March 19th, 2025, City of Deltona Planning and Zoning Board meeting. Staff, can you call the roll? Member D'Erico? Here. Member Gonzalez? Gonzalez, aye. Member Northey? Here. Member Stewart? Here. Member Trojanowski? Secretary Amoroso? Here. Vice Chair Cardo? Here. Alternate French? Here. Alternate Nair? Alternate Warnke? Here. And alternate Zaltos? Here. First item on the agenda for this evening is the election of officers. I'm not sure if there is a for what we elect or who we go first with. I know that we need a chair and potentially. Madam Vice Chair, so the proper procedure would be the first elected chair. And then once you elect a chair, you'll hand the capital over and elect a vice chair. Great. Thank you so much. I'd like to make a motion to nominate Andrea Cardo as chair. Second. Call the roll. Member D'Erico? Yes. Member Gonzalez? Yes. Member Northey? Yes. Member Stewart? Yes. Member Moroso? Yes. And Cardo? Yes. Thank you. I appreciate the honor. All right. So now that that's out of the way, we can – do I hear a motion for vice chair? Motion to elect Chair D'Erico, vice chair. Second. Wonderful. Staff, can you call the roll? Member D'Erico? Yes. Member Gonzalez? Yes. Member Northey? Yes. Member Stewart? Yes. Member Amoroso? Yes. And Chair Cardo? Yes. Motion passes. Excellent. Okay. And last but not least, do I hear a motion for secretary? I would like to make a motion to nominate Rachel Amoroso for secretary or retain Rachel Amoroso for secretary. I'll second that motion. All right. Member D'Erico? Yes. Member Gonzalez? Yes. Member Northey? Yes. Member Stewart? Yes. Member Amoroso? Sure. Yes. And Chair Cardo? Yes. Perfect. Motion passes. Thank you, staff. Okay. Moving on to the next item on the agenda, the approval of the minutes. And the agenda from the last time we were together, the meeting date was February 19th, 2025. Does anybody have any comments with regards to amendments or changes required with the minutes? Do I hear a motion to pass? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Those opposed? Hearing none, motion passes. Presentations, awards, and reports. Anything on the agenda for that? No. Great. Moving on to public forum. Do we have anybody here from the public who wishes to speak? No, ma'am. Thank you. No old business. Moving on to new business. Ordinance number 07-2025, amending the zoning code, Article 14, Medical Marijuana Dispensaries, by updating the title to pharmacies, drugstores, and medical marijuana, to align with the Florida statute and to include provisions for purpose, location standards, and approval procedures—I'm sorry, approval process, providing for complex codification, severability, and an effective date. Presentation from my staff. Good evening. Planning and zoning board and city of Deltona. My name is Jonathan Knight. I am a planner one with the city. And as stated, I will be presenting ordinance number 07-2025. So the request is to update Article 14, Medical Marijuana Dispensaries, of Chapter 110 zoning within our land development code to be consistent with the Florida statutes. So for history, in 2014, ordinance number 1014 was adopted by the city, permitting the operation of medical marijuana dispensaries in the commercial zoning districts within the city. This permission was contingent upon receiving a conditional use approval. In 2018, Florida legislators shifted this regulation of cultivation and processing of marijuana to the state, which left local jurisdictions with little authority. So this legislation means that local governments can ban medical marijuana treatment centers and dispensing facilities completely, also known as MMTCs, or I might refer to them as facilities. If a local government permits this kind of use, there will be no limit on the number of facilities within the designated zoning districts, and they shall not place regulations more stringent than those applied to the pharmacies. So these are some of the changes that came out of our study of this. So we incorporated pharmacies, drugstores, and medical marijuana dispensaries into the title and throughout the article. We added definitions for a medical marijuana dispensary facility, medical marijuana treatment centers, and medical marijuana treatment center dispensing facilities, as well as pharmacy and drugstores. We defined the location regulations for where you can put a pharmacy, drugstore, medical marijuana dispensary, and then we also defined the location regulations. These facilities shall not be located within 1,500 feet of each other, and they shall not be located within 1,500 feet of a private or public park, religious institution, house of worship, private or public elementary, middle, or secondary school. And we also want to include a major conditional use approval process, which would provide for these facilities that are not complying with local regulations, such as the distance from the aforementioned places. So this is a map of the city as it currently stands. As you can see, the yellow is the churches, the green is the parks. These will be grandfathered in because some of them are already operating differently than we're proposing. So in conclusion, Florida statutes require local planning agencies to review the proposed land development regulations and make recommendations to the city commission that are in alignment with our adopted comprehensive plan. Accordingly, staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend the city commission to approve Ordinance No. 07-2025 to modify Article 14, Medical Marijuana Dispensaries of Chapter 110, Zoning of the City's Land Development Code. Thank you, staff. Questions from the members? I just have a question about the wording under Section 110-1402 location. So, number two, it says, and this is, I guess, a technical question, unless the Planning and Zoning Board and City Commission approve the location. So, from what I understand, Planning and Zoning is just advisory. Is that saying that we would have the power to approve something? Like, don't we just advise the commission? From my understanding, that is correct. It would be a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Board to the city commission. I didn't hear what you said. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. It would be a recommendation from this body to the city commission. Okay, because it specifically says, unless Planning and Zoning Board and City Commission approve the location. I get if we suggest they do it, but that's the only question that I have. We can clean up that language. Okay. You're fine. Yes, please. Go ahead, Tara. Thank you. A couple of questions. Kind of along that same line. So, if I'm looking at the clean copy, it starts around line 65. Is that—how do we feel about that the city commission can approve a dispensary within 500 feet of a school? Is anybody else concerned about that? And is there—do we have leeway there? I guess maybe it's a question for legal, or is that part of the state statute that we can't? So, to answer your question, there—the state statute does not require a major conditional use process. The intent of this language is to allow for that consideration. A major conditional use is discretionary. It can be denied. So, this would be for—there are some circumstances in which this would be warranted for a pharmacy, drugstore, or medical marijuana dispensary facility. So, it is for all three of those different uses, because we have to regulate them in the same manner, pursuant to state statute. So, that is the intent behind that language, to provide that opportunity for all three of those, if it is deemed appropriate by the board and the commission. So, there's no—Zach, just to—so, anything that would be within 500 feet would have to go in front of the commission? There's no way that that would potentially— It would have to—yes, it would have to come before, or if it is the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Board, we could remove that process, and then there would be no way— No, I don't want to do that. Okay. I would rather—I don't want it to— I think that—can I just— Yeah, finish that thought, because I think I'm understating. So, what you're saying is we could remove that, and there would be no way it could be within 500 feet of a school, or no way it goes in front of the commission? There would be no way it goes within 500 feet of a school for any of those three uses. But the thing is, you have to think about, according to all this writing here, like a CVS, a Walgreens, maybe even a Publix. Right. So, if a Publix wanted to be built within 500 feet of a school, that's what I'm saying. It could come before the commission, and they could say, okay, it's a Publix. We get that. It goes, yeah. Yeah. So, I mean, yes, if it was just medical marijuana, I understand. Never. Right. Some people. But because those— It's got to all be classified at the same. And would it still have to come before us, anyhow, for a fruition of it, where if we find out, yes, if it's 500 feet, and it is a dispensary, we can nix it? Pump the brakes. Okay. I've got to mention the commission that it would not have the permit. All right. Excellent. As part of the major conditional use process. Right. Correct. Right. And then I did have two other quick questions. I'm sorry. Is only—I just wanted to just—Zach, right, I think you clarified for me that line 62, the—they shall not be located within 1,500 feet of each other. So, again, that's a hard and fast—that's a state statute. We can't say we can make that smaller, but we can't make it greater. You can make it smaller or greater. That's what I'm talking about. And then— Do you want to make it smaller, Earl? No. No, I don't want to make it smaller. I would like to have made it greater, but I don't think we—I don't think we can, because we can't supersede state statute. That was my understanding. No, he's saying it's not part of state statute. Oh. We can increase it or make it smaller, correct? You can recommend some—correct. So, we can recommend to increase it. Oh. If you'd like to tell us what you think it should be. Just—anybody have anything that they can—that they can suggest? To me, every 15—every 1,501 feet—I mean, I'm just thinking of the possibility. Like, we—I don't know about you all, but I drive through other cities, and there's—they're, like, popping up like Starbucks now. It's like there's one on every corner. But you also have to remember it's 1,500 feet from CVS. So, you can't—for this, it's 1,500 feet. It's going to be everything. You can't open a dispensary within 1,500 feet unless you have this—everybody votes yes. But you could have a CVS on one corner and Walgreens on the other. If they're—if they're 1,500 feet away from each