Board of County Commissioners- Informal Meeting (2025-02-11)

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA Informal Meeting February 11, 2025 Convened: 9:00 AM Adjourned: 12:40 PM 1. CALL TO ORDER - JAMIE FOWLER, CHAIR BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS The meeting was called to order at 9:00 AM by Chair Jamie Fowler, District No. 4. Present Commissioner Jamie Fowler District 4, Commissioner Larry Leet District 2, Commissioner James Clasby District 1, Commissioner Erin Lowry District 3, Commissioner Cathy Townsend District 5 Also Present George Landry, County Administrator Mayte Santamaria, Deputy County Administrator Jason Davis, Deputy County Administrator Katherine Barbieri, Assistant County Attorney Jennifer Garrity, Budget Manager Jennifer Hill, Office of Management & Budget Director Linda Hudson, City of Fort Pierce Mayor Joshua Revord, Port Director Patrick Dayan, Public Works Director Brian Proctor, Tetra Tech Jack Cox, Edgewater Resources Benjamin Balcer, Planning & Development Services Director Kori Benton, Planning & Development Services Planning Manager Sydney Halleran, Agenda Coordinator Vera Smith, Deputy Clerk Recording Secretary 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. FY 2026 Budget Outlook - Preliminary BOCC Guidance Jennifer Hill, Office of Management & Budget Director, and Jennifer Garrity, Budget Manager, presented the preliminary fiscal year 2025-2026 budget outlook, alignment of budget requests with strategic plan, economic risk factors, and challenges. As departments submit budget requests they must include documentation in alignment with the strategic plan. Various planning processes and tools, including the strategic plan and master plans, are used to guide long-range planning.

BOCC Informal Meeting Tuesday, February 11, 2025 9:00 AM 2 | P a g e Ms. Garrity provided the fiscal year 2024 financial overview and discussed State Revenues, including Half- Cent Sales Tax, Tourist Development Tax, Infrastructure Sales Tax, and County Gas Tax Combined. State Revenues help reduce the burden on the General Fund and fund major projects such as road resurfacing, bridge repairs, and water quality projects. State Revenue shares, Half-Cent Sales Tax, and the Infrastructure Sales Tax are all driven by the level of sales. All three of the revenues have seen sizable growth based on the current economy of the fiscal year, and year-to-date collections. The Half-Cent Sales Tax is down 5.9%, and the Tourist Development Tax is down 2.1% compared to fiscal year 2022. She mentioned that the County’s largest property, Sandpiper Bay Resort is still closed for renovation, which has historically been one of the busiest during the slow season due to its international customer base. The OMB has reviewed the tax base over five years and projected the potential ad valorem revenue growth. The property tax base grew by $16.5 billion from 2021 to 2025, the growth rate ranges from a low of 6.8% between the fiscal year 2021 to 2025 and a high of 17.5% between the fiscal year 2023 to 2024. New construction has contributed significantly to the tax base, with an average annual growth of $1.058 billion over the past five years. The growth rate for new construction has ranged from 23.6% to 64.8% year-to- year. The rate of new construction growth is expected to decline in the future. The new construction percentage of the total tax base ranges from as low as 2.3% to a high of 4.3% as new construction growth slows, the rate of growth and overall percentage will also decline. The Florida economic forecast shows potential rain and thunderstorms in fiscal year 2026. The consumer price index for all urban consumers increased by 0.4% in December, seasonally adjusted with a 2.9% rise over the last 12 months not seasonally adjusted. The index for all items less food and energy increased 0.2% in December seasonally adjusted and up to 3.2% over the year. In comparison to recent years inflation has dropped to a more reasonable level, however, due to recent inflation increases there are still struggles. The national unemployment rate stood at 4.1% in November 2024, up from 3.5% the previous year. In October, the job report fell short of expectations, as growth and jobs hit 150,000 with the expected growth being 180,000. Payrolls have surpassed February 2020 levels. Housing starts dropped by 26% in December compared to January, with a 21% decline in housing sales from May to December. Ms. Hill provided a scenario overview of the additional ad valorem revenues resulting from tax base growth with no increase, 5% increase, and 10% increase. A 5% increase would result in an estimated $13.2 million in new revenue, while a 10% increase would bring in $26.4 million. Mandated costs, including CRA payments, 19 th Judicial Circuit, Medicare/Medicaid, and Constitutional Officer budgets, must be covered regardless of tax base growth. She advised one of the challenges the County faces during the budget process is changes in state legislation. The impact of state and federal legislation on the county's budget includes potential changes to property tax structure and homestead exemption. For Countywide funds, a difference