Good evening and welcome to the August 21, 2024 meeting of the local planning agency and planning commission agenda and we'll start right into our agenda with approval of the minutes. Do I have a motion? I have a motion in a second and all those in favor. All those opposed? And then second on the Virginia approval of the minutes for the May 15, 2024 meeting. I'll move approval. Motion to second. All those on favor? Hi. All those opposed? And approval of the minutes. And then moving on to we do. Yeah, let's start with introductions first. So tonight we have two new members to the planning commission. We wanna welcome Gailin McCaslin. Would you like to introduce yourself? Yeah, sure. So my name is Gailin McCaslin. I've been in Gainesville for probably about 24 years by way of the University of Florida. We're full residents here. My husband and I are three kids. We're on the south of Gainesville. I've worked for UF for probably about 15 years. Just most recently I helped launch our new Eastside Urgent Care Center, which is pretty much a career highlight of mine. Thank you. And I'm excited to be here and work with this highlight of my. Thank you. And I'm excited to be here and work with this fabulous commission. So thank you. Thank you and welcome. And our second member is Mr. Samuel Much. Yes, hi. Thank you. Can you speak into your next year? Oh, thank you. Thank you. Good. My wife and I have lived here for 50 years now. And we first came because my wife was in graduate school and we stayed. We did have a hiatus of eight and a half miserable months in Fort Collins, Colorado, but we came back. I am a planner and an attorney. And I've been involved with local government here for a long time. Not so much in the last 15 years. I've been retired from my law practice and I'm having a good time as an investor. So I look forward to working with you all and I'll try not to be a pain. Welcome Mr. Match to the main thing that you get used to as a microphone. If you need to turn them off, there is a button, but as long as it lit up, you can speak into them. It's time to ask questions. I'll just visibly look at who has questions instead of activating the light system. It's the easiest way to do it. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask. We'll move into the meat of our agenda and there's no party status statement. And they're swearing in. Do we have to read the exportate communication statement? No, there's no future. Not for legislative. OK, two legislative items on our agenda tonight. The first one is the county initiated tax amendment to let your county comprehensive plan, political water and sanitary sewer element and capital permits element and staff will do their presentation. Good evening commissioners. Ben Schumley, principal planner with the Lachor County Growth Management Department. Item number Z24000 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 4 is a county initiated text amendment to the Elatio County Comprehensive Plan to address House Bill 1379 from 2023 and those requirements. So House Bill 1379 which went into effect on July 1st of 2023 was an environmental protection bill primarily dealing with various water quality protection issues. There was a lot packed into that bill including a couple of specific new requirements for local government comprehensive plans. And those two things are that by July 1st of this year, so we know we're a little bit behind on our deadline there, to incorporate policies to consider the feasibility of providing sanitary sewer services within a 10-year planning horizon for any development of more than 50 residential lots, whether built or unbuilt with more than one on-site sewage treatment and disposal system or septic per acre. And the other new requirement is to include publicly funded capital improvement projects that are necessary to achieve the pollutant load reductions in a basin management action plan or B-MAT for short as part of the capital improvements element. So as I'm sure youated area of Latua County inside the urban cluster boundary, which on the map on the slide is the blue line. Some municipalities also provide sanitary sewer services within their municipal boundaries. So saying that just to make the point that any kind of feasibility analysis that the county does is going to have to be closely coordinated with the back to the early 90s that effectively limit the amount of new development that can occur on septic tanks. New development in the urban cluster is required to connect to both puddle water and sanitary sewer service with some very limited exceptions. And new residential development outside the urban cluster is limited to a density of one dwelling unit per five acres. And there are policies in the comprehensive plan which actually limit the ability to extend potable water and sanitary sewer lines outside of that unincorporated urban cluster and into the rural area. So we do have some existing developments in the county that predate those policies that I was just speaking of where there are more than 50 lots on septic and the lot sizes are generally one acre or less. Staff did kind of a preliminary inventory of those lots and those developments and that information was included in your staff report. In some cases