Resolution Of The Pasco County Board Of County Commissioners Setting The Rate For Contributions To The Tree Mitigation Fund, The Use Of Such Funds, And Delegating Authority To Distribute Such Funds, And Repealer.

49:02Aye. Okay. Um We will move on to C 13.

49:08Good morning, madam. Good morning, Madam Chair and Commissioners. David Engel, Planning and Economic Development Director. I'm here to present C13, which is a resolution of the Pasco County Board of County Commissioners, setting the rates for contribution to the tree mitigation fund and the use of funds and delegating authority to distribute funds funds thereafter. This is one of uh a two-phase process. This is uh focusing on um increasing the rate structure for

49:38our tree mitigation fund. It hasn't been done for several decades, and also broaden the use of the funds. I uh the board had authorized uh the use of some funds about three years ago for our commercial landscape program, and we've Delivered $1.8 million of landscape grants out on the street, focused primarily in the West Market area to beautify our county, and we'd like to broaden the use of those funds. The second part of our effort

50:08will be a tree preservation ordinance, and we are planning to bring that to the board. We had a workshop with the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission is going to review and a and and then recommend to the board and hope to see you in September with the new tree um preservation fund and program. So at this time I'd like to invite Amandela Hill. Amanda is our principal planner in charge of special projects and she will review the uh initiative with you. Thank you.

50:38Thank you.

50:42Good morning Commissioner. Amanda Hill, Planning Development and Economic Growth.

50:52So first I'd like to walk you through the history of the fund. It was first created with ordinance zero one dash zero one seven. Subsequently, there were resolutions in 2005 and 2008 to adjust some of the administration of the fund as well as to set some of the contribution rates. And in March of this year, the item along with the tree preservation ordinance was previously brought to the local planning agency, at which point the

51:22local planning agency members recommended that staff bring this as a separate item to the board for consideration. Hence the reason why we're here today. And as David previously mentioned, we are going to be planning to bring the section 802 updates to the board in September.

51:39The current contribution rate is at fifty dollars per inch. For affordable housing projects, it's actually $10 per inch. If it's a project that's not related to a residential project, it's also $50 per inch. And then for projects that aren't related to any sort of building footprint, then it's a $50 per inch rate without a cap. For residential projects, there's a cap of $500 per residential unit. For affordable housing projects that cap is

52:09fifty dollars per residential unit. And then for non-residential projects, the cap is $500 for each 2,000 square feet of first floor building area.

52:21The proposed rate of contribution is $75 per inch for all project types. So there would be no distinction between a residential project, an affordable housing project, et cetera. For trees that are classified as heritage trees, we are proposing an increase to $150 per inch. This wasn't a previous designation in the current contribution rate. And a heritage tree for the purposes of this resolution be considered a live oak that's thirty-four inches or greater, or

52:51a southern magnolia twenty-four inches or greater. And those trees would have to have a condition rating of good or better as determined by the ISA rating system.

53:03Here I included a comparison chart. These were just some of the projects that were in-house at the time when this project was being put together by staff. And you can see the comparison in the fees that would be due to the tree mitigation fund based off of the $50 per inch rate versus the $75 per inch rate. All these projects they elected to pay per inch versus paying that cap of $500 per residential unit.

53:32This slide just looks at what the cost for a tree would be. Of course, it would vary based off of the diameter of the tree, but I just made some example trees here. So you have, for example, a 10-inch tree, a 26-inch tree, and a 40-inch tree, and I compared it in terms of whether it's a non-heritage tree, if it's a southern magnolia, or if it's a live oak. So you can see for 10 inches, the feature. would be the same across the board, it would be seven hundred and fifty dollars. If it's a 26-inch tree, you can

54:02see for the southern magnolia, it's significantly more than the others because at that point it would be considered a heritage tree. And then for forty inches, both the live oak and southern magnolias would be considered as heritage trees. So then that's the increased rate there versus the non-heritage tree.