of one mill in the tax rate equates to $40 million in revenue. From the perspective of changing the millage rate by 1/10 th of a mill, it equates to changing the budget by $4 million. The inmate medical bill is expected to reduce hospital charges, impacting county expenditures positively. Changes in federal grants and disbursements are also being reassessed, potentially affecting County revenues. One of the County’s biggest challenges is significant growth projections, with over 600,000 residents by 2050 at a high growth rate and a medium growth rate of 500,000. The funding sources for County Capital include impact fees, infrastructure surtax, and grants. The County Capital Fund also includes franchise fees, state revenue sharing, surplus land sales, and transfers. The County has historically diverted unrestricted funding to the General Fund to deal with the significant revenue losses. The County's debt rating plays a significant role in borrowing costs for infrastructure needs. The impact of how much debt the County has affects the interest rate received on the debt. The two companies provide the County with an overall credit rating. Moody’s

BOCC Informal Meeting Tuesday, February 11, 2025 9:00 AM 3 | P a g e rating of Aa2 with a high quality and subject to very low credit risk and Standard and Poor’s (S&P) rating of AA with a very strong capacity to meet financial commitments. The County has target reserve levels for the General Fund/Fine Forfeiture Fund, with excess reserves transferred to the County Capital Fund. The existing target is 25% of the General Fund/Fine Forfeiture Fund budget. Some funds have no reserves, while others have reserves programmed for multi-year capital improvement plans. The Mosquito Control Fund has a $4 million target which was a result of past storm damage over time. The target was recommended by the Citizens Budget Committee and was agreed to by the BOCC. The budget process for the next year and beyond addresses the capital needs and a variety of community dealings with water quality, public health, facility needs, homelessness, technology advances, and more. In conclusion, Ms. Hill advised that the budget process begins in January with the Capital Improvement Program kick-off meeting. Departments submit their capital needs requests, followed by operational needs requests. OMB compiles all requests and presents them to the commission in March. Feedback from the commission assists with the budget priorities and ensures alignment with strategic goals. There is a meeting with the County Administrator in April with each department to further review budget requests. Constitutional Officers and Judicial Agencies submit their budget requests to the County in May and June. The County Administrator will develop recommendations by June to prepare a budget document for discussion in July. The target date for providing a recommended budget document is June 27 th . Budget workshops with commissioners are scheduled for the week of July 7, 2025, to review the recommended budget and to ensure that the millage rates are set for the trim notices. On July 22, the Board will have an agenda item to adopt millage rates for the TRIM Notices. At that time the millage rate can be lowered but cannot be increased after that date. Public hearings are scheduled for September 4, 2025, to adopt tentative and September 18, 2025, for the final millage rates and the budget. The dates for these hearings are determined by state law, ensuring compliance with legal requirements. The final budget becomes effective on October 1, aligning with the fiscal year. Staff requested general preliminary guidance from the Board for the preparation of the FY 2026 Budget. Commissioner Leet inquired and expressed concerns regarding the number of delinquent property taxpayers within the County, the impact of increased impact fees on the affordable housing crisis, and the longevity and allocations within the Reserves fund. In response to the property tax delinquency, Ms. Hill advised she would get updated information from the tax collector to clarify the delinquency and non- delinquency tax amounts and provide an update to the Board. Commissioner Clasby commented and expressed concerns regarding the Sunshine Law compliances. He suggested reworking the impact fees to promote the desired growth within the County using fees to discourage growth, such as future land use changes, increase in density, or greenfield development in general. He expressed the need to encourage low-density development, and agricultural development (1&5). He mentioned the start of Special Session C and the expected legislation being budget impact for the County. He recommended the Board direct the County Administrator to work with and fund the Sheriff with everything needed to enforce new laws that come out of Special Session C. Also, he suggested moving forward having the goal of a flat budget or a lower budget and not getting hung up on millage rates. He suggested the County should operate within last year's budget, and money should be moved around in the existing budget to fund the priorities with roads and quality-of-life improvements for existing taxpayers.