we found clusters of smaller subdivisions that were less than 50 lots but they were adjacent to each other to where maybe three or four smaller subdivisions added up to 50 or more lots but they're all adjacent to one another. So we included those in that inventory too just kind of as a preliminary screening mechanism. It's not clear at this point if those those scenarios where you have clusters of the smaller subdivisions would whether the statue would apply to that but we just wanted to provide that data, just as some general background. As far as numbers, we found about 67 developments within the urban cluster and 38 outside the urban cluster where the statute might apply. If we do not include the groups of the smaller developments, like I was talking about, those numbers would go down to 25 developments in the urban cluster and seven in the rural area. So each development, when we get to the point of doing a feasibility analysis, each of these developments would need to be evaluated further to determine whether the statute applies in each particular case. So staff is recommending a new policy 2.1.8 in the Podible Water and Sanitary Sewer element to address the new requirements. requirements that policy language is shown here. We did look at how other communities have tried to address this requirement and we did find a couple of examples where counties included new language and their comprehensive plans effectively saying that they will do this feasibility analysis by a specific date. And that approach was found to be acceptable by the state review agencies, particularly the Department of Commerce and FDEP. So staff recognizes that kind of doing a feasibility analysis like the statute calls for will take some time. We don't have that analysis ready to go at this point. It'll have to be done in coordination with GRU. And we think doing that feasibility analysis will likely take at least a year, maybe more, to do a professional job of that analysis. So our overall approach here was to write a policy saying that by April of 2026, and then every 10 years thereafter, Alachua County will conduct a feasibility analysis to identify the applicable developments and assess the feasibility of providing sanitary sewer service. There's a lot of additional text under A through E. I will say item per N D in that policy, though that language is directly out of the statute so that's required under the statute. Items A, B, C and E are additional language that staff recommended including in the policy just to identify some factors local locally relevant factors that would go into doing a feasibility analysis, things like potential costs to the county and to property owners for connecting to sanitary sewer services, also any, if any, water quality risks associated with the continued use of septic systems in particular areas. And then also any other applicable goals, objectives, and policies in the comprehensive plan. So, you know, there may be policies that discourage the extension of water or sewer lines out into the rural area, for example. So we want to make sure we're doing the feasibility analysis while also looking at other policies in the comprehensive plan. So that's the first part of the new requirements. The second part has to do with basin management action plans or B-MAP projects. The new requirement is that we include in the capital improvements element any publicly funded capital improvement projects attributable to the local government that are necessary to achieve water pollutants load reductions identified in a B-MAP. So a B-MAP is a management plan that is developed for a water body such as a spring or a river or a lake that may not be meeting the state's water quality standards. B-MAPs are developed by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection with local stakeholder input and the goal of a B-map is to, the primary goal is to reduce pollutant loads to meet state standards. A B-map typically contains a series of projects or action items that are intended to reach the state standards. So in Elatua County, we are subject to B-Maps for Orange Creek, the Santa Fe River, and Silver Springs. And you can kind of see those on the map. So for the B-Map part of this, staff is recommending a new policy be added in the comprehensive plan saying that the county will propose for inclusion in the capital improvements element a list of projects attributable to Elatua County that are necessary to achieve pollutant load reductions as those are identified in any of the three B maps that Elatua County is a part of. And in this case, since there is no specific deadline for this requirement in the statute, we've recommended in this policy that that will be completed by as part of the evaluation and appraisal of the comprehensive plan, which will begin next year. And then that list of capital improvements would be reviewed annually and updated as needed after that. And so staff recommendation for tonight for the planning commission is to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve transmittal of comprehensive plan amendments Z24, 0,0004 to the state land planning agency and other required agencies for expedited state review pursuant to section 163, 3184 Florida statutes. And I'll be happy