City Council - Special Meeting

Call to order? I call to order the city council special meeting of 08/18/2025. Roll call.

Mayor DePue? Present. Councilwoman Gillis? Here. Councilman Thomas?

Here.

Councilwoman Dalbo? She's here. She's not. We'll come back. Councilman Rainbird?

Here. Item two, public hearing, ordinances, and resolutions. Item two a, first reading, ordinance number twenty twenty five dash zero dash o eight, request to repeal the citywide moratorium of Florida Shores Building Permit Moratorium in response to the passage of Senate Bill 180. Please read into the record.

Ordinance number twenty twenty five dash zero dash eight, an ordinance of the City Of Edgewater repealing ordinance number twenty twenty four dash zero dash 62, ordinance number twenty twenty four dash zero dash 63, and Ordinance twenty twenty five-six, rescinding temporary moratorium on annexations, rezonings, comprehensive plan amendments, site plans, preliminary plats, final plats and certain building permits, providing for conflicting ordinances, providing for severability and providing for an effective date.

Thank you. Staff report.

Mayor and Counsel, I'm going to defer to City Attorney Wolf to explain what the law is asking for us to do.

Okay. SB 180, now signed into law, prohibits cities from proposing or adopting more restrictive or burdensome amendments to its comprehensive plan or land development regulations. In addition, the law prohibits proposals or adoption of more restrictive or burdensome procedures concerning the review, approval or issuance of a site plan, development permit or development permits before 10/01/2027. And the law is retroactive to 08/01/2024. So SB 180 requires the city to prepare a notice for any adopted laws that may conflict with its provisions indicating intent to repeal and then go ahead and subsequently repeal those laws.

The day after SB 180 became law, the city received notice from the Volusia County Building Association of the passage of SB-one 180 and requested the moratoriums be repealed. Ms. Root with the Florida County Building Association acquired again on 07/01/2025. We then the city posted on its website notice of intent to repeal. And now before you today is an ordinance repealing the Moratoria ordinances.

The SB 180 importantly has provides for private enforcement action. So any city resident or any business owner in the city can file suit to enforce SB 180. When they prevail in that case, they would be entitled to cover attorney's fees and costs against the city. The only way to prevent that from happening is to post the notice on the website, which we've already done, but then follow through and appeal the Moratoria ordinances. So the one compelling reason to repeal the Moratoria ordinances is the potential for lawsuits being filed against the city.

The city would have to pay all the attorneys fees and costs in those lawsuits. And there could be dozens or even hundreds of these lawsuits filed against the city. It could actually become a cottage industry of attorneys suing Edgewater over SB 180. And so the cost for that could be very, very substantial to the city. Also, there's the potential that an ethics complaint could be filed against city council members for failing to follow state law.

There's also the potential that the governor could suspend or remove any city council member who violates state law that could be considered misfeasance or malfeasance in office. So there really are compelling reasons to repeal the Moratoria ordinances. It's mandated by state law. And it's my recommendation that the city council go ahead and approve this ordinance and repeal the Moratoria ordinances.

Okay. Thank you. We're going to open the public hearing, citizens' comments.

Okay. Hello everyone. Linda Mosier, 319 Leaning Oak Drive. I'm here today to highlight and compare issues faced by the Majestic Oaks HOA representing a small community of 100 parcels and the City Council representing the larger population of Edgewater on the whole. Approached from either direction along US 1 and turning onto Oak Branch, the main entrance to Majestic Oaks is flanked by an oak tree canopy that was established twenty years ago. Moser?

Yes. Is this related to Yes. Does. Okay.

I'll get there. I promise. Where was I? Twenty years ago. City Code Article Section seventeen-seven designates permitted streets for truck use and that list does not include Oak Branch Drive.

The city's online tree removal permit sets a 32 inches limit in diameter for removal of oak trees. Since 2006, Volusia County property records have shown the area of Tract E to contain the namesake oak trees, medians, and signage. Today, each of the 20 canopy trees exceeds the maximum diameter limit. While technically shared with the city for right of way easement, the entire entrance area has been managed as a residential common element under Majestic Oaks Care for over two decades. Through its moratorium, City Council has demonstrated a commitment to flood mitigation efforts that are proactive in protecting the larger community.

Upon closer inspection of the public documents presented at the last council meeting seeking final approval for commercial development at 2360 South Ridge Wood, Majestic Oaks has been desperately reactive in pointing out the most damaging details buried in that site plan. I'm not here to cast blame or demonize developers. No one can claim ignorance of the fact that the commercial build along that frontage was inevitable. It was clear cut for that purpose in 2009. However, none of the current overhead plan renderings are sufficient to fully illustrate the fine print, ground level impacts of the current planned use proposal.

So circling back to SB180, Majestic Oak's position of no business entrance through Oak Branch sits squarely between the stated interests of Edgewater's development department and city council. In the bigger crosshairs, the city's moratorium now sits between the state's overreach against home rule and unchecked development statewide. We feel you. We hope that you will help Majestic Oaks advocate for its homeowners. We stand with you in facing the unintended consequences posed by SB 80. Good luck and thank you.

Thank you, ma'am, for your comments. It.

Hey, everybody. Good afternoon. My name is Greg Gembert. I'm from Daytona Beach. Welcome, Mr. Thomas. Time. I want to ask you to vote no on repealing the moratorium. I know you heard some very scary stories just now, everything except for the flashlight under the chin. I know there are a lot of folks who've made very compelling reasons for you to repeal this moratorium.

I'm gonna explain to you why you don't have to and you shouldn't. Many of you we've been working with since before the moratorium was started. We talked about the process of changing your comp plan, the process of not only putting it in an ordinance where it's safe but putting it in your chart or up on the top shelf so it's harder to get rid of. Some of the things we talked about were no more building on wetlands, not even if you had the wetland mitigation credits from St. John's. You're taking that off the table. No longer changing the grade of the land. If you need to level your land, lower to High Park, but no more pushing your water off on the neighbors. We talked about other bans like protecting your drinking water. Your moratorium is the path to get there.

We talked about the ramifications of doing some of these things, that you were going to face lawsuits, many lawsuits, lawsuits you're going to lose the first round. You're going to have to take to the Court of Appeals and then to the Supremes to enforce some of this stuff. You're in the unique position where you have a life safety emergency. People's homes are literally drowning year after year. When I came here a year ago and I said, you all were wet enough and desperate enough and neighborhood enough that maybe you could hold your stuff together to stand up against the development onslaught upon you.