other. If they're—if they're not. Is there a way? Yes. This is preventing that. I mean, this is, I think, why the wording is in there, because normally when you see a CVS or Walgreens is across the street— Yeah, they're competing. That won't be able to be built like this. If I'm—I might be wrong, but it won't be able to be built like this unless the commission, the planning and zoning agree, and the commission agrees to do it. Even with a drugstore, not just medical marijuana, but this says drugstores. Right. So, there was very specific things in here. So, like, on the corner of Providence and Normandy, for example, there's a CVS. 1,500 feet from there, there's a couple—there's another pharmacy right down the road next to the gas station. Yep, yep. That would not be allowed ever again unless the commission approves it, because the pharmacy—community pharmacy is here and CVS is here. It's within 1,500 feet. So, you're not just talking medical marijuana dispensaries. You're talking— All of them. All of them. But where my concern is coming in specific to—which I understand we're classing them all together, but it's specific to the medical marijuana dispensaries, is that, right, I just envision the possibility of one every 1,501 feet, right? I mean, I'm looking at the map now, and that's when we didn't have any—so, I'm just wondering, would—oh, go ahead. Keep in mind that these are—oh, you go ahead. So, for clarification purposes, I don't know if this helps the discussion. Currently, we only have three medical marijuana dispensaries within the city. Within the city? Correct. Three. How many— I don't even know what they are. Are we—are we aware of that might be trying to come in? Staff is not aware of any— Okay. Any more. I think a big point is the stuff that's zoned commercial in Deltona. Like, you think about where could a medical marijuana dispensary go, right? If you think about the way it's laid out now, we've all seen all that stuff. And the chances of a CVS, a Publix, or a Walgreens being within 1,500 feet of other stuff is very likely. So, it would be hard, I think, for them to get it. I mean, just from what I—I mean, I don't know. I live by Providence, you know what I'm saying? So, Providence is Publix, Community Pharmacy, CVS. There's no medical marijuana going in there unless they approve it. So, I don't know. I think it's pretty good, 1,500 feet. But that's just me. Yeah, I'm just—I'm just trying to think if there's another way. Like, if it's—all right, let me think on that. I'll just—I'll—and then my last question is, what would happen if this does not get approved? Is it that they have the ability just to come in and do— So, the city's code is currently not aligned with state statute. So, the city would end up falling back to the provisions of state statute and how pharmacies and drugstores are regulated within the city, which is just as a regular commercial use. So, if this is not passed, there would, in fact, be less regulation. Okay. Or city council would ask you to rewrite it. Yeah. I mean, yes, that is also a possibility. Okay. Pat, you have some questions? Yeah, I'm looking at this map, and I'm really confused by it because it shows pharmacy dispensary, 500 feet, is blue in a rectangle. I don't know what the blue is. It's in this oval. I'm trying to figure out where—you said we had three? So, the rectangle is the color code, and then the circle on the map is a radius. Oh, okay. So, that's a 1,500. So, we have more than three then, correct? This is including pharmacies, dispensaries, and drugstores. So, that's— Okay. So, it's not just—where do I—what—where's the code that it would find just some dispensaries? Where's the code for that? What—what—yeah, if I'm looking at this map, where do I find them? Because I understand we only have three. How do I locate them? I'm just trying to see where they're at. Unfortunately, I do not know the staff is—we can get that back to you. Google. Okay. So, that is— Drive down, Ellen. I don't even know where there is anyone. So, I just want to clarify real quick to your question. I think we're trying to kind of zoom in or focus in on the medical marijuana dispensary. And to your point, the point that you're making is we can't differentiate that due to Florida statutes. Now, we're grouping this in, and under this, it's all—we're recognizing it all as the same thing, essentially, going forward. So, if we follow what the state of Florida says, I don't want to say the wild, wild west. But essentially, there isn't really any regulation. They can come in. They can establish as long as it's properly zoned for. What's being proposed here tonight is we're putting parameters in place to say not within 1,500 feet of each other, not within 500 feet of a school, a church, you know, a religious organization, things like that. If those aren't hard numbers, for me personally, Tara, to your point, I would like to see the school, you know, that boundary increased a little more. I have three children, you know, that attend schools here. And just—so, for me personally, I would like to see that a little bit more. I think 1,500 feet within each other is—yeah, it's going to make—yeah, I would agree with that. You mean decreased, right? Is the number decreased within a school? If I may, through the chair, the—if I may, through the chair, the 500-foot buffer is set by statute. Understood. So, that is a hard and fast number. That's the one that can't change, correct? Yes, the separation is where you could provide additional guidance. Right. And that's why the 500 feet we have that, that has to go in front of the commission. Because we can't change it, but at least we can try to mitigate at the commission level. Correct. Okay. Thank you. We tried. We tried. Any other questions from staff? Just one more. Is this board piece of legislation intended to just—it's been a while since I've sat up here—to correct something that is amiss now or to bring it into alignment with the state? Why are we doing this? This is intended, frankly, to do both. Okay. To align with what is required by the state. And the city's current ordinance is not in alignment with what is required by the state, so it needs to be fixed. So, okay. And if we—so have we had any issues up until now with the current ordinance as it was written? No, ma'am. Okay. All right. And we've only got three? Correct. Correct? Okay. Thank you. Do we have any members of the public that wish to speak on this matter? No, ma'am. If there are no more questions from the board members, I'll ask for a motion. Move approval. Would you like to make a motion? I'll second. I did. Member Gonzalez? Yes. Member Northey? Yes. Member Stewart? Yes. Secretary Morozo? Yes. Vice Chair Diarco? Begrudgingly, yes. Chair Cardo? Yes. Motion passes. Thank you. Next item on the agenda is Ordinance Number 06.2025, Amending the Zoning Code, Chapter 110-807, Home Occupations by Updating the Title II Home-Based Businesses to Align with Florida Statutes and Include Provisions Related to Employees, Traffic Generation Limits, and Agricultural Home Businesses, Providing for Conflicts, Codification, Severability, and an Effective Day. Staff? Good evening, Planning and Zoning Board. So, before you tonight is Ordinance Number 06-2025, Home-Based Businesses. The request is to amend Section 110-810 of Article 8 of Chapter 110, Zoning, to be consistent with Florida Statutes. On June 17, 2013, the City Commission adopted Ordinance Number 06-2013, which established regulations for home-based businesses in the City of Taltona. During the 2021 legislative session, the Governor signed House Bill 403, creating Florida Statute, Home-Based Businesses, Local Government Restrictions. It preempts local governments from regulating businesses in any manner and requires residents to follow the requirements of Florida Statute. The City can no longer regulate parking, aesthetics, use, or any other performance standard. The following summarizes staff's recommended changes to Section 110-807 to protect the residential character of neighborhoods within the confines of state law. First, the activities of the home-based businesses are secondary to the properties used as a residential dwelling. The number of non-household employees is limited to two or less. However, however, they may have remote employees who do not work in the dwelling, and parking must comply with the City zoning requirements for the residential zoning classification. Heavy equipment storage is limited in accordance with state statutes, and the exterior dwelling must maintain its residential character. We recommend that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend that the City Commission approve Ordinance 06-2025, amending Section 110-810 to conform with Florida Statute governing home-based businesses available for any questions. Board members have questions? Yeah. Member Gingvallis? No. Rachel? No. Pat? Pat? Is this another example of we're trying to bring something into the state statute? This is another example of when the legislation preempted local governments and city staff right now is going through the code and making these changes, so. Okay. So, how many of these do we necessarily have in our ordinances that I know the state makes changes all the time, and I guess they're going to make some changes? This go-around as well that will impact local government. It's becoming that there is no local government anymore when it comes to land use, but that's my personal opinion. But this, what we're doing here, I'm going to be sure I understand this, what we're doing here, is we are bringing our current ordinance into state statute, correct? We're bringing it into compliance with Florida Statute. And to answer your question, a couple years ago there was legislation regarding trees and then small cell wireless, so there's going to be about two or three more that staff will bring to this board. Okay. So, I guess there isn't much choice is what I guess I'm getting to, and, okay, that's what, I think that's what I'm hearing as well. Yeah. Yeah. It's probably the way I interpret it, so, okay. I just had a quick question. So, essentially what this is doing is deregulating small home-based businesses in the sense that it kind of opens it up and gives them a little bit more flexibility. My question is, as a city, how do we, or how are we able to, I'll put it out there, how do I ensure that my neighbor or the person down the road doesn't, you know, have a car lot, you know, or a mechanic shop, essentially, you know, that would directly impact my home's value or the ability to use and live and enjoy my space. I know that, understand that they have freedoms to use and enjoy their space, but it's an understanding small