to answer any questions. We also have Stacy Greco with the county's environmental protection department who's also available to answer questions. Okay, thank you, Mr. Chenley. So, and now it's time for the planning commission just to ask any questions they have. We'll do one pass from everyone, and then if there are follow up questions, have. We'll do one pass from everyone and then if there are followed questions we'll do the second pass. Anyone questions from Mr. Chumley? I have some concern that there could be monetary implications on some people who would have difficulty funding it. And that there could be some smarter ways of funding this or at least if not funding it, getting it in a way where we could reduce the cost by having scale. Now, if you go in and do one house, then you can't gear up and then you keep mobilizing for each one. It gets to be more expensive. But maybe that may be out of bounds. But I'm just trying to think outside the box a little bit, because you have some helmets that have been handed down to us to work on. Some of them, the state has adopted and we're behind. And I'm just trying to think about what happens at the end and maybe this becomes part of that same comprehensive, you know, when we look at the comprehensive plan that we may be able to do something with that, think about it in the interim. OK. Yeah. You know, our directive in the statute is to consider the feasibility. So I don't know that any factors are necessarily out of bounds for how we consider the feasibility. We did include language here talking about the cost to the property owner and the county. Maybe there's a spot there to add some additional language about considering scale and economics and things of that nature. I would think it'd be more appropriate than attaching this to a document that we set up that you would normally do is to refer it to the county commission to think about if it's approved and if I was on a county commission I would be upset with a planning commission that started working with money. That's not our job but I was thinking about it as we were the implications. I've just watched my neighbor have their septic tank ripped out of the ground completely and redone, you know, the whole drain field, and it was not inexpensive or easy deal. And if you've mobilized, if you had to do more than one or two or five or ten, then there's some economies. Right, and Madam Chair, I mean, I would point out in the statute, the whole kind of focus area for the statutory languages on developments. So I think that's kind of where the statute is leading, maybe, that we look larger scale on a development by development basis. And that may be part of the reason why it identified that threshold of 50 residential lots to maybe get some scale. And what I'm talking about, it may be certain special cases where it does have an impact on the ecology and it warrants different kinds of attention and I wouldn't put that in anything that we're transmitting transmitting but it's somewhere sticking in your pocket Could be useful Thank you commissioner Rittenberg at any other questions from commissioners Okay, I have a couple of questions. So, a future development, is that not just a wide open land that's approved, but not yet built development? Yeah, I think when the language is talking about unbuilt development, that would be any potential future development. It would be on wide open land. Oh, oh. So you're looking at, say, farm land that could potentially be developed and then looking at the density it could be developed as? Well, I think in the case of a Lachua County's comprehensive plan, anything, or most everything outside of the urban cluster is designated for one unit per five acres. So the statute is not going to come into play for any new development in the rural area. So within the urban cluster you'll be looking at unbuilt areas and determining feasibility of connecting them to sewer. Even though the development will likely connect to sewer anyway as part of the development. Well, the, what we're, new development that happens within the urban cluster is required to connect to sanitary sewer. So we already have a policy for that. You don't have to do that. We don't have to worry about that. We're really going to, I think our feasibility analysis is really going to be focusing on existing developments because we do have a number of those that are on septic where the lots are less than one acre. Okay. And then the capital improvement plan part of this so it looked at the capital improvement plan element and it's pretty much all transportation projects so you would have to and they're committed there's committed funding in a year in 2024 2025 26 so is that how this will also appear in the capital improvement plan element? It will need to look somewhat similar. I don't know if it'll look exactly like the transportation project table. It may look a little bit more like the public schools table, for example. But we are going to have to have a list of the projects, what the potential costs are, and what the expected funding source would be. And if there's any particular timeline for that project. So the state is requiring the county to commit funding to carry out the capital improvement plan projects? I