54:22For proposed authorized locations and recipients, the resolution proposes that uh trees be utilized on land owned or under the control of the county, where the county desires to assist homeowners and affordable housing projects that service eighty percent AMI or below. for the economic growth landscaping program. For the school board. and to accomplish a public purpose that will result in an increase of the tree canopy of Pasco County. Whether or not a

54:53project serves that public purpose would be determined by the board.

54:59Proposed expenditures include reimbursement for drought tolerant trees and plants. This is not to be construed as to include mulch, hardscape, irrigation, design, labor, or other non-vegetative materials. It also proposes authorized expenditures to include the costs associated with the county tree management plan. including tree inventories and canopy studies. And costs associated with the purchase of

55:29conservation easement or deed restrictions on private property. This would be in upland areas and with the goal of conserving and protecting in perpetuity heritage trees or and or tree sands.

55:46The resolution proposes to provide authorization to the county administrator or designee to release funds from the fund up to $200,000 per request. An amount in excess of this amount would need to be brought to the board for consideration and a vote. And the adoption of this resolution would repeal in its entireties the resolutions that were previously adopted in 2005 and 2008.

56:12The recommended action by staff is to adopt a resolution setting the rate for contributions to the tree mitigation fund, the use of such funds, and delegating authority to distribute such funds and repealer. And I'm available for any questions you may have.

56:25Thank you very much. Uh Commissioner Weightman. So

56:29to for clarity, you said the affordable housing projects, they're not getting they're not having a discounted rate. They're going to be paying the same as all the other projects.

56:37It would be a flat rate for all projects. For

56:39everybody, universally. Okay, good. Thank you. And the next the next piece I had I'd like for consideration to fix is the level of authority for releasing the 200 up to $200,000 worth of payments. It can be I mean, theoretically based on the language, he c the county administrator could do five two hundred thousand dollar grants without coming to the board. So I think that language needs tweaked. I talked with Mike about it. And I don't know w necessarily what the threshold should be, but um to

57:09have basically unlimited as the fund grows two hundred thousand dollar delegation authority over over that kind of money, I think we need to tighten the reins on that language a little bit. This framework's got some.

57:25Possibly we could restrict the two hundred thousand dollars per project so we don't have that scope creep on the amount of money.

57:35So how would it read? Because as it reads right now, the administrator going forward

57:40Well it would it could read um the administrator has the authority to allow up to two hundred thousand dollars per project.

57:50Yeah, but there could be that there could be ten projects at two hundred thousand apiece and this board would never see it. That's a lot of money to just grant out. Mike, do you have any followers?

57:59Well I was uh well I was originally gonna suggest that uh you know purchasing ordinance grants the administrator the authority up to a hundred thousand dollars and that we could tie this particular uh you know, spending authority and caps with that. But the cap isn't necessarily the the the problem. The issue that you're you're bringing up is multiple projects and spending. I if the board were to uh come up with programs and budget dollars out of the tree mitigation fund specific programs, it could maintain budget authority over

58:29that and thus thus limit it, or we could we could bring individual projects back. I mean there's I d I I think you wanna you wanna cap an upper limit. So if we were to establish a program, say for I don't know, let's just say parks, we'll call it parks program trees and say you put a million dollars in there. Um if it's a hundred thousand dollar project, it's within the the ordinance limits of my spending authority, I can approve that until we run out of money that the board is appropriated, right? And you would appropriate that million dollars during the budget process against that

58:59program. Um that that's one that's one alternative that I think would you know, satiate at least your concerns on on over overspend. Currently, right now, I mean I I can spend up to a hundred thousand dollars on various programs across across county government, just depending on what they are. They're just varied. Um and they exceed a threshold, we bring those forward back to the board for for authorization. So you're capping you would cap the program within the fund. So we just come up with programs, parks, uh maybe there's right-of-way

59:29use, maybe um, you know, uh David, the program you're talking about with the uh landscaping program, you know, call those three programs and the board appropriates whatever it does. that becomes your ceiling.