Tonight is our first test of your resolve. Tonight is the first time you face a lawsuit, not the first time you quit. Now, I don't have all the examples mister Wolf does, but I'll take his at its most extreme that you could get removed from office. Okay. What better badge of honor that you went all the way to getting removed from office rather than leaving your citizens to drown on their own? And we talk about getting removed for office. That's not a civil matter. That's like criminal. You get removed from office for criminal acts. And the federal constitution is very clear on ex post facto law.

You cannot take something that was legal, make it illegal, and then retroactive, move it backwards. If they're going to remove you from office for this, that's the equivalent of a criminal act. You are protected from this. Now, I know I don't have the degree Mr. Wolf does, but I'm certain he's not a constitutional expert either. So I would implore you to hit the brakes on this. Preserve what you have. Right now, you have standing. All your stuff was in process before one eighty started. You see communities from all over the state jumping in, breaking law, trying to create moratoriums and other changes to defy state law, to pick a fight with them.

They're trying to create standing. You already have it. And you have the best standing. You're gonna get grandfathered in if you'll just stay the course. So thank you for hearing my input. Don't face a whole room full of people in two months and saying that you quit on them at the first turn. Don't quit. Vote no. Thank you.

Thank you, sir, for your comments. We appreciate it. Please no public participation throughout this meeting unless it's citizens' comments.

Mr. Mayor, Councilwoman is on the conference

line. Perfect.

James McGinnis. 2607 Willow Oak Drive. I would like to address the moratorium ordinance 25 dash zero dash o six enacted on 01/06/2025. It is to protect the citizens from flooding situations and from aggressive developers, builders so the current city council and leaders have the opportunity to review and amend any pending permits or adjustments. The city planning and zoning board had recommended for approval on 11/11/2024 as per ordinance twenty twenty four dash zero dash six two and ordinance twenty twenty four dash zero dash 63.

There was a huge amount of work and hours to prepare the moratorium. To just sweep it away by a vote to a repeal is a bad decision. The state lawmakers in Tallahassee has passed a bill called SB one eighty. While its original concept was good, it was, however, changed with some last minute amendments to which the bill now takes away a city's home rule. Home rule is the context of a local government means the power of municipality to govern itself, manage its own affairs, and create its own charter without direct interference from the state government.

This allows local entities more autonomy in making decisions on matters that primarily affect their communities. In SB one eighty, page five, section twenty five two fifty two dash four five zero five stating that local governments are prohibited from adopting a moratorium. The bill further states that local governments will not be allowed to adopt any moratorium for a specific time frame, which is in section five five three dot nine zero two. There are many other sections dictating to cities what they are allowed to do. SB one eighty threatens our our wetlands, sea turtle habitat, conservation lands, resiliency, comprehensive growth plans, impact fees, and smart sustainable development.

In closing, I would like to ask the city to vote no on repealing of the moratorium, continue to operate within the current laws that have been set forth. I encourage the city council to join in a group of official plaintiffs to protect our rights as a city. Under US Supreme Court opinion issued June 2025, Trump v Casa Inc, the short version is this, if a city is not on the plaintiff list against s b one eighty, that city may be left out of any agreements or amendments or repeals of SB one eighty. There have been many cities, municipalities, counties lining up to file a challenge for SB one eighty. Representative Fiona McFarlane stated she would lobby for its repeal.

Senator Nick DeCacley, who originally sponsored the bill, stated if the opportunity was there, he would not hesitate to improve SB one eighty. In closing, I would urge the city council to vote no on repealing the ordinance and possibly just putting it on hold for now. Thank you.

Thank you, sir, for your comments, sir. Appreciate it.

Good afternoon, commission. My name is Brian White. I'm a New Smyrna resident. I also serve on the board of directors at Thousand Friends of Florida, which is a leading land use advocacy nonprofit in the state of Florida. We're providing a lot of guidance on the issue with SB 180.

I'm not here speak on behalf of Thousand Friends, but I'm here to implore you to keep your moratorium. I think that the moratorium in Edgewater was enacted in a good faith response to real problems that real residents of this city face. Unmitigated flooding concerns, rampant overdevelopment. And you all did your jobs to try to rein that in. And now we're in a situation where the state, unfortunately, state legislature has decided to use politics of fear and intimidation to try to coerce you to not do your jobs, but to actually be derelict in your responsibility to protect residents and private property rights.

That's a big problem. And we're really facing in the state of Florida constitutional crisis because SB one eighty is an unconstitutional law and cities are having a hard time establishing their legal standing to challenge it, which is ridiculous. In 1968, the constitution of the state of Florida was amended to grant municipalities home rule authority. It gives you the right of self governance, self determination. It gives your citizens the right to have a voice, to have real representation in their actual communities.

And that power cannot be taken away from you and consolidated in Tallahassee. That's not fair. Frankly, it's un American and it's unconstitutional. So repealing the moratorium, there's a lot of reasons for you to do that. And I understand that you face a difficult decision.

But those reasons are based upon fear and intimidation, fear of litigation from developers, fear of removal or suspension by the governor. And all of those things might happen, but those are not a good basis for policy. You make policy because you serve citizens in their best interests. So I am ask you to please keep your moratorium. And additionally, I'm asking you to please consider joining the growing consortium of municipalities who are committed to fighting this unconstitutional law. Take back your power for your citizens and keep it here in Edgewater. Thank you.

Thank you, sir, for your comments. I appreciate it.

Charles Kilborn, 5316 Diamondleaf Drive. I actually lean slightly in a different direction. SB I I do agree that the the moratorium should not be rescinded, but for different reasons. SB one eighty does not apply to profoundly to new construction and all new construction. Specifically, the language and there's public opinion letters on this by law firms. Mr. Wolf, you can find them. They're not far and few between. They're numerous. But they apply towards reconstruction efforts predominantly.

In fact, the law specifically states, not only with regard to reconstruction efforts but even impact fees, that they specifically say local government school district or a special district may not assess an impact fee, and it goes into reconstruction or replacement of a previously existing structure if the replacement structure is the same land use as the original structure. A lot of this construction is not the the land isn't being used for the same purpose. It is being improved as in new residents or a new neighborhood or new residences and construction. And, therefore, the the the city has the time to step back, assess what the impact fees are for this flooding and for this situation, and not be subject to penalties under section or under bill one eighty. I I when I read both and I've read the entire bill and everything in chapter twenty twenty five one ninety, there's nothing that applies to new construction.