business owners and home-based businesses. By bringing this up to par and aligning with the state of Florida, what does that do for us as a city in ensuring that, you know, we encourage people to live here, work here, play here, and enjoy our community, but not turn it into just whatever. Yeah, so from the legal side, there are still other provisions of the city's code that may be enforced. For instance, provisions regarding nuisance, litter and trash, noise, all of these different other provisions of the code, which they would still be subject to and would still be required to obey, the intent of this ordinance, and I'll kind of kick it over to Jordan, is certainly still to preserve the residential character of neighborhoods within the powers that we have, and, yeah, Jordan, I don't know if you have anything additional. And I believe if it's in HOA, they still have to follow the HOA requirements as well. Okay, so. I understand. Yes. Thank you. Go back to the slide that you had with the bulleted points that taught one, that one. Can you reiterate what you were talking about with regards to the parking? So you can't have more parking than what the code would be? What's the code for parking for a residential unit? I'm going to leave this. So it's going to vary based on lot size, because you could be permitted to have expanded driveways, you know, as long as you're within the lot coverage. However, I mean, I guess to the point, the question, I think, is more directly, are you going to see someone with their front lawn that is a parking lot? And the answer is no, that would be against lot coverage. Well, the other situation that comes to mind is that you have an individual who's operating a business out of their house and employs two people who drive two cars, so now you have three cars, and does that exceed the maximum number of parking allowed by a residential unit? No, it doesn't. As long as they're not parking in the right-of-way or anything like that, there would be no problem. So as long as all those cars can fit in the driveway and not obstruct a public right-of-way or park on top of a sidewalk, then they would be permitted to be there. Correct. Okay. Can I clarify on that one? Because I have had photos that have been shared with me just on residential property where we are parking on the lots, not on the cement or the driveway. And we are not, I guess, we are not using code enforcement on that. So I want to be sure I understand this, that to park, if you have three, it would be in the driveway. You could not park on the lawn. Parking on the lawn for any zoning would be incorrect or would be wrong? They would not be able to park on the lawn unless they had an extended driveway, which we brought to this board last meeting. So, yeah, they would not be able to park on the grass. Okay. So, but we're doing that now. We're just not enforcing it, correct? I mean, I have photos of it that show it's not being enforced. You don't have to answer that. Yeah, I think that's really more of a question for code enforcement. We can certainly bring that back through the city manager. I understand. Madam Chair, may I? Can you play? Yeah, please. Can I just circle back to the easement? Because I, so we're saying that they would also not be able to park on a grassy easement where I think isn't the ordinance now, and I might not be 100% correct, but you can park on an easement up to four days or something like that. You can, you can park on an easement for a certain amount of time? They would be, you would be required to park on an approved surface. Okay. I'm just wondering if we can maybe, maybe by the time this goes in front of the commission, we, maybe we could just look into that. Because if, if we're saying that the current residential ordinance is, you can have easement parking up to a certain number of days, are we, are we following that same here for home based businesses, or are we now going to change that? So I'm just wondering if we need to change the wording that may not be greater in volume than the residential unit. Well, and that means they're not parking in the driveway, they're parking in the front yard. If they're allowed to park in the easement, because the easement's going to run parallel to the property line, not perpendicular to the driveway. So that's an issue. That's, well, that's why I'm wondering if we just need to maybe clarify it a little more, if, if just, we just want to maybe look into that, Jordan, just by the time it goes in front of the commission to confirm. We can certainly look into that. And I just want to also stress that, um, home based, home based businesses, um, the traffic volume, um, generated can't be in greater volume than would normally be generated, so. Okay. Any other further comments from the board? No, ma'am. Uh, anybody in the public who wishes to speak on this matter? No, ma'am. Do I hear a motion? Move approval of the ordinance as written. Seconded. Member Gonzalez? Yes. Member Northey? Yes. Member Stewart? Yes. Sorry. Uh, Secretary Amoroso? Yes. Vice Chair Carter? Or sorry, Vice Chair Diarico? Yes. And Chair Carter? Yes. Motion passes. Thank you. Uh, next item on the agenda is our Sunshine Law presentation. Good evening. Good evening. Thank you so much for being here. Uh, I want to just tell you that I will try to make this as painless as possible. Um, I'm Gemma Torcivia. For those of you I haven't met, I'm one of our city attorneys and, um, it is best practice and we do recommend to all of our municipal clients that we do Sunshine and Public Records presentations once a year. Um, we have done this same presentation for the commission, so if you were at that meeting, I apologize, you're going to see it here again. Um, but as you are our Planning and Zoning Board, um, you are bound by these same rules, um, and so we wanted to discuss them with you here tonight. Um, as we go, if you have any questions, please just, just speak them out, um, and I'll stop and we can chat about it. Um, honestly, there may be questions that you think of after the fact. If so, feel free to reach out to us. Um, I believe all of our information is available, but if not, Jordan can send it to you all so you have, um, our emails and cell phones so you can call us. And I think we're pretty accessible. You can get us on the phone. If you, if you can't reach us and you have an urgent question, um, you can always text and say, please call me and we'll get to you as quickly as we can. So, um, we, we appreciate the service that you perform for the city and for the residents. Uh, we're grateful for all that you do and we want to be here to, to serve you all. Um, but that's it. So, Florida's Sunshine and Public Records, that's, uh, some of the trickier things that we have here in Florida, um, Florida's laws with respect to Sunshine are different than a lot of other states. So, if you've come from another state, um, or you've had experience in another state, particularly in government, this can be a little bit shocking. It can be a little bit jarring because Florida is unique. Um, Florida Sunshine Law is governed under Chapter 286 of the Florida Statutes, um, and it mandates transparency in governmental proceedings. And you all, um, as you sit here tonight, this is a governmental proceeding, as are all of your meetings. Um, it applies to state and local bodies to ensure public access. It also is codified in the Florida Constitution in Article 1, Section 24, which states that all meetings of any public body of the executive branch shall be open and noticed to the public. So, what's the point of the Sunshine Law? So, Florida is a state that believes strongly that government should occur in the sunshine, in the light of day, and that the actions that are taken by the government should be, um, open to the public, and particularly to ensure that people have transparency around government. And so, um, the goal of this law and all of the surrounding rules is really to ensure that end. And Florida does have, I think, the most open government in the United States, um, as a result of this. There is a lot of case law on point. This is a citation, Myers v. News Press Publishing, just of a case that's a seminal case in respect to Sunshine, which basically says that decisions that are made by public bodies should be made openly. Now, there are some requirements for meetings. Those, those requirements are codified in Florida Statutes 286, Spot 011. They require that all meetings are open to the public, that reasonable notice must be provided, and that no binding actions occur unless they're taken in a public meeting. And when we talk about actions and decisions, it's important to note that discussions, deliberations, and recommendations are all part of the official action. What that means is that any discussion that you all have as a board about any item that comes before you or could reasonably come before you, which really is anything related to the city of Deltona, land, land use, zoning, um, potential business regulation related to land, those are all topics that even if they're not on an agenda this month or two weeks from now, um, if they reasonably could come before you, and it's pretty broad, you cannot have discussions about them unless they're in a meeting like this or another meeting that has been open, uh, that's open to the public and has been noticed. Which means that you can't even have little quick conversations like, man, that medical marijuana rule is crazy. I can't believe CVS has the same restrictions as a medical marijuana dispensary. Um, even little quips like that, uh, are violations of sunshine and not appropriate. Notice requirements for the meetings. Now, you'll see with you all, most of your meetings are noticed pretty well in advance, but sometimes there may be a last minute meeting that's held, particularly if there's something that we want to take very quickly to the commission that has to go before you all first. There might be an extra meeting that's added to the schedule. Um, the statute doesn't have a specific requirement for notice, but it does provide, um, a requirement that there is reasonable notice. And the attorney general of the state of Florida has provided some guidance. The general rule of thumb is a week is best practiced. 