Board of County Commissioners on 2025-03-25 9:00 AM - Mar 25, 2025

5. I'm calling a meeting to order. Please join us as we receive our invocation from Hank Brighton-Cham, who's from the Humanist Chaplain and Celebrant. It's Hank's birthday today, 2, and then followed by the Pledge of Allegiance, which will be led by Lewis Jones, who's a U.S. Navy veteran. Good morning. Good morning. Greetings from the Humanists of the Treasure Coast and happy spring. Indeed, Martin County is a wonderful place to live, raise a family, have a business and work, recreate, and to just marvel in the open, majestic places on land and water. We as a diverse but united community are thankful for the good fortune to be in the land of the free and the home of the brave. We particularly give honor to those who have given of themselves and some their precious lives in the service of our country, the United States of America. Each one of our leaders on the dais this morning have received the high calling and trust of our citizens to be commissioned to use their unique sets of talents, vision, deliberative skills, and stewardship to maintain what has been provided by those who have gone before and also to improve the good to better and the better to best. We thank you for your selfless service. In every county in the country with an outstanding commission, there is a professional staff who carries out that vision and standard. Like the commission, the staff just wants to make good things happen. So departments of Martin County, administration, county attorney, growth management, parks and rec, airport services, fire and rescue, IT, public works, building, general services, library, and my favorite after a career of 42 years, utilities and solid waste. We, the people, see what you do and appreciate the fruits of your labor. Keep up the great job. So esteemed commission and staff, the community gives you our encouragement and support to meet the high standards that are expected of you. In this high vocation to which you have been called and to which you have freely accepted, we wish you the best of everything good in each and every endeavor of your life. We say all these things in the name of everything that is good, virtuous, and true. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Jones, would you please lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance? And afterwards, could you tell us a bit about your service? I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with trustee and justice for all. Well, there's not a whole lot to say. I was born and raised in Melbourne, and my dad was a Navy veteran, an aviator, World War II. And when it came time to get out on my own, I decided that the quickest, best way to do it was join the service. So, you know, I've told this story before. The first place they sent me after all my training was they sent me to an aircraft carrier out of Jacksonville and went to Europe, which was a nice cruise. We came back and they said, okay, now we're going to Vietnam. I thought there was someplace in the Caribbean. I never heard of it. I was hoping there was someplace in the Caribbean because I never heard of Vietnam. But, you know, I got over there and we had a joyful time. Being in the Navy initially was, especially aboard the aircraft carrier, was a safe adventure, safer than some of the guys that were on the ground in the woods in the jungles and so forth, rice paddies. But being young and dumb, I guess you might say, there are other things to go with that. We'll leave that alone. I volunteered when I needed somebody in my specialty, which was radio and communications and coding and decoding. I volunteered to go ashore at the, uh, at the naval base of Camron. And, uh, I made a worse decision even than that, uh, because we were getting attacked there by volunteering to go up the Mekon Delta. I thought that sounded nice going on small boats. Yeah, it's not so good. So anyway, you're, you're very exposed and Tim was in a similar situation. I don't know. Did you volunteer? You just were drafted? No, I volunteered. You're a dumb too. All right. But anyway, you don't, you know, you don't know these things, these things you learn the hard way. But, uh, so when we came back, um, you know, we, we met up with a bunch of other guys. Um, and in this County, we have a very good group, a diverse group of guys who were in all the different services. Uh, and we all, we're all there for a, for a common cause, which is to help veterans and their families get the benefits that they deserve, that they earned, that their spouses or themselves earned. And, uh, it's an uphill battle sometimes. Uh, it's amazing to me that 50 years after the fact, the, uh, VA and others have finally decided that there was some problems with Agent Orange. This is after who many, how many hundreds of thousands of people have died as a result of it. So these are some of the frustrations we deal with, but nonetheless, uh, in spite of all that, we hang together and we give each other support. And speaking of support, we really appreciate the support that the, this County Commission and all the citizens of, of Martin County give us. Uh, it's, it's, it's very, very much appreciated. Thank you. Thank you. There are two additional items this morning. Consent 15 is a renewal and first amendment of 800 interlocal agreement with Palm Beach County for public safety radio communication and consent 16, which is adoption of proclamations commending Charlotte Arledge, Charlotte Danuzio, Alison Gordon, Madison Thomas, and Laurel, Lauren Kelly upon the achievement of Eagle Scout. Is there a motion to approve the agenda? Commissioner Hetherington. I will move approval of the agenda with additional items, consent 15 and 16. Second. There's a motion in the second. All those in favor. I oppose that motion passes unanimously. The first, uh, proclamation will be a presentation by our property appraiser, Jenny Fields. Welcome. We're happy to have you here. Sure. Well, thank you so much. Is this on? Can y'all hear me? Yes. Thank you for inviting us. Commissioners. Good morning. Administrator Sarah. Thank you. Um, with me today is our chief deputy, Carl Anderson, and we are going to be talking a little bit about property damage. Um, you know, last year we were hit hard during hurricane Milton with the tornadoes. We're going to touch a little bit on that, but really we kind of want to share with you. Um, what does property damage mean to you in terms of paying your taxes? So how does that, these are things that I think, you know, you need to understand. And so that's what we're going to share with you today. Let me just unpack this clicker. Okay. All right. So with that, I just want to say everything, well, everything that you see here, just like we always do when we ever, um, when we're doing outreach and we go to speak to people, um, right on our homepage, you'll see three things, the e-news signup, the community outreach calendar, and the schedule of speaker, everything that you hear. If you want us to come speak to you, if you want to see the presentation that we're going to give you today, anything that you want, all these topics that we talk about, they're in all three of those. So if you have not seen that, or you see something that you want to learn more about today, these are tools at, you know, that we encourage you to look up. And we're happy to come and talk to you about any of that. So with that, um, there's two things I want to talk to you about when we talk about property damage. Number one is you need to understand what is a date of assessment. So this is basically in a nutshell, what the law says about when establishing property taxes, we are required by law to reassess property values every year at market value, considering allowable costs of sale based on conditions as of January one of that tax year. So if you look at it, this is an example. If you look at this timeline and you see where the red, the orange star is, that's January 1st. So if you look at January 1st, now imagine taking a picture of the market, everything that occurred on January one and fast forward all the way till August, when you get that trim notice, that proposed taxes that you see that you're going to have to pay the proposed values. All of that is based on eight months prior on January one. And again, fast forward all the way to November, when the tax bills are mailed from the tax collector's office, you're paying a bill based on 11 months prior. Okay. So that's, that's the magical date. So, you know, a lot of times people will say, Jenny, what's the market doing today? We're looking at everything that happened last year right now, because we're forbidden from looking at anything that occurred after January one, 2025. So people may not realize that. So a couple of the things is in order to qualify for any of the exemptions, you have to own and reside in the home on January one. So if you don't buy the property until today, you're not even going to be entitled to your own exemptions until next year, because you didn't own it on January one, it's a January one day. And then there's some other things listed here, and I won't take a lot of the time. But the second thing I want to talk about is new construction. In the state of Florida, there's either two types of properties, either you have the homestead exemption. So your assessed value is capped. And that's a whole nother presentation. But just, you know, shortly, your assessed value, which is based on which is what your taxes are based on, is limited from increasing no more than 3% a year. However, that doesn't apply to new construction. So again, when we're adding, let's say you put on a pool or build a house or anything like that, for us to add the value of that item to the tax roll, it has to be completed on January one. So if your home is not completed, it didn't get the final certificate CO, if it wasn't completed till the end of January, in November, when you get the bill, it's going to be for a vacant lot. So you basically got a year for free, because it wasn't done on January one. So that January one date is super, super important. Now, the next thing is, how do you add new construction? When I say that the 3% cap, okay, and if you have the homestead exemption, you're capped at 3%. But every other property in the state of Florida is capped at 10%. Okay, whether you're a vacant lot or a strip shopping mall, they get a 10%, just like homestead property owners gets a 3%. So when we're looking at that assessed value, this is just a really quick example of if you look at the market value on this property last year at 500,000. And let's say they've lived there for a while. So their assessed value, which has been capped is only at 280. Well, this year's CPI is only 2.9%. So your cap cannot go up more than three, but it can be less. This year, it was 2.9%. So now if you look at going into the 2025 year, you can see the market value this year is up 50,000, because we've added your pool. Now it was done on January 1. But if you look at the cap, we're going to go from last year, 280,000, we're going to add the 2.9%, which is the 288,120. Then we add the value of the pool at 50. So your new assessed value for 2025 would be 338,000. Okay, new construction is not subject to that cap in the first year it goes on the roll. So that's the second thing I want to, I want to stress to you as we go through this. How do we do property damage? So with that, what is catastrophic property damage? Well, per Florida statutes, a catastrophic event means an event of misfortune or calamity that renders improvements uninhabitable. Examples of catastrophic weather events, which typically affect multiple properties, which we witnessed last year, is your hurricanes, your tornadoes, wildfires, floodings, things like that. There are situations where you might have a catastrophic event, but it's just to your home, whether it's an unintentional fire or water damage, or maybe you had structural damage for whatever reason. That is also a catastrophic event. So mindful of that January 1 date, the law says that should you have a catastrophic event after January 1, there's literally nothing that we can do to your value that year because it occurred after January 1. That's just the way the law is written. Now, there are a couple things to note that if you do have a calamity in your value, the value will be adjusted in the year following that. So on January 1 of the following year, we will do an inspection of your home, we'll see how much damage is left, and we can adjust the value at that point in the following year. But for that year specifically, there's nothing we can do to the value because it's as of January 1, the condition of the home. If you do have a catastrophic event on your homesteaded property, you have up until five years to commence the construction on that to rebuild it. But you do have five years, so you don't want to move away and then come back. But we will ask you to fill out an affidav intent. It just lets us know that you are planning to come back because this is your homesteaded property. And then the third thing is there is a 110% rebuild rule. Now, this rule is for all properties, not just your homesteaded 3% cap property, but let's say you have a catastrophic event on commercial property, okay? The 110% rebuild rule basically says you can rebuild exactly what you had plus 10% more, and it would be covered under your cap. So it would be covered as if nothing ever, as if you never built. And just to kind of walk through that, I want to show you how this would work. So if you completed the construction within five years of the rebuild rule, this is, let's say the damage happened in 2024. Your market value was 500,000. And again, we're looking at your assessed value, which is the 280. We're going to come forward the cap. That's your 3% homestead cap, so it's 2.9. So now if you look at 2025, you rebuilt your home. Maybe you built 10% more, okay? We're going to value that home and the property at 780,000. But if you look at the calculation under this statute that protects you, the 280 will go up to 2.9%, which it is allowed to do. That's the assessment limitation. But where we added in the pool value before, which is the 50,000 after the cap, the amount of that new house is zero. So your final assessed value is still 288,120. So your value would be as if you never even built a brand new home. So there are protections should you suffer a catastrophic event on your property. You can rebuild and it would be protected in the following year when you do rebuild. Now, what does that have to do with your taxes? So back years ago when the Surfside condo collapsed and then following that, there was a couple of years we had catastrophic hurricane damage along the West Coast. Basically, the law got changed last year. I think it was last year, right? Last year, the law got changed that basically said, because what was happening is when that condo collapsed, all of those property owners that didn't even have a home, they had tax bills came due in November for a condo that didn't even exist. So because of that, and then they saw the same compounding issue with the hurricanes, their homes were destroyed. They knew that something had to change. Well, instead of changing the date of assessment, which affects so many things, now they implemented where you can actually apply for a refund of taxes. Now, there's a couple things that you need to know. Number one, they did not make this universal. So it is only on residential property. So should you have a catastrophic event on a shopping plaza or an industrial building, this refund of taxes does not apply. It has to be residential. The second, the way they wrote the law was that it has to be uninhabitable for 30 days, minimum of 30 days. And then it applies only to the living area. So if you had a catastrophic event, and it destroyed your garage, that would not be considered eligible for a refund of taxes because it wasn't the primary living area of the home. And then the last thing you have to make application with our office by March 1st, following the catastrophic event. So you would come in and then there's a calculation. And this is what the form looks like. And, you know, we will help you fill it out. There's certain documentation that we're going to need to request from you just to prove that it was uninhabitable, how many days and so forth. But we'll work with you. And with that, I'm going to turn it over to Carl because Carl's going to really delve, dive into how this event happened last year in your district, Commissioner Hurd. So with that, I'm going to turn it over to Carl and he can get into how that how that worked. All right. Thank you, Jenny. Good morning, everyone. My name is Carl Anderson, chief deputy with the property appraiser's office. So this morning, I'd like to give you an update on our office's response to Hurricane Milton's tornado damage that property owners sustained last year on October 9th, 2024. I'm also going to provide an update on the numbers of the calamity tax refund that Jenny was just referring to. So to start off, I just wanted to show a slide. This is the county's damage assessment map, the latest information from it. On the right hand side, there's a table showing the various FEMA categories of damage. Destroyed, we had a total of 30 properties. Those are indicated in red. And FEMA defines those as uninhabitable, completely damaged and gone or requires a total reconstruction of the building. We had an orange, 31 major damaged properties. FEMA defines those as significant structural issues or severe water damage, which is 18 inches or higher within the essential living area of the property or of the home. And then we had a total of 92 minor damaged properties. Those are shown in yellow on the map. They define those as limited structural issues or water damage that doesn't render the home uninhabitable. And then affected in blue, we had a total of 285 and that's minimal damage. So as you can see, the damage started in Doubletree and the preserve off Sea Branch, hit Mariner Village, then crossed over US-1, impacted Mariner Sands, Salerno Estates, New Monrovia, Dixie Park, and then over A1A, impacted Sandy Ridge and into Rocky Point. So our office's role in damage assessment, the property appraiser assists with the county damage assessment response by having our office staff available to meet up at the building department during the windshield phase of the damage assessment. So we team up and there's usually two per vehicle, one driver, and then one person doing the data input going down the roads that are assigned to an area in the county. And then the data input will drop points based on the FEMA categories. So it's meant to be a very quick and efficient process. Our office also does a desktop review of all the photos that come in from that process to verify that the FEMA categories are accurate to try to improve the accuracy of the project. And then that's what the county takes to FEMA to determine the FEMA declaration and funding. What our office then does is we export that data and we upload it into our system so that we can use it for assessment and property valuations in the following tax roll year. We also use it to send out informational letters to the impacted property owners and notify them of that new tax refund process. So the exported data is imported into our CAMBA system. That's our computer automated mass appraisal software. It's our enterprise software where we store the information on all 95,000 parcels in the county along with the 12,000 tangible personal property accounts. It includes our valuation models. So our appraisers can use this information when they're determining valuations for the following year. We also link in the windshield phase pictures into our GIS as well. And then the week after the event, we sent out field appraisers to do a thorough inspection. That windshield phase is only to do a front picture of the house and to make a quick assessment. So we send out our field appraisers to do a thorough front and back inspection if the property owner's available and they're there and they'd like us to come in. We take pictures internally to get a preemptive idea of the damage of the property and notifying them of that tax refund process. So on November 1st, we mailed out letters to the categories that were major and destroyed and only residential properties. So this was a total of 49 letters that went out. 40 of those were homestead letters. Nine of those were non-homestead letters. In those letters, we explained how the damage would impact their 2024 tax bill, which would only be through that tax refund process that Jenny explained earlier, because it happened after January 1st, 2024. We also notified them that any damage on January 1st, 2025, we would be able to utilize in the upcoming assessment in the 2025 tax roll. We also provided information about the refund process, what documents we needed, such as photos, utility bills, any kind of supporting information from FEMA, insurance companies, permit information that would show that the property was uninhabitable for more than 30 days. We also explained how a homesteaded property could maintain their homestead if the house was not on the property anymore, if it was completely demolished. They'd have to file an affidavit of intent, which they're attesting to reoccupy the property immediately after it's repaired or rebuilt. And then we also provided information on the 110% calamity rebuild rule. Yep. So those letters, the non-homestead letters that we sent out is essentially identical to the homestead letters. We just didn't include information about the affidavit of intent and having to attest to reoccupy to maintain the homestead. So the response we received on November to February, there were a total of 21 tax refund applications that were submitted back to us based on the letters. We also had a lot of email correspondence, phone calls, and meetings with individual property owners, some of them outside of those main areas of damage that were requesting in a refund application as well. We also did follow-up field inspections on January, shortly after January 1st, 2025, to get the status of all the properties for the upcoming 2025 tax rule year. And then in February, we mailed out 26 reminder letters to the major and destroyed properties that we didn't originally receive an application from. So which broke down to about 20 homestead and six remaining non-homestead. And we're also planning on sending out letters to the 92 minor damaged properties to determine what was, if there's any damage on their property as of January 1st, 2025. So we can determine if there's any adjustments that need to happen for this year's tax rule. And I will say the minor ones, it's important for people to let us know, because even if they were just having to re-screen their pool cage, you wouldn't want that to go on as a new construction item if you're replacing it because it was destroyed by an event. You would normally be able to replace that and not see the increase in taxes. So if it was damaged as a result of the storm, it's important for you to communicate that with our office. Because if we just see a permit come through, we don't know that you didn't do that intentionally. You just wanted to take it down and put up something new. So I would say communicate that if you have something like that. So on this ladder, the total numbers from the tax refund applications we received, we had a total of 27 refund applications that came to $15,783. And 22 of those were homestead properties at $11,248. And five were non-homestead properties. So we receive the applications and process them. When they're approved, we send them to the tax collector and then they distribute the refunds. And then here is just a rough understanding of the formula to determine the tax refund. Essentially, the best way to understand it for a property, you first have to determine the total market value of the improvement. So if half of the total market value is the structural improvement value, and let's say it's uninhabitable for the entire year, then they would receive a 50% refund on their taxes since half of the total market value is from their building. So if it's only uninhabitable for half of the year, it would be 50% of the 50%, they would receive a 25% adjustment. All right, that concludes our update. Are there any questions? Very interesting. Any questions? Great job. Thank you very much. Thank you. Our next agenda item is a proclamation declaring Vietnam War Veterans Day. And accepting this will be Mr. Jones. Good morning, Commissioners. Good morning. Many of the brave men and women who served in Vietnam came home to a welcome unbefitting their dedicated service. Remembrances on Vietnam War Veterans Day are to ensure that this never happens again and that our returning troops from current and future conflicts receive the full honor and respect that their noble and selfless service merits. The board offers this remembrance on March 29th to those veterans as a commitment that they shall not be forgotten, but held in esteem for their service to their country and our nation. Mr. Jones. Once again, I reiterate what I said before that we really appreciate the support of the commission and the citizens of Martin County. You guys really, really do a lot for us to help us out and to help other veterans and their families. And everything we do as a chapter, along with all the other veterans organizations in the county, and the support that you give us with this Veterans Service Office is a great benefit to all of us. So once again, we really appreciate everything you do for us. Madam Chair, if you don't mind, there's an event this weekend. Chair Hurd, quick announcement. There's an event this weekend. The We Do Good 5K is a race that's starting in Jock Layton Park in Palm City this Saturday at 7.30 a.m. Anyone that's interested, it's a race over the Veterans Memorial Bridge. You can go to runsignup.com to re-register or register that morning. I'd also like to thank our staff. We fly the American flag over the Veterans Bridge several times a year. And this year, for the first time, we're adding Vietnam Veterans Memorial Day this week. We'll have the flags up as another honoring of their service. So if you're interested in the Vietnam Veterans 5K, the We Do Good 5K is this Saturday at Jock Layton Park in Palm City, 7.30 a.m. