Office have received notice that Mayor Andre Pierre, Raphael Granado, Robert Fernandez, Mike Redondo, Joshua Diegues, and Rebecca Wakefield would not be present at today's meeting. Senator Alex Kalatayud, Stephanie Daniels, Eric Eikenberg, Iris Escara, Jose Jimenez, Here. Mayor Steven D. Lozner, Commissioner Dennis C. Moss, Here. Mayor Crystal Wagar, Here. Chairman Dennis Kerbel, Here. You have seven members present. You do not meet quorum. Senator Kalatayud is here. Thank you. With that, do we have quorum? Okay, thank you. In that case, yes, perfect timing. In that case, we will commence this meeting of the Charter Review Task Force and we'll start with the Pledge of Allegiance, Senator Kalatayud, if you do the honors. We will commence with the reasonable opportunity for the public to be heard. Is there any member of the public that wishes to come forward and speak on any item on the agenda? Okay, seeing no one come forward, the reasonable opportunity is closed. And now we will continue with our discussions. I see, I know the clerk is here with the request on 6.05. I think in light of some of the discussion on annexation incorporation, even though I would like to take you up first, I think it makes sense to start with the overall discussion and then see how your request might fit into that. So with that, on annexation incorporation, I think we had some questions pending for staff, did we? That's correct. We also have our office of management budget here to address any questions remaining from the task force. Okay, let's, I guess to staff, was there any specific presentation that you had prepared for today? No. Okay. Okay, in that case, then let's start with the two proposed items. And since we're just seeing the language today, I wouldn't expect anyone to be ready to vote on it necessarily. But I think to introduce the concepts, Mr. Jimenez had taken the lead on codifying the survey of property owners in the annexation process. And I had finally with the assistance of the county attorney's office put together the boundary commission idea that I had been kicking around. I think, Mr. Jimenez, if you want to introduce yours first, since I think it's simpler. And then I think some of that may end up working into the item that I proposed. But why don't you, why don't you go ahead? Thank you, Mr. Chair. And you said it perfectly. I think that all it does is codify something that is codifying the charter, what is already in the code. My belief in this is simply, there are areas that are primarily commercial areas. There, it's a smart annexation move on a part of any municipality. It's good for a tax base, it doesn't have the same dependence on the housing market that can be very volatile here. And I would just like for people who are going to be represented by a new government to at least at some point along the way, be given the opportunity to say how they feel about, and especially if there's more than one municipality interested in the area, or whether they like the services they're getting from the county, whatever it may be, whatever the opinion is, I just think that we should guarantee that they are asked. And if it's by, by a vote like this, and the results presented to the county commission, that's, I think, the simplest. Nobody's telling the county commission they have to listen, but they are giving the people the opportunity to be heard, and that's all I'm proposing. I would ask for, well, any comments on that? Okay. Then let me introduce the language that I'm proposing. And I think, looking at these, I think they fit together pretty neatly. So my proposal is to amend both 6.04 and 6.05 on annexations and incorporations to create a boundary commission. So I'll readily concede that I stole the idea for commission from Commissioner Moss and his salary commission idea. And the composition is a little bit different. So the idea here would be to have a boundary commission on a five-year cycle review all annexations and incorporations that are pending within that period and make a single recommendation on all of the changes, whether it's a creation of a new municipality or the annexation by municipality, and for the board of county commissioners to hear a collective recommendation rather than a piecemeal. And if, you know, you miss the five-year cycle, then you're on the next one. But given the length of time that some annexations are pending, currently, I wouldn't anticipate that being a major change to the practical effect of an application in this area. And so the boundary commission would replace the planning advisory board. The planning director would continue to be able to make recommendations as to whether something should be, as to whether boundaries should be adjusted. But that would go to the county commission to decide whether to take up that recommendation and then to refer it through the process. So the boundary commission would be 15 members who have to be resident electors, can't be lobbyists, can't be current elected officials, can't be county employees, and can't be an immediate family member of a sitting commissioner. And it would be one appointee by the mayor, one appointee by the League of Cities, and then one from each county county commissioner. That would be approved by the board of county commissioners, but the nominations would come from one from each one from each commissioner. So theoretically, each district would be represented. But again, that's that's up to whoever's the appointing the appointing commissioner. It would start January 1, 2027 run for five years. I didn't put a term limit on how long you can serve on the boundary commission, particularly because since it's only you know, it's every five years is when you do your main recommendation. I thought it might make sense if people want to hold over. And the board could set it so that when you're appointing commissioner leaves office that now there's not now there's a way to change the appointee. But it doesn't have to be and the board can establish those procedures by ordinance. So the idea was to have this 15 member body. Uh, there would be, uh, there would be, um, for both annexations and incorporations, uh, there would be