What can what applies to new construction, are the contractual obligations that a city might have with the developers they've already signed. If they've issued permits, then we got a different issue with regard impact fees. But if a permit hasn't been issued and an impact fee hasn't been associated with that and construction hasn't begun, you have the ability to step back, review and assess the situation, take outside counsel, review for possible impact, and pass that economic or pass the appropriate share and burden of economic share and burden to the developer, not just the taxpayers. And so I would suggest that there might be a step in looking back at existing or other counties and cities, municipalities who've already addressed this and have received legal opinion on this. And reviewing this once again, I do not think 180 applies specifically to the city council in this circumstance.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir, for your comments. We're truly appreciate it.

Good evening, everybody. My name is Mike Ponhaitowski, and I'm from the Toboka Farms Village, a little bit north of here. More than that, my family has been a flooding victim twice since Hurricane Ian, Hurricane Milton, secondary to development where pasture land was razed, built, filled, and flooded in my home twice. My neighbor's home was just bulldozed. My question to you is, who do you stand with? You stand with Ron DeSantis and the developers that are bought and paid for that buy buy and pay for the legislative delegation? Or do you stand with the people who have put you in those seats? They are the ones you need to answer to. They are the ones that are the victims of releasing this moratorium. This moratorium is a good thing.

This gives you time to step back and look at what's good for your citizens and your city. You know what? You gotta be brave. You were elected. Your attorney said a lot of bad things could happen to you. Well, you know what? That's your responsibility. That's why they put you in those seats and elected you to make the tough decisions that may not benefit you, but it's gonna benefit them. They're the victims out there. So you need to support them at all costs. Things are gonna change. Once this land is built, it's gone forever. You cannot go back and clear that land. There's no more room to store water. One acre of land will hold 1,500,000 gallons of storm water.

That's what vacant land does for you. It recharges your aquifer. It protects their lands. If you want to make some changes, codify your moratorium into law. Put it in your comprehensive plan. Put it in your charter. If you want to build, great. Don't raise land. Raise the houses. Raise the houses.

Don't raise the land. You can allow some development and building, but protect the lands that are already there. Because these folks that have no choice but to live in the homes they bought and paid for, that they want to be their posterity and their legacy for their children, will be valueless if it continues to flood. If the property values decline, your tax base diminishes. And at some point, you may not have a city because there's not going to be property to tax anymore because it's all flooded and vacant.

So that's a choice you have to make. You've got to make the tough decisions and decide who you stand with. Your citizens or the developers and the legislative delegation that's bought and paid for by the developers. Because I listen to them at their meetings. And they're concerned about all kinds of things except the folks that are sitting in these seats out here who need to protect their property and wanna live out their life in peace without flooding. And we know what's happening out there because you guys put this ordinance in place. You did a brave thing. So you need to stay the course. Do not change your mind. Vote no on repealing the moratorium and protect your citizens.

Because you know what? There's an election coming up. And you know what? They can put some new people in these seats. I want to fight for them. So be brave.

Thank you, sir, for your comments. We truly appreciate it.

Good evening, My name is Ted Noftel. I live in Port Orange. You people only have two choices here tonight. One is fold. Take your attorney's advice and fold. That's easy. That's simple. The other thing you can do is speak truth to power. Now, the cards couldn't be stacked any worse in your deck, could they? How'd your local representative, your your house rep, vote? He vote with you guys? How about your senator? How about your governor? No. Cards couldn't be stacked any worse against you.

Hence, your two choices, fold or stand firm. First speaker here tonight mentioned, if you're suspended, take it and run. They'll have to call an election. Run again. And you'll win by larger margins than you did the first time. All these court cases coming down to Pike, everybody and their dog, a cottage industry, he said. Let them file. Don't bother answering them. Force a judge to come in here and run Edgewater. Your only option is to stand up to the power that developers have in this city, this county, in this state.

So like every speaker thus far, I would encourage you to not go ahead and repeal your moratorium here tonight. Thank you.

Thank you, sir, for your comments. Truly appreciate it.

Thank you,

for letting us speak tonight. I wanted to come you know, I'm Jeff Brower. I'm the Volusia County chair.

As an as I normally do as a member of an elected official or the Planning and Zoning Board, let's allow five to eight minutes if that's acceptable. Well,

thank you. I appreciate that. I I I don't think I need any more than twenty minutes.

The I I really

I'm I'm here to encourage you to I wanna tell you how proud I am of you for the vote that was taken at your last meeting. It took guts. And I'm gonna ask you to stand up again and take a hard vote. I happen to agree with everybody that just spoke before me. I don't wanna see you turn from the moratorium. We need this moratorium in place for all the reasons that that you just heard. And I think you are I think the attorney's right. I I've heard it from people in the public that you'll be attacked. The government governor's gonna remove remove you from office. But I believe I received another legal opinion today from private attorneys.

I think you all did too. I hope you will discuss it. That you're on solid ground for now. You have time to fight and and come back and and live and fight another day. What's what's happening to you is not the legal process. So I'm asking you to stand firm. We need this moratorium in Volusia County like we never did before. We are on the very cusp of losing the whole reason that we choose to live here. We're losing local control. We're losing the the protection of our own neighborhoods, of the Indian River Lagoon, of Spruce Creek with development that's completely out of control.

And I I think you're gonna discuss Senate Bill one eighty two that's prompted all this. It's that bill that's the most outrageous attack on local control that I have ever seen. The only thing that you and I will have left to do is go to ribbon cuttings if this thing stands. We have to oppose it. Now I wanna say something about two steps to opposing senate bill one eighty, and I'll probably get booed here. There's two votes you can make. And I'm gonna tell you the truth. I don't care which way you vote. Just vote and take a stand. You can vote to join the coalition of lawsuits.

I'm gonna applaud you for that. You can vote to stand with the county's approach of having amendments for it, And I will stand and applaud you. We need both. They both get to get will will go together. And I'll tell you, I'm talking to representatives. I'm talking to people all all all over the state. They are hearing us. Here's what needs to happen. This lawsuit is a gun to the head. I understand that. I'm angry. I'm tired of Tallahassee pushing back. Most of them came from city councils and commissions and counties. And now they're up in Tallahassee telling us that we're too stupid to run our own cities and our own county. I'm angry too.

I wanna use that anger that's being put forward in in this lawsuit with the amendment process and work with the state in the way that local government and state government are supposed to work together because I think it can work. And I'm seeing evidence that it is working. Number two, I also have some concerns that I've never seen a short lawsuit between governments. They're always protracted. And I don't care what I'm being told the price will be.