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioners, if you will indulge me, I see that we have a contingent of important people from the Sheriff's Department here, including the Sheriff. Shall we take care of that matter first? Absolutely. So that they can get back. It's Department 1. Yeah, Ms. Murley, please join us. Good morning. Stephanie Murley, Director of the Office of Management and Budget here to go through our OMB item today with all the very important people. Our first item is permission to apply for the FY25 Alternative Water Supply project funding for the Floridan Well TFRO-8. Our Utilities and Solid Waste Department is requesting $2,050,000 for the construction of the Tropical Farms Water Treatment Plant Floridan Well and Raw Water Main. There is a match of $2,050,000 and this is programmed within the utility CIP. Our second item is a permission to apply for the FY25 Alternative Water Supply project funding for Floridan Well NRO-5. This is a grant application for $3,050,000 for constructing a North Water Treatment plant Floridan Well and Raw Water Main. There is a grant match required of $3,050,000 which is also programmed in the Utilities Solid Waste CIP. Item number three is a permission to apply for the FY24 Parks and Recreation Social Driver of Healthy Aging Grant. Our Parks and Rec Department is requesting a grant application of $17,500 to develop and advance strategies to increase social and intergenerational connectedness and improve healthy aging. There is no grant match required for this. Item number four is a permission to apply for the 2025 Waterways Assistance Program Grant for the renovation of the Jensen Beach Causeway. Parks and Rec is requesting the application of a $450,000 grant to fund the construction costs to replace the existing boat ramp and launch piers at Jensen Beach Causeway. A grant match of $450,000 is required in its program within the Parks and Recreations Boat Ramp Program CIP. Item number five is a permission to accept the FDEP Martin County Gomez Community Petway Potable Water Service Project. This is a grant acceptance in the amount of $940,000 that will support the construction of a potable water service distribution system at the Gomez Petway Community of Hope Sound. There is no cash match required, but the Hope Sound CRA is contributing $200,000 to the project. Item number six is a permission to accept the FDEP grant for nutrient reduction technology. Our Environmental Services Division is requesting the acceptance of $523,325 that will fund a nanobubble ozone technology for nutrient reduction, and it will support Martin County's total maximum daily load TMDL sheet. There is no grant match required for this one. And the last item are other OMB items, the adjustments to the fiscal year 2025 budget to modify the FY25 budget to align revenues and expenditures. And there's a variety of items located within this. A is a budget resolution to allocate the unanticipated donation from the Riverside PUD. We are in receipt of a check for $115,000 for the Riverside PUD agreement, $30,000 to the Martin County Fire Rescue for fire traffic preemption, and $85,000 to Martin County Public Works Department to support the milling and resurfacing of Southwest Lost River Road. B is a budget resolution to allocate the contribution from the Preserve of Loblolly North PUD. We are in receipt of $16,000 that will go towards the purchase of a traffic preemption device for Martin County Fire Rescue and $10,000 to Martin County Public Works for construction upgrades at the intersection of Southeast Osprey and Dixie Highway. C is a budget resolution to allocate unanticipated contribution from the 7 J's PUD. We are in receipt of a $100,000 check to be allocated towards the construction and design of a proposed fire station in Western Palm City, and we are asking to amend the CIP sheet to recognize these revenues as well. D is the allocation of funds for fiscal year's 2025 salary adjustments. During our FY25 adopted budget, we included salary adjustments based on the Teamsters contract, which was $2.50 an hour, or 6%, which was ever greater. We place these funds in reserve, and this request is just to remove those funds from reserve and put them to all of the respective departments as approved. E is the Martin County Sheriff's Office request for funds for previously earmarked for future helicopter purchase. The Martin County Sheriff's Office, in collaboration with County Administration and OMB, has allocated funds from the return of their excess fees in their annual budget to support the down payment for a helicopter. The dedicated reserve has accumulated to 1.6 and a budget transfer from reserves in the amount of $894,173 is representing a 20% down payment for the Martin County Sheriff's Office, and they're here if you have any questions about that. F is budget resolution to increase the Florida opioid settlement funds. We have received our third year's allocation in the amount of $229,845 to be used to assist with opioid use and misuse intervention strategies, and we are just requesting a budget resolution to accept those funds into our budget. And last but not least is a budget resolution to recognize the reimbursement from the Village of Indiantown into the Building Department's operating budget. The Village has remitted a check in the amount of $50,000 to offset building official related services on an as-needed basis based on the interlocal, and OMB is just requesting a budget resolution in order to recognize those revenues into the budget. Thank you. Sheriff, we'd love to hear from you as always. Good morning Madam Chair and Commissioners and County Administrator and Attorney. Thank you all for giving me a few minutes. I know you're busy, get pulled in all different directions, but I think it's important to explain our position. I know there's been a change in the Sheriff's Office Administration. Sheriff Snyder retired, I came in, and then there's been some commissioner changes. But this has been going on for about the last eight years. About eight years ago, our chief pilot came to me. I was a lower ranking individual in the Sheriff's Office and said, Lieutenant, we have to do something with our aviation program. Up until that point, actually up until today, we had been flying Vietnam-era OH-58 helicopters that we got from a government program, a lesso program. And our mechanics and our pilots have done a phenomenal job keeping those helicopters flying. But to put that in perspective, these gentlemen that were here earlier that just left, those helicopters were in service when they were serving. Now they've gotten younger, but the helicopters have not gotten any younger. And, you know, we drive vehicles that are not that old. But our guys are still flying in the air with helicopters that are 50-plus years old. So it was a public safety concern. It was a safety hazard for our pilots. So we set in motion a plan to to rebuild our aviation program. And that really started five years ago when the then-commission stepped up and purchased the first helicopter and Airbus. And then looking forward five years, which is now, we had been planning all along and trying to put money aside and talking with the commissioners and planning to buy a second helicopter. So this is where we are today. A couple questions that have been asked me. Commissioner asked a great question this morning already before I got up here. Why don't we lease the helicopters like Fire Rescue does? And the answer to that is we use those helicopters all the time for everything. We use them for surveillance. We use them for tracking people. We use them for catching migrants coming in on boats. We use them for putting out fires when Fire Rescue needs our assistance. We use them for search and rescue. We use them for a myriad of tasks. And if we were to lease a helicopter, the leasing companies, they limit the hours you put on them. We really do fly those helicopters at a moment's notice all the time. And thankfully, unlike Fire Rescue, they don't have to fly a lot, thankfully, because they're rescuing people. We do fly. We probably fly about six hours a day at a minimum to service our residents here in the county. Another question that's been asked to me is why two helicopters? And the saying in the industry is unless you have two helicopters, you don't have an aviation program at all because of the required maintenance that comes due on those aircraft. If any small thing is wrong with them, any type of leak, anything, those things are down clearly for the safety of our pilots and staff and then the safety of people on the ground. So if you don't have two, you don't have a program. So we use those to keep, we use our helicopter aviation program to stay cutting edge here in Martin County to facilitate all the needs of our county residents. We just went through a hurricane presentation. We use those right after the hurricane. Some of you commissioners, I know County Administrator Donaldson flew to assess some of the damage. So we're always there, not just for the Martin County Sheriff's Office, but for the county as a whole to make sure the needs are met in the in the county. I'll stop talking. If you have questions, please fire away at me. So questions for share food and seek Commissioner Hetherington. I would just say that I think our aviation program is a is a value to taxpayers and the public safety initiatives of this county. It's amazing the tools with that technology can provide to keep not only your workforce safe, but to keep our public safe. So I would gladly move approval for the entire OMB items, including all items. Commissioner Vargas have a question. Yes. Can you hear me? Yes. You mentioned about Vietnam era helicopters and then five years ago, the purchase of a helicopter from Airbus. Is that correct? Do you still have those older helicopters? Yes. So we have two. We originally had three OH-58s when we bought and we purchased the Airbus. We kept, we down one of the OH-58s and we kept two, one for training, one for operational needs. So the the training helicopter, we're still going to keep that helicopter until we absolutely can't fly it anymore. What we use that for are absolutely frightening tactics called auto rotations where you turn the helicopter off in the air and you glide down and and you do hard landings. We're going to still use one of those old helicopters to train in and practice in until it's not usable at all. The other helicopter we're going to get rid of, we're going to take it offline. So we're only going to be flying operationally two Airbuses, the old one that we bought five years ago and the new one that we're planning to purchase. Okay. So, so I'm trying to understand. So there are three older helicopters that you say you use. Is that correct? Or you have in your possession? Two. Two. Yes. Okay. So you're going to keep one until you receive the new helicopter. Is that correct? No. We're going to, so we have two old helicopters. As soon as we receive the new helicopter, one will be down. We're going to keep one old helicopter just for training purposes, not operational needs. I understand. So you have two for operational and one for training. Correct. Is that correct? The old one until it can no longer function safely. Correct. Is that correct? Yes, ma'am. Okay. Any further questions? Thanks, Sheriff. There's a motion on the floor. There's a second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? That motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And we will now go back to public comment. First request to speak form I have is from Camden Duke. Ms. Duke will be followed by Casey Cass. Camden. Commissioner, may I make one quick announcement that came up? We found a credit card in the, uh, uh, downstairs here this morning, uh, and the last name on the credit card is Carlton. So if anybody in the, uh, audience, uh, with the last name of Carlton is missing a credit card, um, Ms. Donna Gordon has it here, or we'll get it to the, uh, at the break to the, um, guards at the, uh, at the main desk here. So thank you. Thank you. Otherwise we're going to use it towards the helicopter. Proceed, Mr. Duke. Yes. Thank you. Um, good morning, commissioners. My name is Camden Duke. I am a junior in Martin County High School and a life scout and working towards my Eagle rank. I am here today to advocate for bringing the Beach Bucket Foundation to Martin County to help protect our marine life and beaches. For anybody unsure what the Beach Bucket Foundation is, it provides beachgoers with free reusable buckets to collect litter along the shoreline. This encourages healthy oceans and brings awareness to conservation. Right now, Beach Bucket Foundation buckets are available in counties, North and South of Martin County, but not here. As a community, we can take a proactive step in maintaining our environment by bringing this initiative to our county. As a 17 year old life scout who's searching for Eagle project opportunities before I turn 18, I am eager to work with the Beach Bucket Foundation, um, as part of my Eagle requirement. This would involve building collecting collection stations, coordinating community and scout involvement, and focusing on bringing awareness on keeping our beaches clean. With our beautiful coastline and county being benefited by tourism, keeping our beaches clean benefits residents, marine life, and visitors. Partnering with the Beach Bucket Foundation aligns with our county's environmental values. I humbly ask for your support in allowing the Beach Bucket Foundation to be established in Martin County. I would love to work with county staff to identify locations for bucket stations and coordinate efforts to launch this initiative if the opportunity is presented. Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to the opportunity to collaborate on this project for the benefit of our community. Thank you. Thank you. Excellent. Next up is Casey Cass followed by Tammy Mazzotta. I'd like to sponsor the bucket for that program and then offer you a scholarship. Give me a call. Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Casey Cass. I own Casco Companies, which is comprised of Casco Tools, DEB Industrial Coatings, Environmental Solutions, and Ground XS. I employ many taxpaying residents in the Martin County. And like all other business owners, I pay commercial property tax, residential property tax, ad valerum tax, sales tax, highway tax, and payroll tax. I also volunteer my time at no with no compensation as a vice chair on the Martin County Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and am a member of the Port Salerno Neighborhood Advisory Board. Casco Companies is also a member of Martin County Taxpayers Association and other organizations in the building industry and marine industries. Most importantly, I'm a member of Save our Salerno, which is a 501 not-for-profit organization. Save our Salerno seeks to maintain Port Salerno's cultural and environmental identity by advocating for development which respects community values and historic significance. SOS represents thousands of taxpaying residents both in Port Salerno and Martin County. We are the people. Save our Salerno vehemently opposes the purchase of 4070 Salerno Road at the purchase price proposed. A Martin County appraiser with 35 years of commercial and residential experience has provided an opinion that the appraisals provided are as much as a quarter of a million dollars overvaluated. A quarter of a million dollars may not be a lot much to Martin County's overall budget, buying helicopters and things, but it is highly inappropriate, lacks transparency, and is outright disrespectful to the residents of New Monrovia who have been seeking sewer system for 15 plus years. A sewer system which would improve the water quality of the pocket and the quality of life for those residents. The appraisals provided did not acknowledge usability or marketability due to the existing wetlands. No property or wetland surveys took place. One of the appraisals stated that a perceived value once improvements take place, which includes demolition of a decrepit building and import of soils just to make it usable. This, of course, would happen at a cost, the taxpayers cost. The purchase is also subject to scrutiny under Florida statute 112.313 due to the fact that the seller is a current member of the Salerno NAC, amongst other reasons. SOS has five properties approximately equating to approximately one acre adjacent to the proposed property which are more suitable for a park and are currently in the process of design for a park. We are offering the possibility of a public-private-public partnership which would, bear with me here, with uh, which would possibly be a donation of some or all of that property to build a park which will result in 60 percent more usable. Please consider this an opportunity to demonstrate. Sir, your time is up. Thank you. Tammy Mazzotta is next, followed by Terry Kogel. Good morning, Commissioners. Good morning. Tammy Mazzotta here. I am a member of the Save Our Salerno Grassroots Non-For-Profit Organization. Our name says it all, which is why I'm here today. We have questions about the appraised value of the property you're considering today for purchase. These concerns are already expressed in your emails, so I'll just say that an independent appraisal valued the property for less than the purchase price. We believe you need to take a second look at the appraisals. We also have concerns about the legality entering into the sales contract with a member of your own advisory board, the Port Salerno NAC, in violation of the state status. Do you know that the seller Christina Ordigo was appointed by you on to the NAC? I'm sorry. The appointed, and she was as yesterday, still on Salerno NAC. That is an issue that should be explored by your legal department before you proceed. Although the plans for the Salerno Creek Linear Park are wholly within the boundaries of the Port Salerno CRA, are you aware that the Port Salerno NAC rejected those plans? Because they are not part of the CRA plan. If you are unsure what Commissioner Hurd has planned, then just go to your Innovation Hub plan, which illustrates exactly the linear park, including parking areas, boardwalk, and even an amphitheater. Despite what the county staff may tell you, this is not part of the Port Salerno CRA plan. Just ask a member of the Salerno NAC if this is a plan they approved or even wanted. They will tell you no, and they have no idea how it would have wound up in the county's Innovation Hub. Before you ever stamp this purchase, please consider our objections and comments, because we do not believe that the desires of one Commissioner, no matter how powerful she may be, should take precedence over an entire community. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Harry Kogel is next, followed by Tom Pine. Good morning, Commissioners. Somebody once told me an old saying, in God we trust and all others we watch. There is no doubt that Cory Crawley lacks sufficient parking needed for his proposed Port Salerno apartment complex. The county is now being asked to foot the bill to purchase property in Port Salerno at an elevated price and make improvements on that land so as to create an area for Crawley's needed parking. The state has entrusted the county commissioners to look after the health, safety, and welfare of Martin County residents. This includes a fiduciary financial duty, but here it appears the misguided priorities are again focused on the financial gains of one individual rather than the people they are mandated to protect. Shameful. We don't know if any member is using non-county emails, text messages, or other forms of communication that are being used to avoid statutory demands for disclosure regarding communications with Mr. Crowley or those he represents. But we do know negative traits are unlikely to change even if they try to appear different. In God we trust. Thank you. Tom Pine is next and Mr. Pine is the last request to speak form. If you would like to address us, please fill out a request to speak form and we will be happy to hear from you. Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Tom Pine. I've been a resident of Martin County for over 50 years, presently living in the Jensen Beach area. If my photos could stay up while I speak, I would greatly appreciate it. Over the past few weeks, I have visited downtown areas in four counties, Martin, Okeechobee, St. Lucie, and Indian River. I started with Hope Sound and went up the line to Stewart, Jensen Beach, Fort Pierce, Indian Town, Okeechobee, Vero Beach, and Sebastian. Over the years, I have been in these towns many times. The only downtown area where the business community, also known as the Jensen Beach Chamber of Commerce, has completely taken full control over the public sidewalks for their own personal gain on Jensen Beach Boulevard, has now expanded to Indian River Drive, just south of the circle, headed to the island. These photos are ones I showed in June of 2023. That being said, it's past time that Martin County added travel advisory to any tourist guides warning visitors that Jensen Beach is not handicapped accessible for wheelchairs, walkers, or even person needing a cane. Let's do the right thing for a change and let people know in advance. E-bikes are starting to show up in the news and accidents on our roadways. There were recently two deaths, one in North Palm Beach County and one in Martin County. I walk a couple of times a week in the Jensen Rio area, and in the Rio area, I have had e-bikes come flying from behind me 20 plus miles an hour on the sidewalks that are 50 inches wide. It's breathtaking, to say the least. I might as well be walking in the roadway. At times, I think it might be safer. There seems to be no rules or regulation, so it's every man and woman for themselves. Welcome to 2025. The railroad crossing on Dixie Highway in Rio still has crossing gates that are easy to circumvent. Be safe, not sorry. What you permit, you promote. What you allow, you encourage. What you condone, you own. Give us our side walks back now. Thank you. Thank you. Would anyone else like to address us? And we'll move on to Commissioner Comments. Commissioner Hetherington. I'm all set this morning. Thank you. Commissioner Campy. I'd just like to respond to the gentleman, Mr. Duke, that mentioned about the beach buckets. I've seen that on social media before. I think it's an excellent idea. I would request that our parks and rec staff, first off, you heard from a public speaker this morning that he would fund it. I don't know what level of funding is necessary, but I'd like to coordinate it with our staff, if my colleagues agree. But I would also like to expand. We don't have any beaches in Palm City, but we do have boardwalks and parks and riverfront. I think that that program is such a good idea that it would also work at Charlie Layton Park, Charlie Layton Park, Justin Wilson Park, where if you hung, I've seen it. So if you wanted to make that your Eagle Scout project, I think our staff would love to have your assistance. So thank you very much for coming forward. Thanks. Commissioner Kapps. Good morning. Many of you know that the Jonathan Dickinson Tower in Jonathan Dickinson State Park has not been publicly accessible for a number of months. The tower is very old and needs to be replaced. Martin County residents have missed their stunning sunsets to the west and their breathtaking views of the Indian River Lagoon and the Atlantic Ocean to the east from this tower. I spoke with Jonathan Dickinson Park manager Scott Duncan, who told me that the officials at JD consider the tower replacement as their number one priority and that they recently conveyed this to their district office. The district office also recently conveyed their priorities to the Park Service in Tallahassee. I would like to ask that we submit a letter to the Park Service in Tallahassee urging them to prioritize the replacement of the tower as soon as possible. Park manager Duncan also said that we could share our ideas on the type of tower that we would prefer. And I would suggest that we recommend that the new tower resemble the old one just as closely as possible. Excellent suggestion. Thanks for bringing that to us. Anything else? I think I will mention one other thing. There are several bills that are brewing in Tallahassee that are of great concern to local government. And there's one called Senate Bill 1118 and House Bill 1209. And basically, these would allow for the expansion of development in all of the counties in the whole state of Florida for parcels of agricultural land that are deemed agricultural enclaves. And basically, the developers would be able to get administrative approvals without county commission involvement all over the state of Florida. And now many, many bills that come forward in Tallahassee don't end up becoming law. And we don't really know for sure what kind of attraction this is getting. But it's a great concern. And we should also be very, we should also be very, very aware of the issue and be involved in communicating with our legislators about our disapproval of this concept, because it would really virtually render our comprehensive plan null and void. And the western of Martin, western lands of Martin County could just get paved over. So be aware of it. And be involved in every way that you can. Also, 1118 overrides voter referenda that were approved by as much as 80% margins. Ms. Powers, you want to apprise us on any of this legislation? Okay. Thanks for bringing it up. It's a bad bill. Two bad bills. Commissioner Vargas. Yes, I'd like to follow with Commissioner Capps. This past week, I attended the small county coalition legislative recession in Tallahassee. And I met with some of our legislatures. And I did bring up those particular bills, both the Senate and the House. It's already passed one committee. Uh, and it has to go through three committees and then the final vote with each, uh, the Senate and the representatives. So I urge you to please contact whoever is your representative in your area and let them know of your concerns. Uh, this is true. This will, uh, supersede anything that we do here. Actually, we'll have no say. Uh, and, uh, I was advocating up there for state and federal funding for construction of the St. Lucie Inlet Operation and the maintenance, the South Jetty Construction and Hutchison Island Shoreline Protection Project and other programs that protect Martin County's western lands for habitat, water quality, sustainable agriculture, and public recreation. I also learned a lot about growth management touring Tall Timbers Research and Learning Facility in northern Leon County. Thank you. Mr. Donaldson. Nothing for me, thank you. Ms. Woods. Okay. We will proceed now with, uh, the consent agenda. There's one pull and that's, uh, consent 11. Can we pick that up, take that up right now? I pulled this and it is a, um, it's a revision to our amusement and entertainment policy. And the reason I pulled it was that, um, it proposes to allow, um, any municipality to operate one prohibited ride in our, uh, that's on county property that's within the municipality's jurisdictional limits. Um, this is a, this is something that has not been allowed in the past. Prohibited rides were prohibited rides. There were no exceptions. I am absolutely convinced that that's how it should remain. Uh, I don't want the additional liability. Those prohibited rides, they do have failures and they're catastrophic when they happen. So I would, would, uh, I would certainly, uh, like this, this, uh, prohibited rides removed from our policy. Mr. Campy. Thank you. Can I hear from staff on their rationale for bringing the item forward? So good morning, uh, George Stokas, assistant county administrator. Uh, next to me is Ms. Melissa Pietrik, your senior county, senior assistant attorney. Thank you. Uh, yes, uh, madam chair. So staff had to go back, uh, as per December 10th, the median December 10th of last year. Uh, we, in order for there to be an existence of a potential heritage festival as proposed by the village of Indian town, uh, and the rides and the amusements that they wanted to supply their public at that time, uh, staff had identified that at least three things need to be changed. One was, uh, clearly the policy as well as we were going to need an interlocal. And I think the other one was, we were going to look at the insurance standards. Uh, the insurance standards have not changed. In fact, uh, with this policy, we did a couple of things. Number one, we further outlined the specific permit process that was necessary. One of the biggest issues we had was we had applicants that weren't supplying, uh, weren't following our special permit process. So we put in there a six month, uh, requirement prior to the event. We also outlined further the municipality insurance requirements as well as we went into further explaining the, uh, level two background checks as well, uh, which was under section V I R V I V I I V or section four, as well as we then further outlined the insurance requirements in greater detail, as well as the vendors responsibilities for the events, because we felt the previous policy was lacking in all those areas. Uh, but we're more unhappy to entertain whatever this board would like us to make the changes. Questions for staff. Mr. Campy. I had an opportunity to, pardon me, I had an opportunity to speak to a couple of members of other municipalities that, uh, were appreciative of the new language and felt that, uh, as separate and distinct elected municipalities should have the ability to have that, uh, for specifically the heritage festival and used an example that, um, those same rides are used on county property during the Martin County fair so that it seemed consistent and that the new additional regulations and the use of verified, uh, licensed and regulated, uh, amusement companies would address that issue. So I don't personally have an issue with that. I'd like to be able to have other municipalities be able to have control over their situations. So I would make a motion to accept staff's recommendation. Okay. Commissioner Vargas. I have concerns about prohibited rides. Um, I don't think that we need to expose ourself to this. I understand what you said about six months prior, uh, with the application, the municipality is named as additional insured with the sufficient quantity and level two background checks all required. Uh, but I, I think there are other, I think there are other activities. If they want to have a heritage festival, I've been to many of them in many cities and I've spoken with, well, small counties, uh, numerous times. Um, and I don't think this is, this is the time for us to be venturing into waters that, that we really don't need to. Um, I think that we really don't have to hold a tight rein on this. I agree with, um, uh, Chairman Hurd, uh, and I think that we need to look in this direction and stick, stick with it. Commissioner Hetherington. Yeah, I, the prohibited rides we're talking about are the amusement rides that we have every year at the Martin County Fair. Is that okay? So this would allow for another municipality to host something either on one of their venues or in a county park, seeing as they have those same requirements that the other entities would have. So ma'am commissioner, yes, you're correct. This, this policy allows for municipalities to utilize county property within their municipality and it allows them to use what we have called prohibited rides, uh, in the past. And we, we put in, we staff tried to put in as many, uh, safety precautions as possible. There is clearly some risk when you allow going from absolutely nothing to something, but we felt that there's a couple of lines of defense and also it puts the onus on the municipality as well as the more of the onus on the municipality. But the county will, of course, also be there to check and make sure that they're totting their I's and crossing their T's. So the county's already allowing this kind of? We currently do not allow this activity on our parks, but this activity does occur on the fair grass. Now there are stipulations, I believe, under Florida State statutes that allow fair associations to do certain things, but we don't enjoy those protections because we're not the fair association. And a question for legal. Do you feel like as written that there's sufficient protection in it for Martin County and its residents? Yeah. So what we did, just so you know, the, the old policy in 2012 talked about insurance for the vendor. What we did here is we crafted it saying not only does the vendor have to carry insurance, now the municipality has to also carry insurance requirements. I think we included in there like an umbrella policy. So I sat down with risk management and relations and came up with those amounts. Um, I mean, with anything, yes, if something goes wrong, you're always open up to liability, but we've put additional insurance requirements in here as well as plans. So it's not just, hey, here's your permit. It's how are you laying out the facility? How are you going to maintain the landscaping? How are you going to fix the problems? How are you taking care of the sewage and the waste and the porta potties? So there is more of a layout in there. Um, okay, but I'm, I'm satisfied that that legal has thoroughly reviewed it. And I will second commissioner Campy's motion. Mr. Vargas. Yes. Uh, is there a clause for holding Martin County harmless? I think when they do the permit, they would get the homelessness. That would be a part of the agreement that we would engage with the municipality. So this was, if I may policy on what can be done with the amusement rides. They also have to go through the parks and recreation department and get a special event permit as well. This is in addition to that. And commissioner, I also believe that when we engage in these activities with the municipality, we have an interlocal requirement that also goes forward, which I believe there will be a hold harmless clause in that interlocal as well. Mr. Capps. Are we asking for the approval of this for a period of time or, or is this like a new policy that would be in existence for many years to come? This would be the production of a new policy that would supersede the old one. The old one was in place since 2012. There's currently no sunset provision in it. So it would be in effect until revised. Okay. But we could revise it again. Absolutely. Mr. Campy. My final point is this. We're speaking today about rides at a park or at a festival. But I think what we're really, to me, where I'm seeing this heading is we bemoan the loss of home rule where the state legislature will tell us what, as local officials here, what we can and cannot do. But in a sense, if we are the county government and we're talking about the municipalities that are smaller city, Indian town, Sewell's Point, Jupiter Island, we're basically doing the same thing. We think it's a legitimate reason why we would do it. But we're saying to them, we know better than you. We're telling you that you cannot have this type of situation. Even if you've decided you want it, your residents want it. We know better. And we don't like when Tallahassee and Washington does that to us. So I don't want to participate in doing that to our other municipalities. Thank you. Mr. Vargas. This is on county property. It's not on property owned by another entity. And I don't think that you can correlate both. And again, I've been there to speak with other counties is vastly different than Tallahassee dictating what we can or cannot do. With all due respect, the Martin County is on Florida state land. Martin County is within the state of Florida. So that's how Tallahassee looks at counties that it's operating within the state of Florida, just like these municipalities are operating within the county of Martin. Well, okay, then I do have to respectfully disagree with you. It makes it interesting. That's right. Having said that, we're not talking about changing the face or the character of Indian town. We're trying to protect ourselves. And I think, as I said before, there are many other activities that can bring people to a heritage festival or whatever festival they would like to put on to support their community as it grows. That's why each of us get one vote. There is a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Opposed? Opposed? That motion passes three to one with commissioners Vargas and Heard. Three to two. What did I say? Three to one. Three to two with commissioner Vargas and Heard dissent. Thank you, ma'am chair. Thank you for your time. Now, can I have a motion to approve for the rest of the consent agenda? I will move for approval of the consent agenda. Second. There's a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? That motion passes unanimously. We will now move on to B and C one. Are we ready to do that? Oh, yep. Voting sheets. Okay. We'll take that up. That's the next item. I was wondering why all these people were here. Yeah. Me too. No, we know. Yeah. We like having you here. We postpone their agenda item until I have to lunch. Yes, Ms. Gordon. This is an appointment for the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board appointments. Donna Gordon for administration. Um, this is for commission districts two, three, five, I think. Yeah, five. Um, Commissioner Hetherington is reappointing Casey Cass. Commissioner Capps is appointing R Douglas Smith. And Commissioner Campy is appointing Chris Pinkston. And we need two at large members. We have really good applications. Mr. John Matheson incumbent received four votes. And Mr. Allen Mostoff received three votes. Mr. Campy. I would make a motion to accept the appointments of, uh, Casey Cass, Doug Smith, Douglas Smith, uh, Chris Pinkston. And then the two that were just, uh, voted in the incumbent and Mastoff and Mastoff. Thank you. Mr. Capps. Just a point of clarification. Uh, the Douglas Smith that I have, uh, appointed, uh, is not the former commissioner. Um, as good a job as he would do, I'm sure. Uh, there are, there's another Doug Smith in Martin County. Is there a second? Second. There's a motion and a second. All those in favor. Aye. Opposed. That motion passes unanimously. Thank you. We'll now take up agenda item public hearing number one, which is a public hearing and final assessment resolution for the Beau Ravage Water Main Municipal Service Benefit Unit. Mr. Repetti. Uh, good morning. Good morning. Leo Repetti, Tech Service Administrator, Martin County Utilities, here for the final, uh, assessment resolution for the Water Main, uh, assessment project. Uh, we were here two weeks ago to discuss the initial resolution and went through our slideshow. Uh, last week, a week after our meeting here, we met with residents with the Beau Ravage community and I'm seeing a large number of the large number of the faces that we saw, uh, at that meeting. Uh, in all the public, uh, workshops that I've done, I've never seen a group of people that were, uh, more positive and excited about bringing water and also with this project bringing sewer and the things that Martin County has done for, uh, and is doing for their community. Uh, quick refresh. Uh, uh, if approved today, uh, the assessment would be for $9,989 on their tax bill or spread out, uh, or spread out on their tax bill for a period of 20 years at an annual payment of $638.87. Uh, brings us quickly to our schedule. We're here on March 25th, the final resolution with the Board of County Commissioners. Uh, should it be awarded, uh, approved today, purchasing will work with the lowest responsible bidder accurate drilling to move forward with the, uh, purchase order and, and, uh, we would then work with them to get a start date and get this project moving forward. Um, that concludes our presentation and staff recommends that the Board approved the final assessment resolution to create the Beau Ravage Water Main Municipal Service Benefit Unit. And I'm quite happy to answer any questions at this point. Mr. Campy. Thank you, Mr. Ruppetti. First off, welcome. I know that Beau Ravage, uh, I was here with Commissioner Hurd when we, um, we didn't annex. Did we annex them in? Yes. Annexed in, uh, our newest community, uh, Beau Ravage from St. Lucie County. I know that it required a lot of assistance from our state legislators and heavy lifting in Tallahassee. And we were thrilled to work on that project to have you be part of Martin County. I think this is the natural progression of that. Uh, I appreciate what Mr. Ruppetti said in complimenting you all, because I will tell you that that, uh, obviously he's giving you high praise, but there are plenty of times where this type of issue divides communities and makes it very, very adversarial, uh, and can get really nasty. So for you all to understand and value and appreciate the opportunity for, uh, becoming, uh, our water system customers. And, uh, of course, with the proximity to the water that you all live next to, the, the beauty of what you have there to have sewer is also a tremendous, uh, opportunity for you all, but also a tremendous opportunity for us to continue to transfer, convert septic systems to our sewer system. I wish that every community felt like you do and have the opportunity that you are having here. I'm thrilled to make the motion to accept. Any further questions? Nope. I'll second pending public comment. I would glad, gladly second that motion. I do have one request to speak for him and it's from Dr. Lewis Benson. Dr. Benson, would you like to join us? Very famous face. Good to see you and your wife. Good morning. Thank you for hearing us. Uh, it was in 2012 that we began the process of, uh, moving from St. Lucie County into Martin County and, uh, took an act of the legislature. And fortunately we had good leadership at that time in Tallahassee that, uh, saw the wisdom of moving our enclave community because the only way we could get into our community was to come through Martin County. And, uh, with fire and ambulance service one mile away, we had to rely on St. Lucie County to send it several miles away from, uh, St. Lucie Boulevard. So we're very pleased to be in Martin County. We appreciate, uh, the hospitality that Martin County has shown towards us, particularly with the new bridge on Britt Road. Um, we started in 2018 to work with the, uh, utilities and solid waste department. And in 2019, there was a referendum and, uh, at that referendum, 85% of the community voted in favor of this project. Uh, and I don't think that has changed since I've had calls from several of the residents, uh, in the community wanting to know when we're going to get started. They're anxious to have this project move forward. Um, and by the way, I'm going to just go back to 2012 when we, uh, had a vote in the community. Ninety-five percent of those living in the enclave community, uh, west of the Britt Road Bridge voted to move into Martin County. And, uh, so this is another extension. We feel the quality of services that you offer and the opportunity, uh, to get off the septic tanks, uh, to get off wells that some of them are not doing particularly well. And the health of our community will be improved and the quality of our water will be improved with this project. So as the vice president of Boravage Homeowners Association, we have several of our residents here today that, uh, are in support of this project and we hope that it all goes forward. Thank you very much. Those are some impressive percentages. Would any, any further questions? There's a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? That motion passes unanimously. Thank you for joining us. Thank you. Yeah. Please stay for the rest of the day. Why are you laughing? I meant to take our break. Oh yeah. Let's take a 10 minute break. Next time. No, thanks. You want anything from next time? You're on. We are back and Ms. Brotherton has pushed her way to the front. Proceed, please. Everyone's going to try to do that. I know. I know. Good morning. Um, before we start, I've got, uh, two items that we will need to present separately, which is A1 and A2. Um, for Commissioner Hetherington will be abstaining. I will connect. No relation, right? Hetherington, Brotherington? Brotherton. There's no ang. I'm trying to put the joke in. Commissioner Hetherington? Yes. I will be abstaining from A1 and A2. I have filed my form 8B. Um, I'm abstaining as a, an employee or consultant of Ferrera. Um, and like I said, I've filed my form 8B and I'll be abstaining. Thank you. Thank you. Again, Christy Brotherton, Chief Procurement Officer. Uh, the first item for your consideration is the contract award. Uh, this is for the Beau Rivage water enforcement extensions project, which you just recently approved. Uh, staff is recommending that the board award the contract to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, which is accurate drilling systems in the amount of $3,864,956.75 and move that the board authorize the county administrator or designee to execute all documents related to this request. Um, the next item is the contract award for Southeast Avalon Drive sidewalk. This is from Southeast Cove Road to Southeast Salerno Road, and staff is recommending that the board award the contract to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder Ferrera construction company in the amount of $1,004,584.20 and move that the board authorize the county administrator or designee to execute all documents related to this request. And if we could have a motion, please. Motion to accept staff's recommendations. Second. There's a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? That motion passes four to one with Commissioner Hetherington abstaining. Next, we have the contract award for the on-road transit and support services, which is for the Marty bus system operation. Staff is recommending that the board award the contract to the highest scoring proposer, which is Senior Resource Association doing business as Martin County Transit in the amount of $2,026,419. I do want