is this confine is based on chapter 163 the state statute yeah four statutes that's what they require each one of these elements and the structure of the elements and what's in them is required by chapter 163 okay four statutes and there's a definition section okay do we reference that in here that if you need definitions go to state statute whatever no I mean some comp plans will have definition section some of them Well, you actually have an acronym section now.

Yeah. Yeah, I like it. I mean, we can add I mean, if you want the definition section, I can add the definition from 163 into, you know, in a page just like that after the acronym page, if that's something y'all want. Do you know if it's very lengthy or several pages? You would just take it right out of the statute. saying definitions reference chapter 163. That's what I just put. Yeah. Yeah. Statement. Yes. Instead of attaching pages of definitions. All right. Thank you. Yes. Appreciate it. I'm just trying to be thorough.

No, no, no, that's fine. I appreciate you reading it. Um, yeah, that's a rough slug. I can add that actually to the acronym at the bottom acronym page probably. Yeah, be good. Yeah, just probably statement for definitions statute. Look it up. There's something I didn't know. You guys need a Z and um if you like more input now I got this one. I'll go through I can go through that thoroughly and see if the acronyms are all included and so forth. Yeah, I mean if you find anything then I'll be glad to change it.

Okay. Thank you, sir. I appreciate your time. We need that by Thursday, sir. We need that by Thursday. Thursday because it's on the agenda for the agenda. Yeah, I'll do it. I'll go back. I think that's great. I mean, I'm not I'm not I'm not talking to you. I'm just saying we need to get a change for the city manager on this one, but that's different from this. So, You said you have nothing. I know you had some. Do you have anything, Commissioner Griggs? No. So, everybody up here is good. Did anybody in the audience I know we got one?

Come up. Mr. Bohack, come up to the microphone. She said lenient.

Yeah, lenient. But that doesn't mean 30 minutes. my computer. I have two sections I wish to address. The first is in the conservation element. The second is in the coastal management element element and I have to confess there was a third one that came out as a result of the discussion this afternoon. The first is policy 6.6.1 in the conservation element page I don't

page 31.

Thank you. includes the it includes the following statement. Development activities which will destroy identified wildlife or marine habitat shall be restricted through the use of enforcable development agreement or appropriate mitigation measures. My questions are who defines who measures with what instrument or tools and approves such appropriate mitigation measures. There's no explanation, definition, or description. My second question,

what? Let's let's take them one at a time. One at a time. I would think that'd be a state issue. So I see you've lined through the pursuant to the rules from the Florida statute and the admin codes. Is that what's enforcing those? Right. I would like to know. No, that's just how that's just how to do a development agreement. So that's not going to have anything specifically to do with habitat. Say again. The statutory reference that was marked out is just how to do a development agreement no matter what the subject. That's the agreement part. Yeah, I think he's just asking who does the city really evaluate fisheries and habitat.

This is one of them thought amended more of it. Um again I don't the that getting into the whole mitigation stuff that's the stuff that needs to come out. Well, that would satisfy me. I don't want to see any sort of mitigation personally. No, but it's the state that makes that decision. Yeah, that's out of state. And I I apologize. I thought we I thought I got those policies. Is this one of them that you gave me the list on? I asked about mitigation. Yeah. And this somehow this didn't get updated. Okay.

Yes, I have your I have your list. I'll I can make this change and send this back. Can't send you this policy back. So, you don't have to look at the whole thing. I'll make that. I thought that money.

Okay. All right. Second objective 7.2 and 7.3.

37. They're both on the same page. I believe it's page 378. 37 37 37 All right, start over. Which one? 7.2

7.2 and 7.3. They're both objectives. They both state very simply assist in the protection of seaggrasses and shorelines. My concern is the lack of specificity since the term assist is subject to considerable interpretation. And my question is who decides if the assist is or is not adequate. State Then how will they do so? Who's going to define it, determine it, measure it? I mean, surely there's got to be something other than assist. My understanding was the two policies below it are showing how we have achieved that objective and it deals with

well I read the two policies below it and I still couldn't in my mind see how so we don't develop shorelines pardon that right we we we can't give permission to develop the mih hot water we we only go to a certain spot After that, anything they want to do in that area, they have to get permits from the state. So then that goes, we're out of it. It's not ours. So the thing that we're doing to assist is the uh sewage

first one, don't put septic tanks over there. Don't put your sewer collection system there. That's that's what the city can do and that's what's in the policy. And then same thing in the next one. What can we do? We could coordinate with the other local governments. So I mean and this is required. Yeah. I think the answer to his question is you know how are we assisting by doing policy policy policy policy below. Okay. So y'all are satisfied that that resolves the the issue. Okay. That's all we can do.