It will go up as it is appealed and re appealed all the way to the state supreme court. I'm willing to go through that. If if that's what you vote, I'll support you on it. But what we need to do the state is saying the whole reason for this is because local governments take too long to allow homeowners to rebuild. That's a lie.

And and I've lived that lie in Volusia County after hurricane Ian. A constituent came to me. The the ocean came in within a foot of the foundation of his house in Wilbur By The Sea. Between Ian and Nicole, we had between September and October, we I went to the state of Florida. I said, we need he needs temporary arming with coquina or whatever and he's gonna lose his house. In two weeks, he had county permits. It took me two years to get a state permit. It's a lie when they tell you it's the counties and the cities that are taking too long. So the next hurricane came, they allowed him to put a four foot corrugated cardboard sea wall up. You could imagine what happened to it.

The tide came in, took out the rest of the foundation of his house, and I actually watched it on TV with whatever newscast was recording it. Half his house split off and fell into the ocean. Two years it took, and then they they say that that we're gonna require them to build it at higher standards. No. We said rebuild your house. The state came in and said, you gotta tear down what's left and then put in piers and elevate your house. The state didn't allow them to rebuild. So it is a complete lie that they've turned us. Now, how can we use that? What we what we need to do right now is make this whole election because half the people that voted for this are all running for reelection right now.

I'm not threatening them. Well, not exactly. But the fact is that right now, we need to make these people, all of us, everybody in Volusia County, everybody in the state of Florida that affects us all, needs to make this the issue that this election turns on. And if they won't listen to us, if they won't miss listen to my appeal to take this and create a a a special session and repeal this bill right now, and it goes on and they decide they're not gonna vote for us, then we need a new Florida legislature and this election ought to do it. Because if they won't support us here, we don't have any support in Tallahassee.

So stand your ground. I respect you for what you're doing. Don't back up on this moratorium, please. Thank you.

Thank you, sir, mister chairman, your comments. Truly appreciate it.

Good evening. Suzanne Schibert with Dream Green Volusia. I've stood up here a lot of times, and tonight I did not come with a prepared statement, but several people have spoken and I see a lot of residents sitting in the audience and I know a lot are watching right now. Ten months ago, I was asked to join a meeting of Edgewater residents because they really felt despair over the flooding and what was happening in your city. And a lot of those residents have actually become my friends.

I've spent an enormous amount of time helping, meeting with your planning director, meeting with them. They have stepped up and really rely on you. And tonight, they are relying on you. These are people that you know well because they've been sitting in the audience for ten months, some of them even longer, but for ten solid months. Patrick Fisher, who can't be here tonight because he's on vacation, his wife Lana, Gina Holt and Tom Holt, Donna McDavid Ken Penny Robin Kasseis Andrew Sherman, who's not here but spent a lot of time studying your drainage systems Ken Hooper, who some of you have spoken to Claudia and Mandy, and Mandy spoke at the last meeting.

You know these people really well. They show up. They've told you their concerns. They've expressed it repeatedly. I'm asking you to do the right thing tonight. I'm proud to wear this shirt with your residents. I know you see them here. Just do the right thing so you can have peace and so they can have peace. Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am, for your comments. We truly appreciated.

Good evening, counsel. I'm Cindy Harris. I live in Unincorporated New Smyrna Beach, right on the Edgewater city line. I got in the running for County Council because my eyes opened after Ian. I grew up here.

And what I saw the city of Edgewater going through and what we were going through in Unincorporated really broke my heart because I grew up here. Somebody needed to stand up and speak out for all the citizens in District 3 and really for you guys. And what I have seen you do for your citizens in this city really drove home for me. Thesel, what you have done recently by going to Tallahassee and getting that appropriation to armor the canals, you guys fight hard for your citizens. You really do. You cannot stop now. You have got to continue this fight. You really do. You have to continue it. You've got to go to Tallahassee.

You cannot back out. You cannot say, we're going to just lay down and let it happen. You can't. Your citizens are relying on you. And that is the whole reason why I stood up and what I said is enough is enough. My background has been in advocacy for the last few decades for my clients as a self employed person. I just can't do this. I need your help. They need your help. Continue what you've been doing, please, for your residents, your business owners.

Fight this. As Mr. Brower said, fight this. Whatever way you choose to go, just don't stop fighting for these residents and these business owners in the city that sits on the water's edge, where you got your name from, please. And if there's anything that I can do, Joe, please let me know. Okay? Please. Whatever I can do to help. I'm here for you.

Thank you, ma'am, for your comments. They're truly appreciated. Okay. We're going to close the public hearing.

I'm Mandy Bullard, fourteen seventeen Needlepom. I'm going to keep it short and sweet. I've talked to most of you already. I've been here almost every week. I'm here again asking you to join the coalition to keep the moratorium. Volusia County was the first county in the state of Florida to adopt the charter form of government, and it's imperative that we now join the fight against SB 180. Volusia County is currently ranked the most at risk county in the state for flooding and extreme property loss. We cannot sit idly by and allow this overreach. Our county chairs are taking a position to ask the legislators that signed this bill a mere five weeks ago to change their mind and relinquish the power they have just seized. They will not.

Litigation is the most effective course of action, and as an Edgewater resident, I'm asking you all to join the coalition. Your seats are ineffective and powerless if you do not fight it. So, if your biggest worry is being removed, you're effectively being removed by doing nothing. So, we want people that fight for us. We'll fight for you. Please join the coalition and keep our moratorium. Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am, for your comments. They're appreciated.

Kathryn Pantesch, Loathe Growth, Volusia. Address protected. I'm urging you to not repeal the moratorium. And today, I'm here on behalf of my aunt and resident of Edgewater to urge you to stand strong for your community and join the coalition of cities pursuing litigation against the state of Florida over Senate Bill one eighty. SB one eighty constitutes a direct infringement upon constitutionally protected home rule.

It undermines the ability of municipalities to exercise essential land use powers, are critical to safeguarding public health, safety, and welfare. I have questioned the constitutionality of this legislation from its inception and urges council to do the same. Florida's Home Rule Authority, as well established under Article eight, section two b of the Florida constitution, explicitly provides municipalities with broad powers of self governance. This authority was reinforced through the Home Rule Powers Act of 1973, which ended challenges to municipal autonomy. Lucia County was a state leader in this regard, becoming the first county to adopt home rule under the 1968 constitution.