to note that this contract award is only for the first year of this contract. We will be bringing forward an amendment each year to add additional funds as funding is added. And then we have a move that the board authorize the county administrator or designee to execute all documents related to this request. And then next, we have a change order for the Manatee Pocket Mooring Field courtesy dinghy dock. And this change order is in the amount of $22,464. Staff is recommending that the board approve change order number four to Underwater Engineering Services, UESI, in the amount of $22,464. And move that the board authorize the county administrator or designee to execute all documents related to this request. And that concludes this item. Questions on the Marty item? Would you like to make a comment? Okay. I am Karen Deagle. I'm the CEO of Senior Resource Association. We'll be doing business as Martin County Transit. And I just want to say thank you. After you award this, we really are looking forward to working with all of you, being partners with you, and providing the service for this community. And actually, we are looking forward to partnering and enhancing the overall service in this community for transportation. So thank you for considering us. And you know, Ms. Deagle's operation has been managing Indian River County, and they're one of the highest rated services in the state for small operations. So we're lucky to have them. Questions? Commissioner Campy. Yes, I want to echo Administrator Donaldson's praise for SRA. For both of you, I've had, and I would mention to my new colleagues, I took a day and spent riding around with them up in with some of our staff riding around in Indian River County to see if we're classified as, you know, similar sister counties, if you will, how their system is over a million riders a year, and we're in the low hundred thousands. And they have a remarkable system, the two of them and their team. We could not be in better hands than we are with you all. I know that when we were trying to negotiate, I had to twist his arm behind his back a little bit, but I think we got the best deal that we could. And I apologize for that. I'm sure you'll speedy road to your recovery. Thank you. Any further questions or comments? Is there a motion to approve? Yes, there is. So moved. There's a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? That motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you. See you on the bus. Commissioners, you want to take the agenda in order or you want to go out of order? Let's go in order. Okay. Is that okay? So department, uh, well, public hearing two, right? Yeah, they put them together. I only remember abstaining from one. Did we, did we, um, Commissioner Hurd? I just want to make sure that last vote that was, was separated for that one item. I don't, okay. We vote, we voted separately. Yeah. Okay. All right. Yeah. Thank you. You're covered. Commissioner Capps. Sorry. I, I don't have a comment. I'm sorry. Okay. The first, I want to make sure that the second one, we will take up, uh, year amendment, public hearing number two, year, year amendment, uh, 2414 capital improvements element. Mr. Doolin. Before we start chapter 14, um, I'd like to make a couple of introductory comments, commissioners. This is the, uh, adoption hearing, uh, the final, uh, hearing hopefully for the year-based amendments. Uh, the year-based amendment process started in 2023 with a community outreach and public workshop, the development of an evaluation and appraisal report. Um, the public hearings for the, uh, plan amendments have, uh, were all transmitted to the state land planning agency. Uh, the public hearings were all done in October for the transmittal of these amendments to the state land planning agency. And, uh, we've had two hearings, February 25 to begin seven amendments and March 11 to begin seven more amendments. And today we will be bringing you chapter 14 and four for the first time. And then the remainder of today will be, uh, items that were taken up, uh, on February 25 and March 11 and continued to today. Uh, this is the, uh, final adoption hearing for these, uh, 16 chapters of the comprehensive growth management plan. And, uh, this is a legislative public hearing or these are legislative public hearings. Um, if these amendments are not adopted within 180 days of the, uh, evaluation, I'm sorry, the orc report having been issued on December 30, uh, we will, they will be considered withdrawn by the state land planning agency and we'll have to begin the process anew. Uh, and with that, I'll turn it over, turn this public hearing chapter 14 over, uh, to miss, uh, Jenna Nobby. Good morning, members of the board. My name is Jenna Nobby, senior planner with the growth management department. And this is a request to consider the adoption of comprehensive plan amendment 24-14, a text amendment to chapter 14 capital improvements element of the comprehensive growth management plan based upon the 2024 year. When this item was transmitted to the state land planning agency for review back in October, there was a comment that was provided to us to include the fiscal year 2025 capital improvements plan or the CIP as part of this amendment. So to comply with this comment that we received, we have included the summary sheets from the adopted FY 2025 CIP as exhibit B to the ordinance that would adopt this text amendment. So to review what the proposed changes are in chapter 14, we have that the level of service standards in policy 14.182 are being revised for consistency with chapter one, chapter five, chapter 10, chapter 11, and chapter 13. The level of service standards in policy 14.184 or sorry, 14.182 related to life support and fire suppression are being consolidated at the request of the fire rescue department. There has been an emphasis throughout the chapter to differentiate between potable water systems and stormwater management systems, just to make sure that that clarification is there. The level of service standards related to state and federal roadways in policies 14.184 and 14.185 are being consolidated. And there are a few places that we have removed public transit from the requirements for level of service standards, because the county does not have a level of service standard for public transit. And Florida statute preempts local governments from using public transit facilities towards concurrency requirements. There are also a few places that we have removed the word mandatory from classifying public facilities. This is because impact fees are collected at the time of building permit, and the county no longer classifies its public facilities as either mandatory or non-mandatory. And lastly, there is a point of clarification that I wanted to bring up. So this paren one right here for county ocean beaches and beach facilities, staff is recommending that the underlying text here for capita be removed and that the existing text for per 1000 population remain as it is. This was just a mistake that we want to clarify on the record. So the text should read nine paved or unpaved parking spaces per 1000 population. And with that, that concludes staff's presentation. We recommend approval of this proposed tax amendment to chapter 14 and we are available for any questions. Questions from Ms. Nabe. I have a couple. Um, one, the first one is on page 395 and deals with the, the, um, fire rescue response times. And, and I know that we, I had questions about this too. And I, before, and I still am not, uh, satisfied that my questions have been answered, uh, because it looks to me like we're diminishing or lengthening the, the amount of time that we respond from six minutes in urban areas to eight minutes. Good morning, commissioners, Matt Rush, fire rescue administrator. So I think some of the confusion lies in the, that the current standard implies that the services of advanced life support, ALS basic life support, BLS and fire suppression are provided on separate trucks and therefore can respond at different response times. And that's simply not the case. Obviously, everything's combined. Um, and we just chose to consolidate all those services into the standard that's already set forth in the, in the standard at eight minutes for ALS for inside the urban service boundary and 20 minutes outside. And those response guidelines are consistent with NFPA, National Fire Protection Association Standard 1710, which outlines guidelines for response criteria for emergency medical operations, fire suppression, and special operations. Well, I'm sorry. We didn't change anything. We just consolidated it. Well, except that you did change it. You changed it from six minutes in the urban areas to eight and 15 minutes in the rural areas to 20. Uh, fire chief, Chad, Jane, Julie, Martin County fire rescue. So commissioner, again, this is language that was predated before fire rescue was even merged into one agency because it used to be fire and EMS separate. We do not have basic life support trucks on the street. That is a lower level of service. BLS is a lower level of service. That's what you're talking about. We have advanced life support, which means every unit we have on the, on the road has a paramedic on it. If you're talking about, let's first talk about outside the urban service district, we're talking about 20 minutes. 20 minutes is a standard that we have today. We've been talking about this standard for a while, and there are areas that we're not even meeting that 20 minutes inside the urban service district with what we have. We're saying that we have to respond within eight minutes of time, 90% of the time. We have areas in Palm City right now. We're only hitting that at 77% of the time. We are not meeting the level of service that you're talking about in the comprehensive plan in Western Palm City today. If you told us to reduce this to an unreasonable time of a standard six minute response, 90% of the time you're going to have to build multiple fire stations throughout this community to staff with multiple trucks and additional personnel that we currently do not have. That's the only way we can meet your six minute response. If that's the direction that you're giving us, then that's the direction that we need to advise you of what we need to do to accomplish it. Thank you. Also, Ms. Navi on page 396, we're doing away with level of service C in favor of level of service D. Why? So in this paren one right here, the A through D is being stricken because it is all being consolidated within this paragraph. So the level of service in B and C here is covered with this second part about the strategic intermodal system and those funded with the trip in accordance with Florida statute. Sorry. We're not getting rid of it. It's just being covered as part of this underlined text here. But it's a level of service D instead of C. It says or as designated by the Florida Department of Transportation for those facilities. So I believe that's where it would be covered. Yeah, it's going from C to D. That's the question that I have. And I know that D means unstable flow. It's it's nearing. It's you know, you can your D is is it's okay to sit through two revolutions or three revolutions of lights. And that's okay. That's the standard that we're shooting for. That has been the standard in Martin County. So for for all the time is a level of service D. You know, the a level service C would require, you know, multi laning all of our roads to maintain that free flow of service. So level service D has been has been the standard in in in Martin County, actually, for we have several roads that exceed that where they're constrained. U.S. one through the city of Stewart, for instance, it exceeds that level service. And and U.S. one north and Jensen Beach also exceeds that level service, but they've been constrained and not been able to widen to urban expressways, etc. to meet the level service. Well, and our all of our CRAs have transportation concurrency exception areas, which says we've just given up. That's correct. Commissioner Vargas. I just had a question that about the eight minute versus 20 minute. I mean, people move out way west, and they know the service time is going to be longer, you know, building stations at what at 17 million dollars a station. That's that's we can't afford this. So I I'm not understanding the discussion back and forth eight minutes within urban service 20. Well, it was six before. Yeah. Okay. Well, more traffic on the road. Absolutely. And that's what I see. And then people approving developments way out west. So and those people that go out there and live out there, they they know what they you know what the give and take is for that. So chief comment. I have lots of comments. Not today. It's just it's just confusing with the urban service district. I understand that for old language. And I think for the for the layman perspective, identifying basic life support versus advanced life support. It's as simple as this. We have paramedics today, which is the highest level of service that you can have. Back when this was created, we did not have paramedics. At every station on every truck. So the level of service you're receiving today is a level of service that Martin County not only expects, but deserves. So we're doing it right. But we still have issues as far as meeting the current demands the way the comp plan is written today. We still have strains on the system that at some point need to be addressed. Thank you. Welcome. Ms. Elder. Yes, Elise Elder, deputy county attorney. So the state land planning agency requires that all of these amendments be adopted and transmitted at the same time, because chapter four might have potential revisions and might not get adopted today. I'm going to ask that the board instead of voting to approve this public hearing to continue it to the other to the end of the day, just in case chapter four does not get passed today and then we are not in a predicament. Okay. Commissioner Capps. Yes, this is really basic. What are the consequences of failing levels of service in our comp plan with regard to response times for the fire department and with regard to failing roads that are not meeting the levels of service? Are these standards that we put forth in the comp plan an aspiration or are they really required? What are the consequences when we just don't meet the standard? So the first, it's easier I think the transportation for me to explain in that when the comp plan was adopted and really until a few years ago, the level of service established in transportation was a concurrency item. And once you failed that level of service, new development could not be approved along that corridor when you exceeded that level of service. Or you had to have a improvement in your capital improvement plan that showed you were had something on the books to build to meet that concurrency. And there was a whole bunch of, you know, nuances to how that would improve. But essentially, so that fall under what they would call the adequate public facilities ordinance. The state preempted our ability to use transportation concurrency to prohibit the development order. It still has a measure of influence on dealing with what they call a proportionate fair share. So if your project causes the adjacent roadway to fail level of service, you can require the developer development to contribute a proportionate fair share in addition to their impact fees. Today, if the level of service fails and a new development comes in and it's already failed, you cannot make them do proportionate fair share at additional charge because the state says you failed to properly plan for the widening of the road. Therefore, you cannot punish the new developer. That's, as I understand, the basic rules of transportation concurrency. There are similar requirements along the other levels of concurrency. I think water and sewer is probably the only one left that you can truly, if you don't have adequate water, you can't give a development order for, other than that, all the other, all the others. They are closer to aspirational than they are to regulatory, but some of them still have some regulatory hooks. Thank you. Commissioner Hetherington. This question would be for the chief. Sorry, I tried to get you before you got off center stage. As I interpret this language too, when we're now eliminating ALS and BLS, if we choose to go a different direction in the future where we have a paramedic on many trucks, if not all, now providing the BL, the ALS, correct? So right now we are just 100 percent ALS, which means we have a paramedic on every truck, yes. So, and while I don't see that in the near future, but if we have to say we can't have a paramedic on every truck or we decide that we want to configure this, this gives us the flexibility to do that, right? It does not give us the flexibility to do that. It sticks with advanced life support, and you don't, that's a direction you don't want to move in. The problem with when you determine advanced life support versus basic life support, if you put that all on a dispatcher, that means when the phone call comes into 911, it's almost making a dispatcher figure out what's going on medically with a patient on the other side of the phone, and you don't get information like that. So for them to send a BLS truck instead of a paramedic, those could have some consequences that would result in some pretty negative outcomes. The language I see says response for life support and fire suppression, therefore removing the ALS and BLS. So I don't, I'm making sure that it doesn't have language that commits us to something. If we can't get paramedics on our trucks in the future, that there is flexibility in the comp plan that we are able to do that as the labor force changes. Commissioner, if I may step in here. You're right in your insinuation on what you were just saying. It just now, the standard would be eight minutes. So if it was, if it was a truly a BLS truck, even though we're not going to call it a BLS truck, the standard would be eight minutes. Okay. I'm just more concerned about this, the language. It combines ALS and BLS into response for life support and suppression, which covers basically a larger umbrella. So that language response for life support and fire suppression is not dictating ALS or BLS. Would you concur? Okay. So that leaves us a little bit of flexibility. I'm not so much concerned at the time is how we can respond if we need to, uh, in the future organize our departments based on the, the labor force we have. It leaves flexibility, right? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Vargas. Yeah. Oh, uh, I'd like to ask a question. Uh, uh, chairwoman Hurd, what are your concerns and reservations about this? Can you, well, lowering level of levels of service, more traffic on the road, but there's a lot of, uh, approval of developments. It's already in the pipeline. You know, just, just, uh, lengthening the response times and lowering the levels of service that we expect on our roads is disheartening. You know, this is, this is the result. This is what happens when you overdevelop. That's correct. Absolutely correct. Lowering your standard until it's correct with no concern for this very vital service. So Mr. Campy. Thank you. I was going to sit this one out, but I need to speak to the chief simply because, um, I don't know how many people are watching or listen to these meetings, but let's assume that everyone that is, is very interested in what's happening in their community. Chief, you've heard a couple of times now, the, my colleagues concerned that you are lowering the level of service and that somehow people will not be protected at the level that they have expected, have received and, and are entitled to. You have, what's your background and how long, what's your experience level as, as a member of fire rescue? So I've been with Martin County fire rescue for 29 years now, and I had the privilege to move up through the ranks from a basic firefighter EMT to the classification of a firefighter paramedic, which is your advanced life support to a Lieutenant first station officer, which is now a captain, as well as a shift commander, which is a battalion chief. And then through the ranks of our administration to the current fire chief. So if I can just look back 29 years and to where we are today, our level of service has drastically, and I mean, drastically increased. Our response times have gotten much better. Um, just the operation of how fluid it is today. It is light years different. Even if I take you back five years ago. So the, the pledge that we make to the community, the community is when you have a need for 911, we will be there and we will be there in a timely manner. Um, but our level of service has definitely increased, not decreased. And that is not our intention. And to, to not misspeak on what I was referring to before, when we changed the terminology of of just emergency services responding for me, that baseline is advanced life support. Like BLS is just not even in that for a discussion at all. Um, because that is a decrease in a level of service. Thank you. The reason I ask you your level of career, we're five people, we're elected. We're not experts in each of these categories throughout the day today. We're going to be hearing from experts. As far as I'm concerned, you're as, as expert as it is, especially it's not like you've been in 30 years of fire rescue somewhere else. You did it here. Um, and so when you hear even the, the possibility that somehow your department will be lowering its service under your leadership, uh, you've just said absolutely not the case, correct? That is correct. Now, if it's an opinion, everyone's entitled to one, but I just want our residents to hear from the chief who we tasked to do this, that there is absolutely no version, no matter what this language says. And this language is not something that our staff, and we're going to hear it repeatedly today, desire to do. It's state mandated. I just want our residents, some of these other issues don't affect everybody, but what we're talking about here with response times and level of service and having people be concerned that they had it here and now it's lower based on some things that we, our staff did or will vote on today. You don't feel that's the case. That's correct. I do not. Thank you. I make a motion to post to continue this to the end of the day with your thanks, with my thanks to you and the department. I'm going to stay to the side over here. Thank you. Continuing to the end of the day? Yes. Just until we can sort of wrap it up at the end after chapter four, correct? Okay. I will second that. Any further comment? There's a motion and a second to continue the item. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? That motion passes unanimously. We will move on to public hearing number three, which is a public hearing to consider adoption of year amendment 24-04 chapter four, which is the future land use element. Good morning members of the board. My name's Clyde Doolin. I'm your comprehensive planning administrator. Uh, chapter four is been described as the heart of the comprehensive plan. Uh, and so there are more items here to talk about. Uh, there are 10 items listed in the staff report that we went over in October. And so I'll try to briefly touch on them, uh, here today, uh, for the adoption public hearing, uh, tables four, one, four, two, four, three, and four, four were updated, uh, with new tabular data, uh, to show changes in acreages. Uh, one of the most substantial changes in the chapter in those tables was the village of Indian town incorporation, which changed all of our land use acreages, uh, throughout, especially, uh, had an effect on table for two, but also on for one. Um, the department of transportation also made a comment that a, some additional changes were needed for concurrency in section 4.2, a 12. And so I'm going to go to that page. So shown in yellow are some language, some language, uh, that was not presented in October that is presented in response to the objections, recommendations and comments report from the state land planning agency and specifically from the DOT. We've revised some acreages for industrial land here. This, these acreages are revised consistent with the 2023 commercial industrial lands analysis, which gets into much more granular detail on the industrial and commercial land than does the table 4.1 and 4.2, uh, earlier in this chapter. We updated the acreages in, uh, paren B for commercial land, also based on the commercial industrial land analysis. Uh, the utility acreages, uh, in, paren C and the institutional acreages in, paren D are based upon table 4.2, uh, shown earlier in the, in the chapter. Uh, also I should touch on table 4.2, uh, when we transmitted in October, omitted the acreage of the, uh, what is essentially the, um, Pineland Prairie property. I'm going to go scrolling backwards to table 4.2 just briefly to show that we added in that acreage. If it ever shows up, there you go. Mixed two state village acreage was added into the table that was not included previously. So that's item one in the staff report. Um, item two in the staff report, uh, parcel control number is proposed, uh, for addition to policy 4.7 a 14 for allowable development, uh, outside the primary urban service district. This is specifically to allow water and sewer to a property that's been purchased by Martin County that sits between the solid waste transfer station and the recycling facility and, and, and the seven J's industrial park. Um, this is effectively providing water sewer to the same area that is already being, uh, provided water and sewer. Item three in the staff report is a text proposed, uh, for chapter four that simply makes it internally consistent with proposed changes in chapter nine regarding the composite wetlands map. Uh, chapter nine removes the composite wetlands map because it is somewhat dated, uh, material from the 1980s. Item four in the staff report is also a change for internal consistency with chapter eight coastal management element. Uh, it, uh, deals just, just for internal consistency with the other changes dealing with, uh, uh, hazards and, um, so on in chapter eight. Item five in the staff report, uh, deals with the natural resources conservation soil data. Uh, that language is, um, being reflected also in other chapters like chapter nine, uh, because we want to add in the soil, the more recent and more, uh, more recently obtained USDA soils data in addition to the 1981 soil survey data, which has been recognized in the comprehensive plan for a long time. That's not taking anything away. That's just adding more data available for, for use. Item six in the staff report, uh, is a change to chapter four so that it's consistent with the barrier island regulations described in chapter eight. It's, uh, it's, uh, rep referencing flood risk and title inundation. Um, this is, uh, a requirement of Florida statute that we be up to date on title, uh, inundation and flood risk and hazard mitigation. Item seven deals with Florida statute. This is a requirement in Florida statute that is, uh, directly, uh, is being done in, in made in all of the chapters is a reflection of planning periods. The state says we have to have at least 10 and 20 year planning periods. Um, we have in many cases, uh, we've known a 15 year planning period throughout our plan. Um, this is a difficult issue because some of the language can be adapted easily to list of 10, 15, and 20 year planning periods. Some of the language, uh, really does not adapt well to having three periods instead of two periods. It will require additional thresholds to be drafted, additional language to be created that, uh, changes the intent and the meaning of a lot of the text. And, uh, staff would recommend simply changing to 10 and 20 as directed by state statute, uh, in both chapter four and in, uh, the other chapters of the comp plan. Uh, item eight in the staff report deals with the permitting of shared infrastructure between different land uses. Um, I'll go to page 796. Uh, we showed this language highlighted in yellow to the board at the October transmittal hearing describing shared infrastructure between residential and commercial development may share infrastructure roads, utilities, stormwater, and preserve areas. Staff would offer a bit more specific language, uh, shown here the alternative text, which says residential and commercial development may share certain infrastructure specifically access, utilities, stormwater, and preserve areas within a single development. Um, in looking at, in looking at the language between transmittal and adoption, we think a little tweak to this makes it a bit more clear. Uh, item nine in the staff report discusses the disconnecting of planning periods from the residential capacity analysis. Uh, I'll go to page 775. Well, the underlying language is the, is the text here proposed for addition. The language that is embedded in this paragraph talks about when you expand the primary or secondary urban service district, uh, based upon your, your planning periods and your residential capacity. And this proposed text says Martin County shall not make residential capacity analysis, the sole determining factor for amending the urban service districts and all decisions to amend urban service districts shall be policy decisions consistent with goal 4.7 and supporting policies. This is intended to, um, retain and maintain the policy function of the board's decision and not be, um, restricted to any particular methodology or changes in, in population that, that would cause a change in methodology or what have you. Um, and item nine, I'm sorry, item 10 in the staff report, uh, deals with the residential capacity analysis and changes to that, uh, methodology. Uh, primarily it would disconnect the methodology from the United States census and being dependent upon the decennial census every 10 years. And, um, also it would not count vacant residential housing units. Uh, when the language was put into the plan, uh, it, uh, we had a, uh, excess of vacant residential housing units. And, uh, that is, that is not the case today in the current economy. Uh, and so, uh, staff would recommend removing that part of it from the methodology. I will note that the comp plan says that the methodology should be revisited every five years for adjustment. And, uh, this is just a minor adjustment that is required by the comp plan to consider, uh, revisiting that language. Uh, and so the, that covers the highlights of the staff report. I've covered a couple of items, uh, that, uh, were, were identified in the, uh, work report. Um, there is one other in the work report. I wanted to touch upon. There was a reference. Oh, here it is. We omitted, uh, noting the fact that there are now five municipalities. Uh, so we would need to strike the word for and, and underline the word five in this paren, uh, 4.2 a eight, uh, just as an example of a housekeeping function that's being done in many, many, many, many portions of this text and in all the chapters is just recognizing changes in local conditions. Um, with that, I will, uh, end the staff presentation on chapter four and be happy to take any questions. Questions for staff. Uh, I do. First of all, I'm on page, I'm on table four one, uh, which are, um, land uses and the numbers are inconsistent or nonsensical and they're inconsistent with the, the, uh, figures in chapter or in, in table four two. Um, and Mr. Doolin on page seven fifty one under 1000 vacant commercial, which number is the, is the real number? There are two bottom of page seven, five, one that not vacant commercial. They can commercial. Yeah. I believe it should be, uh, I'll have to get back to you commissioner. Okay. Vacant industrial, which is on the next page is, um, 4,000. Uh, it's on one table. It's 330 on another table. It's, uh, 353. Um, so our tables are inconsistent. Uh, are you referring to this word? My cursor is 4,000 vacant industrial. Yeah. Yeah. Three 30. And also it's inconsistent with the number of vacant industrial on, on table four two, as are a lot of other ones. Commercial general commercial limited is also inconsistent. Ag tech is inconsistent. Um, according to the check, the table for two, uh, now 9,000 acres per year have developed since 2017. And that's even with the, the, the rural lifestyle. That number is just not approaching believability. So somebody needs to, uh, correct these numbers. If we're going, I think they're really important numbers to have. We really need to know how many developed acres we have in any future land use and how many undeveloped acres we have, because that determines whether there's a surplus or whether there's a, a, uh, it's inadequate, but these numbers don't help us because they're not, they're not consistent from table to table. Um, and I also think that we need to have both a 15 year planning period and a 20, if we're, if we're, uh, required to have a 20 year planning horizon by the state, I still think that we need to have a 15 year planning period so that we can more responsibly, uh, plan rather than trying to look 20 years in the future. Um, on page 765, the alternative text is, uh, preferable when you say on page 765, Martin County shall not make residential capacity analysis, the sole determining factor for amending the urban service district. What are the other factors that will determine, uh, amending the urban service districts? Uh, there are eight criteria in, uh, objective 4.7, uh, for the primary urban service district. And there are eight criteria in an objective 4.7 for the secondary urban service district. Those are the, the primary criteria for, uh, expand decisions on expanding the primary or the secondary, but all plan policies are applicable. Okay. Um, well, so on page 768, um, future residential requirements for industrial land. Once again, these, uh, figures are completely inconsistent with the figures that are quoted, um, on page 755. Uh, I mean, they're off by thousands. Commissioner, the, the industrial and the commercial are not coming from, uh, table 4.1 or 4.2. They are coming from the commercial industrial land analysis. Uh, they are far more granular and far more specific and detailed analysis. There are the, uh, tables 4.1 and 4.2 are a macro analysis of these 360 acres of, um, I'm sorry, 365,000 acres that is Martin County. And they are based upon property appraiser data. And, uh, they are not going to be comparable to the much, much more granular, much more specific analysis done in a commercial industrial land analysis where a consultant bears down on just the commercial land and just the industrial land, which is a tiny fraction of the 365,000 acres that is Martin County. So the 2023 industrial and commercial land analysis stated in conclusion that or concluded that, uh, there were twice as many undeveloped acres of land of industrial land in Martin County as there were developed. That means according to this, then there are 5,000 acres of undeveloped industrial in Martin County, according to the 2023, uh, industrial and commercial analysis. Is that correct? I'm not following your analysis. That's what the 2023 analysis said is that there are twice as many undeveloped acres of industrial as there are developed. And this says that there are 2,559 acres of developed industrial. This does say there are 2,559 already developed or may be developed for industrial use. And that 2,559 includes an allocation of 700 acres of the ag tech property, which is not developed. So that is accepted, except that on figure four, one, it is, it's a zero undeveloped figure four, one does reflect the property appraisers classification of that land being used for agricultural purposes that it is being used. It's not the same way that it's not being used for industrial purposes, but the property appraiser does recognize it as being used. Well, in that case, every school, every, every acre of our, uh, agricultural is, is developed. And that's why the, the notes in the, those tables reflect the fact that those are based on property appraisers, department of revenue codes, and they, and they are not the same as the way we look at development for vertical construction of industrial or commercial use. This, this needs to be useful and it needs to be a planning document and it can't be a planning document because there's so it's riddled with inconsistencies. I don't know which figure to rely upon. I just, I just look, if you just look at it industrial, if you don't even look at residential, I, I have no idea how on earth you can do a, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, reasonable look at residential capacity and analysis when you have such widely varying figures for what's developed and what's undeveloped in every one of the future land uses. We do not use those tables for the commercial industrial. We do not use those tables for the residential capacity. Those are a gross approximation based upon property appraiser data. If the board would like to have tables for one and four to recrafted in entirely different fashion with entirely different categories, we would be replicating much of what the property appraiser does, but with a whole different set of categories and a whole different way of doing things that would require an extensive out, uh, project by a consultant. Uh, that would be a, a multi many hundreds of thousands of dollars to create those tables in a completely different fashion. You know, we've, we've been at these ear amendments now for a very long time. We spent a hundred thousand dollars in order to craft these and we are, are, uh, this at the public hearings or the workshops to, um, meet with the public and, and ask what they expected of our next year. The residents spoke, uh, overwhelmingly in favor of strengthening our plan. And all this does is just obfuscate. This is not, this is not an improvement. It's, it's, it's, it's a reduction in our protections that we, we don't have to adopt these today commissioners. We have until June 1st, June 28th, in order to revise, uh, these chapters. And it would be my strong suggestion that we, we do just that because chapter four is unsatisfactory. It doesn't give us a good framework for planning our future. I'll continue on. There's also on page 792, a prohibition on, uh, freestanding secondary urban service districts. Uh, do you know why there isn't a prohibition of freestanding urban service districts in the primary? Um, I'm sorry, commissioner. We're not proposing to make any changes in this section of the plan. I'm just asking a historic question because if they're, if they're prohibited in freestanding secondary urban service districts, I would presume that there's a good rationale behind that. And I wonder why they have been allowed in the primary urban service district. I don't know of any pre freestanding primary urban service districts, commissioner, other than perhaps the village of Indian town before it became a village. Right. So all of the freestanding urban service boundaries are outside any urban service district. And yet they cannot be in the secondary. They can only be outside the primary and the secondary. The only freestanding, uh, urban service districts are industrial and only industrial and not primary or secondary. And they're whole, well, they're wholly outside of the primary urban service boundary. I'm just wondering why the secondary, uh, urban service district prohibits the creation of freestanding urban service districts. I don't know the thinking at the time that that was drafted. Well, it does say policy 4.7 C two on page 793 does say, uh, Martin County shall not establish new isolated primary or secondary urban service districts. And that's not a new policy. So why do we have new freestanding urban service districts? We don't have, we have freestanding industrial urban service districts, which are neither primary nor secondary. It says that you should, we shall not establish new isolated primary or secondary urban service districts. We have four freestanding urban service districts in, uh, even though the comp plan prohibits them. I beg to differ. The policy for industrial development permits a freestanding industrial urban service district is neither a primary nor a secondary. Those are the preliminary questions that I have. Once again, commissioners, I'm, I am confident that we can, uh, resolve, um, the inconsistencies and create a better planning document in chapter four. If we're allowed to work on it for another couple months with staff doing that work for us. Um, but it's, it's absolutely not, not ready to go today. And also I think that there are, is the need for some new policies in chapter four and those pertain to protecting our Western lands. Um, they've been, uh, in other jurisdictions, including Miami. Miami has, has for many years, had a requirement that any changes outside the primary urban service boundary requires a super majority vote, any change. I would propose that in Martin County, any proposal to increase density outside of our primary urban service boundary would require a super majority vote. Any proposal to expand our primary urban service boundary or secondary would require a super majority vote. Any proposal to change or sell county conservation lands would require a super majority vote. Uh, we're poised to spend a whole lot of money, a whole lot of Martin County money, 200 million dollars on purchasing conservation lands. And we need to make sure that they're protected. And these will definitely provide us with addition, an additional layer of protection, which I'm sure our residents would be grateful. Mr. Campy. Thank you. You unpacked quite a bit there. So my comments that I had initially planned have changed a bit while you, when you had begun, well, let me preface it by saying this. I know that even the last time we met, we talked about how important chapter four was going to be, how it had tentacles that ran into many of the other chapters. So we really needed to focus our attention on chapter four. I think we all agreed and that it was going to be for today. And then when you started going through your list and I appreciate your thorough review of these chapters, you've been up here for a long, long time, longer than any of the rest of us. You've seen these. Is this your third or fourth year potentially, right? Probably fourth. Yeah. So that being said, some of our staff is also multiple decades at this. Some of the rest of us have not. I was starting to jot down based on your more administrative, housekeeping, clerical changes and deciding if I agreed or disagreed with what you said. And then I was almost going to make the recommendation that maybe we should address your issues one at a time versus hearing 15 of them and then trying to remember back to the original ones. Or if I agreed with some and didn't, that we could hear from our colleagues and sort of go through. So the first half of everything that you discussed, I would be willing, especially when we hear from our legal counsel that there's not a shot clock running today. That means we have to finalize this by this afternoon. Now we could have, but we didn't have to. So I know after chapter four, and for the people that are listening, we're about to run through all of the other chapters. But if we don't agree, or at least three people agree up or down on what chapter four should look like, we're not, there's no reason to do the rest of them today. So I think we need to, here's my humble suggestion. We alter today's agenda to put some of those on hold and focus our attention on chapter four, because if we don't get past chapter four, the rest of them are temporarily moot. So Commissioner Hurd had housekeeping ones, and I agreed with almost each of the examples that she mentioned. If 20 years is the state mandate, is there any mandate that says we can have a 15-year one? I know what you said about if you're doing it twice, it'll change things. But at the end of the day, you, you as staff, and those of us that want to see this process move forward, have to get to three. And with new colleagues and not sure, there's not a history of their voting patterns. I think it's a pretty fluid board. We're not sure exactly if we'd get past four. And I would prefer, I think our residents would prefer that we have more cohesiveness of the five of us versus everything be a three to two or a four to one or whatever the case may be. However, when Commissioner Hurd then went into the second portion of her comments, what says, I think we need to start adding in big changes. I might agree with some of those changes, but it's not a fair process to have an empty room where some people, whether they are for these changes or opposed to these changes, hers or ours or collective, are not afforded the process of being here to say something. Some people will think what Commissioner Hurd is saying is fantastic, and others, probably in the split community that we seem to live in in this country, will think those are terrible ideas. At the end of the day, we'll still vote on them, but I think we can't bring up brand new ideas that Commissioner Hurd has just mentioned that I'm hearing for the first time. I assume everybody is. She's not allowed. Most people still don't understand. We're not allowed to speak to each other outside of this meeting. I would prefer to maybe go line by line on some of her more housekeeping issues. Let's knock them down. Let's get them. If she feels that the figures in 4.1 and 4.2 don't exactly consistently match some of the other places where there are reference points, I was listening to that until I also respect your opinion very much, Mr. Doolin, where you said, well, if this is a certain type of table and this is a different table, although they're referencing comparable information, they're looked at from two different directions. I agree with you and I disagree with Commissioner Hurd. That's her opinion. On that particular case, I hear you and I accept your explanation that just because they're in a table or a figure doesn't mean they're going to be exactly the same. I get that. I was thinking that we could add footnotes that say if you're looking at figure 4.1, it doesn't necessarily mean that it will be consistent across all of the tables that you will see in the rest of this document. The 15 and the 20, more planning. I don't think anybody, especially in Martin County, disagrees with more planning. If you make a case that says we'd have to reinvent the entire com plan because this is just totally disruptive of what we've done thus far, I will take that into consideration. Some of the other points that she was making, I don't disagree with some of that, but a supermajority for this and supermajority for that, I think we would need to hold. So I don't think to go through the next 16 chapters, if we're not going to get to the end of the day, let's spend that time more constructively and just discuss some of these chapter four things. And then if Commissioner Hurd wants to put out the Hurd doctrine today about this is new and this is new and this is new and this is new, and she feels comfortable that she can get to two of the rest of us to agree with that new philosophy, put it on the agenda, publicize it like a public meeting, let everyone come here that thinks it's a good idea or a bad idea, and let's discuss it. If she can get to three votes on the things that she thinks she likes, maybe I'll be one of those votes on some of it. Some, I'm leery of unintended consequences. She might be leery of those unintended consequences that lean in the opposite direction that I'm thinking. I'm huge with property rights. I want people to have the ability to do that, but I'm also not a big fan, especially lately, of just giving the farm away as an analogy. So I don't know what my colleagues think, but I think there's no reason to go through the rest of the chapters if at the end of the day we haven't figured out four. We're not going to get to the finish line today. Commissioner Kapps. I appreciate all the detailed analysis. What I would say initially is nothing is perfect. We can beat this thing to death with endless scrutinization, but at the end of the day we have to accept something and move forward. We have more issues to take care of later, you know, as we, you know, proceed