59:43Yeah, I just figured I'd bring this up to the board to see what they they felt 'cause otherwise we the boards future boards would never

59:49I think your budget authority is what you you leverage to to cap it. But Uh I mean we can bring every project to you though that that's not a problem either. I don't have a problem with that.

1:00:00Uh um

1:00:03Commissioner Oakley.

1:00:05I think if it's a county project whether it's parks, libraries, or something, even one of our own buildings, give them full authority to do to do it because if we can use this money compared to using our regular taxpayer money, it leaves more money for the general fund for flexibility. The reason I pulled item um

1:00:2534 coming up is because we've got a little road man landscape irrigation project and my question to the staff was was how much of this money can we use for the the tree mitigation fund? Rather than using our road and bridge money, which we can just spend more money on roads, let's go use the tree mitigation funds for that. Um and we'll we'll talk about that. But I want I want to see that flexibility that he can do it any internal county project. If you want to talk about private projects, which I want to discuss that item too, because right now, as you said, it's only only right now

1:00:55under control of the Board of County Commissioners uh the the county, I wanna see that expanded. Part of the reason I pushed this thing for probably two years ago was we had a project in front of Leisure Beach. County gives us the right of way we can go they can go to maintain it. And it took about a eight months to just spend like probably ten thousand dollars worth of plants to get it through the process. Ridiculous. If I get anybody on any major major roadway, w w no matter what the HOA is, I wanna have them flexibility to go forward. If I've

1:01:26got people like on US nineteen where they can't You know, they're not making a lot of money. Anybody wants to go to the Gulf U Mall, go take a look and see what's in that building, what used to be there to what's there now. The demographics haven't supported it and it's hard for them to make money up and down that corridor. I want people with the business on on long nineteen and Rich Jenkins can talk about it 'cause he's trying to work with 'em.

1:01:47Alright, so we'll get to that. Alright, so that'll that'll be the other part. So as far as that goes, flexibility. If we own the property, if it our it's our county project, whatever you can use it for, I say give 'em full flexibility and go use it.

1:01:57Yeah, I I I I think that um You know, every Monday I call and say, where are the trees? because we're not putting them in the ground and that's what this was was collected for. So I I I don't want to hold anything up. Um the You know, this is going on public land. in our parks, on our rights of ways, um a county b county property, county buildings where Uh the trees have been missing for decades,

1:02:28so I'm fine with the two hundred thousand, I really am. It was one hundred thousand, so Uh

1:02:34I'm

1:02:35o I'm okay with that.

1:02:36I'm I'm fine with that too. Uh I got all the faith and world. the administration and Mike and the work that he does and his team that he's got together that they'll do the right thing with the money. If if it gets to a point he has a concern about it, he should bring it to us, he will bring it to us. So that

1:02:55I'm good with what the And on that note, I passed uh drove on Ridge Road again today and it's one of the subjects I want to talk to you about this morning. We have an overlook for people who are riding the trail. And I've been asking for a year, at least a year since it opened for a shade tree there. And there was still a Craig Martin. So um We need people are Sometimes people need to cool down and get out of the sun when they're when they're riding or running and we have got to get a shade tree on

1:03:25that overlook. I'm rejecting. Um

1:03:28Yeah. Okay, so uh I just if I could just interject, I I I want to make sure that we're we're tracking correctly. The board is okay necessarily with two hundred thousand dollars of the upper limit, but I think the question that Commissioner Weightman brought up is just how many two hundred thousand dollar chunks do you I mean if if the balance of that I could spend the whole fund balance I think is really, you know, part of his concern or whether that's me or a future administrator or whatever is does the board want to want us to allocate and budget as our budgeting

1:03:59process versus pulling out of reserves on it. I mean I guess we would have to budget uh a piece of it anyways as long as we stick within the allocated budget. Would that satiate your concerns?