the opportunity for petitions by, uh, interested, uh, persons or groups and the petition process would be the, uh, the same for both. Um, so the petition process would, uh, provide for, um, 10%, uh, signatures from 10% of the electors in the proposed area. And also the signatures of non-residential property owners equal to 10% of the total area of non-residential property in the affected area. Um, and so the signatures of, uh, of electors would continue to be, uh, canvassed by the supervisor, but it would be, um, for the, uh, for the clerk to verify the signatures of the, uh, the non-resident, sorry, the planning department will verify the, uh, the non-residential property owner signatures. Um, this would retain the clerk's role in approving the form of the petition. I know that that's something that, uh, the clerk's office is going to want to discuss later, but for now it just kind of fits into the existing process where the clerk verifies the form of the petition. Then rather than going to the county commission, it would go to the boundary commission for review. This is in the, this is in the event of a petition by, uh, by persons of, uh, of interest in the, um, in the procedure. So, uh, petition would be, would be heard by the boundary commission rather than the board of county commissioners to then decide whether it makes sense to move forward. And then once approved, kind of like the current process, then you go and collect signatures. Um, but the, uh, um, the ability, the idea was to have, uh, the ability to have a petition process lowered it from, uh, 20% of the residents to 10%, uh, in line with the discussion that, uh, and the concern commissioner Moss had raised about the current impracticality. Uh, there is still the ability for the county commission or a municipality to initiate, um, well, the county commission to initiate, uh, incorporations and the, uh, a municipality and the county commission to initiate annexation. So that process would remain. Um, and then once the, and so the, the boundary commission would have activities to undertake during the five years, it's not just the one report at the end because there will theoretically be petitions that have to be reviewed for, uh, for form and sufficiency, uh, during that cycle. And then you have to get the signatures, um, within a year prior to the consideration, um, by the, uh, by the boundary commission. And then the boundary commission, um, makes a recommendation to the board of county commissioners and the, uh, county commissioners, county commission, uh, there's public hearings in front of the boundary commission. Um, and the, um, and then when it goes to the county commission, the county commission has essentially sufficient time to, uh, to consider the items and to, uh, place them on the next available, um, ballot. The idea being there's always going to be an election within, uh, about a year or, or less of when the, um, the boundary commission would make its recommendation. So, uh, and then I think Mr. Jimenez is amendment on, um, having the, uh, this, the polling of the non-residential property owners, uh, would fit in at the end because not only are they involved in the petition process, but there's also the requirement, um, that would be codified in the charter that their, uh, opinions have to be solicited prior to the county commission making, uh, a determination. So that's the proposal. I know, um, it's a lot and we're just putting it forward today. So I'm introducing the concept, the language is here. Uh, happy to discuss, um, Mr. Valdez. Mr. Chair, if I, if I may just to clarify certain things that you had mentioned for Yeah, please. For the board, um, when you mentioned that it was eliminating the planning advisory board, I just wanted to clarify that it's only with respect to the duties and functions performed by the planning advisory board in 6.04 and 6.05. The planning advisory board would still remain as a board. It's not eliminating it entirely or replacing it entirely. And second, for those of you that are reading through the proposal, um, you'll notice that there are, um, certain provisions highlighted in yellow and certain provisions highlighted in green. Um, I took it upon myself to make sure that the changes that are proposed by the chair are those that are highlighted in yellow. The proposals that are highlighted in green are proposals that this charter review task force has already recommended be made to these sections as part of the constitutional officer cleanup. So I wanted to make sure that you saw what the version of the charter that you're already recommending to be changed is there. So the green changes are those that you've already approved or recommended as part of your prior work. If a technical question on that point, when, when let's assume that we recommend and that the board of county commissioners takes this up when it's presented on the ballot, we would still keep the changes in green as part of the technical cleanup, right? That is correct. And so how does it get shown if they, that they merge together? Um, or is it just in both places? If they're separate questions, let's assume they both pass, then they both would be incorporated into the charter, um, as having both been approved. If the changes in green are part of the constitutional officer cleanup and that passes, um, then those are the only changes that would be made to the section. Um, if, and the boundary commission fails and vice versa, if the boundary commission succeeds with the constitutional officer cleanup question fails, then only what's in yellow would be changed. What's in green would not, we can try to figure that out later on once we see what happens with the recommendations here. But currently that, that is the way that it would work. Okay. Would it, would it be, um, possible to have the constitutional officer changes just for discussions purposes reflected in both? I would want to give that a lot of thought because I don't want to have two different questions that do the same thing. Um, and potentially confuse voters that they have to vote for one and not the other. What if one passes, but the other doesn't, how do you reconcile those two differences or changes? So I'd want to give that a lot of thought, but at least currently I believe that the changes should be on one question and one question only. Okay. And actually I, I see your point because if people don't like the constitutional officer changes, we shouldn't maybe put it in, in a different item as well. Okay. Um, Commissioner Moss. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, Mr. Chair, could you explain, um, why, um, you felt the need to propose the, um, uh, pulling the planning advisory board out of the process? Um, it seemed duplicative to have two boards and the planning advisory board already has, um, a significant role in other recommendations. So I thought it just made sense to have one body that's dedicated to looking at, um, the planning issues. Uh, the board, I don't think there's anything in here that would foreclose the board from also by ordinance, having the planning advisory board weigh in, um, and make a recommendation. But the idea was just to have kind of like the salary commission, although on a much broader level, this is the body that's tasked with doing this task. And in reference to, um, the current opportunities for, uh, groups to petition, uh, for incorporations and those kinds of things, none of that really changes. The, the number changes? The 10% changes. Yeah, from 20 to 10. And then this one adds that you do need the non-residential property owners, um, to have a role in the petition. All right, that's it. Thank you. Anybody else? Um, Mr. Friedman. Good morning, uh, Chad Friedman, um, on behalf of the League of Cities. One question I had, I mean, it's the first time I've seen it, um, and we'll bring it to the League for, uh, review. Um, what happens to the ability for the moratoriums on annexations and incorporations? Is that, um, eliminated by this or is that still in play? I think that's still in, that's still in play. And, uh, well, this is, this might be something that we need to work on the language, but the idea is not to, um, override what the board has done currently. I need to think about that. Okay. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Eikenberg. Mm-hmm. Is it, would it be possible for, um, Mr. Jimenez's amendment to be inserted in your amendment, um, just so we can see how it overlays and how it complements maybe each other? Um, I don't know if there's an opportunity to, to move, um, Mr. Jimenez's amendment this morning to at least it attaches to, um, to your proposal. But I, I think based on, based on your, um, your description, I think having a little more time to digest your proposal would be helpful. But, but Jose's, I think he, he, his is pretty clear cut. And then, yeah, I, I tend to agree with that. Um, and, um, in terms of how they line up, if you look at, uh, what is now, um, in my item section four, uh, it would be B four on page two of my draft, his amendment would slot easily in there. So we could pass, um, his item today and then decide at the next meeting, whether to have that just go on its own or be incorporated into the, um, the, the other amendment on that point. Um, and I'm glad we're going to have the discussion as to whether or not, you know, we're going to combine them because what I wouldn't want to have happen is that, you know, Jose has an item and, you know, chair, you've got an item. The board may decide that it likes Jose's item, may not like your item, you know, or my item, that sort of a thing. And then we find that his item then gets caught up in and gets basically, you know, going to be blown away, you know, because it's incorporated in the other item. So something to think about and I know that we're going to have a conversation. And do we let newspaper guys, you know, in the building? It is a public meeting. We, uh, um, to the attorney, um, they would, if we have them as separate questions and they were both adopted, they just slide into each other, right? That is correct. Okay. Um, all right. Any, um, any further discussion on either Mr. Jimenez's item or the boundary commission item? I have a question on some of the items. Um, and this is just generally on, on annexation. So I like that in your proposal, chairman, you're bringing in the non-residential property. Cause sometimes from what I understand, some of the annexations that have occurred on the western edge have been for non-residential type annexations and so forth. And in the past, I, some of those folks have not had a voice per se because they're not an, uh, an elected, right? They're a property owner, not an elected. So the use of those two terms of art is actually, I think very fundamental in the annexation. Cause at the end of the day, the property owner, right? You could have a person that is a pro a voter and a property owner, but you could have a property owner that is not. And vice versa, you could have a registered, um, voter that is not a property owner, right? So how do you balance those two when at the end of the day, the property owner of the residential or the commercial, whichever is the one that is going to be most impacted by any annexation or non-annexation and so forth like that. So I like the boundary commission cause they can take into account more than just the planning comp plan sort of items. They can take in the taxation. They can take in other different components that come to play, um, with being annexed. Right. Or I haven't, I haven't, nobody's ever been removed. Right. But just you, you could potentially, you could theoretically de-annex. Exactly. Like there, there is some, you know, rumors of a secession. Secession. Secession. There is, there is some folks that have tried to threaten that, um, that I'm aware of. But I think that's a very, and I think I'm going to study this more, especially as to that factor, because I think that since the property owners at the end of the day are the ones that are most impacted, they should have more of a voice, I think. I think, yeah. And I, I taken that into account based on the discussions of, um, of the board when this has come up. Um, so I, I totally agree with that. Um, any other, any other comments? If, if not, before we take action on anything, let