72 hours, um, is sufficient. And in an emergency, 24 hours is sufficient. Most emergencies tend to be weather events like hurricanes. You can have less notice if it's emergency such as a hurricane. Um, but oftentimes you'll have to have another meeting later. Um, if, if it really was very tight, like four or six hours notice. The notice must include the time, place, and agenda summary. If there's just a discussion on a general topic, that's sufficient. So say, for example, that you all are going to have a discussion about, I don't know, um, dog park restrictions or, or how far they must be apart from each other. There doesn't have to be super detailed text in the agenda. It could just say dog park, uh, restrictions on limits. That would be sufficient. Um, there can be even broader topics. So say, for example, there's a public meeting and the discussion is about, uh, medical or marijuana dispensaries. Just that topic would be sufficient. There doesn't have to be super detailed, particularly if it's a discussion and there's not a resolution or ordinance that's already going to be contemplated. There are requirements for where the meeting is held. This, this location is sufficient, meets those requirements. Meetings should be held in public. They should be held in accessible locations. And, uh, bodies such as yourselves are urged to avoid places that would restrict or, or chill the public from wanting to attend, like a restaurant, a small room, or a location with discriminatory access. So say, for example, um, there was a construction happening and we had to have a planning and zoning board meeting. Instead of, say, having it at Starbucks, which is a public restaurant open to everyone, the best practice would be to look at another government who has a public space, like Daytona State College or the library, um, or perhaps even the county, to ensure that there is access. And the public feels welcome. You don't want them to have to go up an elevator in some building that's, you know, hard to get into and there's not ADA access to, to a small room in the back. Um, that certainly is a, is a chilling effect on the public and their participation. Is there a process, uh, protocol for meeting notice requirements? Here at the city? Um, as it pertains to the law. Like, you're talking about the notice has to be given and, and, um. You mean, like, does it have to be published in a certain way? How is that notice given? Are we talking about putting in a newspaper? Are we talking about mailed notifications to residents? What's the law say as far as how that protocol for noticing the public has to happen? There are certain notice requirements for certain actions to be taken. So, um, if an ordinance is going to be considered, it does need to be noticed in a paper of general circulation. Um, the language of the ordinance title needs to be included. That, but that's specific to the, to an item being moved forward. If you're just talking about general public meetings, so like you're going to have a meeting tonight, um, you are not required to put it in the newspaper. You are required to notice it publicly. You should do what you always do. So we post things on the website and usually post them in city hall in the little bulletin area. If a meeting is going to occur, the same thing should occur if a last minute meeting is popped up. Now I will tell you that it's, it does, so the unique thing about Florida is the, the state does recognize that every community is unique and has different needs and requirements. So, so say for example, this was a community of 500 people, um, they might only post their notices on front of their town hall and that might have been their practice for a hundred years. And that would be sufficient. It's important though, that when a meeting is noticed, particularly a meeting that's not already currently scheduled and on the calendar, that it is published in the same way as normal. You can do more, but you shouldn't do less. There's not a statutory requirement for this. This is just best practice under guidance from case law and the attorney general. So for us, again, we posted on the website, we posted in the building. We do not accept that when there's a special requirement, notice all our meetings in the paper, nor do we have to. We could, if we decided to, I'll give you a good example of when you might. Let's say for example, we wanted to go out for public private partnership and we wanted people to come in and bring their development ideas and their money to our project idea. And we say, we want to build this building here, the city's willing to put in the land, we are looking for a developer to bring $20 million and your best idea for a hotel or whatever it was we wanted. That might be something that we'd have a good public meeting about it. We'd put it on the website, we'd post it in the building. But we actually want lots of people to come. We want developers to be aware of it. So we would likely notice that more than a normal meeting. We might put it in a magazine, we might put it in the newspaper, we might put it, you know, put signs up somewhere like at a conference. Let's say, for example, I see a C conference in Orlando that they have in August where developers and investors and retail stores are going to be. We might put up a bulletin there. So you can do more. You could, particularly in an emergency, do less. But best practice is to do the same. But in a hurricane, you could, if the internet's down, there's no power, you could put a sign on the outside of the door. And that would be sufficient. But if it was not a true emergency, the best practice is to do what you have always done and do it how you always do it for your community. Does that answer the question? Thank you. Yes. So minutes. Florida statutes does require minutes. Minutes do not have to be verbatim transcripts, which is important. Meetings do not require a court reporter. They do not require the minutes to be exactly what is said. They should be a summary of what occurs. The minutes are taken sometimes by the secretary, sometimes by the clerk, and those minutes are then made available and they're brought to the next meeting where you all review them and you vote to approve them. Written minutes. Yes. Can I ask a question? Is there a time limit when minutes are required to be done and available to the public? Like 72 hours from the meeting date or 96 hours or 24 hours? I mean, what is, what do they do as far as requirements on timeliness of making minutes available, completed and available? The short answer to that question is no, there is not a hard rule. It's, they must be recorded promptly, so they should be recorded either with the meeting or right after sometimes. Sometimes meetings will be audio recorded and then the clerk will listen to the recording three days later, four days later in their normal work cycle. They will record the minutes. They will be edited by someone else. The recording must be prompt. And prompt doesn't mean day of necessarily. And they must be made available for public inspection, but it does not have to be in a time certain. It does not have to be very quickly, particularly because minutes, we can video record them. We can audio record them. We are not required to. So recording is optional. It can support the written record. Some locations aren't a practice of doing it for some meetings and not for others. We have clients that record commission meetings, but that's it. Everything else, I think one type is an audio recording and one is just minutes. You just get minutes for the meetings. So there's a wide range. You must have written minutes. They should be made available, and certainly the government should do its best to produce them timely, but that's flexible. We'll talk a little bit more about records, but sometimes the public has an expectation that they will get minutes of a meeting that they didn't attend and they're not available to watch in 72 hours or 24 hours or 96 hours. That's not a reasonable expectation. Governments are in the business of governing, and the meetings are important, and it is certainly important for the public to be aware of the business that occurred. That's why all these laws exist. But it's not a core function of the government to record minutes and prepare minutes and publish minutes. They must do it. But their core function are the municipal functions, the police power functions. So it's required, but there's a high degree of latitude. I would say, you know, rule of thumb, one to three weeks. You would want them before the next meeting, which some communities, particularly smaller communities, that's how they operate. Maybe the minutes, they have a meeting once a month, and they might have two employees. They don't, maybe have one employee and then a contract, you know, clerk. That person might not get those minutes done until three days before the meeting when the next agenda goes out or five days before the next agenda goes out. That would be appropriate. Again, the best practice is how you have done it in the past. Yes. Does that answer your question? Yeah, that answers my question. Okay, very good. Thank you. No problem. So public participation. The public must have a reasonable chance to be heard, either at the same meeting or another within a reasonable time. The public participation does not need to be at the decision-making meeting, but it must occur before final action. Here's, so this breaks it up, right? So here's the distinction. This occurs frequently. Some governments have a workshop where there is no public participation, and that is fine. That is appropriate and permitted. But then they'll have a full meeting, a regular meeting, a special meeting, where they vote to take an action. There must be public comment, public participation before that final action is taken. They could restrict it. They could say, you're allowed to comment at the workshop, but not the meeting where we vote, because it's the same topic, right, Kim? It's got to be the same topic. Or you're not allowed to comment at the workshop. It's just the electors talking. No public's allowed to speak, which is very common. But at that meeting where we're going to make the decisions and we're going to vote, you can comment then, before we take the final action. So as long as that topic has public participation before final action is taken, it is sufficient. Public does have the right to hear all board-related comments, which is why, you know, we shouldn't have side conversations or meetings and discussions outside of these public meetings. You should avoid sidebars. You should not pass notes or messages, text messages during meetings. Time limits on comments are permitted. They should not limit meaningful participation. We in the city have a very generous amount of time for public participation. There is a lot of latitude here. Some governments have one minute or 90 seconds, which is sufficient. Some governments have two. Some governments have all public comments at the beginning of the meeting for every item. And that's it. And you don't get to comment again on each item as they come up. As long as there's