1:04:08Do you mean like duh say thirty percent would go to parks, thirty percent would go twenty to meeting it? I'm actually

1:04:14saying if the tree mitigation fund balance is a million million dollars and the board appropriates half a million dollars of that to be used in fiscal year twenty six, you've put a backstop into place in terms of being able to spend it out. Would that be But

1:04:28I just brought it up. It's just a general conversation to see how the board how the board what other members thought about it. Just you know, if we have a million or two million bucks in there and you or another administrator comes in and just starts spending two hundred thousand dollars down and and we and and blows the fund in a year this board wouldn't know about it. Because the unit the administrator would have unilateral authority to do that. So I just know that that trees and landscaping is important to this board. And so I'm just thinking of the future as as boards

1:04:58change and administration changes. There's some quality control metrics in there. So that that was my whole reason to have this conversation.

1:05:06This is not landscaping, right? This is trees.

1:05:09Yes, trees. We could not provide a quarterly report to the board just to give you an update as to what's being spent and what the projects are. I think it would just be

1:05:22put in the noted items and call it out. to us and I'll be fine. Right.

1:05:25Madam Chair. Yeah. Uh just for the board's knowledge, right now the balance is about nine point four million in that fund.

1:05:32Yeah, but it's about to get dispersed. Growth.

1:05:36Mm-hmm.

1:05:37Yeah.

1:05:37So so part of this thing again with if it's a county owned piece of property and we can go put trees out quicker as opposed to later. Again, nine point four million, that number's outstanding. Right? The purpose of it is to put trees back in the ground that were taken down. So the faster he can put them in the into the ground is what this thing was all about anyway. And if it's county owned property, if I'm saying taxpayer money, I think I should be saving taxpayer money. I don't care what the project is, and let him go do it. As

1:06:07far as like other things, and we'll get to it, we'll talk about other things, but let him go. Save the taxpayer the money. We want to cut the budget down, right? Yeah, I think

1:06:15that's

1:06:15a

1:06:16good

1:06:16idea.

1:06:16I'm not saying not to. You're missing the whole point of what I'm saying. I'm not saying not to. I'm just throwing it out there for conversation. I'm not saying yes or no. I'm gonna support it. I'm just saying as a point of discussion, I think we've gone way far into the weeds around the trees on this. It was just it was just just the level of authority for spending that I thought was worthy to point out and have a conversation about. And with that, I think I see where the tea leaves are. Okay, I'll take a motion.

1:06:44Madam Chairman Mariano

1:06:49I was not able to talk to Ms. Blair who reviewed this for our office um 'cause she's out of the office this week. Um I have a concern that the ordinance has and it's not to the p point that you've just been debating, the ordinance has caps for What the per inch total is. You are changing those caps by resolution. Ah. I believe

1:07:20that the the changes to the dollar amounts cannot occur without the amendment to the L D C going forward. So it'd be a public hearing. So I think you can adopt the resolution but that section one on cont contribution rates would have to B Not effective until you amended your ordinance.

1:07:43Now this has already gone through the Planning Commission.

1:07:46No, it hasn't. It's a resolution.

1:07:47No, it they did they

1:07:49That was that was the tree preservation component. That's phase two for September business. This is for tree mitigation use of funds.

1:07:57The problem is this changes the rates that are within your ordinance by resolution. That's that's my concern. And there may have been a Elizabeth may have had a reason why she thought that was acceptable. I just haven't. been able to talk to her about it. So I what I would suggest is if you want to adopt this today, you make the Uh changes that are found within section one Of

1:08:28going up to seventy five dollars per inch. Or $150 an inch. contingent upon the adoption of Changes to eight o to section eight hundred.

1:08:43If that is necessary.

1:08:44If that's necessary.

1:08:45Okay. Yeah.

1:08:50add that. But I had a qu I had a question, I said I was gonna bring this up. It's kind of a David Goldstein question, I think. And I know we're not dealing it with it here, but um

1:09:03We have had to there are some things we have had to tweak over the years because Uh we've had instances where Um People have cleared their land. Of these trees. before development. And the last one that came to mind was Southwind. And he took out all those oak trees. As an ag property. Um And he has a right to and he and he has a right to but we have rules that you can't clear cut. For before

1:09:33you develop. And I wanted you to go over what those are and

1:09:37Just so I mean if you're operating under The ag exemption and you it's bona fide ag then you can clear the trees. We changed our code I think a few years ago though to say that if you do it immediately before you seek a development approval. You had to been doing this activity for at least five years, I believe.

