TO: Environmental Advisory Board
FROM: Stefan Kalev, MS, Natural Resources Manager, Development Services
SUBJECT: Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Presentation of the Environmental Advisory Board 2025 Annual Report to the City Commission
____________________________________________________________________________
Recommended Action
All three options should be discussed by the Environmental Advisory Board to determine the most effective approach. Regardless of the option selected, the Environmental Advisory Board 2025 Annual Report must be presented to the City Commission no later than the first quarter of 2026.
General Information
Option 1: Presentation by a Board Member at a Regular Commission Meeting
Pros:
• Provides direct representation of the Board’s work and priorities to the Commission.
• Allows for real-time dialogue and questions between the Commission and the Board.
• Demonstrates transparency and accountability through a public presentation.
Cons:
• Requires preparation and coordination to ensure the selected Board member is ready to present.
• Limited time on the Commission agenda may restrict the depth of discussion.
• Relies on one individual to represent the collective work of the Board.
Option 2: Submission of a Memorandum Through the Manager to the Commission
Pros:
• Streamlines communication by using established administrative channels.
• Ensures the report is formally documented and distributed to all Commissioners.
• Minimizes scheduling challenges and time commitments for Board members.
Cons:
• Reduces opportunities for direct engagement between the Board and the Commission.
• May limit visibility of the Board’s work to the public compared to a live presentation.
• Feedback from the Commission may be delayed or less interactive.
Option 3: Joint Meeting Between the Environmental Advisory Board and the Commission
Pros:
• Provides the most comprehensive opportunity for dialogue and collaboration.
• Allows Commissioners to hear directly from multiple Board members.
• Strengthens alignment between Board recommendations and Commission priorities.
Cons:
• Requires significant coordination to schedule a joint meeting.
• May be more time-intensive for both the Board and the Commission.
• Could extend beyond the scope of a simple annual report presentation, requiring additional preparation.
Prepared by: Stefan Kalev, MS, Natural Resources Manager, Development Services
Department Director: Alaina Ray, AICP, Director, Development Services