with issues that affect county government. We can't dwell on this forever. The comp plan is a living document. We can initiate changes to the plan at any time. I think we need to make decisions and move on. The ear amendment, chapter four, future land use is the most important one of all 16 amendments that we will take up today. It deals with how our county will grow in the future. There are 10 proposed changes to this chapter, three of which are major changes. The first major change is, quote, permitting the sharing of infrastructure between different future land uses, unquote. I think this could lead to more unexpected growth, so I favor our current rule of not allowing the sharing of infrastructure. The second major change is, quote, disconnecting the planning periods from the residential capacity analysis and making it a guideline instead of a directive, unquote. Making residential capacity a mere guideline would weaken the importance of residential capacity as the main guideline for establishing the location of the urban services boundary. So I favor keeping residential capacity as a directive. It has worked well for 43 years, so I don't favor this change. The third major change is, quote, eliminating dependence on decennial census data and the residential capacity analysis methodology, unquote. This has to do with excess vacant housing, that is whether to include foreclosure houses that existed during the Great Recession in our residential capacity analysis. I favor the current policy of leaving this in the comp plan, since we could have another recession in the future. So I'm prepared to make a motion. I move staff recommendation of the proposed changes to chapter four, except the ones related to, number one. Number one, permitting the sharing of infrastructure between different future land uses. Number two, disconnecting the planning periods from the residential capacity analysis and making it a guideline instead of a directive. And number three, eliminating dependence on decennial census data and the residential capacity analysis methodology. And I'll end with one more comment. I favor just going with the 10 and 20 year planning periods. One of the big problems with the comp plan is it's so hard to understand for regular folks. We are bound by the 10 and 20 year planning planning periods according to Florida statute. I don't think it serves us a whole lot of good to have another big analysis of what 15 is because it's not relevant. It's not controlling. It doesn't govern us. Um, so I would just favor going with the 10 and 20. So hopefully my motion was clear enough. Commissioner Hetherington. Yes, I don't I don't disagree with a lot of you said Commissioner Capps. Um, I do. On the first one of sharing infrastructure. I can think of at least one real life example. Um, that has occurred while that sounds really good that because a project couldn't share infrastructure, as in IE a road from one side of the property to the other. Um, there was then the factor that they wanted to go commercial. And therefore, it would be out of our hands if they choose to go and have, um, SB 102 live local. So I can see that there are instances where that shared infrastructure, meaning a road from one side of the other would allow, um, us as a board and a county more discretion. I won't mention a particular project, but, um, there are some, there was a, there are at least one real life example that I can think of that makes me think, although while your other suggestions, mostly agreed with that, that particular policy would benefit the residents, um, in there because taking that out sometimes forces the hand to live local. And then we have zero discretion over that. And I can think of one example that's happening right now because of it. Commissioner Campy. Thank you, Chair. Uh, Mr. Doolin, can you, since now I've heard difference of opinions of colleagues that I respect, can you explain again for those that are listening at home or watching exactly what this is about and, you know, give us a little more, um, understanding of what this is? Sure. Uh, we have redevelopment and infill development occurring in our urban service district. That's where our growth is, uh, planned for. And we have circumstances where one property owner owns two, owns property, but it has two different future land use designations on it. It may have residential on one portion, commercial on another portion. And, uh, the access, just as one example, may be most easily taken from a major arterial road like us one or canter highway. Um, and to make access to the residential portion may be impossible, or it may require impacting us another area to get to the residential. Our land use designations are right now supposed to carry and, and handle all of the necessary infrastructure for that given use. Uh, stormwater roads, et cetera. This would take away any, uh, this would enable the land use, both land uses to maybe use the same entrance off of a main road or to have the same, share the same stormwater. Uh, there are other circumstances where the best preserve area, the best habitat to be preserved is in one place or another. And you end up having to try and have a divided preserve area where part of the site is preserved in one way and part of the site is preserved in another way. This would allow you to have one preserve area for the, the total property. Uh, it's becoming quite common to, you know, in our, especially in our CRAs to have mixed use. And so we may, we have circumstances also where we may need to have a mixture of residential and commercial, or at least share on the same property, residential and commercial, but it may be separately in their land uses. This simply enables a, a more, um, coherent infrastructure design. Thank you. Follow up. You had mentioned, if you see here, we have it, uh, highlighted that it's struck through and then you have the underlying version. And in your presentation, you said you wanted to give it a little more specificity. So can you explain how you feel that the policy 4.9, A.3, the new language, why do you like the new language versus what was there? It limits you to these items listed, uh, access, utilities, stormwater, and preserve areas. And it doesn't open the door to perhaps other shared infrastructure. Which would have been what? Open space. Yes. So if I look at the top one, uh, preserve areas is there, but open space, but you have access in the new version and roads eliminated from the original is access and roads comparable. You could have pathways instead of roads. Okay. So I guess to my colleague, commissioner caps, when you hear that and you hear commissioner Hetherington's concerns, how do you feel about that? Because I think that could potentially be, we're at a tipping point here. I think the sharing of infrastructure would lead to, um, uh, making, I think the unintended consequence would be, would be that, uh, there are developments that would not happen, uh, if you kept the rules the way they are and, uh, and developments that would end up happening. If you change this rule. And I mean, the, um, the current rules have stood the test of time and, um, uh, I think it could just lead to a lot of unintentional growth, um, by making, uh, infrastructure costs less costly and, uh, um, and, uh, to where development would mushroom. Commissioner Hetherington. Yeah, I, I, I completely respect and I understand your, your perspective. I would, I would support the other premises of your change. I just can think of an example, probably impacting my district that if this is not, um, that it would be a deal breaker for me to include your number one, because if this policy is not changed, then I do believe that live local will be exercised and, um, we will have no say and the residents will be very, um, very upset. And this particular change would actually impact that and could potentially impact that. And so I can't, I would support your motion if number one would not be included, because I believe that this would provide a solution to some of the issues that people are using live local for. Commissioner Vargas. Yeah. Um, my question is, and to commissioner caps point, I agree with your points, commissioner caps. How are we prevented from having live local? You built in our community, you know, if we, if we stick with one, what, what's the detriment there? Or if we go with number two, could, could you give me some guidance on that, please? I, it's difficult to envision, envision all circumstances. Live local is applicable to, uh, commercial properties or industrial properties. Um, it provides for an administrative approval of residential development for, uh, low income housing on either residential or commercial properties. Uh, it would, it, it, to some extent preempts a great deal of what, uh, our local regulations permit, uh, in those future land use designations. I can give you an example, Lee Seldor, deputy county attorney. So if you have a piece of property that say the back half is residential and the front half is commercial and that property owner cannot share infrastructure instead of, um, developing commercial in the front half and residential in the back, they could use live local to do residential in the front half, which would be higher density. And then they'd be able to do their road because live local will allow them to have residential there and they can do the road anyway. And they'd be able to share the infrastructure because you can't stop them from doing that because they're allowed to do residential and live local. So I think that's what commissioner Hetherington, the example that, um, might concern her. Um, so that would be the example that I could think of. I had not thought of that before. I will amend my motion to reflect, uh, those concerns. And, and, in other words, to knock out the, uh, the first one, uh, the sharing of infrastructure. And with that, I would second his motion. My, this is an old light. I would second it if you. Oh, I apologize. Uh, commissioner Hetherington would like to second that motion. I, I withdraw my second. Any other questions? Any other comments? So those are the only changes that you're proposing for chapter four, but all important chapter four. Okay. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Opposed? Opposed. That motion passes three to two with commissioner Vargas and Hurd dissenting. We will break for lunch and we will, we will be back at one 30. Oh, we didn't ask for public comment. I'm sorry, commissioner. Would anyone from the public like to address us? Thank you. Thanks. We are back. And before we take up our next item, which will be the con the continuation of the ear amendments, I believe we have some good news to impart. Do we? Yes. Good afternoon, commissioners. Macram, assistant county administrator, uh, John males with me as well. We just got back from, um, Palm Bay where the governor announced, um, with that, we are going to be receiving two grants, 12.5 million for Porcelaino, uh, New Monrovia, and then, um, another million for the S one, uh, canal enhancements. So, yes, very good news. So 12.5 million for Porcelaino, New Monrovia. Yeah. Yes, sir. Septic. Yeah. Program. Yes. Uh, John male, environmental resource administrator. So the S one canal is, uh, uh, that project is a project taking an existing county owned, uh, conveyance system where we've got a little bit of real estate on the far side of where we have access to that's got, um, uh, uh, significant exotic removal issue. And so we were kind of looking at ways to try to address that. And, and then we had, um, a partner come forward and suggest the concept of doing a channel enhancement within that drainage canal. So using a conveyance system to achieve some water quality, um, outcomes while also addressing the, um, the exotic removal element to that, to that area. So they're going to do that by creating some benching, um, meandering the stream, putting some material in the stream. That's, uh, that's a, uh, uh, a bio activated media that helps remove nutrients. And, uh, the neat thing about this, this concept is, um, when, when all the dust settles and we get through the, uh, procurement, we, we believe we'll have a private public partnership where the County is contributing about 200,000 for a 2 million plus project. Um, and it's also going to be the first time where we've partnered with FDACs, um, to fund a regional project that involves agricultural drainage. That's kind of a new thing with the state of Florida is, um, you know, they've, they've tightened up, uh, best management practices as much as they feel they can. And there's still issues to be addressed. And so there's the concept is, Hey, let's, let's fund some regional projects where we deal with that water as, as a public. And, uh, we're going to be one of the first partners in, in a project like that. Was that part of the, the, uh, resilience study that we received? Um, it, it was part and parcel to a, uh, a countywide water quality needs assessment that we updated in 2020. Um, that's where we identified the opportunity to do some channel enhancement, which would put water quality features into existing drainage. And so this will be the first project where we actually do something in that program. Great news. Thank you, gentlemen. Yeah. Fantastic. Good work. That's a big deal. And it certainly is a big deal for the new Monrovia, uh, subject to sewer project. That's, uh, we've been, you know, working on that for several years. So that'll make a significant difference in that neighborhood. So we'll be bringing back to, um, uh, that program and, uh, what we anticipate, uh, any assessments might need to be on that to get that, uh, our goal was to get it under, under $10,000 per, per resident. And we'll have to rebid that, right? That's correct. I think we're talking about the 1,000 homes, right? Yeah. 1,000 proper, 850 properties. 850 homes. That's fantastic. That's a big deal. Excellent job. As usual. What are the bids coming in like these days for septic? Let's keep this positive. No, they, uh, no, no, it, they have come up. We've been anticipating, you know, we're, we're, we're looking to, to, to keep our projects and the goal that you've set, um, prices have gone up on utility projects over the last several years, you know, after the great, you know, after, after COVID, they went up by about 50%. They've still been going up about 10% per year, but not at the rapid rate they did a few years ago. So we're, we're adjusting to it. Great. Okay. Let's take up number public hearing number four, which is an ear based amendment 24 dash zero one preamble. Good afternoon, commissioners. Jenna Nobby, senior planner with the growth management department. And I have Clyde Doolin, comprehensive planning administrator with me. So this is a request to reopen the public hearing for a chapter one preamble of the comprehensive growth management plan based upon the 2024 year. And the main changes in chapter one were relating to the, uh, residential capacity methodology. Um, and since the vote that you took this morning on chapter four, um, wants to keep the language as it currently exists in the comp plan today, the changes in chapter one will be, uh, the same direction to keep it as it exists today. And, uh, let me go to that page. Page 1317. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. So, so all of this strike and underline in section 1.7b here will, uh, not, uh, we recommend based on your direction that it, it be removed and the text remain as it is today. And then, uh, in 1.7c, the same sort of direction. Um, but with the highlighted language here, uh, we recommend that it's the 10 and the 20 year planning period and, um, that the 15 year planning period would not be specified and that the 10 and the 20 year is consistent with Florida statute. So that concludes our overview. Again, based on the direction in chapter four, there really are no changes in chapter one and, uh, we would recommend approval and, uh, available for any questions. Questions. Commissioner Capps. Um, move approval of staff recommendation of proposed changes in a way that is consistent with the way we just voted on chapter four, future land use. Second. There's a motion and a second. Is there any public comment? There's a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? That motion passes unanimously. Public hearing number five is a legislative public hearing to consider adoption of year amendment 24 dash two overall goals and definitions. Ms. Nobby. Thank you. Jen and obby senior planner with the growth management department. And this is a text amendment to chapter two, overall goals and definitions of the comprehensive growth management plan based upon the 24 year. And let me get to the staff report. So number 11 here. Uh, we originally had proposed to have the definition for housing units and actual use, uh, be deleted consistent with the changes in one and four. However, based on your direction, this definition for housing units and actual use would be retained and it would not be deleted. And then same thing with number 16 and 17 here. The definition for seasonal house seasonal population housing would remain as is and no revisions to the definition. And, uh, uh, vacant, uh, vacant seasonal housing units would also be retained as it exists today, based on the direction in chapter four and chapter one. And we also recommend in, uh, policy 2.4 C one here that, uh, the text remain as we're proposing for the 20 year planning period to be consistent with Florida statute. And this staff analysis note, as with, um, the rest of the chapters in the year, these would all be removed prior to adoption and everything. That's just for your, uh, clarity and reviewing these items. But this would also, we're recommending, uh, the 20 year planning period be adopted. And that concludes. All other changes shown in two are discussed in chapter in the staff report. Uh, they are minor changes questions from Ms. Nobby, Mr. Campy move to accept staff's recommendation with the changes or the other issues that our staff just mentioned. Is there a second? Is there any public comment? There's a motion and a second. All those in favor. Aye. Opposed that motion passes unanimously. Uh, next public hearing is number six, a legislative public hearing to consider adoption of ear amendment 24 dash zero three intergovernmental coordination element. Hello again. Clyde Doolin for the record with me is Stephanie height with the treasure coast regional planning council. The RPC helped us with chapter six, I'm sorry, chapter three, six, 16, and 17. Um, there are all of the changes to this is, I'm sorry, I should, this is reopening of, or, or continuation of a hearing public hearing started earlier. And, uh, so we have made the presentation on this, uh, already and, uh, we're available for any questions. There are a couple of minor changes. Um, let's go to 19. So based upon action on March 11, oh no, sorry, February, uh, this, this text has been revised to describe the environmental lands oversight committee. Uh, thanks to help from legal department in drafting this text, uh, to update it. The staff, uh, this is a change post since the work report was issued and, uh, but I think this will be a minor change that the state agencies will have no problem with. We may recommend approval to this. And then another change on the town of Jupiter Island and Martin County, um, completed an interlocal agreement. And so we are recognizing that revised interlocal agreement here in this, uh, policy 3.1 E4, uh, the board voted and approved this, this interlocal March 11. These are the two changes, I think, that have, the only two that have happened since the, uh, the public hearing was conducted previously. And, uh, we would recommend approval of, uh, proposed changes to chapter three. That concludes staff presentation. Questions for staff. Is there any public comment, any inclination to continue this item? Oh, Mr. Campy. Thank you. Uh, I would make a motion that we, are we still continuing to the end of the day? No, we're approving. We're approving. I would make a motion that we approve this agenda item as presented by staff. Second. There's a motion and a second. Commissioner Capps. That's all. I was going to be the second. I'm good. Okay. There's a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? That motion passes unanimously. We will now pick up public hearing number seven, a legislative public hearing to consider adoption of year amendment 24-06 housing element. Uh, I will, uh, turn it over to Stephanie. Do you have, um, which item, uh, there's a new piece of text? Um, no, I think, um, what we're going to do is, um, again, this is a reopening of the public hearing to approve this, uh, a continuation from February 25th. Um, um, due to your, um, earlier vote on the future land use element, there was alternate text that had been presented related to the vacant residential land use, um, that will be stricken. It will remain as is. And then we'll also change, um, uh, the planning period to be a 20-year planning period. That's on 2269, but that alternative text, I believe, will be stricken. The alternative text will not, is not, is not going to be, yeah. So we just have the, the 20-year planning period there in that paragraph. Questions for staff? Just, just one other, um, clarification from the February meeting. You had asked us on, um, policy 6-1-D-3-7, just to, um, clarify that it's Florida statutes that's being, um, that's on page 2274, or that Florida statutes is what's being referenced into that new policy. Okay. Any questions? Any public comment? Any inclination to approve? I will move, uh, staff's recommendation for approval and adoption. Second. There's a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? That motion passes unanimously. This is a continuation of a public hearing that was opened, uh, previously. Uh, I don't believe we have. Uh, there was just one recommendation at February. The board had asked us to, um, we had referenced in one of the policies, um, a particular project to support, um, the Stewart High School building, um, the chair had asked that we'd consider that, um, not being so specific in that and make it more general. We did check with Nancy Terrell at Martin Arts, and she said that we'd find if that was removed. So, um, we're just recommending that that previously recommended, um, text not be, um, added to the adopted. Any questions? Unchanged. Yes. The text will remain unchanged. Is there any public comment? I would make a motion to accept staff's recommendation for adoption as presented with the change about the Stewart High School. Second. There's a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? That motion passes unanimously. Next is public hearing number nine, legislative public hearing to consider adoption of year amendment 24-17 public schools facility element. No. Actually, um, this is a continuation of a previously open public hearing. Uh, we have no additional changes to discuss. Um, staff recommends approval of adoption of, uh, chapter 17 and public hearing nine. Questions for staff. Is there any public comment? Is there a motion to adopt year amendment 24-17? Move approval. Second. There's a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? That motion passes unanimously. Next up is public hearing number 10, which is a legislative public hearing to consider adoption of year amendment 24-05 transportation element. Normally you see people running. We can take up, uh, public hearing 11, which is a legislative public hearing to consider adoption of year amendment, uh, 24-07. I think they're ready for chapter five. Okay. We're running. Take up the transportation element. Is this all? No. Oh, I'm sorry. That's new? No, no, no, no, it's fine. Proceed, please. Good afternoon. I'm Michael Roselka, the county engineer. Uh, transportation element, um, chapter five. We haven't, there's only been one change made since our last meeting, and it was in reference to the dredging of the menity pocket deeper that has been stricken from this, um, edition. The other changes in the transportation element, really a lot of it were updates and the several items with, you know, bringing it up to current standards