09/09/2025 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Board of County Commissioners Meeting Minutes - Final September 9, 2025 Osmosis to Nano -filtration and the need for monitoring saltwater intrusion. Commissioner Moss argued that updating the study was not prohibitively expensive and would aid in conservation efforts, while acknowledging that the Indian River County Soil and Water Conservation District has the authority to pursue this initiative. Commissioner Adams pointed out that this topic had been discussed multiple times and supported staff's recommendation to delete Policy 2.6. Commissioner Earman mentioned past cost estimates of around $400,000, reporting that the SJRWMD showed no interest in funding the project. He agreed with Commissioner Adams and also supported staff's recommendation. **Stormwater Sub -Element Proposed Policy 7.9** Administrator Titkanich proposed revisions and updates to Policy 7.9. Staff recommended to adopt the revised policy with the deletion of, "Indian River County Property Appraiser shall provide this material to all Agricultural Exempt properties at the time of application or renewal". **Conservation Element Proposed Policy 5.5** Administrator Titkanich proposed revisions stating that the County would continue to accept fee -in -lieu payments as a last alternative for the mitigation of wetland alterations when on-site mitigation was not practicable. This acceptance was allowed only when it was consistent with the state's uniform mitigation assessment method and applicable only in cases where the affected wetland was small. Specifically, this applied to wetlands that were less than 0.5 acres in size and were isolated. The previous policy referred to "isolated, disturbed wetlands with minimal functional value." Funds obtained from fee -in -lieu payments were earmarked for the acquisition, restoration, or management of similar wetlands within the County. Staff comments indicated that while the policy change had been acknowledged, there were concerns about the potential for cumulative impacts. There was fear that larger wetlands could be incrementally depleted, with alterations permitted each time a small portion was approved. However, the revised policy clarified that the affected wetland had to be less than half an acre and had to meet other qualifying criteria, such as it had to be isolated, disturbed, and possess minimal functional value. This ensured that the policy did not allow for the systematic reduction of a larger wetland, such as a 100 -acre site, through multiple small alterations. The language of the revised policy aligned with the state's uniform mitigation assessment method. Indian River County, Florida Page 19