meaningful participation at some point before final action is taken, it's sufficient. So who is covered? For you all, you are covered. Obviously, the commission as well. Any individuals who have authority delegated to them by the board. Council members elect. So once the election is over, even before they're sworn in, this governs. And advisory board members as well. Quasi-judicial proceedings. There are special rules for quasi-judicial proceedings, like a zoning hearing. They must be based on competent and substantial evidence. The public has a right to hear all presented testimony and to refute it. So there must be public comment at quasi-judicial hearings. Ex parte communications. If there is a quasi-judicial hearing and there's discussions outside of the meeting, you do have to disclose it. So I know that we've had a discussion with some of you about the current bylaws. And I know that the commission is working on making some revisions because the bylaws for you all are more restrictive than statute. And so we are going to make them align with the statute. What that means practically is that you will, at the moment you cannot, but once the bylaws are revised to align with statute, you will be permitted to speak to commission members, right, because you're not on the same board. So you're here and they're here. You're not aligned. You can speak. However, you must disclose for quasi-judicial proceedings who you've spoken to, the same as any quasi-judicial proceeding. So if it's a quasi-judicial proceeding that this board has before it and you've spoken with three commissioners, which is perfectly acceptable as long as it's not at the same time as all three, speak with them one at a time, you would need to disclose that. You'd also need to disclose other communications you've had. I was going to ask that if we, I don't know what the current, what they're allowed to do now, but in my prior life, you could go out and view the issue, the zoning change or whatever was going to come before you. You had to disclose that you had done that or that you would talk to somebody outside the board and or the commission. Is that still the same that you would disclose if I went out to Fernando Place and they were talking about doing a second place in there and I talked to employees, I talked to people that live there. Would I be required to disclose that as ex parte communication? So if it's a quasi-judicial hearing, you have to disclose all ex parte communication, including to staff, to attorneys, to commissioners. So if you meet with a resident, if you meet with a former— You're not allowed to do that. Yes. Okay. There's no prohibition on meeting with somebody outside or talking to somebody about an issue. No, not at all. Okay. You cannot accept any sort of remuneration or money in exchange for a vote. Right. Yeah. You can't accept a free dinner in exchange for a vote. You can't let them wash your car in exchange for a vote. Nothing of value. But you can have discussions with them. They can make their case. They can say, I hate this. I love this. Please vote against this. Please vote for this. You can talk to us. You can talk to the commissioners once we amend the bylaws. Not yet. Well, at the moment, you can talk to the people. You can talk to the lawyers. You can talk to the manager. You can't talk to the commissioners under the current bylaws. You are allowed to talk to staff, but to the staff designee, Jordan, the planning director. Right now, it says no. You can't talk to the staff. Well, you get to talk to the one staff designee. Yeah. If I may jump in, the way the bylaws are currently written, reading them in their totality, it speaks about a staff liaison and a designation of a staff liaison with whom communication may occur. And then there's that language that board member Norty pointed out that makes it sound like you're not allowed to talk to staff. But reading the bylaws in their totality, it's clear that the intent is to streamline communication through the staff liaison rather than having board members contacting, you know, Jessica, Brandon, Jonathan, everyone individually. If I had questions about tonight's agenda, I chose not to call because the current way this is written gives me the impression that I cannot talk to staff. You're telling me that I can talk to staff. Yes, yes, you may through the staff liaison who is Jordan and they'll, uh, and Jessica and they'll. But I can't talk to a city commissioner until we officially change this. Is that correct? That is correct. Correct. So in its current iteration, you all may speak to Jordan. Okay. And then Jordan can say, you can talk to Jessica. Okay. Right. Otherwise, all through Jordan. So he can let you talk to other staff members in the current version, but he's the, all the information comes to him. He's a gatekeeper. Correct. No commissioners at present, but we're working on that as quickly as we can. Um, the city attorney's fine. City manager, fine. Charter officers, you're good to go. You can talk to us whenever you'd like. Um, so does that answer your question? Yeah. Can I circle back to the ex parte communication? So if we do talk to residents, um, is it sufficient that we disclose, oh, I talked to three, three residents on site, or do I actually need to keep track of their first and last names? You should keep track of their names. Okay. If they won't give you their last name, try to at least get their first name. I mean, I assume they would tell you their name, but let's, I don't know, let's say it's an employee and they're like nervous about something, something for their employer. Try to at least get a first name, uh, or some sort of distinguishing characteristic. Um, the person that works at this Chevron Tuesdays at 10 p.m. and who wears an orange shirt and a cap, right? Just so, I don't know if someone wanted to, the whole reason for disclosure is so that the public has a right to refute or dispute what information you've received. So it's assumed that the information you received, um, is prejudicial unless you disclose it. So you get information from someone else, a member of the public, it's assumed to be prejudicial until you disclose it. No longer prejudicial. However, then the public says, oh, you talked to that guy, the Chevron. I know he hates his boss. He's not going to say anything good about that place. He's not going to want them to put in a car wash. So I also work there and I'm going to come up and say, don't listen to him. I know you talked to that guy. We need a car wash. Please put it there. It'll bring more customers. That's the whole point so that they know who you talk to. So they have an opportunity to refute if they so choose. Thank you. No problem. Communications, like I said, are presumed presidential unless, until they're publicly disclosed. It is important that they're disclosed at the time of consideration by the board before you take final action. Do not wait until after you vote. So again, the public needs to have an opportunity to hear it. And if they want to refute it or try to dispute the information that you're presumed to have received, they have to have a right to do that before you take final action. I'll try communications. So we talked a little bit about this already. You cannot discuss board business through private electronic means like emails, text, WhatsApp, signal, Facebook. This rule prevents any actions or decisions from being made outside the public eye. Board members should not use reply all in board-related emails. Staff will try very hard to always be CC so you don't all get each other emails addresses and accidentally hit reply all, but please, if you're going to respond to an email from staff, please just check to make sure you don't hit reply all and that all the addresses are not there. I have a question. Yes. We had a situation that happened maybe three or four months ago where the current board chair at the time had disclosed at a meeting that she had received an email from a member of the public. And through the conversation, Jordan explained that that individual had contacted him and our email addresses were provided to him. I subsequently, after the meeting, found out that I also received that same email from this same individual. Is this saying that we are not allowed to discuss or talk to this individual, even though they've emailed us and initiated a conversation? That, in that specific situation, that was, just to clarify, that was not a quasi-judicial proceeding. So it's not subject to the same ex parte communication disclosures as a quasi-judicial proceeding. You are permitted to have discussions with members of the public. And I'll turn it back to Demma for some more information. So that bullet point right there is just based on ex, quasi-judicial proceedings? No. So we've ended the part, sorry, about quasi-judicial proceedings. Now I'm going back to talking about Sunshine and your communications with each other. Okay. So that, then I don't understand the answer that I just got, because what I'm talking about had nothing to do with that. It's board member to board member. Correct. So you would not be able to communicate with each other through private means. You may communicate directly, individually, with the public. So that bullet point is member to member? Correct. So not member of the public to board member? Correct. So if you email me, I'm allowed to email Max what you're saying. Yeah. Here's a nuance. A member of the public gets all your email addresses and emails you all, because they don't work for the city and they don't know that they are going to put you at risk of violating Sunshine if you reply all. You all get the email. Okay. Do not reply all, because then your colleagues will get your response. Well, he was smart enough not to do that. He individually emailed each one of us separately. That's good. Without putting everybody else on the email. That's great. That's ideal. What you're saying is, is that we are allowed to respond to that email? Yes. As long as it's not a colleague sitting up here with you or an alternate. So you can talk to the public. You can talk to developers. You can talk to lawyers. You can talk to bankers. You can talk to teachers. You can go—you are free to talk to any humans. If it's a quasi-judicial proceeding, you have to disclose it. If it's not a quasi-judicial proceeding, there's no disclosure required. But for purposes of this committee, we do not get city email addresses. We use our own email address. Would that be safe to say that? There is no email address. It says Pat Northe at deltonoflorida.gov. Correct. That is correct. We could talk about that at another time. Yeah, I think we probably should. So, yeah, so when you