don't know that I have a good answer for that. I think if you look in the B maps and Stacy may be able to address the B maps a little bit better than I can, but they're, I believe they list funding sources. Most B maps cover multiple counties, so there may be a project and it says Alachua County is responsible. That doesn't necessarily mean that project is made it into the county's five year capital improvements plan as part of the budget, but it's listed in the B-Map if that makes sense. Yes. Are there projects that the county is already doing that probably would be counted as part of addressing the B-Map or listening to the capital improvement plan? I'm just trying to see how far the gap is between what needs is being done and what will go in the capital improvement plan. Great question. Stacey Greco, Alachua County Environmental Protection Department water resources. So kind of getting at your first question. I mean the county we are legally obligated to reduce nutrient loading in these basins to meet our allocation. The funding, yes there there is an expectation. We will use some county funding, and that's what our storm water assessment is, 50% of that goes to the EPD for water quality improvement projects. We also have a very good track record of getting state funding, matching funding for that also. But this is silent as to whose funds will be used. We just have to do the projects and get the projects into our capital improvements element. Yes, we do have projects there. We are working on a Newton's Lake project. We've got small projects, little stormwater retrofits that we've done. We updated the septic systems at Post Springs Park, at Lake Santa Fe Park, pretty much any new septic system in the county facility were having be a nutrient reducing. So we've got these smaller projects, some of them might not be a capital project, it might not meet that threshold. But we just recently met with DEP and the state agency that is in charge of BMAPs and just received our new allocation. So we're in a very big planning stage right now of how are we going to get there. Okay. I think you. Any other questions for Ms. Grepper, what's she sent to Mike? And then just one last question. This, what is being amended basically meets the Zesture requirement. There's not much in addition or then what's required. We believe that what we've proposed here will meet the statutory requirements and give us a little time to actually complete the feasibility analysis. Okay, excellent. One more pass for questions. Madam Chair, if I can, I wanted to just fill in on the CIE a little bit more. That's loud. And just let you know that you know the CIE is to some degree a chicken and egg. You can't put something in it until you've identified it. And so, while clearly the language contemplates that we're going to go through some planning process or some agency of the state is that's going to help us identify projects, we can't put the projects in until the projects exist or until we know that they're there. So I think, you know, to some degree, part of identifying projects is saying, yeah, we have a funding source that we could reuse the libelty rely on to get to that. Maybe that's a grant. Maybe that's a stormwater assessment. Maybe that's a, you know, a state funding, whatever it is. And so I think that probably the intent of the statute is not to say, you're, we're tagging your general fund with billions of dollars of improvements now. It's really to say, go through a planning process, find some projects and commit to doing them. With potential state funding. Yeah, I mean, I think funding is, we have projects in our comprehensive plan that anticipate transportation projects that anticipate some share of state funding. We don't identify that separately necessarily as part of the project but we certainly anticipate it. Thank you. And Funded Mandate comes to mind. I appreciate that the state is looking after this but funding needs to follow. If that's all for this, do I hear any? I do have one more question. Of course. Just looking at Exhibit 2, the preliminary inventory. I was just wondering what the, what, what constitutes a development because there are some that are like additions like just winward meadows, you know, five to four, you know, that don't themselves meet the 50 threshold but altogether would. Right. That's a, I'm sure a technical definition. What in preparing the preliminary inventory we looked at subdivisions that were both platted or unrequited. I think it gets a little tricky because we have some developments that are multiple phases and maybe most of the phases are less than 50 lots. But I think the intent of the statute is to kind of look at the whole development. So I think in going through that list, I think the intent of the statute is to kind of look at the whole development. So I think in going through that list, I think the next phase of this is we're going to have to look at those that have the multiple phases that are less than 50 lots and figure out whether the statute applies to them or not. Thank you. Okay. Any any motions from the commission? We have to try and send it as written. Here's second. Second. Fantastic. Here's second Second fantastic And we have no members of the public here