That was a moment of bold leadership, leadership that deserves to be honored and upheld by all of you on the dais. Unfortunately, the county's current strategy appears to be simply asking nicely for an amendment process during the next legislative session. That approach is not only weak but also delays critical progress on rural boundary charter amendment in time for the 2026 ballot as well as important comprehensive plan and zoning measures to protect residents. Let's call SB 180 what it is: a calculated attempt by the legislature, aided by our local delegation, to strip away local authority and eliminate home rule. It was not crafted to be amended but to serve interest of powerful development groups that now dominate the legislative process.

Litigation is the only meaningful mechanism available to challenge and potentially overturn SB one eighty. The cost of joining litigation is reasonable when weighed against the cost of inaction. Many residents have already borne devastating losses from repeated flooding, far greater than the price of filing suit. I know this firsthand. After hurricane Ian, I spent nearly $50,000 restoring my property. That burden should not fall again and again on residents when preventable protections are stripped away. And let me remind you, your political future does not lie in Tallahassee. It lies right here with Edgewater residents. They are the ones who elected you. They will decide whether you remain in office.

Show them you are willing to fight for them, and they will fight for you when it matters. So tonight, I ask you, don't settle, don't delay, don't fold. Join the lawsuit, defend home rule, protect your residents, show Edgewater that its leaders are willing to fight as hard for this community as its residents have fought to rebuild their homes and their lives. Thank you.

How much more

time for your comments. I appreciate it.

Do I

have any more time?

I don't believe so because it's about twenty seconds.

Good

evening. I'm Gina Holt, 1798 Hideaway Lane. You know I need to add my 2¢. I concur with everyone that has spoken. I think you've been given a lot of good information and a lot of good reasons to stand your ground, and I'm asking you to do that. I didn't vote for one of those guys in Tallahassee. I haven't voted for any of them for a very long time because they don't know what they're doing. They know nothing about Volusia County. Volusia County, everybody's seen in the newspaper, number one in flooding in the state, probably a lot of other places. There's a book called Volusia County Soils.

It was written back in the sixties. Volusia County is very poorly drained. Those people sitting up there in Tallahassee don't know about Volusia County. I don't think they care about Volusia County. These are lawyers, and they did a lousy, lousy job writing this bill. It's bill. Lawyers' whole lives are words. I've worked in the field of law for forty years. I am not a lawyer, but I can tell lousy language. It needs to be amended.

We need to stand up, join the coalition, and put the pressure back where it belongs for these people to fix what they screwed up. Please join the coalition. Please do not repeal this moratorium.

Thank

you. Thank you, ma'am, for for your comments. I appreciate it.

Hello. Tim London, 2632 Woodland Drive, Edgewater. I'm up here to support everything everybody said here tonight. I don't think I've heard a thing stated against us, the repealing the moratorium that I disagree with. You guys have done a great job standing up and trying to do what's right for the city. Don't fall down. And the reason this has happened is not because Edgewater formed a moratorium. Edgewater is a small town. The reason this happened, because counties and cities all over the state were doing the same thing. So you have friends out there. Get with them and fight this thing. And do not repeal the ordinance. Thank you.

Thank you, sir, for your comments. Appreciate it. Close the public hearing. On the council comments. I'll go ahead. Well, I just want to say, all of our I think all of us up here voted for the moratorium. I think that you were on the council yet. But the three of us voted for the moratorium. It's not in my nature just to stand down and do absolutely nothing and not fight. I think that we need to fight.

We need to work with our state legislators. At this time, here's what I'm going to recommend and give our $02 is that we join the county or at least give consensus for the city manager and city attorney to help and support the county initiatives with amendments. I think that there needs to be amendments to the bill if the bill is not repealed regardless. I think that we need to continue with the goals of our moratorium even if we cannot enact them. And I think that all of our residents here tonight and all the phone calls I have received wants us to join the coalition.

It was my personal opinion. I wanted to wait until 10 or more cities got involved, but I think that we have enough now to join the coalition. And this is not necessarily working against the legislators. We want to work with them, but we need to have home rule. Home rule needs to be effective here in the city of Edgewater in all cities all throughout the state of Florida. Mr. Attorney, do you want to give your opinion? And then I have one more question related to the moratorium.

Yes. I recommend joining the group lawsuit challenging SB 180. I think there are very good constitutional grounds to have that statute overturned and perhaps a preliminary injunction in to stop enforcement of SB 180. So yes, I recommend joining the group lawsuit.

Thank you. Do we have an exact number of how many cities have joined?

Not yet. I spoke to the attorney leading the litigation last Thursday. He said he had at that point three or four, but by today's date, expected to have ten. And by time of filing, fifteen or 20.

So it's expected to be around ten?

At least. Okay.

Then I have oh, you have a count? Would you like to go ahead and I can wait. Okay. Well, the other question I had is related to the moratorium. So if you want to go ahead and get the comments out about joining the coalition and joining the county, with the amendment process as well, we can go ahead and discuss that if you guys comfortable with that.

Well, I just wanted to say that I've got phone call after e mail, some of them on city website, full disclosure, they're right there. I haven't heard one person ask me to remove this moratorium. And hearing these people tell me that they're behind us. And I still stand to what I said before. If I get removed, I'll walk through this town with my head held high. Because I work for you. I'll never forget I work for you. This is not easy. I haven't been sleeping. I woke up quarter to five the other day with my heart pounding out of my chest because of this.

But I look out. Folks, I got a cemetery plot up the street. I'm not going nowhere. I'm dying in this town. This is my home. My grandkids live here. And I don't think I think about you, but I think of my grandkids, three and seven. And I want them to still be able to see Dolphin out there and some sand under their toes rather than all this concrete that's coming. And I appreciate everything that's been said here. I work for you. That's all I got to say. Thank you for coming.

There's no public participation at this time.

I just have so many thoughts. And there's a couple of things I do want to address. Like, I'll try not to cry up here, to be honest. And I'm even going quote Jeff Brower on this when he said, the one negative thing he's heard about me is that I can get too emotional. And if I get emotional for my city, I get emotional for my city. And I'm not going to say that's a bad thing. It's inspiring to see the people who've come up and spoke tonight. All the calls that we've gotten and the letters we've gotten and just hearing everybody speak today. Because I know that the rest of the state is watching us. They want to see what we do.