1:09:58clear the trees right before you seek a development approval. What was happening before was the developers were clearing They were using the I exemptions simply to avoid our tree mitigation ordinance.

1:10:09Yes, and we don't we don't want that.

1:10:10So I believe that change we made to the code a couple of years ago was already intended to remedy that issue.

1:10:16Yes.

1:10:17So I think it's been fixed, but if you you don't believe it has, we can revisit it, but I believe it's been fixed.

1:10:22Well I I just um I'm not sure if this is if this is where we fix it or if we fix it in the September.

1:10:30I know we can't

1:10:30fix it today.

1:10:31Yeah, but but first of all I'm not even sure it is still an issue 'cause I haven't heard from staff that That it's still being abused. So let's start with that. I would need Patrick Dutter or somebody to confirm it's still being abused. But if it is, that's a change to the Land Development Code. That's not something we can fix in this resolution.

1:10:50N no offense to the gentleman who um had that property but it was mostly void of trees but the reason he gave to take down his beautiful oak trees that would have been along our bike trail was he needed them for his cattle. Which was not

1:11:08I don't think that would stand up in court if we would take that uh taking that issue. So I think we need to be able I think you know Um There's a line in the sand when you cut down some of these trees. Keith, did you want to say something? No?

1:11:24Madam Clerk?

1:11:24Yeah.

1:11:25So before we get to the making of motion that I want to cover the points I wanna was gonna talk about. Again items

1:11:31Well did you have anything more for David about Clear to already made a motion.

1:11:35No, I'm good with that. Okay. But but back to before we get a motion. So if you're gonna put the amount at two hundred thousand dollars, I wanna know If we if we know Mike, hopefully you know the answer. C thirty four, how much money are we gonna spend on trees?

1:11:48Probably about six hundred and Ninety thousand.

1:11:51Okay. So six hundred and ninety thousand dollars, you're now gonna say he can only spend two hundred of that six hundred and ninety thousand on a project that's viable, that's gonna be taxpayer money that could go into Rhodes instead, which I think we

1:12:03ought

1:12:03to do.

1:12:03And we approved like more Rhodes

1:12:04done.

1:12:05We approved it in our consent agenda, that that item.

1:12:08I pulled it.

1:12:09Oh yeah, you've pulled it. I'm sorry.

1:12:10So um

1:12:11but we can talk about it when that comes.

1:12:12When no we need to talk about it now. This is the time to talk about it because you're gonna li limit him to two hundred thousand dollars when this got six

1:12:19hundred ninety.

1:12:22It'll be handled. The point is that I think the commissioner is making is that he thinks the administrators should have more authority because another item like C thirty four might come up and He wouldn't be restricted.

1:12:39Not l I listen, we meet twice a month. If we g if we have one that comes up that's bigger than two hundred, he can just ask us and we can give him the blessing, right? All right.

1:12:48Let's go back to the previous slide.

1:12:51Can can I just make one point, uh Madam Chair and Mr. Steinschneider? I believe I know why Elizabeth allowed this to proceed by resolution. The Land Development Code stipulates that the Board shall set tree mitigation fees by resolution. So potentially that's the reason.

1:13:09Mm. Then I have a problem. No. Because it says it what the language says is as set forth below and it has the caps. Okay, sir. We'll take care of it.

1:13:24Okay, that's right. There's already a motion made, but he needs to uh We do his motion. S already got a motion on the floor and I second it.

1:13:36Uh can I can I keep the floor for a minute? Yep. Um I wanna go I wanna back to the language uh under control.

1:13:50No keep w where it's we we're talking about where you can use it, like under property owned by the county.

1:13:57I keep going the wrong direction, sorry.