BOCC Informal Meeting Tuesday, February 11, 2025 9:00 AM 4 | P a g e Chair Fowler inquired about how to increase the County's credit rating. In response, Ms. Hill advised the County has $144 million in outstanding debt, and rating agencies will update their ratings based on management decisions and financial health. Commissioner Clasby commented and reiterated the recommendation of the County's goal to have a flat budget or to reduce the budget to lower taxes in the County. Commissioner Townsend commented on the County’s goal over the past five years to maintain a 25% reserve level within the budget. She mentioned the County’s recent reimbursement of FEMA funding from 2004 and staffing being 40% less than in the past. She expressed concerns regarding the County having a flat budget, and property increases. She expressed the importance of taking care of County staff and departments, and the need to fund sustainable operations before making funding commitments to other entities. Commissioner Clasby clarified his recommendation to lower the budget and stabilize it, as well as the request to provide the Sheriff's needs. He advised the request would be considered within the context of the new state laws within Special Session C, and mandates. The Board and staff discussed the Reserved Funding, County credit rating, flat budget, Citizen Budget Committee, millage rate, taxes, Special session C, Sheriff budget, economic downturns, the impact of the Great Recession, reserve comparisons with other counties, and budget constraints. The Board also discussed and debated the fiscal year 2026 drafted priorities regarding the benefits of adding Transit as a priority within economic development, monitoring being implied within economic development, wording differences in the budget, such as "fiscal responsibility and revenue generation" versus "fiscal responsibility and revenue diversification”, the importance of clear wording, keeping housing affordability & workforce housing, leaving "campus technology" in the facilities section, and mentions of experimenting with AI to improve government efficiency with technology. Upon discussion of the Board, the consensus was made for the following: • INFRASTRUCTURE (roads, water, sewer, stormwater) • FACILITIES & OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY (campus & technology) • GROWTH MANAGEMENT • FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY & REVENUE GENERATION • ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT & TRANSIT • HOUSING AFFORDABILITY & WORKFORCE HOUSING • AIRPORT & SEAPORT DEVELOPMENT • NATURAL ENVIRONMENT • WATER QUALITY • COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT & MESSAGING • PUBLIC SAFETY • MEDICAL EXAMINERS OFFICE B. Harbour Pointe Development Update and RFQ Discussion

BOCC Informal Meeting Tuesday, February 11, 2025 9:00 AM 5 | P a g e Joshua Revord, Port, Inlet & Beaches Director presented an update on the Harbour Pointe development, including recent land transactions and the new facility's design to the Board. He provided an overview of the original land holding for Harbor Point (20 acres) as part of the DBI exchange agreement on September 25, 2024, along with the acquisition of approximately 6 acres immediately west of the original land and the purchase of 13.25 acres a regional stormwater fix and future build-out of the port area. Three distinct regions for the development were discussed, including the Harbour Pointe Access Corridor (Avenue M), the Regional Boat Ramp, and the Regional Stormwater Management Facility. The DBI exchange took over five years to complete, providing a 10% stake in their land. The design plans and permitting efforts are underway with 30% design by Q2 in 2025 for the new corridor. The corridor will include 3 lanes with one dedicated turn lane, spacious lanes for a future boat ramp, and two 10 ft-wide walking corridors connecting to SunTrail and Second Street. Staff is preparing a temporary roadway as part of the exchange agreement with Bell Sisters. The stormwater pond at Harbor Point currently services Second Street, and the new design will include stormwater infrastructure along the Avenue M extension roadway. The Regional Stormwater Management Facility has a portion of land that is currently in negation with the owner for a utility easement to provide a direct path transition under the new corridors. If the property is not available, the County has the right-of-way on Old Dixie Highway to maneuver around the property. The FSTED Council approved the design funding, with funding expected to reach the state legislature level by June or July to offset the cost of design by 50%. There are discussions with the City of Fort Pierce regarding how the stormwater pond ties into the park and corridor. The goal is to build a corridor from the port to parks that allow for both pedestrian and vehicular access, with synergies between Harbor Point Park and Lincoln Park Park. The new design aims to improve water quality and create a recreational feature with environmental benefits. The conceptual design phase is underway, with varying elements