me have, uh, if the clerk wants to come up and discuss, uh, the other proposed language. Thank you. Good morning. Uh, as far as you can see from the, the, the clerk's proposed amendment, we're, we're basically trying to streamline this process because, as, as you all know and have discussed, the clerk's role is a record keeper. And in this process, especially given the complexities of what the, uh, the, we, we call it county administration, whether it's the planning board or OMB or whatever area that this eventually goes to, they are the subject matter experts and the clerk basically acts as a pass through. And that's what we're trying to eliminate this back and forth. We just, we don't think it's efficient and it's obviously not the clerk's area of expertise. So in his role as record keeper and keeping the primary documents, uh, of record for the county, that's why the proposed amendment that we have and that the clerk is asking us to, uh, submit is important to us. I think it's pretty self-explanatory. So I don't want to take up the committee's time on, on going through them unless there's any questions that you have. So the, the idea here would be that the, um, the entity that is responsible for reviewing the form of a petition would be the county administration rather than your office. Correct. Mr. Chair. Okay. Um, if anybody, is anybody here from OMB that wants to, uh, address this or from staff? Um, so staff has reviewed the language and we're comfortable with it, but we do have, um, office of management budget here to respond to any questions from the task force. Okay. So from the staff perspective, you don't have any objections to this? No, Mr. Chair. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, George Fernandez, Office of Management and Budget. Practically, that's what happens today. The clerk receives a petition. He calls us and says, hey, what do I do with it? And we run around and do it anyway. So it's just formalizing what happens today. Okay. Um, any, any discussion? Commissioner Moss. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, I was going to ask a question that I talked to the county attorney about earlier, but since staff is in agreement then, then I'm okay. Thank you. Uh, I, I will say, I, I mean, I, I do have, the attorney can correct me if my impression of this is incorrect. It's the, the, the review of the form of the, of the petition. I, I don't know if it, I mean, it, it may involve substantive discussion about what, what's ultimately is being requested. But really the question is, um, is this petition sufficient under the, um, under the requirements for, uh, a ballot question? It's really, it's, uh, is it clear? Um, are you hiding the ball? Um, any of those things is that to the attorneys, is that correct? That's the purpose of the review. The purpose of the review is essentially to determine whether or not the individual has completed the form and provided all the necessary information that the form requests so that they can then go out and proceed with the next steps of the process. And then since the petition would go, uh, under, under the current scenario, the petition would go where the county, the, uh, county commission under the current proposal, it is prior to going out and collecting signatures. There needs to be a determination by an entity that that particular petition is sufficient as to form so that they know that if they collect the requisite number of signatures on that petition, it's like it can be presented to the voters. And so someone needs to give the incorporation committee that indication that the form and the petition is sufficient so that I can now have that knowledge when I collect signatures on this petition that it's a viable ballot question or. It's, it's defensible if it, if it gets approved. Correct. Um, and right now it's the, the county commission that does that under my proposal that would go to the boundary commission. Um, but either way, there's an entity that's actually reviewing the language and making the determination. So, um, and Mr. Is that correct? Yeah. And Mr. just to, to specify a little bit more, for example, recall petitions, initiative petitions, the clerk there under the ordinance under 1223 and the, the, the charter, there's specific things that that the clerk looks at that obviously we have the expertise now over that we've, we can incorporate those things. These are very specific when we're talking about this area, it's a very specific as far as the form of the petition, having the boundaries, those things are very technical and it's, it's just not something that's in the clerk's expertise. So that's why, as, uh, the gentleman from OMB clearly stated, it's more of a pass through. So we're taking the document, we're giving it to OMB or, or, or whoever the, uh, administrative agency would be and saying, is this correct? And then they're coming back and telling us the clerks, uh, you know, signing off based on someone else's determination, basically is what's, what's going on there. And, and it sounds like, and somebody correct me if I'm wrong, the review is essentially ministerial. Correct. It's not, it's not a pass on, it's not even a pass on the legality of the question. And there's still an opportunity to do that in front of either the county commission or the boundary commission under either scenario, right? And, and nothing precludes an individual from challenging that language as well after the fact. Um, you know, once, once it's been placed on the ballot or the board has elected to place it on the ballot, there's still the ability for individuals to challenge it at that point as well. Okay. And so, and also just to be clear, if we were to recommend adoption of the clerk's proposal, this would be done as part of the constitutional officers cleanup, right? We could put it in there. We could. Okay. Any other comments? Commissioner Moss. So when the, uh, petition is sent over the way it's set up now to, uh, to OMB, if there's a question, and OMB reviews it and then they'll send it back to the clerk's office, but to, to OMB is the county attorney office involved in that at all? In other words, does OMB make that