So we will Go to voting all in favor of the motions and if I was saying aye Those opposed to my saying nay Mission approved thank you and Number two Z2400-005. Good evening again. I have this item as well. Item number Z24-000005 is a county initiated text amendment to the Elatua County Comprehensive Plan to clarify fire level of service guidelines and the Capitol Improvements element. And growth management staff is bringing this amendment forward at the recommendation of Elatio County Fire Rescue staff. So I'm presenting it, but this is at the recommendation of fire rescue. So the Capitol Improvements element of the comprehensive plan contains various level of service standards or guidelines for various services such as roads, parks, and schools. Policy 1.2.5A in particular identifies the level of service guidelines for fire rescue. And those are within the urban cluster, six minutes for 80% of all emergency responses within a 12-month period. And then in the rural area, that standard is 12 minutes. So these particular guidelines are, they're not concurrency standards. They're they're used as a capital improvements planning tool to help identify capital project needs such as new fire stations that would eventually be considered for inclusion in the county's capital improvements program. So the National Fire Protection Association, or NFPA, publishes standards for fire and EMS operations, standard 17, 10, identifies some performance-based objectives for emergency response times, and those are broken down into three main areas, including alarm handling time, turnout time, and travel time. So currently the adopted comprehensive plan policy does not recognize or distinguish between the different NFPA time standards. It just gives a time. In practice for many years, Alachua County has used travel time for the purpose of implementing this comprehensive plan policy and for tracking this particular metric. So I think that's kind of the reason for wanting to clarify this a little bit to make sure it says that we're referring to travel time. So the proposed policy change is shown here on the slide. The relevant parts are highlighted in yellow. So this would simply add the words travel time into the guidelines for the urban cluster and for the rural area. And the change will just help ensure that the comprehensive plan aligns with the NFPA standards as well as the county's practice for tracking this particular metric. So it was a short presentation. Staff recommendation for the Planning Commission is to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve transmittal of comprehensive plan amendment Z2400005 to the state land planning agency and other required agencies for expedited state review pursuant to section 163, 3184 Florida Statutes. And I'll be happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Mr. Chumley. Any questions from the commission? Sir Walsh. So there's three standards in the NFPA and the current standard for travel is six minutes inside and 12 minutes for urban. That's what I understand from speaking with our fire rescue folks. We have not verified that other than their word. That's what we are told. I did look through the NFPA standard. I will tell you it's a confusing document. So we do rely on our fire rescue professionals to kind of give us recommendations on this matter. Any other questions? My question is to the addition of the language it makes sense, but the crossing out of the, and include these facilities in the CIP, why was that crossed out? I think it's just, it was sort of duplicate language. If you look down into the second second sentence of that policy it talks about Considering for inclusion in the capital improvements program Any other questions Just my my only concern is putting it in there. I mean just Just looking it up, they have 80% of it and I believe the NFPA is 90% as a standard so if we're going to align this standard to the actual code, we may want to align it completely. So I would be a little more comfortable getting some type of verification on what the code says. And if we're going to change the wording to a line with the code, it actually should align with what the code is. And Madam Chair, I mean we can certainly bring this back. I do know that Fire Rescue is just embarked on their Fire Master Planning process. And as part of that, I believe they are looking at the level of service guidelines. And I don't know what will come out of that process as far as changes to the guidelines. But there is kind of a process underway already for that. But yeah, that's... I don't have any other answers on that one. It's trusted. I was just going to say, Madam Chair, that we will make sure that Fire Rescue is at the board. When this item goes before them to be sure that they're providing that testimony. I apologize for them not being here tonight. Eric, that's good. I think my concern is that as we go to higher density, it's going to become more difficult to maintain those traffic times and I do not know if that's been anticipated because otherwise we would have to start adding or moving fire stations which is not inexpensive. I just you know I don't know whether 80%% right or whether it should be 70% and I'll give that to the people who are drafting it