being considered for the roadway design, boat ramp, artificial reef program, and marine activities. The DBI exchange provided new land, and the design phase is hard to transition to the new parcel for Harbour Pointe Development. The City of Fort Pierce has an interlocal of up to $2 million for potential use, and discussions are ongoing to secure additional funding. The goal is to avoid waiting for negotiations to be completed and to start planning now for future development. Mr. Revord provided an overview of the conceptual design for the boat ramp with 80 parking spaces needed for a large boat ramp. Without the land, the eastern edge of the property is unable to be preserved. The design aims to centralize the boat ramp feature and segregate the stormwater pond in the most viable location. It is important to secure a building partner and move forward with the design. Staff requested the Board consider whether the conceptual design for the proposed Harbour Pointe Regional Boat Ramp Facility should or should not include the recently acquired block of land immediately west of the current park, abutting Taylor Creek (+/- 2.9 acres). Commissioner Townsend inquired about the railway over the Savannah Road area and its connection to the SunTrail. In response, the Public Works Director advised there has been a discussion with the FEC railroad representatives regarding the pedestrian flyover over the Savannah area. The FEC railroad views the area as a new crossing, potentially leading to closures or consolidations of existing crossings. The City of Fort Pierce would be the agency for the overpass. Commissioner Clasby expressed his excitement regarding the project and the importance of viewing the entire site as a whole rather than dividing it into parts, the need for boat ramps, and the idea of a regional boat ramp that could host fishing tournaments and seafood festivals.

BOCC Informal Meeting Tuesday, February 11, 2025 9:00 AM 6 | P a g e The Board and staff discussed the idea of Avenue M as a tourist destination, a marketing approach similar to other areas, fishing tournaments, recreational benefits, amenities to attract visitors, a special reef program, rebranding, the Tourist Development Council, and coordination with the City of Fort Pierce. A consensus was made to move forward with planning the boat ramps towards the west and to prioritize the site's utilization for County objectives. C. Museum Point Marina Feasibility Study Joshua Revord, Port, Inlet & Beaches Director, presented an overview of the feasibility study, conditions, and future uses of the T and L Docks at the Museum Point dock. The current docks need reconstruction to make them serviceable, or we may need to modify or decommission certain leases. Currently, there is a Maintenance Repair and Overhaul (MRO) of mega yachts with the Derecktor of shipyards only catering to one side of the total package, causing a disadvantage. The suggestion of building a mega MRO at Museum Point was proposed, with a feasibility study approved in January to explore the viability of such a project. Brian Proctor of Tetra Tech and Jack Cox of Edgewater Resources addressed the Board and provided a snapshot of the feasibility study's findings. He advised that the existing docks are highly deteriorated and not serviceable, posing a liability. There are 26 existing slips permitted throughout the state of Florida with no overnight docking. A cost analysis revealed that replacing the existing structures would cost around $2.5 to $3 million. The focus of the redevelopment includes birthing and warning for larger vessels, those over 85 ft. in length. There isn't much use for a docking structure anymore in what was in the L Dock with insufficient water depth. The regulatory constraints include the inability to build over seagrass beds and the need for sufficient water depth for larger vessels. Two seagrass surveys were conducted to ensure the project would not have an impact on authentic marine resources. In a market need analysis covering seven counties, there are currently seven births available for vessels over 100 ft. with one at the City of Fort Pierce. There are no others within the north and south of the County. The market analysis revealed a significant need for birthing vessels between 60 and 85 feet, with a four-year waitlist for such facilities. The design of the proposed facility is flexible to accommodate both smaller and larger vessels. The County is in the process of a vulnerability assessment for Museum Point and the resilience components of floating docks and changes through storm events. Mr. Proctor provided an overview of financial feasibility with four scenarios that were not financially viable. The preferred alternative is financially positive and includes a detailed layout. The proposed facility would expand the birthing capacity to about 2,145 sq. ft., with the potential for additional recreational features. The Museum Point docks feasibility study cost to construct the preferred alternative includes the capital cost for floating docks at $13.6 million, engineering and permitting at $350,000, and