Well, Mr. Paul, we're still back. We're still back to the same thing. When you get to the mean water the mean high water line. Yes. We can't go on the other side of it. That's not us. So, we can only develop. But what we can do is prevent septic tanks from going our side. And that's what we're doing on our side. We can't do this because we don't want it to go into the water. But when it gets to that water line, if they want to develop outlet, put in a dock, I don't put in sheet piles to protect their shoreline. All those permits come through the state.

All right. So in that context then the assist becomes providing whatever information is required or necessary to facilitate the acquisition of those permits. No, we don't assist in that. They go to the state, they get their own permits. Then the assist becomes ensuring compliance with the requirements of that permit.

Yeah. Well, like 7.3.2 the assist is cooperating with DF fish and wild or freshwater fish commission water management district. That's how we assist. We coordinate with those state agencies.

Okay, that answers my question. All right. The third which was raised during this discussion is I take exception to commissioner's request that they eliminate objective 7.1 6 and 7.161 because I think those are both related to policy 7.15.2 forens one on page 44 which requires the formation of an ad hoc recovery task force to coordinate decision making not related to shortterm recovery efforts.

Let's start from the top. Where did you start with that? And I eliminated policy 7.15.2 for 1, page 44. I don't remember deleting that. When was that? You objected to and recommended the deletion of objective 7 one six incorporate the recommendations of the mitigations. He just asked to get rid of the one year

the one-year time limit. He just wanted to get rid of the one-year time limit. Yeah, I did. Yeah, he did the limit just with the one year. one year.

Okay. You blew me away. You did good. All right. I'm done. Thank you. I was trying to make sure we could.

Would anybody else in the public like to speak? Come on up. I'm going to reference his what was it? The 6.6.1 6.1 when the Florida statute was removed and also the Florida administrative code rule 17.312 that rule the 17-312 refers um to working with the D and the mitigation and stuff. So maybe we should leave that administrative code in that one since it references the rule.

Yeah, I'm going to take some some more of that stuff out that policy. I'm going to rewrite that policy. That policy didn't rewrite the he on the 6.6. Yeah, he's going to totally redo that one. I'm right. You were asking about it and you said it didn't reference that, but Oh, 163 is just about payments.

Well, right. But the other part is Mark 32. So, I just wanted to clarify that maybe we should leave that administrative code rule in there when you rewrite it if it reflects the same thing. And then my next question is and I can already kind of tail my answer from the comments and some of the questions is I just would like to know how many of you reviewed the corrections that were sent to make sure all of them were made or just instead of coming here and going sir did you make all the changes that we asked? You know what I mean? to have he read it to make sure and reviewed all of it to make sure that the changes were made.

I can tell you I took my copy from the other day where I had marked changes and I went through and look that's how I noticed that that the spacing still looked funny and then I went to the list that he provided of the changes and matched that back. I mean, I picked this up on the weekend so I'd have time to go through it. But I was just curious because I know that from some of the comments, it's pretty clear that some people didn't review it all. I think it would have been important to review it to make sure everything was changed as coming here taking someone's word for it because you know as you know that mistakes do happenings happen you know they need to be corrected as well and this is how I believe some of our issues happen you know with our contracts with our you know I mean throughout the the time is nobody says hey let's change this and nobody checks to make sure that the changes are actually made until there's a problem and then we might be facing a lawsuit. So

I compared mine online against my notes, you know. So that's what I appreciate y'all taking the time to go see because it is very important for the city and I really appreciate y'all looking through it. Anybody else have anything to say? Good. So, this will be on our the I guess the first reading will be on our agenda this coming Tuesday. The transmit the Okay. The transmit. It'll be to transmit the proposed plan and then after we vote on that, then it will be sent to the state to go to whoever

we have a motion right on that agenda item. I will make sure. Yeah. We need to make sure we have the motion right. Yeah. to transmit. So make a motion to transmit. Yeah. So we're very specific and that would be the first reading of that. Okay. So if everybody's good, motion to adjourn.