1:14:09It keeps going in the move. Can you help me, Gina? Yeah.

1:14:12All right. So so anyway, part of the reason I brought this up a c from a couple of years back was You get an HOA on US nineteen. They want to go fix the trees that they've actually got a right of use agreement and we're trying to work that out where they can maintain the trees. It's right on busy road, looks great when they do it. All they want to do is get reimbursed what we're going to spend. I've got an HOA uh not an HOA but a n another group that's another association.

1:14:37Why are we talking about that one here and not in thirty four?

1:14:41Because 34 is different. This is this is where we're gonna set an ordinance up at changing our rules. So we're gonna change rules. Part of the reason I wanted this thing brought back to us was to go look at what the rules are. Now you could have affordable housing project done by somebody else, could be you know David Lambert's group that that we have. It could be an H uh like uh another association with another HOA that's not a true HOA that wants to. go beautify along the property. You've got properties up and down 19 that if they're bound by all sorts

1:15:11of different rules, they can't afford to go put trees up, which could make it look better. You know, Rich Denk is going to tell you about how people don't want to go spend the money because all the other things that fall in line with going to change the trees. I want to make it easier for anybody along let's say the 19th corridor, you can pick other streets too, to make it look better. In fact in the association what makes their Inch you look better. And I got nine point four million dollars, let's get the money out there.

1:15:33So

1:15:34get the trees.

1:15:35Are you saying they would apply for a landscape grant? 'Cause I I I'm not sure why I'm not sure that w we should be landscaping private property.

1:15:47The main thing I'm trying to do is allow the place for our county to look better. And if you've got nine point fill meaning from private property people that you took money from, whether it be private or not, if it's going to make the county look better along a roadway especially, why don't we doing that and get those trees in the ground which is the right-of-way.

1:16:04So then any HOA that's under development could come in and say we don't want to do our plantings along the front of our development let the county pay for it?

1:16:12No I'm saying let's say let's

1:16:14what's gonna happen. Well

1:16:15I'm uh so so said it be if something that's existing already that's been done that wants to redo it because maybe it wore out, maybe some car hit it or something and they just wanna make it look better.

1:16:27I'm okay if they want to apply for a grant, maybe which is matching. But I'm not okay to open the floodgates to take off responsibility of their the community to care about how they look and pay for it and not have the taxpayers of another community pay for theirs because they let theirs go under.

1:16:43And again, not taxpayer money. It's tree mitigation.

1:16:47But it's not money that we can use um for the easy. It's gotta

1:16:50be on trees.

1:16:50Yes. We're gonna go through that money. Isn't

1:16:53like the probability? Put trees back in the ground. It's another alternative to go do it.

1:16:58How about if if there's no well I I'm okay if they want to apply for a grant and there's rules with the grant. um that requires some Participation by those that HOA but I'm not okay. I I think we have consensus that we're not in agreement with the M.

1:17:16Let me just make one more point. So you you got trees that you're gonna do. Doesn't count for the irrigation, doesn't count for the water that may have to be their responsibility, it doesn't count for the mulch or whether flower stuff will go around it. Just the tree. So far that if they get that help, you're gonna see it look better. You keep talking how you want this kind of look better.

1:17:33I do, and Gulf Harbor is an example. We have it's actually a county road. We have um an agreement with the county to um that we can have trees in the median. We don't have any water for it. We have That's another battle that maybe we can talk one day is we're not they're not allowing us to put irrigation in it. Um so we're hand watering, but I'm s I'm saying I'm okay with it in a grant process where the community pays for part of it. And

1:18:02the grant process is in place already. They were in process to go through the and do this and they went through the process to do it. They did they went through it. It took like eight months and we said we've got to tweak some rules to make it better, to make it easier. I'm just trying to make it easier.

1:18:14I would like to call a question. So you have a motion and a second on the

1:18:18question. All right. So we we hit does the motion include

1:18:22changes motion based on what

1:18:24you want to adapt your motion to include uh the county attorney's language?