with, um, the DOT changing their context classifications and, um, adding the whole element for pedestrian and bicycle safety. Okay. I don't know if you have any questions or questions for staff. Is there any public comments? Is there a motion for adoption? So moved. There's a motion. Second. And a second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Opposed. That motion passes three to two with commissioners Vargas and her dissenting. Uh, next up is public hearing number 11, which is a legislative public hearing to consider adoption of air amendment 24-7, the recreation element. Uh, Clyde Doolin for the record. Uh, this is a continuation of a public hearing opened earlier. Uh, there are minor changes proposed in chapter seven, uh, recreation element. Uh, there's some references to a feasibility study that are, um, shown stricken. There's, uh, proposed policy change acknowledging the fact that the capital improvements planning results in a review of beach access every year instead of every five years. Um, there's removing the requirement for a beach, studying beach users place of origin. Um, and there's record, uh, recognition of the village of Indian town, uh, along with the city of Stewart and the school board for joint use of recreation facilities. Um, staff recommends approval of the proposed changes to chapter seven, recreation element. Questions for staff. Is there any public comments? Is there a motion to adopt the recreation element? I'll move that we adopt the record, uh, recreation element. I will second that motion. There's a motion and a second. All those in favor. Aye. Opposed. That motion passes unanimously. Next up is public hearing number 12, a legislative public hearing to consider adoption of, of, uh, year amendment 24-08 coastal management elements. Doctor? It would be so, it would have been so easy. Go along. I think that's stolen valor. We're giving you an honorarium. People are still calling it to me. It's okay. Letters. I'll take it. Go to graduations now. Yeah. All right. Good afternoon, commissioners. Samantha Lovelady, principal planner with growth management department. This is, um, a plan amendment that was continued to today, um, on chapter eight, coastal management element. And I have Amy Eason with me, Dr. Amy. And, um, do you want to go over any changes or do you have any questions? Questions? No. Questions? Yes, I do. Oh. Commissioner Hetherington. So, referenced in here is the 2021. That's the first time we did the SLR, right? In 2021. Is that the first time the county ever implemented an SLR? Um, so in here, it's referenced the 2021 SLR. How often will that be updated? It is being updated right now. So I have the final one right now in my review. It is fully funded by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and it will be submitted to them, um, pretty soon as soon as I finished my review. And then we'll be presented to the commission, um, before. So the project priorities then, you know, although they are identified and probably are longstanding project priorities, they will be updated. Yeah. So the, so what I'm doing in the, the report is I'm going to put all of our current projects, the things that haven't been done in the last report, um, things that are thought about coming up as long, as well as looking at our current CIP, seeing which infrastructure does not comply or is, is vulnerable under the sea level rise projections. So I'm going to add those projects in there along with any other adaptation that we foresee to come in the future, because by putting the projects in this vulnerability assessment that sets us up to receive resilient Florida grant money, if it's not in the report, we're not going to get grant money. So, um, those projects will be updated, um, and there will be a clause in there so that we're not constantly updating this report because the state continues to change their statute. Um, there'll, there'll be a clause in there that says that our CIP will be reviewed every year and any CIP projects that are considered within those vulnerable areas will be automatically included in our vulnerability assessment. Okay. So then the CIP then will control the funding. So the SLR will lay out the priorities and now it's being referenced in this section of the, the comp plan. And then as we go through the CIP process, that's where we're going to prioritize the projects. Therefore, if the board changes its priorities, that would be done in the CIP, not necessarily in the SLR. Correct. And, and then, um, there is also a fully funded, um, adaptation plan that is going to go along with it at the same time. It's, it's interesting that the state wants the projects and the vulnerability assessment because that's really the report that tells you what assets are vulnerable versus what projects to do to keep those assets from being vulnerable. So there's an adaptation plan that is going to be done at the same time. Um, well, not the same time will be done, uh, this year and we'll be at like final draft by December, um, to comply with those grant funds. And then that will set up everything moving forward. Okay. And so for, if, for some unfortunate reason there, the grant, the state is not funding some of these resiliency projects, we would adapt our CIP accordingly. For prioritization. I mean, the idea is to look at your infrastructure. That's, um, vulnerable and look as well as the lifespan of that infrastructure and see when you start to hit those vulnerabilities. So you're planning ahead. So you want to get those, that infrastructure that is critically vulnerable now, you know, prioritized first. And then as you look at the lifespan of infrastructure, let's say roads, for instance, that's typically a 20 year lifespan. If in 2045, that road becomes vulnerable, you want to make sure that the design of that road when it comes up is designed for the next cycle of sea level rise. Okay. So I think that answered my question. I wanted to make sure there was a mechanism of changing the prioritization in the SLR or in the CIP without, um, coming back to an amendment to the plan. So yeah, to the vulnerability assessment. Now, now once we adopt our next vulnerability assessment, which is soon, I indicated that the last time I was here that I'd probably have to change the comp plan to say the new document. Yeah. So that it's, so that it's there. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Any further questions? Uh, any public comments? Is there a motion to adopt? I would make a motion to adopt, uh, approve and adopt this agenda item as per staff's recommendation. Second. There's a motion and a second, and I still have, uh, reservations about shorelines, shoreline hardening particularly. So I'm not going to be supporting the motion. So there's a motion and a second. All those in favor. Aye. Opposed? Opposed? Opposed. That motion passes three, two with commissioners Vargas and her dissenting. Next is public hearing number 13, which is a legislative public hearing to consider adoption of the year amendment 24-09 conservation and open space. Good afternoon, commissioner Samantha Lovelady with growth management department. And do you want to do this? Okay. So the, there are a couple of changes that were made since the last time we changed this policy. Let's see if I can get that bigger for you. It changed the public land acquisition program to the environmental lands oversight committee. And we have updated table 9-1. We, um, met with the parks department and, um, the conservation people and we've updated the names on some of them. Um, um, the city's strip got, that's no longer there, ours. And then, um, like Jensen Beach, several of those were combined. With that, I'll take any questions. Has Palmar been updated with the latest information? Uh, I don't believe we changed, needed to change that. Well, we just acquired some, some property. Is that included? Uh, it does not reflect the, the, the swap to which I think you're referring. I am. Sorry? Uh, should we? It does reflect the, the exchange. I was not aware. Okay. I want to thank real property, uh, uh, staff and, uh, park staff for sitting down and going back over this table with us and, and, uh, making substantial changes. Commissioner Vargas. I know that was my question. Should we consider that, you know, request that information be put in from the Palmar swap that we just completed? We just approved of rather. I didn't know. Further questions for staff? Is there any public comment? Is there a motion to approve? I'll move, um, staff's recommendation to adopt. Second. There's a motion and a second. All those in favor. Aye. Aye. Opposed? That motion passes unanimously. Public hearing number 14 is a legislative public hearing to amend, to adopt ear amendment 24-10, uh, sanitary sewer services elements. Yes, ma'am. The, um, biggest change is this, um, the planning horizon. We added a 10-year planning horizon for, um, the feasibility of providing and then a, um, new future construction and connections of on-site sewage and disposal system to Santa Secretary Sewer currently on a 20-year or more planning horizon. Questions for staff? Um, I'm on page 4656, uh, on table 10-2. So we don't have any planning projections for, um, the city of Stewart or South Martin or the village of Indiantown. Can you say that again, please? We don't have any projections for 2035 or 2045. So in other words, we don't have the 10-year and we don't have the 20-year? No, ma'am. Why? My understanding, we reached out to them and, uh, we didn't get a response back. Okay. Okay. Any questions for staff? Any public comments? Commissioner Campy? I'd make a motion to accept and approve staff's recommendation as presented with the, was there a minor change? No change. Just that one policy change? Yes. With that one policy change. Thank you so much. And that was on the 20, the planning horizons? Yes. There's a motion to approve and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? That motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Next is public hearing number 15, a legislative public hearing to consider adoption of year amendment 24- Want me to take over? Please. Uh, public hearing number 15, legislative public hearing to consider adoption of an evaluation and appraisal report based comprehensive plan amendment 24-11, chapter 11, potable water services element 10-year water supply facilities work plan, a text amendment presented by utility staff and Samantha Lovelady, you are recognized. See how smooth that transition from your chair to my chair was? Transition of power. Just like that. And we should call you doctor too, right? Yeah. I hardly knew. See that? Meanwhile, we should make sure the commissioner heard us. Yes. Okay. Um, afternoon, Samantha Lovelady, growth management department, and I have Ms. Anne Murray with me from Martin County Utilities. She's the county hydrogeologist, and the, there's one change, again, it's for, um, that 10, 15, and 20-year planning period, so I'm taking that to have direction that the 15 will come out based on this morning. I believe so, so there's consistency. Yes. And other changes are to figures 11-1 and 11-2 regarding, um, the service, regional utilities service areas, and, um, this is changed because of the March 11th approval of the interlocal agreement with the town of Jupiter Island and South Martin Regional Utilities. This is 11-1, and this is 11-2, which is the reflection of the interlocal. And with that, staff recommends approval. Thank you. Questions for staff? Seeing none, anyone from the audience looking to address us? Also seeing none. Back to the board. I will move staff's recommendation for adoption. Thank you. Second. Thank you. We have a motion by Commissioner Hetherington for staff's recommendation, seconded by Commissioner Capps. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. All those opposed? The motion carries 4-0 with Commissioner Hurd temporarily absent. Public hearing number 16. Legislative public hearing to consider adoption of evaluation and appraisal report based comprehensive plan amendment 24-12, Chapter 12, Solid and Hazardous Waste, a text amendment, be presented by Ms. Samantha Lovelady and utility staff. You get bundled into utility staff. Thank you. You are recognized. Good afternoon. Samantha Lovelady, Growth Management Department. I'm here with Mr. Amerson, the utilities director, and there have not been any changes since your last public hearing on this element. With that, staff recommends approval. Any questions for staff? Any public comments? Is there a motion to approve? I'll move staff's recommendation for adoption. I will second it. There's a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? That motion passes unanimously. Thank you. We voted on 15. Are you okay with that? Yep. Good afternoon. Samantha Lovelady, Growth Management. I'm here with Amy Eason again. And is there anything you want to go over? I don't believe there are any changes. Yeah, there's no other changes. Last time when we presented it, we mentioned that when it originally went up to the state, the last part of this element, Section 13.6, was missing. But then we had responses from the state that we had no comments, so we made sure that it was included for this adoption. Okay. I appreciate that. We're doing a little bounce back. Questions for staff? Any public comment? Seeing none, I'd entertain a motion. I will move staff's recommendation for adoption. Second. Thank you. We have a motion by Commissioner Hetherington, seconded by Commissioner Capps for public hearing number 17, the year for the Chapter 13 Drainage and Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge Element. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. All those opposed? That motion carries four to zero, with Commissioner Hurd temporarily absent. Thank you. Thank you very much. Our next agenda item, public hearing number 18. Excuse me, Commissioner, can we go back to Chapter 14 in public hearing number two and wrap up the whole year? Because we continued that one. Oh, I see. Chapter 18 is a whole new story. Yes. Chapter 14 or four? Fourteen. We're going to go back. We had continued it. Public hearing number 14, legislative public hearing to consider adoption of evaluation and appraisal report-based comprehensive plan amendment 2410, Chapter 10, Sanitary Sewer Services Element, a text amendment. It's public hearing two. Public hearing number two. Did I read the wrong one just now? I thought you said 14. Well, it's Chapter 14. Oh, Chapter 14, public hearing number two. You're back? Yeah. Public hearing number two. We had continued it from earlier. Okay. So you have to announce it, and then we're coming back to it because we are wrapping. We are coming back to public hearing number two, which is a legislative public hearing to consider adoption of your best-based amendment 24-14, Capital Improvements Element. Anything else you'd like to add to that? No, I'm just here for comments. Thank you. That's Samantha Love Lady. Any public comments? Is there a motion to adopt? I'm willing to make a motion. Is there anything else that needs to be discussed with this? No, we just continued it contingent on Chapter 4, getting adopted. So we're just coming back. There was no changes. Thank you. I would make a motion to accept staff's recommendation as presented. Second. There's a motion and a second. Is there any public comment? All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? Opposed? That motion passes four to one with Commissioner Hurd dissenting. We'll now take up public hearing number three, which is a legislative public hearing to consider adoption of Air Amendment 24-04, Chapter 4, the future land use element. We voted on that one. That one's been voted on. Yeah. It has? Okay. That was adopted? I thought it was continued to. No, that was adopted. So we're on public hearing 18 in order of the agenda. Okay. Number 18 is a legislative public hearing to consider transmittal of comprehensive amendment 23-03, Sunrise Grove, a future land use map amendment. Is that an old light? No. Good afternoon, Commissioners. Samantha Lovelady with the Growth Management Department. This is CPA 2303, Sunrise Grove, a future land use map amendment. It is requested by Martin Triangle Property. The proposed future land use map amendment is for 205 acres of agricultural ranchette to the AgTech Future Land Use Designation, which Sunrise Grove is in parentheses here because the text amendment companion to this is requesting to change the name to Sunrise Grove. The AgTech Future Land Use Designation was created in 2010 on 1,717 acres. No developed acreage. There's no developed acreage at this time. It has one approved PUD within 7.66 acres and adding 205 acres with the future land use map amendment will result in a total of 1,922 acres. This is the existing future land use map, and this is the ag ranchette. The property is outlined in red, and this is the proposed future land use, which would be the same hatching as the AgTech future land use. The property is located west of I-95 and north of southwest Martin Highway. There is a separate text amendment to add 205 acres to the AgTech Freestanding Urban Service District. In Section 2.1 of the staff report, one out of four criteria for the future land use map amendment have been met. In Section 2.2, urban sprawl, 10 out of the 13 criteria have been met, saying that it is not create urban sprawl, and in Section 2.2.1, proliferation of sprawl, seven out of eight criteria have been met that says this does not proliferate sprawl. And again, the name is being requested to change to Sunrise Grow, and one thing to consider is that it keeps the same performance measure with no increase in intensity for what they've already been approved. And staff recommendation is for a motion to transmit CPA 2303, Sunrise Grove. On February 20th, the local planning agency voted 3-1 to recommend approval. And I'll take any questions you may have. Questions? Applicant? I do have a brief PowerPoint for the record. My name is Morris Crady, senior partner with Lucido and Associates, and we did send out the notices and provided those at the LPA public hearing, and we did send out over 222 notices to surrounding property owners, and I have talked to one property owner that happens to be directly adjacent to our southwest corner, and she has no objection to this request after learning about the details. And she lives right here, actually, the lady that I'm talking about. But as was mentioned, this is in addition to AgTech, and we're changing the name from Sunrise Grove based on the new ownership by Ashley Capital, and the 205 acres that we're adding is an enclave right now stuck between the I-95 right-of-way and the AgTech existing land use. And just to give you some other context here, this is Citrus Boulevard. This is Newfield. It's under construction. This aerial doesn't show it, but there is a lot of construction going on right here. And I was able to walk the Kiplinger Trails in this area, which is an outstanding set of trails that was built. And really, this project, Sunrise Grove, or AgTech, by the previous owner, which was King Ranch, was something that was done in 2010 during the Great Recession, and also in response to canker and greening that occurred on the property. So, you know, the entire site is impacted. And one of the things that we were looking at at the time, and the county considered at the time, was its proximity to our neighbors to the north, which is the city of Port St. Lucie. And as you can see here, this is the old GDC platted lots that they've been dealing with for years. And this is the newer development. And one of the things they've accomplished over the last 10 years since this application is, or since AgTech was created 15 years ago, is they have a successful jobs corridor. So there's a lot of employment opportunities here, and they've been doing very well. So the original developer worked out an arrangement with the city of Port St. Lucie to bring water and sewer to the site west of 95 through the city of Port St. Lucie. And they're also going to build a connector road. So they've been in negotiations to build a connector road to Becker Road so that this economic opportunity that started in Port St. Lucie can bleed into Martin County, and we can capture some of that ad valorem tax base with new economic opportunity. And as you can see, the initial development will probably start from the north to the south, given the proximity to Becker Road and the water and sewer and the connector road that's being built. So we're not changing the original intent of AgTech. This is the language exactly from the comprehensive plan. It was intended to allow the continuation of agricultural opportunities, support development of targeted businesses, increased tax base and employment opportunities, and facilitate environmental enhancement through the protection of common open space and restoration of natural systems while protecting and enhancing the Martin Grade Scenic Corridor. So all we're doing to these policies is changing the name from AgTech to Sunrise Grove. This is the existing land use map. Again, you can see the mixed-use village within the new field project here. There are industrial properties. The 7Js or Poma Industrial is here. And again, the AgRanchette that we're adding to AgTech is located in this area. So this is the existing freestanding urban service districts in the area. Again, this is the primary urban service district that was created by Newfield. This is the 7Js freestanding urban service district, Martin Commerce Park that was recently added. And we're accessing the existing AgTech freestanding urban service to add the 205 acres. And you can see in the 205 acres, this is a borough pit that was dug by DOT during the construction of I-95 in 1986. I believe it was completed in 1988. But what's interesting is that none of this was here when the comp plan was adopted in 1982. I-95 didn't exist. So that's really the big change that occurred since the land use was created years ago. And the fact that AgTech now is creating an enclave, you know, just makes it a natural connection or a change to make that land use consistent with AgTech. So really, the only usable area is this area right here. And it's without AgTech. Access to this site would be very difficult. And the only other permitted uses would be agricultural ranchettes. And homes right on 95 between AgTech or any type of ranch use would not be compatible, I don't believe, with what's changed over the years. So all we're doing with this text amendment is changing the name. We're also adding the 205 acres as a freestanding urban service district. And what that does is we're increasing the minimum open space in the site by 105 acres, from 817 acres to 939 acres. We're increasing the non-agricultural urban development. And that's the area where we can put actual buildings and urban type of development by 105 acres. I'm sorry, by 100 acres from 900 acres to 1,000 acres. And we're adding a use, which is vehicle manufacturing, sales, and service. So that's the only change to the text. What we are not doing is we're not increasing the maximum allowable. Is this the flume? Well, it's all related. I think I have to kind of do it all at once because they're integrated. And this is the same presentation that we had for the LPA. So I'm just going to give one presentation. And then I don't need to do a presentation for the text because they're all kind of interrelated, if I may proceed. So we're not changing the maximum, even though we're adding 205 acres, we're not changing the maximum allowable intensity of development. Okay. All right. I'll come back. I'll come back to this. Well, no, it's on the same. It's on the same. It's only two slides. It's on the same. Hang on to them. Let me see how I go down here. So as far as the future land use amendment is concerned, you have four criteria. In my opinion, we meet two, the county staff. You only need one to approve the land use map amendment. And we all agree that the past changes in land use designations in the general area make the proposed use consistent. And that's ag tech. But I also think the growth in the area also supports the