And I don't think we can buckle. Because I've seen a lot of I've seen some blowback on the internet of people saying things like, oh, well, the moratorium didn't work. It just stopped me from doing this in my neighborhood. You don't know what you don't see. You don't see the developments that were trying to come in around us that are saying, oh, well, they're not developer friendly. We're not going there right now. You don't see the things that it stopped, The boogeyman that are out there that I promise you are still trying to come. I talked to somebody earlier about a project that they said that they were trying to put in next to their house that they believe got scared off by

the moratorium, and I'm going go on

the record and say thank God for that one. But that is I mean, the things that you don't see that it has helped, they're out there. And I don't know. My heart is full just seeing everybody come out today and then the other words from the dais, and I want to continue the conversation.

Well, the question that I had at this time, Mr. Thomas, if you'd like to go ahead and add your comments, feel free to. But I think that I would like to discuss if are going to join the coalition and if there is consensus to go along with the county on the support of the amendment process as well. And then we'll get into the moratorium discussion itself.

I would like to have the conversation about both items. That's a little something. I saw there seemed to be some confusion online, like we had to pick one or the other. We could join the coalition or we could do the amendment. We can do both. I say we go gun blazing with everything.

I'm saying fight, fight, fight. So I'd like to have consensus at this point in time to move forward with the county amendment process and I believe we would need a vote to join the coalition, correct?

Yes. And actually, the resolution will be required to join and I can have that if that's the consensus of the council, I can have that prepared for the next meeting.

I give consensus for both items to join the county along with the coalition. Mr. Thomas, do you have any comments? I do. I'm with you.

I give consensus on both items as well.

And I believe Councilwoman Davos is on the phone. If you have anything to weigh, if you would like to speak.

I am. Thank you very much. I'm a consensus of counsel. I would like to do both as well.

Consensus of yes?

Yes.

Perfect. And we can hear you perfect now. You weren't up to the speaker, so I apologize. So it is unanimous consent to join the county resolution of joining the amendment process along with joining the coalition, which will have a vote in our next meeting. Is that the consensus at this point in time, unanimous consensus?

Yes. We've already had consensus about joining, like twice now. This is the third one, right? No.

We talked about it. We never gave an exact answer. Great. Okay. And at this point in time, let's move on to the comments about the moratorium.

I didn't get my comments on that. Oh, I apologize.

I was waiting for the last.

Sorry. I just I feel like there's no choice in this matter. When I put my hand on that Bible and I swore to uphold city law, county law, state law and federal law, then I'm bound to that. There's no way around it. It is a state law.

I was a state law enforcement officer from 1970 to 2001. Then I was a state or county deputy sheriff from 2001 to 2005. And I am not going to be an outlaw now. What I think I mean, I'm a fighter, and I want to do

this No public comment at this time.

Want some final warning. Think we ought to join the coalition and do the fight right. I think this can be beat, and that's my suggestion.

To the moratorium discussion at this time.

We about to talk more about this or are you going to

We had unanimous consensus at this point in time for the other two favors. So I think it is time to move on to Mr. Thomas, was that your comments for joining the coalition in the Yes. Okay. Do you have any comments about the moratorium at this time? Let's move on to this item action item A, first reading orders number 2020Five-eight if there is nothing else to comment. If

I remember right, I made the motion to do it and I'm all for it. But, you know, state law, I'm not going to go against state law. I'm not going to

do that.

I got a question for so if Aaron and this, I guess, is going to be a question fielded to Ryan as well. I mean, if we vote to keep the moratorium last night, are you guys still going to be issuing permits?

Well, yes. I mean, in my opinion, legal opinion, SB 180 declared the city moratoria ordinances null and void from ab initio or from the beginning. So in my view, they've already been declared null and void. And so they're unenforceable at this point.

Here's my Which is why

I don't understand. I still can't comprehend how a law says that our moratorium is null and void, they want to watch me repeal it. It's null and void. How can I repeal something that the governor took away from me?

Here's my question at this point in time. And the resident stood up, Mr. Ginburne, and said that, of course, lawsuits will be filed against us. We had that, potentially know when we filed the moratorium. You stated that the Volusia County Builders Association sent a letter.

My question to that letter is wasn't exactly a safe harbor letter. I had an outside counsel that's a dear friend of mine that represents three cities give an outside consultant opinion. And what I'm questioning here tonight is SB 180 states that before a plaintiff must file suit, the plaintiff shall notify the impacted local government by setting forth the facts upon which the complainant or petition is based and the reasons the impacted local government actions violates this section. Upon receipt of the notice, the impacted local government shall have fourteen days to withdraw. Because the letter addressed to the city from the Volusia Building Industry Association does not specifically set forth the facts and explain why they are more burning some.

I have a question if that letter is a valid safe harbor letter at this time. And if that is not a safe harbor letter, do we have fourteen days before they could potentially file suit? Just a question at this point in time. How strong is that letter? Is it exactly a safe harbor letter? And what to that degree does it have to be bounded by the court of law?

Yes. I don't have the exact e mail in front of me. But my understanding is it notified the city that SB 180 became law and requested the moratoriums be repealed based on conflict with SB 180. So to me, it seems to meet the spirit of the

the it Board.

And

questions. Going to plan amendment, land development, regulation or procedures shall be null and void ab initio. This subsection applies retroactively to 08/01/2024. Please confirm that there will be business as usual at the City Of Edgewater on Monday morning in light of the signing of SB 180 by the governor and that the moratorium is in fact lifted in accordance with state legislation.

So let me ask another question to that email. Has there been business as usual?

There has been.

So therefore, how can it even be bound by law? They have no standing.

How can you complain going do

And then, I to exactly affected them.

Well, it puts the city on notice that

That SB 180 is law. We knew that. I'm not arguing this with you,

Aaron. Okay.

But I'm just saying that that's basically, in my opinion, what the letter states.

It was written quick and it wasn't written well. That's my opinion. This was thrown together.

I think that we need to wait to hear exactly how one has been affected by our moratorium since SB180 has been passed because I haven't heard a reason yet. I'm not scared if And business is as usual. They don't have a lawsuit to stand on.

How many permits have you filled since SB 180? Ryan? Ish.

Can I actually cut in? We actually just had a public records request for that, and I think they said that there hadn't been any filled since it was signed. If I'm

There's remembering two, none held. Well,

we're voting an ordinance to repeal that we don't know how our residents are being affected by the ordinance. So I'm a little confused here. Just stating for the record. And I want to make something else clear before we move forward with the vote to repeal the moratorium. If the moratorium is null and void, it passes ordinance and this ordinance does pass, are we still going to move forward with the moratorium goals at this point in time on an administrative level and move forward with updating our comp plan even if we cannot update it at a state level and seeing what codes need to be updated and things to that degree.