upland/shore utilities at $1 million. The total cost of the project is estimated at $14.95 million, with existing permits and utilities already in place. Not including the fishing pier. Museum Point already has a short-sighted structure in place, and ample parking with the historical museum not being highly used. The idea is to leverage the existing infrastructure rather than building from the beginning. The cost to add both extensions would be $3 million. The potential revenue streams estimate an annual operating cost of $1.6 to $1.7 million, assuming the County would build and manage the facility itself. The market average for transient vessel fees is around $4 to $5 per ft. per day, with some facilities charging up to $10 per ft. per day. At 100% occupancy, the facility could generate $3.1 million with $1.4 million in positive cash flow annually, at 75% $2.3 million with $667,000 annual profit, and with a break-even point at 50% occupancy. The economic

BOCC Informal Meeting Tuesday, February 11, 2025 9:00 AM 7 | P a g e benefits include direct spending of $10 million on the local economy and indirect benefits to the marine industry. Vessels typically contribute about 10% of their value annually to the local economy, and vessels worth around $100 million could be docked at any given time. The potential for recreational opportunities, including restaurants and bars, could enhance the facility's appeal. The proposed site at Museum Point has identified areas for additional facilities, such as a 2,000 sq. ft. clubhouse, without significant additional cost. Staff requested the Board's input regarding the feasibility findings and next steps in the pursuit of the project. Commissioner Townsend mentioned for the record that the project would not affect the seagrass. Commissioner Leet questioned the time frame for the project. In response, Mr. Revord expressed the need for funding to move forward with the design and permitting to get a 60% set plan. The time frame would be an estimated 18 months with the funding. Commissioner Clasby commented on reserving space for public safety and research activities, and access for law enforcement and environmental agencies, also the need for public services on public land. He also mentioned the historical aspects of the T Dock. Commissioner Townsend mentioned there are existing designated spaces for the Fire Departments boat and the Sheriff on the causeway. The Pelican Yacht Club has designated six lots for emergencies. The Board expressed their support of the project and discussed the return on investment in the area, visions of the downtown area, public amenities, tourism, the master plans for the MRO, plans/design, recreational elements, benefits for local businesses, maintaining public access to the waterfront, revenue generation, maintaining fishing opportunities, future expansion, feasibly study, boat storage, private docks, condemned vessels, coordination with the City of Fort Pierce, the viability of the Derecktor, floating docks, marina infrastructure, utilities, and funding to move forward. A consensus was made directing staff to move forward. D. Planned Development Submittal Requirements Benjamin Balcer, Director, and Kori Benton, Planning Manager of Planning & Development Services presented this item to the Board and an overview of the preliminary plan development submittal requirements, including Planned Unit Developments (PUD), Planned Non-Residential Developments (PNRD), and Planned Mixed-Use Developments (PMUD). The specific project includes creative design concepts, flexibility in land use versus standard zoning district designations, design, smaller utility, street networks, enhanced compatibility with surrounding uses, wetland preservation, upland habitat areas, and density transitions. This provides the Board with the opportunity to place conditions of approval on projects during the public hearing process to support the County's goals and objectives. The planning, development rezoning, and preliminary development plan process are the preferred options for developers and staff. On the developer's side, the planned development allows for deviations in typical building setbacks and lot coverage, which developments and standard zoning districts must follow. From the staff’s perspective, the planned developments require underground utilities, enhanced recreational areas, minimum open space standards, and the ability to install enhanced landscaping, which is not a