decision unilaterally by themselves or do they confer with the county attorney's office, uh, just to make sure that the petition is the way it's supposed to be? Good morning, Mr. Moss. Um, we do confer with the county attorney's office on every petition that we've received. Okay. Thank you. Um, last technical question. Is county administration, given the terminology that we've used, uh, in the charter, is county administration the right term or is there a better term? That's not a defined term yet in the charter or that's not used elsewhere in the charter. Um, I, I, I searched for that, um, which is why, Mr. Chair, in your proposal, for instance, we reference the specific department that the charter, um, creates. Um, that's something that this task force could consider in terms of is there a specific department within the quote unquote county administration that you wish or county administration could be a newly defined term just to provide as much discretion to the mayor and the board as possible to place that responsibility in whichever department they think it best fits with. And that was the idea of the clerk as well, since we didn't know where the task force was going as far as, uh, the location to, to kind of put a county administration as being in essence, what Mr. Valdez has discussed. We can say to the relevant county department as specified by code or by ordinance or something along those lines so that the board can. Or county mayor or designee. We could do that. The one thing that I would note is with a process that is this formalized, it might be used county mayor, county mayor's designee can change without codification if it's required to be done by ordinance. And that allows any reasonable person to look to the code itself to figure out where they need to file as opposed to asking who the mayor has decided to designate on a particular point in time. That makes sense. Since we don't use county administration, I mean, I'll hear from my colleagues. My, I, my thought is not to create yet another definition of a, what seems like another branch of government. But, um, let's, Mr. Eikenberg, I think you had a comment. Mr. Chairman, just to, just to follow the bouncing balls on, on this, on the, on the clerk's proposal, as we've just said, they're offering county administration. But on, on your, on your, um, on your proposal, the, the attorney mentioned that the green is what the constitutional cleanup already is. And what I, what I see here is that it's, it's struck the clerk of the circuit court and it says clerk of the board. Um, so I, I don't know if, if that's the right terminology for, instead of county administration, is it clerk of the board, but there's competing, or at least is it contradictory? Well, clerk of the board is him. Okay. Um, so that's what they want to change. Uh, and I think, I, I, I do think if we're going to make this change or if the board's going to make this change, the, the county commission is going to make this change. I think it would be better in the constitutional officers and then just let these items merge together. But Mr. Valdez. If I may, if you're looking at the chair's proposal on page three, where the green highlight is, that green highlight is not a section that's impacted by the proposed changes the clerk has suggested. The clerk's proposed changes occur further on down the, the section when the word clerk by itself is used. The reason why we changed the terminology of clerk of the circuit court to clerk of the board was to just designate, because as we've mentioned before, the clerk wears many hats. Um, he's the clerk of the circuit court. He's the clerk of the board. He's the county comptroller. Um, he, he's a variety of functions. And so we wanted to make sure that the charter specified effectively which, which hat, um, the clerk was wearing in that particular function because the clerk of the board role is a function in which the board and the county can direct the clerk on other functions that the clerk performs. The county is not able to direct the clerk on those responsibilities. Indeed. We wear many hats. If I may, chairman, I think it should be a specific department. Um, whatever the department, the administration feels, because if I was a person coming in to file a petition, you know, how do I figure out where am I supposed to go and so forth like that? So I think the preference would be to have a county department that's already identified within the charter. And then the administration tell us which would be the most appropriate, but it should be a specific department and not necessarily a moving target. I tend to agree. What was, um, I don't have it in front of me. What was the department? We kept a department of budget, um, right? Created, you, you changed the department of finance to the department of budget and you also, the, the charter itself provides that there is a department of planning as well, which is referenced in your, um, changes, Mr. Chair. So those are at least two of the administrative departments that have to exist within, um, the county, uh, the county administration. Other departments are to be, um, determined by the mayor, um, through the budget process as he or she sees fit. I'm, I'm inclined. I mean, under the revised department of budget, Mr. Fernandez would still be part of that department, right? I think the idea, I, the idea I think would be to keep it with OMB. And I think the idea was the department of budget would be OMB, but I would hope so. I'm still here. I will tell you, Mr. Chair, I believe probably over 20 years ago, this function did serve as planning in the department of planning and zoning at the time. So it did move and it's, but it's been an OMB for the last 26 years. I think since a lot of the concerns involved the budgetary impact to the county, I'm, I'm inclined to say the department of budget, but, um, just to keep it with something that we've already recommended be identified in the charter. Um, any other discussion on the clerk's proposal or any other questions for the clerk? Right. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you to the task force and Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Mr. Chairman, just to have clarity on the proposal that's in front of us, what if we were to amend the clerk's proposal to have it as the office of budget? That was my thought. I'll move that. Okay. So, and understanding it's still going to be debated overall, but amend the proposal that was submitted to strike county administration and put office of budget. Second. Okay. Uh, anyone which should be recorded. No, seeing none that motion passes. So any further consideration of this, we'll read in department of budget or whatever's the, the terminology that we use where it says county administration. Um, okay. Any further discussion on, um, the annexation items that we've taken up thus far? Okay. Um, I think, uh, I do think based on the discussion, we might be ready for motions on Mr. Jimenez's proposal and on the clerk's proposal. So Mr. Jimenez, do you want to move your item? Sure. Okay. We have a motion. Is there a second? Second by Mr. Eikenberg. Um, any further discussion? Anyone wish to be recorded? No. Okay. Mr. Jimenez's motion passes. Um, so we will, uh, have that at least as a recommendation to the county commission on the, uh, language regarding surveys of non-residential property owners. Now, as to, uh, the clerk's proposal with the change that we've already made, uh, anyone want to make a motion? So moved. Okay. Mayor Wagger. Is there a second? Seconded by Senator Colladioude. Uh, we have a motion and a second. Mr. Chair, connect, yes. And it would be to incorporate these proposed changes into the constitutional officer cleanup item that was already recommended by the. Yes. Yes. Mayor Wagger. I'm sorry, yes. Okay. Um, okay. So, yes, that is, that is the motion. With the budget, department of budget or office of budget amendment that was provided. Correct. Yes. Yeah. That one we had already taken care of. Okay. We have a motion and a second. Uh, I think everyone's clear. Does anyone wish to be recorded? No. Okay. That motion passes. Congratulations to the clerk. Um, thank you for your, for your time and, uh, presentation. Um, okay. Uh, and then we'll take up the, uh, the boundary commission, um, again at the next meeting. So, um, I don't think I need a motion to defer that item. We'll just, we'll just pick it up and put it on the agenda. Um, Mr. Jimenez. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And then just to, because I wouldn't want these two to necessarily go separately. Um, so as my motion passed here, if we can just put it in, into yours, if you don't mind, I would offer it as an amendment to yours so that we can consider it as one item. If for whatever reason we decide to separate them again, I probably would not be supportive of that, but you never know. But if you don't mind just putting it into one so we can read it together. I think that makes sense. Okay. So, yeah. What color do you want? I'm, I, I will, I will allow the county attorney to surprise me on making sure their color coding is on point. So, um, okay. You won't abuse the privilege. No pastels. Um, so, okay. Uh, all right. I think that closes out our discussion on annexation incorporation for this agenda, as well as the section 6.05. Uh, the next item for discussion was article seven. I know we had some questions from the last time. Um, so to staff. Um, that's correct. There was a question, um, a number of questions that were still pending related to article seven. We have chief Coley representing the administration as well as the parks department. Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. I'm Christina White. I'm the director of the parks, recreation and open spaces department. Happy to be here with all of you. Good morning. Good morning. Um, so I think, uh, if you could remind us what the, what the outstanding questions were. Sure. So one of them was whether or not we had followed up with the parks advisory board for any recommendations. We don't have any recommendations for you today, but we will reach out to them and make sure that we at least get something from them for your next meeting. If that is something that you would like to have happen. Happy to do that. Yeah. I think just to make sure we've surveyed the field and make sure that there isn't, you know, some recommendation that we're missing. Sure. Um, the second question was from, um, um, Iris Scara related to potential funding, uh, that could be included in the charter. So one of the things that we wanted to see if the parks department would provide is if there's anything in the current charter language that you feel might be either burdensome or restrictive. If there's something that you all may have experienced in the last few years or something that maybe that you wanted to do and couldn't accomplish. If there's a list of recommendations from the department of different opportunities that the parks department may want or need. One of the things that, um, I found concerning was during the last budget season, you know, the, the potential of having to pay for parking at a park, you know, the state is doing all these different things with property taxes and the parks department is, um, a large, uh, department with a lot of land and a lot of maintenance expenses. So just any opportunities that we can help with or, or, or, or bring to the table that you guys think feel is appropriate, we're open ears to that. So it's not just a park advisory board. It's also the department. If there's any recommendations or questions or something that we can help with, it's just looking forward on that particular aspect that we wanted to get some feedback. And we are so thankful for that. Thank you. We agree. It was, it was a tough budget year and it's going to continue to get tougher, right? As we understand. Um, so we're already making a lot of adjustments internally about cost recovery, um, and certainly bringing in more revenue. We raised some of our fees to, uh, you know, our marinas and golf and things like that, which went over very well. Um, and then we're also working on our agreements with our current, uh, community based organizations to make sure that they also are paying what is required, right? With the market bears right now. So we are