Are we going to move forward with the goals of the moratorium? Basically, we're waiting the main part of that was waiting until we had our stormwater master plan back. But just in case, this moratorium truly is null and voided for everyone that is voiced tonight, unanimous majority here, to keep the moratorium while we still move forward with the goals.

That's where staff needs clear direction.

I think we already gave clear direction on moving forward with the comprehensive plan and that we weren't happy that it was stopped. Mean, I think

that direction has I already been don't want to give just direction for that. I want to give direction to move forward still with every goal that was written moratorium. The comp plan, I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, but staff had one more public meeting until they can move it forward to counsel. I would hate to see that just sit on the shelf like several other events and studies have here in the city of Edgewater. So that's just my question as far as that goes.

Can we move forward with the full goals of the moratorium as far as waiting to receive our stormwater mask for impact? That's the obvious. That necessarily wouldn't be on an administrative level. Updating our comp plan, that was what we were going to move forward with. And we're going to look and see what codes needed to be updated. I don't think that has been brought forward to us. Mr. Powers was tremendous when he was here. He brought forward the initiative with Mr. Erby to change our exactly our codes of measurement for new development from a twenty year twenty five year storm plan to a one hundred year storm plan, something we've all been proud of on the City Council.

So I just want to make sure that we're going to move forward with those goals. I mean, the two, we can still be done can still be done, I believe, on administrative council level to move forward for when they can be enacted. As far as the stormwater master plan, I believe we're getting that back in December. But I want to move forward with exactly every goal that we're underlying in the moratorium, if that's a consensus for council. But right now, to move forward, seeing what codes need to be updated and exactly finishing our comp plan, even if it cannot go to the state until, I believe, 2030.

So the simple answer is yes, we can continue with those goals.

Okay. Are there any other comments at this time since so that was directed that I Mr. Attorney, I want your final opinion since they didn't state exactly how they were affected in the moratorium and exactly how it affected daily life and operation here in the City Of Edgewater. Business has been as usual. Is there a leg for them to legally stand on at this point in time?

Well, again, I think so. I think it meets the spirit of the statute in putting us on notice that the moratorium conflicts with state law and they ask that it be rescinded.

They're saying it's conflicted with state law, but they're not saying how they were personally affected by it. No.

Doesn't say that.

So that technically, in your opinion, is that a safe harbor letter exactly stating how they were affected by the city of Edgewater?

I think it meets the spirit of statute. I think that if a judge looked at it, they would probably find that that met the statute requirements.

Okay. And if we receive a letter stating how somebody was affected by the moratorium doesn't meet, then Madam City Clerk, I think that this is a question for you, would fourteen days meet the spirit of having an emergency meeting to discuss a moratorium to see within the legal guidance of how they were affected here in the city of Edgewater if we absolutely need to repeal the moratorium because I believe that we have fourteen days to respond before a suit. Is that correct?

Right. Well, yes. Within fourteen days, the city must put on the website or a notice of intent to repeal and then proceed to repeal it after that.

In my opinion, I don't think I'm just going to give my opinion, my outside legal personal counseling opinion. I trust you, Mr. City Clerk, but I don't necessarily think it had the attention of a Safe Harbor Act, but I don't think it gave exactly how they were affected in the city of Edgewater at this point in time. If business has been as usual in their letter states, business to be as usual when. So that has already been answered.

We are business as usual. So I think that, at this point in time, I'm not comfortable repealing an ordinance that hasn't been burdensome to anybody in the city of Edgewater so far on a legal written piece of paper? Or have I received any calls about it being burdensome to our residents? Would you like to speak into the record, Ms. Rainberg?

It states here on this FOIA request, two permits issued, zero permits held. And I can go backwards and get that number. Freedom of Information Request 2020Five-seven76.

Okay. Perfect. And for anybody listening, that public record would be held within the city clerk, correct email. Perfect. Okay. Are there any further comments at this time? Or would someone like to make a motion to repeal the moratorium?

Well, I would like to make a comment before Are we you able to hear me? Yes. Great. I agree with Mike. We are bound by the law to follow the law and state legislation as much as this probable bill, SB180, negatively affects every resident potentially in Edgewater. I feel that we have to follow the law. I mean, long story short, so that's where I stand with it. Thank you.

I agree with following the law as well, but we're business as usual. The City of Edgewater has stated with our Building Director. I'd like to interject something.

If council members vote no, how long would it be for the governor to move them from office?

I don't know how the governor would feel about that. So I don't know if he would act on that or not. So I can't say.

What I'm getting at is I know you and you and you and I do, too, have compassion for these people. And the people have compassion for y'all. And if you get removed, how are you going to help them then? Know? Can help them. I mean, I I I'm done. I I believe I'm I'm a believe I'm a I think we ought to fight, but I think we ought to do it the legal way.

I agree.

It is a tricky situation. Okay. Is there a motion to appeal Ordinance twenty twenty five-zero-eight, request to repeal the citywide moratorium and the Florida Shores Building Permit Moratorium in response to passage of Senate Bill 180.

Under due rest, I move that

we Yes. I'm sorry to bother you. If we that made me think of something. Let's go back here for a minute. I did read the ordinance, but I want to clarify to our residents, as I have received a couple of calls about this, in the ordinance, we gave direction, I believe, last council meeting to take Mr. Fisher's recommendation. In the ordinance, does it state, if this passes, that we were under duress to repeal the moratorium and repeal this ordinance?

It states that whereas SB 180, now Florida state law, mandates the city repeal the temporary moratorium to comply with the law. That was the change that was made.

So there was no further languages that it was

The language was removed to where it was for the well-being and safety of the public.

Okay. I

move that we repeal the citywide moratorium and Florida short voting permit moratorium in response to the passage of Senate Bill 180.

And you vote to pass enact for December '58. Yes.

Second.

Roll call.

Mayor DePue.

I recommend that we revisit this matter if we receive a safe harbor request. No.

Councilwoman Gillis? No. Councilman Thomas? Yes. Councilwoman Dalbo?

Yes.

Councilman Rainbird?

No. Please note public participation at this time. Item 2B, Resolution twenty twenty five R-twenty five, request

Request for Approval of Resolution Designating the Administrative Authority to Review Process and Administer Please read into the record. Resolution No. Twenty twenty five R-twenty five, Resolution of the City Of Edgewater, Florida, designated the Administrative authority to review process and administer plats and replats in accordance with Senate Bill seven eighty four, authorizing recording, repealing resolutions of conflict herewith, providing for severability and applicability and establishing an effective date.