BOCC Informal Meeting Tuesday, February 11, 2025 9:00 AM 8 | P a g e requirement in other zoning districts. Before 2021, the planned development process outlined in the land development code required an application to be heard at a public hearing before the Board for preliminary approval, and another public hearing to receive final planned development approval. Most planned development applications at that time coupled the preliminary and final plan development applications together. Due to the front-loaded and detailed requirements for the preliminary plan development application. Although plan developments are a preferred application type, they are infrequently used due to the considerable time and capital outlay required for preparation. Staff provided an example of a 2015 preliminary plan development application that was denied after two public hearings. Mr. Balcer advised in 2021, the BOCC approved amending the land development code to shift detailed and time-consuming submittal requirements from the preliminary stage to the final site plan stage. The final major site plans are reviewed by the Board as a regular agenda item. The county-initiated ordinance was a result of a request from the Chamber of Commerce and the Development Review Task Force. The ordinance monitors the efficiency of the planned development process. The main deferred items include the requirement for a topographic survey, final landscape plans for the entire development, and the approximate location and dimension of all proposed lots and setbacks. Also, only a conceptual utility and drainage plan is required at the preliminary plan development stage. Engineered stormwater and utility plans are provided at the time of the final site plan. Permitting must be completed before the issuance of a site development permit by the County's engineering team. Due to the need for topographic data in the final engineering plan, the topographic survey was deferred later in the process. As part of the preliminary plan development application, the Environmental Resources Department (ERD) reviews typical landscape sections, including proposed buffers. With the removal of the requirement to identify the location and dimension of all proposed lots, the preliminary plan is more of a bubble plan identifying areas for certain lot types, building locations, internal access aisles, required loading spaces, stormwater treatment areas, and open space provisions. With the plan, applicants provide details identifying lot types, dimensions, non-residential projects, building footprints, and conceptual architectural drawings. The current land development code language allows the PDS director to request any necessary information for reasonable review at the preliminary plan stage. The 2021 amendment to the code has increased the use of preliminary plan developments and rezoning submittals. The Board can participate in each plan, offering greater flexibility, and design options and providing the ability to adopt site-specific conditions that improve compatibility and implement the County's comprehensive plan. Staff requested the Board provide any input and direction they deem necessary. Chair Fowler commented on leveling out the growth within the County, and density within the County. Commissioner Townsend commented on the possible changes to the approval process to avoid unnecessary work and potential rejections later in the process. She discussed the current RFP processes and suggested an outsourced external company handling RFPs and ensuring the Board's input is considered for the final decision. She also mentioned the importance of developers meeting with commissioners early to avoid costly and time-consuming applications. Katherine Barbieri, Assistant County Attorney, commented on the requirement that developers meet with commissioners early in the process and advised that it could be recommended and legally required for

BOCC Informal Meeting Tuesday, February 11, 2025 9:00 AM 9 | P a g e developers to move forward with meeting with the commissioners before submitting applications to better understand the feasibility of their projects. Mayte Santamaria, Deputy County Administrator, commented and advised caution of the suggestion due to the developer’s meeting individually with the commissioners and not as a Board. The decision must be made by three or more commissioners in terms of moving forward. They could speak with the commissioners individually for guidance, but there should not be a go or no-go stop. Commissioner Leet commented on the limitations of traffic studies, the challenges, and the need for realistic expectations in planning. He also mentioned the destination of stormwater ponds considered as open space. Commissioner Clasby suggested stricter requirements for the PUD process. He mentioned he is in favor of reverting to more requirements in the initial application submittal, making pre-meetings with commissioners a mandatory requirement before developers proceed with pre-application/land purchase, the importance of citizen-led government, setting minimum setback standards for non-townhouse developments, and the Board's role in making policy decisions. He commented on land rights and expressed the need to ensure that residential development is not incentivized through the PUD process. George Landry, County Administrator, clarified that currently all RFPs, when a selection is made by a committee, regardless of the number, are brought before the Board for selection, changes, and final approval. The Board and staff discussed the plan development pre-application process, growth, allowable density, better traffic study practices/level of service, policy changes to improve land use regulations, open space, allowable