apply to a board like this, your application, the minute you turn it in, becomes public record, right, might have an exemption from some of your information. If so, you need—you have—the onus is on you. You're required to say to the government, I am married to a law enforcement officer. I am a retired law enforcement officer. I am married to a judge. My address, phone number, is not his public—it is confidential and must be redacted. If you do not do that and you have confidential information, it will be released. You have to—you have to be the one to say it. And there's a lot of exemptions for those types—espouses of, children of, judges, law enforcement officers, guardian ad litems. There's—it's a pretty broad thing. So you should check it if any of those things might apply to you. Otherwise, the information you provide is public. Now, here's a recommendation. You don't want your normal email flooded with things that are unrelated to your normal life. You normally email your friends or, you know, colleagues, pictures of your kids, whatever it is. You could just make another email account called pnzworthy at gmail.com, and then that can be the email you use to correspond. You should put that on your application. You should advise people that that's the email you'd like to use. You shouldn't give them your other email account. But once you provide it, it is public, unless you have it be deemed confidential, and then we'll redact it. Does that—is that helpful? Yeah. Yes. So if a member of the public shares information with an individual board member, and either we think it would be helpful for the rest of the board to see, or they're asking us to share it with the rest of the board, would we—would the proper thing then be for us to maybe forward it to either Jessica or Jordan and say, hey, can you distribute this? Is that acceptable? Or are we—? Yes. Only to Jordan. To Jordan. Correct. So Jordan is our liaison. Correct. Okay. And he will make the determination. So just so you know, just because you ask him to do it does not mean— Does not—he would— He would decide. Correct. At least I can say, hey, I forwarded it, and— Right. And ultimately, the city manager decides. So if it's something that is— Don't just say you're going to the board and it's on Jordan. Yeah, right. So it's ultimately the city manager's decision. The room is on. Right. So if you want it to be shared—I don't know. Someone wants you to have a new rule about playgrounds, and they found this great playground in Denmark, and they send you a picture. And it's clearly innocuous, and it's not controversial, and you say, hey, Jordan, can you just send this to the rest of the board members? You forward it to him. Likely, he's going to say, not controversial. Picture a playground. Good to go. But if you send something that says, like, we should be permitted to paint, I don't know, sensitive material on government buildings or something, and there's this protest about it, and there's all this information, and you send it to him, he might say, this is inflammatory. This is a violation of other rules or ordinances that we have. I'm not going to send this to the rest of your colleagues or send it to the city manager, and then he gets involved, and we get involved, and we say, nope, we're not going to share this. But typically, if it's innocuous, if it's not controversial, or if it's about something that is going to come before you, like medical marijuana, dispensaries, right? Like, you could have said, here, I took these three pictures of what they look like right now. I think this design regulation should be changed. Jordan, please, let's have them send these to my colleagues, because they should look like how they look in Jacksonville, whatever it is. That's innocuous. That should be fine. But it's up to his discretion. We're going to talk in a minute about public records and custodians of public records. Informal gatherings and social events. You may attend social gatherings as long as public business is not discussed. Violations will occur if board-related matters are discussed in private gatherings, even informally. Discussions that occur at private events could influence your decisions, and so it's assumed that they will influence your decision, and they're prejudicial, so do not do that. Safe topics, if you all gather socially, and I know many of you do, and that's perfectly acceptable, safe topics are anything unrelated to the city. You could talk about travel. You could talk about pets, recipes, the weather. Your children, perfectly fine topics. Grandchildren, your, I don't know, your cousin's trip to Kilimanjaro. But nothing about Deltona. Non-members as liaisons. This one is hard and happens a lot, and people might try to do this to you, so you need to be vigilant about this. Third parties who are not members of a body cannot be used to pass information between members of the body. So let's say, for example, you really want to tell one of the other board members some information, and you guys have the same best friend, and you tell your best friend, and you know she's going to tell the other person. Do not do that. Or you say, tell them. Do not do that. Ultimately, it comes back on you as the member of the board. So if you use a non-board member, a friend, a colleague, a spouse, to pass information, they're not going to get in trouble. You guys will get in trouble. So do not do that. And do not let anyone do it to you. So I don't know, two county commissioners know you, and they want to use you as a conduit. Do not let them do that. Not that they would ever try, but just in case. Exemptions to Sunshine Law. There are some exemptions. They are minimal. They're unlikely to apply at this board level. But just so you know, pending litigation, collective bargaining, risk management, vendor negotiations, there are special rules for shade or executive sessions, which are attorney client privilege sessions. They're limited to specific litigation strategies. They are required to have a court reporter. And once the litigation is concluded, they are made public. Voting and abstention requirements. If you are present at a meeting, you must vote unless a conflict of interest exists and is disclosed. If you fail to vote, and you're there, and you don't have a conflict, it does not invalidate the meeting, but it is important that you disclose for conflicts, and we're going to talk a little bit about that. So conflicts must be publicly disclosed, and abstention should only be used in such cases. Conflicts of interest could occur on a board like this, and if that is the case, and you have a question, please ask the city attorneys in advance of your meeting, and come to us, and we will discuss it with you. And if we have to, we'll call the Florida Commission on Ethics. They are very helpful, they are an incredible tool for boards such as this, to ensure that there's no conflict. And they'll either do an oral opinion over the phone, or they can do something in writing with a little more time. If you have a conflict, here's a good example of a conflict. You own a medical marijuana dispensary, and you're about to vote on the medical marijuana dispensary regulations. You should disclose, I own a medical marijuana dispensary, I have a conflict, I will not vote on this item, and then you leave. You shouldn't be there for the discussion either, you should leave. You have to disclose why you have a conflict, what the conflict is, and then not be part of the discussion or the vote. You cannot do it after the fact, you can't just leave and not vote. You can't just be like, well, I know I own a dispensary, I'm just going to slip away to the bathroom while they vote on this. You have to disclose it. Okay, there are penalties, there are many. There are civil and criminal penalties, you can be removed from office, attorney's fees may apply. Okay, violations can render actions void unless they're appropriately cured. There are a lot of ways to cure sunshine violations. The key is, if you commit one, you should come and tell me or Zach or Jordan or Doc right away, and we will figure out how to cure it if possible. Almost always they can be cured. But if we don't know, we can't cure it. Typically, what will happen is there'll have to be a publicly noticed meeting where whatever happened outside of the sunshine happens again, and the public is aware, and they have noticed, and they can come and comment. Sometimes votes will have to be redone. That's fine, too. But we can't fix it if we don't know. So if you think you committed a sunshine violation, don't hide it. Everyone has a smartphone. Everyone has a camera. Don't take the risk. Just tell us, and we can fix it. It's usually durable. Penalties include non-criminal infractions, second-degree misdemeanors, and possible fines up to $500. So we talked a little bit about curing. A violation can typically be corrected with a new meeting that allows public input and follows all sunshine law requirements. You cannot just, so I said you could have a meeting later and re-vote. You can't just have a vote. You have to have the whole thing again. You have to, the item comes up, there's discussion, there's public comment, there's motion, there's a second, then there can be a vote. But you have to do the whole thing. You can't just run right to the vote. Curing does require full transparency and a valid public hearing in order to validate the actions. These are some cases about this. There's a Bradenton case, 2019 case, about informal meetings involving planning and zoning that violated the law. State v. Foster, 2005 case, a private meeting with multiple commissioners was deemed a violation due to common facilitator issues. And in Escambia County, a chairman, a commission chairman was sentenced to jail for a sundown law violation and served 38 days. Wow. Yes, they're serious. And the penalties can be significant. So we are here to help and to protect the city. So always come to us first and we will do everything we can to fix it. Almost always it can be fixed. Public records law. Okay, so public records law is governed by Chapter 119. Public records means, and public records is very broad. So the definition is very comprehensive and rightfully so. It means all documents, papers, letters, maps, books, tapes, photographs, films, sound recordings, data processing software or other material, regardless of the physical form, characteristics or means of transmissions, if it's made or received pursuant to law or ordinance, or in connection with the transaction of official business by any agency. We're going to dig deep into this. So a common misconception is that notes or drafts that are not final are exempt from public records. That