1:18:27Yes, my my motion will include the county attorney's uh language slash con concerns or what what would you say it would be

1:18:39That the section raising the raising the uh fees in section one would not take effect unless um

1:18:51County Attor subsequent county attorney approval or will with the statute where the

1:18:57ordinance would be appropriate.

1:19:04That way we could move these fees

1:19:06forward

1:19:07to grow the fund.

1:19:08No question.

1:19:15Right.

1:19:16And can we just add that um David would update us on whether it's what do you want to do? Uh Quarterly on uh

1:19:25quarterly progress reports.

1:19:27Yes. I mean I I I would like to make sure we're getting this back out, the trees back out, as I mentioned to the administrator this morning. for a developer or you know, someone who paid in twenty years ago That's not covering a tree that we have to buy today. I mean Right? So we have eaten into our ability to put these trees and build our tree canopy back up. And I wanna be sure this doesn't go to Crate Myrtles. And to under uh to to What are the bushes or

1:19:59You know, these need to go this needs to be there to replace Tree canopy, oaks, pines, magnolias, Maples, not pine. Well, we some some places are appropriate for pine.

1:20:16Well the DOT just put them right down the middle of fifty two. So um but needs to go to canopy trees, not bushes, understories.

1:20:25So Commissioner Oak does not have that restriction. It does allow uh Drought tolerant shrubbery. So we can amend the ord uh the resolution uh through the board action to only allow use of funds for canopy trees including oaks, uh magnolia, et cetera.

1:20:47Well that's what we're taking down. That's what we should be putting back in. If you drive on fifty four, I noticed this, someone else commented to me. There's no canopy along ver very little canopy anymore. We're allowing people to take down oak trees and put up crate myrtles in their parking lots. It's it's a travesty. So

1:21:03as I understand it today.

1:21:04I would like I would make that a mo

1:21:06the the motion will read uh to restrict use of funds to canopy trees, that the the fee the new fees cannot take effect until an ordinance is amended or adopted allowing those fees. And thirdly, we will make quarterly progress reports as a notice item on the use of funds.

1:21:26Guys? Well, then that means a motion be needed midday again to move

1:21:32three titles. So you don't want palm trees in this thing? Really

1:21:38about palm trees, but the thing is we're not charging for anyone taking down a palm tree. Right?

1:21:44But it does help beautify.

1:21:46It is

1:21:46helping.

1:21:47It it it it it does. Um Sable Palm is a state tree. Yeah. All right, we'll add palm trees.

1:21:55Uh specific to sable palms or just in general?

1:21:58I I think we'd just leave it in general. Of course w there's no queens, of course. So

1:22:05it's all it's all it's all palm trees except for queen palms.

1:22:09Yeah.

1:22:09Okay.

1:22:12I just don't like that the number one tree for rats.

1:22:16Okay, so you amend you amend your you amend your motion to accept the

1:22:20motion. So I'll County Attorney, you want to help clarify this this uh word jungle here? Of a motion.

1:22:31I think David what David stated is is what the motion now would read with the exception of If if the county attorney believes that an ordinance amendment is not necessary, it would go into effect immediately.

1:22:50But I think the three the three bullets that that David added on to the motion is is where the board currently is.

1:22:58That's my that's my motion. All right. All in favor? Aye. Please go shopping. One day. Oh one night, okay. Please go shopping and I know Keith needs a lot of trees now. I s see they're missing already in Starkey. I know he has trees that were knocked down from the hurricane. Um the courthouse needs trees on the west side, so I'm very glad we got that done. Okay, what are we on to now? We are on C fourteen. C fourteen.

1:23:27Yes, ma'am. Uh good morning again. David Engel, Planning and Economic Development Director. Now for the easier agenda item. This is a proposal for a cooperative Economic Development Agreement for Evans Property. The property is located, it's 80 acres approximate in size. It's located on Lake Iola Road, adjacent to the Blanton Road intersection near the I-75 interchange. Uh before I get into the uh the actual specifics, I