that's my concern is 10 years from now what does it look like? Right and I do think that's an issue that's going to be addressed in the the fire rescue master planning process that's that's just begun. Thank you. Yeah, Madam Chair, I was just going to say that anybody who's watched the commission is aware that we've been moving and building stations, and I think that's probably part of it is. You know, reacting to those to that change in development pattern. We also deal with municipalities we We provide fire services for them that we don't do conference planning for. So certainly there's still some need to identify in that separate master plan. How we're gonna provide those services in the future. And that includes looking at land use plans for other municipalities. Thank you. Thank you. Good. Okay. Do we have an idea for how long that master planning process is anticipated to take? I don't have a good answer on that at this point. I think they're just having their initial public workshop to kick off the process next week. So, I would imagine I can't really speculate, but it'll at least be several months, if not longer. Yeah, just a comment that it might be premature. I mean, if it's rather than do a piecemeal update, if they're going to be doing it comprehensively, I don't understand the need to address this absent the more thorough planning effort. SAF can always come back to us, correct, if there is additional amendments to be added after the process is through. Madam Chair, yes. And I will say we've had some discussions with the fire rescue folks about the actual level of service guidelines, the times and the percentages. And I do know that they are aware of the issues with those guidelines and are going to be looking at them in a little more in depth. I think this was just kind of an interim step that they wanted us to clarify in the comprehensive plan right now while they're thinking about the other bigger picture fire service issues. So this is originated from fire? Yes. Any other questions? I can concur with our commission's wash and also with commission's normal. I want the net for the record. I do concur with you. I recall the last, I don't know how often do they do it seven years or I don't think it's ten. I don't think it's five. I believe it's been more than ten years to the last one. There's no required frequency to do them. I remember that process. And it was multiple commission meetings, multiple. It was a very in-depth process. And the Board of County Commission's though time took it very seriously. I knew changes were made. It's part of the planning of the fire stations, the Wall Street Public Places, the Public Places portion of that, is funding fire, especially when the City of Gainesville, which is a separate plan. So, and then there have been changes. So what are all the fire stations that I've opened in the last, like say, five years? Have been a number. Madam Chair, we're working on Mekanope right now. We've opened a fire station on 24th Avenue and one in the city of Latchuea as well. So a lot just moving. I of course can't make a motion, but I've seen no problem in approving this, and especially since it came from the fire. Folks, requesting it, and then hearing back after the planning process and amending further. Members of any other questions? Do I hear a motion on this? No motion? It should be either up or down. Or just some kind of message. So a motion can always be more than recommending approval. It can be recommended approval with changes. So I recommend approval with a statement to the county commission or there can be no motion and the county commission will hear it anyway, correct? Well, it's a legislative item. So it's a legislative item. We will, whatever the planning commissions recommendation is, we will take that to the county commission, not just yay or nay, but if there's any additional things that the commission wants us to add or any other considerations that the commission wants, the board of county commissioners to be made aware of, we can include that in the recommendation to the county commission. And if there is no motion, the county commissioners to be made aware of, we can include that in the recommendation to the county commission. And if there is no motion, the county commission will still hear this item correct? Yes. Yes. So they will be likely voting on this either way. So they can do it with or without a recommendation from us. Just process through. I'll move to have it transmitted so we can discuss it. So motion for discussion. Second, it will second for discussion. My discussion part is I don't understand the requirement. Like when someone comes in and says, hey, I want to insert this word into the code, there's a motivation behind that. And the motivation I'm hearing is to align with the NFPA code. And when I'm looking at it, there are a lot of things in 1710 about turnout time, arrival on the scene, you know, first engine within four minutes, first engine to a high rise within 10 minutes and 10 seconds. There's a lot more intricacies in the code. So without having fire and rescue here to answer, why are you asking for that little bit on travel time? Does that mean right now you're being held to an eight minute from the time the call