is not true. There is no unfinished business exception to the public inspection and copying requirements of Chapter 119, which means that right now in this public meeting, if you take notes and they are requested and they are your handwritten notes and they are about this meeting, they are public records. If you write on your agenda, buy milk, pick up dog from doggy daycare, that is not a public record. It is not about the business of this agency. But if your notes are, don't meet with other board members, don't email other board members public record. If the purpose of a document that's prepared in connection with the official business of a public agency is to perpetuate, communicate, or formalize knowledge, it is a public record, regardless of whether it is in final form. This says who does this apply to. It applies to you. It applies to a lot of people, but for your purposes, it applies to this board here. Gemma, I'm sorry. May I backtrack to the Florida Public Records Law Chapter 119, Florida statute slide? We don't have to literally go back there. But so we already determined that we don't have city email addresses. We don't have public email. We're using our personal email addresses. So how does this work with my personal email? Great question. And this is a slide for you. Okay. There you go. The timing is perfect. Thank you. You're welcome. There's more. Yes. Don't worry. We talk about this all day. It says an email. Okay. Yep. Computer record is an email. So I'm going to, the information that's stored in a public computer is a public record as much as a page in a file cabinet. Email messages. This is important and germane to you all. Email messages that are made or received by agency employees in connection with official business are public records and subject to disclosure in the absence of a statutory exemption from public inspection. This is an AG opinion from 1996. There's a lot of other opinions and cases on point. And we're going to talk a little bit more about this, but I'll just say this. If you receive or transmit information in your role on this board, it is a public record. And if you're the only one who has it, and by only one, I mean if the clerk does not have it because they're the custodian of the city's public records. So if you're the only one, you are the custodian of the public record, even if it's in your personal email or on your personal phone that you pay for and you control, we'll talk a little bit more about that. But it's partly why I recommend having a separate email, perhaps for this, because then it's all in one place. It's easy. You also can send records and information to the clerk, and then it transfers. You then are not the custodian. The clerk is a custodian, which is appropriate. That's where public records requests go through in the city. So if we have an email, and we're going to correspond with a person in the Austin area, for instance, and we use their email, we return a response, as long as we put the, is it Jordan or is it the clerk, that we would put, who is the keeper of that, that we would then put their email on that, their email address on that email, which would then make them the custodian. So until we amend the bylaws, it'll be Jordan, but we're going to amend the bylaws to make clear that it would be the clerk. The clerk is the custodian for the city, so it's cleaner. But for now, until the bylaws are amended, Jordan's your staff liaison. Just copy Jordan. Can I just, and I don't know if this is the appropriate forum for this, and I'm happy to facilitate a conversation, but it just seems like it would be a lot easier if we had city email addresses, because then everything is just public record on that email address. So am I just oversimplifying it? Yes. And here's why. The staff has city emails. The electives have city emails. But if they email from their personal email, which happens all the time, particularly if you have an iPhone, and you go to compose a message, and it sends it from the wrong account, which happens a ton, you've now created more public records. The key is, make sure that you have an email that you maintain access to, that you have it where you can get out of it, you get into it if you're locked out of it, that you don't delete emails, you can put them in folders, but don't delete them, because you're a custodian. For the purposes of you, and we'll amend this in the bylaws, but for the purposes of this board, what we'll do is we'll put in the bylaws that your emails that you want to not be the custodian of should be sent to the clerk, the city clerk. And then what I would recommend is best practices before or after every meeting, because, you know, you guys meet regularly. Just go through your email and just forward all those emails to, and then they're out of your queue. Keep them and maintain them. That's fine. But the bonus is on you as the custodian. And you'll probably have a ton of text messages or voicemails that are on your personal phone. There's not really a way in today's modern era. And, like, we're lawyers, and we're really strict about it, but even when in the past we had, like, multiple phones, and this was a government phone, it's almost impossible. It's just, just don't delete things. That's the key. Don't delete things. We'll talk about what you can delete. But just don't delete things. Keep them. If you have Gmail or you have an iPhone, you'll have a ton of storage. If you have the iCloud, it'll back up. But again, you could just literally before or after every meeting just screenshot your text messages, take all the emails about this, and forward them to the clerk, which we'll put in the files, so Jordan isn't flooded with your emails. And then they'll be the custodian. Yes. I have a question. You mentioned about communications and also about being custodians. Does that also apply, I'm thinking, to text messages or anything you're actually receiving when you're out there on the dais? Yes. In that case, should you then immediately report that as ex parte during the proceeding? You have to tell me more. You mean, like, you're sitting up there, and you're talking about medical marijuana dispensaries, and a medical marijuana dispensary owner is texting you? Or a member of the public. About the item? Or someone who's watching it on the channel. And it's a quasi-judicial hearing? You disclose it. Okay. If it's not a quasi-judicial... I don't have to disclose or actually state it anywhere in here that we need to do things like that. If it's quasi-judicial, you have to disclose all ex parte communications before the vote is taken. If they're giving them to you in real time, and you've already made your disclosures, and a new person... So if you've already disclosed your neighbor, who's been talking your ear off about this for two weeks, and you've already disclosed it, and he keeps texting you, you don't have to disclose it again. But if it's a new person, and you're sitting up there, and they're watching you on TV, and they text you, and they say, Mr. French, this is crazy. Don't vote for this. And you haven't already disclosed their name, you should disclose it before you vote. You could say, hey, guys, I just received a sex message. This is a person I didn't disclose earlier. They're talking to me about hosting. Full stop. Is that something that is clearly written in these guidelines, so that we'll be aware of that? It's written in a statute, and if you have, and Attorney General opinions provide guidance. If you have specific questions, you should just call us and ask us, and we'll talk you through it. That text message, though, then does become a public record until after the vote, which we'll talk about in a second. Okay, one good piece of information is that just because emails come to your private email, that does not mean all of your emails are public records. Only the emails related to your work on PNZ. So if, and again, this happens a ton to city employees, because we all have iPhones, I mean, many of us have iPhones, and we have like three accounts, your city account, your personal account, your family account, whatever it is, your iCloud account, and you go to compose an email, and you send it, and now all of a sudden, in your personal email, you send an email to your boss saying, hey, don't forget, we have to bring this ordinance for a second reading, whatever it is, and someone does a public records request. You have to produce that email, even if it's in your personal Gmail or iCloud, but that doesn't mean they get to read all your other emails. All your other personal emails are still personal, and you are the custodian of the records you keep, which means you have to apply the law, and we can help you, to determine what is a public record and what is not. If it's personal, it's not public. If it's medical, it's not public. If a city employee gets medical records on their city email, it's not public. But it's, if you have questions, certainly we're here to reach out. But that's good news, because sometimes people worry about that. They're like, oh my gosh, I got one government email to my email, now all my emails are public. Not true. Same thing with text messages. And you can have a whole conversation with someone, and there's one comment about a public item. You can redact everything else on a text. Redact, redact, redact. Just show the one part where you talk about medical marijuana dispensaries and the vote that's coming up. Full stop. So if this comes up, if it happens, if the clerk reaches out to you for a public records request, and you have questions, certainly you can reach out to us. Transitory messages. I will say this as an aside. We have talked about sending you all to some League of Cities trainings. They have very good trainings that, specifically for planning and zoning boards. Would that be something that would be interesting? Yes. Okay. Well, we will. Jordan will work with staff, and we'll get that. Because I think that might be helpful. Because all this stuff is, I mean, like, we went to law school, and we do this all the time, and I do these presentations, like, every two weeks. And it's just a lot. It's hard. It's a lot of information. It's weird. It's not your normal life. And it's totally different than anything else. And so it can be challenging. And I find it helpful to, like, especially do trainings, but also talk to other people and other boards and figure out how they handle things and their best practices. Transitory messages. Transitory messages are messages of short-term value. They're based upon the content, the purpose of the message, not the format used to transmit it. They are not intended to formalize or perpetuate knowledge. They don't set