Thank you. Staff report.

Yes, mayor and council. Senate Bill seven eighty four requires the city appoint an administrative authority defined to be a city employee to administratively approve final plats. The resolution in front of you appoints Mr. Ryan Solstice as Development Services Director as that administrative authority to approve final plats.

Okay. Thank you. Open a public hearing, citizen's comments.

I'm just so proud of you all. That's it. Thank you.

I just want to highlight again. I know you guys have hit this. I really appreciate, Mary, your perspective on the matter. I do not believe it's a safe harbor letter. Moreover, I mean, I just while we were sitting here reading a Holland and Knight opinion on this, it specifically says because the not only does the letter not qualify for for the reasons he pointed out, but it doesn't state how the law made it illegal.

The requirement is not just to say, hey. The law that you're that's the the your moratorium is illegal based on this law. It's to say how the law made it illegal. And in the opinion letter and in the summary text of the law, it says, does not prevent all building moratoriums for new construction, period. It specifically prohibits moratoriums on construction, reconstruction, or redevelopment of property damaged by hurricanes.

Not all construction. This has to be revisited, And I believe for a safe harbor law to be in fact, this is just muscle, a letter that went up and went before you and said, hey. Under the threat of public pressure, rescind this based on the law, but the law does not say that. So I would suggest before we get concerned about having a constitutional crisis that we interpret the law properly, and I agree with the counsel. Thank you.

Thank you. We appreciate your comments. Counsel comments. Well, I think that this is part of the law that's going to make it tough now. Let me ask you a question, Mr. City Attorney. As we have reversed one final plat before, I don't think that there's ever been a final plat denied in the City Of Edgewater before. I'm just going to speak freely on the record. Most of the residents already know the VAALCO, as I call it, Lennar Subdivision. Is there a way that if we appoint Ryan, if we see some terrible issues within the two years that we could publicly bring up here to have it visited?

Is that language in the law? Is there any kind of language stating that, that's wrong? I wonder if Ryan points out something that he sees negatively affecting our residents. Could he come to the council and say, I just want to point this out to you guys? Or is it done all behind closed doors? Is it public records request allowed? How exactly is the language written? If we have an issue like Vaca Road subdivision, where it needs to be reaverted and some changes need to be done before the final plat is approved, how does that work? How is this going to work?

Right. Well, City Council would not have any control over the approval or denial of the final plat. Of course, Mr. Solstice could keep the council informed of any decisions that he might make with respect to final plat approval. But it's not something the council is going to have control over any longer.

So this is somewhere and something that the attorney could immediately say that this has affected me because a developer could say this has affected me immediately not designating Ryan? I'm just curious.

Yes. I think there could be, if a final plat was brought to the council for approval since July was passed, yes, I think there could be a challenge to that definitely.

I've sat on the council for quite some time. The Balka Road Subdivision final plat was approved. The council approved it. Then Jonah Mr. Powers brought it back up because he was on the winning side to reavert that final plat right before he resigned.

I've been on this council. I've been a long no for several major subdivisions, ultimately overruled since my tenure. I don't think, correct me if I'm wrong, I don't want to put Mr. Solsys on the spot, but Mr. City Manager, you've been at all the meetings since 2018, correct me if I'm wrong, there as well, has a final plaque normally ever been denied through the City Council before Valco Road Subdivision?

No. To my recollection, that's the only one.

I just want to put that on the record that and I've been the lonely no on several major flats.

I do want to clarify on the Volco project, though, the one that was a different Volco project. So the one we shot down was part of a different subdivision on the other side of the road. The one that the one that Jonah we rescinded his vote on was across the road on Bulko, a little farther down, and they just pulled all their papers and decided not to come back because they figured they were going to get shut down. So that one did pull back, but the one we shut down was a different project.

I'm well aware of that. Are there any further comments? Would any other council member like to weigh any questions in?

No. I want to bring something up before we leave this. Not on this part of it.

Well, I believe that this is one part of the bill that we definitely need to join the coalition on. Don't miss Attorney and Mr. Manager, do you think that there is a leg to stand on a safe harbor request to this part of the agenda?

Part of a different bill, not SB180?

Right. This is a totally separate bill. This is seven eighty four and we were discussing SB180.

Sorry, I apologize. Well, I believe that we have to comply with this bill. There is no lawsuits that are coming forward with any other cities.

We just have to I mean, we as a council has been working harder towards slowing development and having better projects come forward. We just have to keep hammering them so the things that come, we don't have to worry about the final plots as much because we'll have them come in stronger on the preliminary.

And hopefully, Ryan does not get overworked as that's already occurring.

Okay. Can he even handle that now? We're putting another role in this man. Well, the state's putting another role in this man. He's got enough as it is. You know? If he doesn't sleep anyway, that's okay.

Is there a motion to approve? Or Councilwoman Dava, did you have anything that you would like I to apologize.

Oh, thank you. Now, I'm I'm for this. Something's going need to be done. And moving forward, Ryan was the person that needs to be in charge of the final thought process. So if you'd like, I'd like to make a motion.

There's a motion on the table. Is there a second?

Apologize. Make a motion to approve Resolution twenty twenty five R-twenty five, request for approval of the resolution designing the administrative authority to review process administrative flat to Ryan Saucis from Developmental Services.

Is there a second? Second. Roll call.

Mayor DePue? Yes. Councilwoman Gillis? Yes. Councilman Thomas? Yes. Councilwoman Dalbo? Yes. Councilman Rain Bird?

Yes. Before before we leave, mister mayor, the last correspondence that I read from Mr. Or Attorney Jamie Cole said that

he

wanted 25 cities to join the coalition. And he won them by the September 1 to get this thing going on. Can we vote on that tonight to join that coalition? No.

He's going to require a resolution to join. And I've already prepared it, so we can post that for the next meeting for you to The vote

next meeting is when, September 6?

September 8.

September 8. September 8.

Yes. That will be fine. That will meet

his Can we send him a message saying we intend we've already done the consensus?

Absolutely. Can

we send a letter saying yes?

Yes. I'll send him an e mail and let him know that it's going to we're going to vote on the resolution on September 8.

Great. That will automatically that will include the

$10,000 being the resolution in the

Yes. That's yes, the resolution has all the fees in there. And then the payment would be due within, I think, ten days of when you pass the resolution on September 8.

Close the public hearing at this time. If there are no further counsel comments, we are adjourned. We'll take a brief pause before we go on to our