comes in and the time you're on scene? And maybe getting out of the fire department is taking six of those minutes and you want to just say, okay, I want to eight minutes for minutes without knowing why, I'm not comfortable necessarily with the why. Madam Chair, I move to table the motion and to request that in order to take it up again that we have a representative from the fire rescue. Okay, so we have already had a motion on the floor that we need to dispense the motion. And that supersedes the motion. Can we allow some discussion on the first motion before the mission at table? No. A friendly request still allowed the discussion on the first mission before the mission at table first motion for the motion of the table You you're like you hear the chair. What if if you don't have a second it dies Is there a second on the motion of the table? Second it All right, so now you'll discuss that one So now what we have is a substitute motion and we get action to table it to defer it to Another meeting of which far-risk. I'm going to allow comment on the actual meet of the, what is the heavest beyond just whether or not we should table. So my comment on this is that there is no, I don't need to know the motivation behind this if it's coming as a request from fire. It can always be intended. I'm in it in the future to make it more robust once there's more information behind it. There's nothing that fire is going to tell me that's going to oppose including this. So, I don't really need them to tell me why I do include it. There's no harm in this. It's being requested from staff and fire. I'm going to support this because as it's going for the County Commission anyway, it'd be great for them to hear from us who they appointed our feedback on this. If I may comment. Yes please. I believe that the item needs to have more discussion and as we need the professional firefighters here to discuss why they want this and whether or not it meets the national standards. And I think it would be inappropriate to go forward with it without having that information that we can then transmit to the county commission. And Chris Rittenberg. It would seem to me to be logical to table it. It's okay, but we could table it for the reason to allow the professionals to come meet with us at the invite them to our next meeting and staff and see if we can become better educated on it, which is I think what everybody's trying to get us to. And so if you would, Sam, would you accept that amendment? I've made it, Mr. Mudge. Let Mr. Mayor continue. I think I'm good. Okay. Thank you. All right, Mr. Mudge. All right, Mr. Much. I would accept Mr. Ruttenberg's proposal as a friendly amendment. I'm not going to say. I'm going to say. To table until five rescue, it's your two comment. Yes, ma'am. Mr. Tumley, when will this be scheduled for the County Commission? I'm assuming it's if it doesn't get tabled by this commission probably the second meeting in September or first meeting in October. Okay, and if it does get tabled by this commission. Then we will bring it back the next time this body has a meeting which I'm not sure if we're having a September meeting. Yep. We can have a September meeting. Okay and so you would wait until our September meeting to bring it to the county commission. Correct. Yes. I think it would take that long to schedule anyway for the county commission unless you've already pre-scheduled it. The September planning commission meeting would be before we would get this on a board agenda anyway. So it's not if you're if the concern is about the delay that this imposes and in making the change, I wouldn't anticipate it would be super substantial. Okay. Are there any other comments to the motion, to the substitute motion? You know, there are comments, all those in favor, is going to be saying aye. Aye. All the opposed to a nay. Nay. Motion is approved. And so you will schedule our next meeting with someone from Fire Rescue and it's an answer to questions. Thank you. Appreciate it. And that is all that I have for legislative items. It's in this report every month. Ms. McAllister sends out the Tennis Report in our packet and as it attaches to the email, so please take a look at that, make sure it is correct. There are consequences of not meeting a threshold of attendance, so it's important to keep that accurate. And now we'll get to Commissioner Comet. Any comments from commissioners. I will say we did not have a meeting in last month in July when Mr. Kingo and Mr. Rents stepped down. They served quite a while on the commission. We appreciate their service. So I want to say that tonight and And maybe we'll see them in the as a member of public and Also a congratulations to former planning commissioner Engle for being elected to the city commission last night. Yes So if there are any other comments we welcome the new commission. Yes, and welcome to many commissioners Thank you any any comments, we welcome the new commission. Yes and welcome to any commissioners. Thank you. Any comments from staff? Madam Chair, I was just going to let you know the Planning Commission meeting for September would be on the 18th. Okay. So you can have that on your calendars. September 18th. There is nothing else than meeting as adjourned.