policy-established guidelines, confirm a transaction, or act as a receipt. Transitory messages only have to be retained until they're obsolete, superseded, or their administrative value is lost. First, the best example of a transitory message that you would receive is an invitation to a meeting. Once the meeting occurs, you no longer have to keep that invitation because it's in the past. Or a voicemail reminding you. Jessica calls you and says, hey, guys, don't forget, planning its own meeting tomorrow night. Once the meeting occurs, you can delete that voicemail. So those are transitory messages. You'll get a lot of them. And once the event that it was about has occurred, you're good. You can move forward and get rid of it. Chama? Yes? Do we? Oh, sorry. Do we have a retention policy? So how long do we know we need to be the keeper of the emails? And if they're just public records, quasi-judicial, is it the same? Is it different? We do have a records retention policy. Okay. You are subject to it if you decide to be the custodian of the public records in your person that you have and maintain. It is always better to shift them to the city clerk because they're in the business of maintaining public records and they know the records retention policy depends on the format. It depends the type of communication. There's a schedule for records retention based on, as Jim was saying, what is the record, what is the format, what type of communication or memorandum or document is it. It is fairly complex and we can have a more detailed discussion and actually provide you with that retention schedule that's provided by the state. The simple answer is really, it depends. Yeah. And I'm wondering, maybe for our board is, like, it would be great if we all just did this consistently, if we all just agreed that any emails we get or send, we would either include or forward to whomever it's decided is our liaison. It will be the clerk. Oh, the clerk. You guys individually have to, I mean, great, that's a great, that's a great plan and that's a great idea. You should send them to the clerk, but you individually have to make that determination for yourself. You might just say, this is a pain. I'll just keep these. I'll just make a special email and I'll keep this email forever and if they really ask me for it, I'll send them to them. I'll send them these 10 emails I received five years ago. Good luck remembering five years ago that I got an email about a certain subject. Well, if you save the email, it will be there. Fair point. So lawyers have to retain things for like seven years. So clients will sometimes reach out and they'll be like, hey, that thing you handled for me seven years ago, I need those records. So we have to go back. And that will tell you, email, Gmail, save things. So it's not a terrible strategy, but the cleanest is to just send it to the clerk. You also could just be the business of, other than the agendas, not receiving emails. And when people email you, say, please do not email me. You may call me at this phone number or you may speak to me at the meeting. You can do whatever you like. I'm just telling you, written communications, a public record, text, email. But the clerk, I would recommend it. But it's your choice. You're individual board members and it's at your own discretion. Okay. Who is authorized to inspect public records? People don't love this answer, but it's true. Anyone. They do not have to say their name. They do not have to be a resident. They can be a child. They don't have to live here. They can be from another country. Any person. They do not have to say why. They do not have to have a reason. They do not have to need it. When must you respond? So, again, we have the city clerk who's the best to get the records to. But if you are the record custodian, you have to acknowledge public records request and you have to respond in good faith. The statute does not give a time limit. The custodian must make reasonable efforts to respond. However, there's case law that has held that records requests that are complied with between four months and nine months are sufficient depending on the complexity of the record, the workload of the agency, if the record needs to be reviewed by attorneys, if there needs to be redactions. Because, again, governments have to maintain public records and produce them, as do boards and their members. But that's not their core function. Their core function is municipal function and police powers. Full stop. They have to do it. But they don't have to do it and not respond to the fire or not have the meeting and turn the lights on and staff the meeting and run the meeting. So there are other things that agencies are required to do that are the core function of the agency. And so records requests must be responded to. They have to be acknowledged promptly. And promptly is, I don't know, within a week, ten days. Because most governments respond between two weeks and three months, and that's sufficient. Particularly, sometimes the public will get very agitated when they say, well, I put this public records request in two weeks ago. The challenge is that when you put in a public records request, particularly to a city, it has to go out to all the different people who might have the records. They then have to produce those records. The custodian has to review them and say, does this need to go to legal for review? Are there exemptions? Does this have employee information, their address, their phone number, that's protected? And then the lawyers have to go and we have to redact. Or sometimes the clerk redacts. Is this subject to ongoing litigation? Do we redact for that? Do we say this isn't subject to public records because the litigation's ongoing? So, public records requests are not as simple as saying, I want that record that you have in your hands right now and you give it to me. That's not how it works. It's not supposed to work like that. Again, the public's entitled to records, but the privacy, particularly of the person who has protected information, is of a higher value than the person who needs this record or who's requesting this record. So, particularly, I mean, especially for law enforcement, judges, I mean, military personnel and their families, it's critical that their personal information doesn't come out. And oftentimes when people request agency records, they're requesting records that include the spouse and children of those people. And so, we have, and we also can charge for those requests because doing that, redacting, I don't know, 900 pages of employee records, personnel records, takes time, a lot of time. So, statute requires that we have to respond, but the latitude of how long it takes is broad. And it's broad because it's to protect the information, to protect the city in the event of litigation, to protect the personal information of someone whose information should not be made public because it's not safe. Okay. There are exemptions to public records law. They are narrow. It's liberally construed in favor of open government. And the burden is on the agency to illustrate why a record falls within the statutory exemption. So, if something is subject to litigation, let's say there's active litigation, and they request a record. This happens, actually, all the time. We're in a lawsuit. And the other side will say, I want the records from a year before the lawsuit until the lawsuit until now. Well, we're in litigation. So, the records maybe before the litigation commenced or before we were threatened with the litigation are public, and you get those records. But then we have to determine, okay, when did the litigation commence and what is protected because of the litigation exception that won't be produced in full or won't be produced until after litigation is concluded. So, we have to say that, though. We have to say, you can't get this because of the litigation. You can get these documents but not these documents. Okay, so this is a summary. Sunshine Law is the law of the land here in Florida. It ensures transparency in government. The key compliance points to remember are that public has the right to access. They have to have meeting notices of meetings. There must be record keeping and minutes and public participation that is meaningful. Violations are serious, but they can almost always be corrected through public action. And public records law mandates open access to all forms of public records, including electronic formats. That is the end, but I'm happy to answer any other questions you guys have. And you have been very patient, so thank you for bearing with me. I have a question. Yes. To Sunshine Law, let's say a small community wants to grill hot dogs and invite people to come in the city to get to know our neighborhood. As long as we don't talk about something that's coming up, it's all good. Everybody can go. Staff? Yeah, for sure. Staff, commissioners, your colleagues. I mean, candidly, it's good to network and build relationships with people you are on bodies with and work with and interact with. That's helpful. That's how human function and society has always grown and been successful and prosperous. You just can't talk about the things that are going to come before you. But again, trade recipes. Talk about the weather. Talk about your vacations. Talk about, I don't know, the price of gas. You know, whatever it is, just nothing about, for you all, nothing about the board or things that could come before the board. Is that helpful? But yeah, please, please do that. That's a great idea. All right. Well, thank you guys so much. And again, thank you for your service. Thank you. Thank you for your presentation. We appreciate you sharing information with us. Oh, our pleasure. Moving on to the next item on the agenda, staff comments. Does the staff have any comments? Staff has no comments. Sorry. Staff has no comments. We want to welcome you all to the board, and we look forward to working with you. And feel free to contact us if you have any questions. Thank you. Board committee members, comments. Anyone on the board have comments? Just really quickly, I had brain surgery a little bit ago, and sometimes my speech is not as clear as what it should be. So I try very hard. But if I'm not speaking clearly, please let me know, because I will restate my issue. But I'm still, I had to learn to re-speak. So I'm still learning. Yes, I'd say you're doing rather well. All right. Not hearing anyone who wants to make any comments, I'll ask for a motion to adjourn tonight's meeting. I'll make the motion to adjourn tonight's meeting. And a second. I'll second. All those in favor, say aye. All right. Those opposed, hearing none, meeting adjourned.