taking that very seriously to try to, to bridge that gap. Um, I don't have any specific article seven recommendations as it relates to your work on that today, but it is something that we're contemplating internally and with our County attorney. And we're happy to, to bring some sort of proposed language to a future. That's great. If you could bring it at one of the next meetings, we only have two meetings left. We have, uh, we have April 7th and then April 28th. The 28th is supposed to be just to review the final report. But if you know, you have language and it's easy enough to digest in time, uh, we're happy to take action on it. Um, if, uh, you know, if we can get to it, but yeah, if you have something in mind, um, and again, we just, we wanted to make this open because from the specific lens of funding, just to make sure that there isn't something in article seven that the parks department thinks would be appropriate or necessary, uh, in terms of your funding in light of all of the issues that are going on, as Mrs. Scara mentioned, um, just to give you that opportunity. So very appreciative of that. And we are looking at it. So we will come back to this, this, uh, task force with some recommendations. Thank you. Perfect. Thank you. And any other questions for the parks director or the, uh, the deputy deputy mayor, or I guess chief, right? Okay. Thank you very much. Um, okay. Then, uh, next item of business is just approval of the minutes second. Okay. I think Mr. Eichenberg beat you to the punch on that one. Uh, all right. We have a motion in a second on approving the minutes. Uh, anyone wish to be recorded now motion passes. The minutes are approved. All right. Is there any other item, uh, that any task force member wishes to discuss on this agenda? Mr. Eichenberg. Mr. Chairman, um, thank you. I do want to, uh, just take a minute. I want to first start by thanking, um, the distinguished Senator to my right for her, um, for her leadership during this, uh, most recent legislative session as it pertained to a variety of issues. But in, um, um, in particular, her, um, support and defense of the urban development boundary, um, a topic that gained, uh, quite a bit of attention during the, um, 60-day legislative session. Um, for those of you on the task force that were not following that, um, a bill was introduced both in the, in the house primarily that was, uh, calling for a study, um, to study the potential elimination of the UDB, um, and a variety of other, variety of other, um, attempts there within that, uh, House Bill 399. Um, Senator and her colleagues, uh, urged strongly in the Senate that that language be, um, stricken from the Senate bill and it was successfully removed. Uh, I do want to acknowledge the support of the Senate president in that regard. Um, and then it passed both chambers, uh, without any language that would weaken, um, the urban development boundary, which is so critical here in Miami-Dade County, not just for, um, our water supply and our protective wetlands that are out to the west and to the east, um, but also to protect, um, South Dade agriculture and the importance of that, uh, industry and that economy to Dade County. So again, I want to thank you for your work there. So Mr. Chairman, I know we have decided to not engage on the UDB as it pertains to the task for itself, but I'd like to make a motion this morning, um, that affirms this, uh, task force view that the, the boundary should remain in the current form and that no amendment should, um, to those sections should be proposed as we go forward. So my motion for consideration this morning is I move that the charter review task force include a recommendation as part of the final report, um, that those sections of the home rule, home rule charter that relate to the urban development boundary should remain in their current form and no amendment to those sections should be proposed. We have copies of this motion if the, if the committee or the task force would like to see the words themselves, but I would like to move, um, that motion. What, to my knowledge, I think there's only the line in, um, 101A about the, the vote count for moving to UDB. Is there another section that you're thinking of? Um, I would need to defer to the attorney or to staff, but I believe the answer is no. Okay. Just wanted to make sure we all know what, uh, what are the sections. Okay. Uh, there's a motion. Uh, anyone wish to second the motion? Second. Okay. Senate, seconded by Senator Colladiud. Um, any discussion? Mr. Chairman. Uh, Mr. Jimenez. Um, I, I have no, no problem with the thought behind the motion. My concern is by not including it in our report, aren't we already doing this? And then if we don't include this about other things, are we implying that we're okay with them making those changes? I, I think we're trying to prove a negative here. If we're not recommending a change, I think we are saying loud and clear, we don't want to change this. And I don't like, and Eric, again, I, I completely agree with you. That's not, that's not the point. Um, but by saying, by calling out the one thing we don't want to change for, I don't know if it then excludes other things that we're not calling out. I would rather be proactive in our approach by saying, these are the changes we recommend. If we haven't recommended it, we aren't recommending it. I mean, I, I know I just said something incredibly circular, but that's how it came out. Um, so that's, that's my only concern. And if there's another way to get there, um, I would, I think we're doing two different things now. Mr. Rackenberg, do you want to respond to that? Just to, and, and Mr. Mendes, I appreciate your, your comments. I, I think just based on what we have just gone through as it pertains to, um, attempts, and I, I think it's signaled, potentially what is coming. And there are protections currently in the charter. There's a threshold, a vote threshold, and Commissioner Moss knows the importance of that super majority. Um, and I just think reaffirming, um, that this task force, understanding that, yes, we're not touching others or we're not having language for other provisions, but this is a