density across the total acreage, amending the land development code to address non- performing lots, setback standards, changes to the RFP process, considering drainage and water management in the plan, PUD rezoning/processing, and zone changes. The Board did not provide a specific direction; further discussion will occur in the future. E. Draft BOCC Meeting Policies Mayte Santamaria, Deputy County Administrator, presented this item to the Board. Recently, there has been a discussion regarding the general rules and procedures for Board meetings held by the County Commission. The rules and procedures for meetings are outlined on the County website and within the agendas. Staff have observed other local governments' meeting procedures to understand typical practices. Staff have drafted two policy documents within the informal agenda for discussion for internal use, including policy provisions for public comment periods and public hearings, with specific roles for the chair, vice chair, and deputy clerk. The internal policy for BOCC meeting formats would include public participation and the role of the deputy clerk in handling speaker cards with names called out for everyone to come to the podium for more organization. The policy would outline basic rules for debate and forum, such as being recognized by the chair before speaking and creating one topic at a time for a motion and a second. The agenda would include an order of business, with descriptions of various items such as proclamations, public comments, consent items, and others. The second policy focuses on public-facing individual expectations and not public participation, so public comments would be directed to the Board, not individual commissioners. The process for public participation includes being recognized by the chair

BOCC Informal Meeting Tuesday, February 11, 2025 9:00 AM 10 | P a g e and the potential for removal if disruptive. The chair has the authority to enforce decorum and can request law enforcement to remove individuals posing an immediate threat. The policy aims to outline how meetings typically run and the expected behavior from participants. Staff are seeking guidance on policies and suggestions for any necessary additions or revisions. A proposed resolution to finalize the policies will be added to the regular agenda based on the guidance received. Staff requested directions from the Board on the draft documents and directions for further processing of these items on a future regular agenda. Commissioner Townsend commented on the discussion process of the Board and clarity for the recording secretary, confusion caused by the current sign-in process with names, and removing the process and just having the chair call for public comment/hearing. She mentioned that the current process has been in place for a long time and needs to be updated to reflect current practices. Vera Smith, Recording Secretary, commented on the comment card process, the challenges of reading names from the sign-in sheet/comment cards, and the potential for mispronunciation. Commissioner Leet suggested having someone fill the comment cards out for the public and turn them in to the recording secretary. Chair Fowler commented on the public's request to speak more than once during the allotted timeframe and to have a clearer policy regarding public comment/hearings. Commissioner Lowry suggested having a visual guide for residents to understand the rules before the meeting starts. George Landry, County Administrator, mentioned that staff could help facilitate the sign-in process to ensure it is legible and readable and share the information with the recording secretary. Commissioner Clasby suggested adopting detailed policies and procedures similar to those used in Martin County, and the importance of having a detailed instruction manual for Board members to follow. He expressed concerns about requiring residents to state their addresses publicly and safety concerns. He suggested providing an alternative way for residents to provide their address without speaking it aloud and protecting First Amendment rights. He also mentioned having a kiosk for public comment, suggested using a hotline system to manage public comments, and having a clear policy on using technology. Katherine Barbieri, Assistant County Attorney, advised that a paper record could be kept to the public address requirement using a paper form instead of stating it publicly. The Board discussed having a clear policy, the meeting process regarding public comment, kiosks to streamline the sign-in process, and the elimination of comment cards. A consensus was made to revise the policy based on discussion and bring the item back to the Board. 4. ADJOURNMENT With no other information to be brought for consideration before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 12:40 PM.

BOCC Informal Meeting Tuesday, February 11, 2025 9:00 AM 11 | P a g e Please note: Final minutes are recorded in the official minute books filed with the Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller, which are available for inspection upon request.