critical, uh, this is a critical aspect of, of, um, of the way the county functions. And I think, um, putting ourselves on the record, encouraging the commission to not, to leave it as is, leave it as is and let the process under the current charter play out. I think it works. Any other comments? Um, Mr. Valdez. Just for clarification, there is also a reference to the urban development boundary in section 6.05 relating to incorporation, um, requiring that any new municipalities, um, have to abide by the permitted uses of land that's in the newly incorporated area pursuant to the urban development boundary. Um, the recommendation, just to avoid any confusion about what sections means, is instead of using the term sections, as indicated, we say provisions. So that it's just the references to that, um, within those broader sections, not the entire section itself that would remain unchanged. Thank you for that. Uh, and Mr. Jimenez, to your point, um, I agree with Mr. Eikenberg in terms of this, this issue has come up, uh, for discussion publicly. The other feeling I have about it in terms of the proprietary, I generally agree. I don't want to have to make a comment on every provision. Um, but I think our report is not kind of the exclusive view to the county commission of changes that are possible. These are the ones that we think should be made. The board is free to make other changes. And I think it's appropriate to include in our report something that we want to encourage them to not change that. That's how I see it. And, and I understand, um, I, I get it. And I'm, I'm more against taking the UDB specific subject aside, I'm against broad preemption. Um, but whether by the federal or the state government, the state to the, to the local governments. Um, so that was my bigger issue. If the county as an elected body wants to do something that affects it, they are free to do so. Um, it's, I, I guess it's just, we're doing so many things that are specific that I don't know of switching sides to be like, but we don't want you to do this. And again, being for it, it's a style thing. I'm saying, if you guys don't agree with me, I'm still in the same place. Cause you're recommending something I agree with. So this is a inconsequential opinion in my part. It's just something that I had to bring up from a, from a drafting point of view, like, cause then I feel that we're implying that anything else, you know, we might all have different opinions on other things that have not come up as recently have not been in the news, which is why this is coming up, but it's coming up because of preemption. It's not coming up because of, and I think that was a, probably an argument that swayed a lot of people, not only the substantive UDB question, but should they tell us what to do from up there when we know better? Um, so that's all. I mean, it was just something that it just seemed like a unique way of doing it. And if that's the way you want to go, I'm more than happy to go with the will of my call. Any other discussion? All right. We have a motion in a second. Anyone wish to be recorded? No motion carries. Mr. Moss. Speaking of preemption, is there anything in the charter, uh, that we can look at as a recommendation to the board, uh, to strengthen our position as relates to preemptions? Mr. Moss, with respect to preemption, um, we had discussed at the beginning of the charter review task force that the county has unique home rule powers that are provided to it by the Florida constitution on certain very specifically, uh, delineated subject matters. Um, to the extent that the board wants to, or the county wishes to avoid preemption on those subject matters, addressing them in the charter is one way, um, of handling those issues. We can follow up with you, um, before the next meeting as to whether, you know, if there's any of those specifically delineated issues that aren't currently addressed by the charter and you would like to see them bolstered or for, or, or addressed for the first time in, in our charter. But there, there is a way to, to address certain preemptions, but not all preemptions, um, on areas that aren't protected by the Florida constitution. Um, there are, there is the, the provision that says that those general laws of the state will apply, um, and supersede anything in our charter or in our code. Okay. Um, Mr. Chair, I'd just like to have a discussion. I don't know that I'm going to bring back anything, but preemption is, it's, uh, it's a bad word for me. Do you want to put an item on for the next agenda to have a discussion? Okay. And if you, you know, as, as with anybody else, if there's language that you and the attorney talk about that you want to put on, just go ahead and give it to him and I'll authorize it to distribute. Um, okay. Okay. Any other matters for discussion by the task force? Mr. Chair. Mr. Valdez. One thing just to hopefully help this task force, knowing that we only have two meetings left, um, I would recommend that, um, our office put together all of the recommendations that have been passed by the task force thus far and just provide you with a packet of all of those recommendations in final form so that you can review them for your next meeting so that you're not looking at that for the first time in a final report at the last meeting so that if there's any technical changes or cleanup that needs to be done, um, that can be done over the next two meetings. So we'll, we'll undertake, um, to do that, but I just wanted to preface that for you, um, that we'll be including basically a packet of everything that you've done thus far with all the proposals. Um, I think that's a, that's an excellent idea. Mr. Damien de la Paz, uh, sorry for the work, but I know you've been keeping track. So, cause I know that the, uh, the draft report has been a rolling process. So, uh, it shouldn't, uh, hopefully not be too much of a lift. Um, any other business? Okay. Is there a motion to adjourn? A little bit. Motion. No one wishes to be recorded. No. Uh, yeah. The next meeting will be, uh, April 7th, 10 a.m. Miss Chambers. Is that correct? That's correct, Mr. Chair. Okay. All right. Thank you, everybody. Oh, yes.