application, especially the growth to the north in the city of Port St. Lucie. It has altered the character of the land and makes this site now suitable for economic development. And so as was mentioned, we meet 10 of the 13 applicable indicators that discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. And we meet the additional criteria within that section of the code, seven of the eight indicators that also discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. And again, you know, I can't say enough about Ashley Capital King Ranch at the time when this was approved, they didn't have the experience or the wherewithal to actually make this project happen. The times that have passed and now that with a new owner, Ashley Capital has the proven track record and a commitment to quality that I think can bring this project to fruition and create the types of ad valorem tax base that the county has been seeking. And with that understanding, I'll be glad to answer any questions. And then we can go on to the text amendment in the next application. Question for the applicant. I have some some comments to make. The 2023 commercial and industrial study that we undertook concluded that Martin County had twice as much vacant industrial as we do developed industrial. Therefore, any increase in industrial would be a mistake, a mistake that we should not make. Furthermore, ag tech was created in 2010. It's still undeveloped, which tells me that that change to ag tech was a mistake that we should not add on to. There are four criteria for creating a future land use amendment. The first is that past changes in land use designations in the general area make the proposed use logical and consistent with these uses, and there's adequate availability of public services. Definitely does not meet that. Two, that the growth in the area in terms of development of vacant land, redevelopment, and availability of public services has altered the character of the area such that the proposed request is now reasonable and consistent with area land use characteristics. Still undeveloped, undeveloped land, so it has not met that criteria, that the proposed change would correct what was otherwise, what would otherwise appear to be an inappropriately assigned land use designation. The inappropriately assigned land use designation is ag tech, and that the proposed change would meet a necessary public service need, which enhances the health, safety, or general welfare of county residents. It does not meet any of those requirements, therefore, does not qualify for a comp plan amendment. It is the textbook definition of urban sprawl. It's the proliferation of urban sprawl. And what are our policies regarding expanding freestanding urban service boundaries? I don't believe we have any. Then how could you make a recommendation to expand the freestanding urban service boundary if we don't have any policies directing how, when we should expand a freestanding urban service boundary? What I mean is that there are no current policies that restrict an expansion. So we can expand all the four freestanding urban service boundaries, have no limits to their expansion? That's up to the commissioners. That's up to you. Well, what's the policy? Current policy, because you're making a recommendation to expand a freestanding urban service boundary, which is a mistake. And the fact that it was approved in 2010 and still remains undeveloped confirms that that was a mistake. As I said, we don't have any policies that restrict an expansion at this time. Thank you. Commissioner Campy. Thank you, Chair. With all due respect, this is a historic example of where you and I agree to disagree. I was here then for AgTech in 2010. I'll give a brief history lesson for the folks that are newer to this situation. Citrus canker and greening rendered this property useless for its intended agricultural use. So King Ranch, which people might be familiar with, it's a pickup truck trim model based on a ranch in Texas, one of the largest ranches in the United States, probably in the world. I've heard it compared that the King Ranch is equal to the size of the state of Rhode Island. So they were also, at the time, one of the largest private property owners in Martin County. So when you're thinking about, like, who could step in and create a situation like this to make a successful run at it, it would have been King Ranch or Consolidated Citrus. Mitch Hutchcraft was sort of leading the charge at the time, a real classy gentleman. Got his head handed to him by the opposition, which was strong at the time, very strong opposition, that just hated any type of a change. I voted for it because I figured if anyone could pull it off, especially how difficult it is to encourage businesses to come to Martin County or expand in Martin County based on how challenging we make the process, and sometimes rightfully so, they were the right ones. It was not their fault that a global recession, especially hard-hitting here in the United States, that has now been termed the Great Recession. I don't begrudge them for that. I don't use that as, aha, look, it didn't work. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars spent for that process. Then, magically, we are so fortunate as a community to have someone else take a look at that property and say, maybe there's something I can do. Now, without beating the drum for Ashley Capital, if I've said this in the past, it's very simple. All you need to do is Google Ashley Capital. A couple of partners run their whole entire operation completely different. They don't purchase, build, and flip. They don't purchase and flip. They purchase, they construct, design, construct, and lease. It's the highest level, class A tenant, leasable space that you can find, and then they maintain it themselves. For them to come in and step in to do this, they are absolutely the right people. So, with all due respect to my colleague, when she says ag tech didn't work, so it will never, ever work, I don't see that as being really a fair assessment of what the future would look like. And if that were the case, should the rest of us throw our hands up and say, I guess we're not going to do anything ever again. We'll just let that property. They can continue to pay taxes on it, but we won't do anything. Today, so this ag tech versus, should this be a site of industrial development or not, has been long debated many, many times in this very room and elsewhere in the community. I'm for it. The recession and COVID has taken big chunks of the last decade or 15 years out of this process. Let's talk about, and I would prefer, Ms. Lovelady, if you could go back to the slide. I think it might have been in your presentation, Mr. Crady, where you showed what's happening north of our county line. Can you go back to it, please? Or do you have the ability to show it? That. Now, we obviously all know what Port St. Lucie looks like, the portion that's Becker Road. Believe it or not, that's not a quilt. That's actually neighborhoods. That's how close those homes are to each other. But where it says Jobs Corridor to the left or the west of I-95, that big green open space, this is probably an older aerial. A lot of that has been developed. So people say, well, we don't want the traffic. We don't want the commuting happening through our county. They, in St. Lucie and Port St. Lucie, they are eating our lunch in terms of luring and expanding businesses. Businesses from the south of us in Palm Beach County, I'll give you an example, Cheney Brothers, they bypassed. They hopscotched right over Martin County into St. Lucie County. I would guess tens or hundreds of their employees are now traveling through the entire Martin County on their way to St. Lucie County. So in terms of, hey, we're going to try to knock traffic down or eliminate truck traffic or anything else, we're not doing that. They're passing right through our community. What they're taking with them is all the tax base. So if you said, well, I don't want anything else to happen in Martin County, I get that concept. Nobody wants anything else to happen to here. But we also expect and deserve a very high level of services. We had the sheriff's office here this morning. Fire rescue has been here. Some of our new colleagues are really, rightfully so, right on the fact that we need additional fire rescue services. We are going to need fire stations. This particular applicant, in a different portion, but to speak to the benefit of the corporation that's willing to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in our community, they're willing to participate. They're not just, you know, hey, some out-of-state hedge fund that is looking to do business and just cash out on our residents. They're completely invested in our community, hired locals to work on this project. If we don't do something in this exact corridor, then everything goes into St. Lucie County with all the tax dollars. You've heard me say before that we are completely lopsided in our tax base. Yes, residents want high level of services, but they can't write the check for every single one of them. Most sort of balanced out communities, economic communities, understand you have to have a larger percentage of commercial and industrial, 10, 15, 20 percent, depending on who you speak to. We're in the low single digits here, meaning the burden of taxation is completely on residents. Here we have an opportunity in what I would think. It's in my district. I think it's in a perfectly located. Imagine trucks coming and going directly off one of the busiest roads in the United States of America right onto this property. Yes, they're asking for the 205 to be included into the existing previous designation. I have walked that property with the previous owner. He's a local guy from Palm City. He's owned it for a long time. He has, over the last 10 years, presented to me dozens of what he would consider great ideas. Most of them, just having heard them, I would tell him, that's a terrible idea. That would never fly. The folks in Stewart and Weston Cobblestone would never go for that. And then he would come up with another one. And look, people were interested, and I'd say that would never work, and then it would die, and it would die. So he finally got an opportunity to sell those 205 acres to Ashley Capital to turn it into hopefully Sunrise Grove and to incorporate it into this, I think, a beautiful potential project for Sunrise Grove and Ashley Capital to bring businesses that we can be proud of. We're employing our residents. We're building a tax base. We're not stressing out our infrastructure. These folks that are going to work here are not running to the beaches, the libraries, the school districts. It's – we heard Jenny Fields this morning talk about 3% cap. It's not the same. And where a majority of this tax base will come from is TPP, tangible personal property, that they're paying not so much for the real estate taxes. They're paying for the equipment that's located within these buildings. I personally think and would hope that the five of us would roll the red carpet out for someone willing to come to our community, invest hundreds of millions of dollars to even up our tax base and lessen the burden on our residents by creating a project just like this. It was appropriate in 2010. We just had someone that, through no fault of their own, couldn't figure out how to do it. We have someone that has proven, one of the top businesses in the United States, willing to do this right here. The principal is sitting in this very room listening to the ups and downs and the barbs and how ridiculous this could be from colleagues, and I want him to also hear that some of us are very, very appreciative that he would take this chance on our community. And so with that, I would happily make a motion to accept staff's recommendation. Thank you. Commissioner Hetherington. I was going to ask the applicant for a brief historical account, but I think Commissioner Campion just gave the brief historical account on how – because I wrote down a couple notes about why it was undeveloped for 2010, which I've had a chance to meet with the applicant a number of times, and that was my first question, why now. And there was also supposed to be a transportation corridor that went through that area, and I sat on several transportation meetings where St. Lucie County, they approved a development that completely blocked that transportation corridor from coming through there, and I know that the owner of the property had been working diligently to get us a connection for that transportation corridor as well as their utility. So I don't think I need the applicant to go through the background since Commissioner Campion just did. And I will say, too, that I think that Ag Ranchet next to – that was approved in 2010, this land use, and the 205 acres next to it, Ag Ranchet, to me, would not fit right next to I-95. And then the jobs corridor, and you just summarized, you know, the importance of the economic diversity in our county. And I will say, like, firsthand, part of the reason that I'm sitting up here is because at times, Martin County has had a lack of economic diversity because we've been afraid to implement a policy that might impact industrial areas or growth. And if we look at what has happened somewhat in Indiantown, U.S. co-gen came, you know, years and years ago. That was an industrial area that hired hundreds of employees. Well, we know that's gone. FP&O, that plant is gone. Those are hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of jobs that disappeared over the last 20 years, not to mention that we've lost all of our citrus and those kind of jobs. But those jobs that disappear, those people are generational residents that are leaving this area. And one in particular happens to be my sister and her husband. They had jobs at those plants, and they had to move to Pennsylvania because we had not – even in the surrounding areas, we had no additional jobs. So – and they're not coming back. They're not coming back now. They've established roots and families and their grandchildren. And they would have rather stayed right here in Martin County and taken those jobs. So I will support the creation of good jobs and economic diversity in our economy because not only is it good for the taxpayer, it's good for our residents, it's good for our families. This makes sense to me to incorporate it in. It's right on 95. It doesn't make sense to develop it as a grant shed. And I will – I echo what your sentiments on I think is a quality individual, the owners, and they have worked really hard. And I have seen on this transportation committee that it is not – it was not been an easy task, all of the complicated challenges to get this property. And I would imagine that you probably have spent millions of dollars to work on these things. And so with that, because of the jobs corridor, and I think the Ag Ranchet makes more sense bordering I-95 to be this particular land use, I will second Commissioner Campy's motion. Commissioner Vargas. Okay. Nothing is guaranteed. We are headed for financially difficult times, believe it or not. My colleagues have expressed that this is a no-fail situation, tangible personal property, jobs, a widened tax base. However, I have grave concerns for the environmental and the infrastructure in the area. There's no preservation of the rural character, and there's no consistency with the growth plan. It's more intensive development. Again, I have to applaud Chairwoman Hurd for enumerating the points that are very valid. And I urge this Board of County Commissioners to think very clearly and not be swayed emotionally or for other reasons that may not be known to us at this time. Commissioner Capps. I think this is a close one for me. We've heard great arguments on both sides, very cogent arguments. The arguments, I think, that have been most persuasive to me are the ones that were made by Chair Hurd, which her central point is that we have plenty of industrial land available at this time. So I don't think this is the time to be expanding, freestanding urban services boundaries in Martin County. So I won't be able to support it. Commissioner Campy. I appreciate my colleagues giving their assessment. I think what potentially is lost in the conversation is when you hear my colleague Commissioner Hurd discussing that there's been a report that shows there's plenty of unused industrial land available elsewhere in the county could very well be true. However, there's no one actively looking to do anything on those properties. So for the next three, four, five years, even with what this applicant has been able to do, and remember, this is just a portion. We're trying to bring in 205 acres that really has no other specific use. This would, in my opinion, obviously my opinion, would be the most logical to incorporate it into what's already been able to happen there versus if the owner decides, look, I'm going to sell it, our staff will be tasked with, what could it be? I'm sure it can be something beyond exclusively homes. Otherwise, you're forcing someone to just own it. No one's building five-acre ranchettes on the side street of 95. And with that in mind, the concept that there's plenty of industrial could be. But here is a legitimate, bona fide applicant who has a proven track record of doing this. I understand my colleagues, and I respect the difference of opinions. Sometimes it goes in my favor, and sometimes it doesn't. I have no idea what my colleague means by, I guess we'll figure out if something else is at play. I don't know what that might be. I won't even attempt to guess. But that being said, when we are here discussing taxes and paying for services and creating parks infrastructure, library infrastructure, fire rescue infrastructure, or the sheriff comes looking for money for a needed helicopter, these are the pivotal historic decisions that make it easier for our residents to live the lifestyle that they choose and more difficult. If we run off all of these larger taxpayers, the smaller taxpayers have to pay. Because what's the harder decision than what we're making today is telling groups of people, whether they're Little League, football, libraries, organizations, we can't do it. Because they don't want to hear it. They don't want their taxes raised. I don't want mine raised either. This is a logical step in the right direction. So, I mean, short of hearing from the principal himself, I don't know. I see he's moved to the front of the room. Short of hearing that, I will accept my victories when we have them, and I'll accept my losses when we have them, and we'll see what this means. But I appreciate the process. Is there any public comments? Please come forward. I have this one. This will suffice. Love it? Yeah. We'll double it? Okay, because I'm not wasting that one for this one. I guess my question is probably to the chair and staff. Looking at the map, it is right off the I-95 corridor. My question – I'm sorry, Gary Earl of Port Salerno. My question is, these trucks in these industrial areas, of course, if it's industrial, there's traffic and movement. The industrial areas are – I know there's light industrial on US-1. There was one recently approved last year under the old commission right off of 95. I believe it's either just north or just on the other side of that. From a public standpoint, and I'm only one guy, this is a fit. This is as close to 95 as you can get. I mean, you're going to get one traffic light, and you're northbound, southbound. Thank you. Thank you. There's a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Oh, wait, wait. Oh, yeah. Can you restate the motion? It's been a while. You want me to restate it? Oh, you made the motion, right? Okay, I see. Okay. It feels like a different agenda item. Yeah. Can I just make one other comment? For the record, Bob Raines here on behalf of the applicant. I think one thing is getting lost, and I appreciate the comments from the gentleman from the public, because I think he made a really good point, and that is what's really before you is not whether we need more industrial or not. That's part of it. But the question is, what's the most appropriate land use designation for this piece of property now that 95 has been built and you have ag tech? So that's really, I think, the question that's before you. It's not so much as to whether, you know, we need more development or not. I can sit here and make some arguments why the industrial development, it's the location of a lot of this vacant industrial development. So I think that needs to be brought out. That's really the question. What's the most appropriate land use designation for this property now based on what's happened in the past? And I would submit to you that what's there now, and you have a gentleman from the public, I think it was astute enough to pick up on that. So I just wanted to make that point before you finally take a vote. There's a motion for staff and a second for staff's recommendation. All those in favor? Can we restate the motion? I was making a motion. That's the recommendation for approval, and I second it. Okay. Correct. Very good. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Opposed? Opposed. The motion fails two to three with Commissioners Vargas, Capps, and Hurd dissenting. So we're finished with... Do you want to go forward to change the name in the next public hearing? Sorry, Commissioner. I just see them getting up. But it's on the... It's on the whole project. ...200 acres. Not just that. We can... Yeah. The text change is to change the name of all of it. Right. So we can change the acreage if they... We can adjust the acreage if we present the hearing, if they want to move forward. But if not, that's fine, too. Right. It's just the name change at this point. It says that it would add 205 acres to the existing 1717-acre freestanding urban service district. So I don't believe that this has been advertised. The text amendment was advertised, and it lists that, which you just described, Commissioner, but it also describes a proposed change in the name and the permitted use. So you could consider a text change that did not include the 205-acre expansion. Correct. Because we're... That's not what we had before us. You were just... Commissioner, if I could, for the record. Again, Bob Raines on behalf of the applicant. I believe it's the same... And I hear what you're saying, Commissioner. I understand. I just want to have an opportunity to explain it if I can. I appreciate that. Thank you so much. It would be like, for instance, if we were asking for a more intense use and we were going to come in for a... And you were changing it to a less intense use, that's allowed. If we were coming in and asking for a less intense use and we tried to change it after the notice to a more intense use, we couldn't do that. So I believe we could move forward with the changes that we want to make, which are the one use and the additional name change, without having to move forward with... You can say we're not approving the 209 acres because it's... It's all been advertised. It's all been advertised. But you can take it off the table. You can't... We couldn't add 209 acres if we were here. That's my legal thoughts on it anyway. We're in uncharted water here, so... Commissioner Vargas. I just want clarity. So what the request is right now is to change the name of which parcel? Commissioner, again, for the record, Bob Raines, the existing AgTech property. So we're talking about the 1700? Yes, ma'am. Correct. Plus acres? Yes, what exists today, not the additional 209 or whatnot that sold yesterday, the last item. So we're just asking for... We would then be asking now for a name change and for the additional use we're requesting and not the addition of 209 acres. Correct. So the name change would be to the future land use designation. So instead of being called AgTech, it's going to be called Sunrise Grove. So it would be the property that there... It would be applicable to the property there now. So you just want to change the name? Yes, ma'am. And that's an ordinance. Correct. The name... Yes, ma'am. The name and then there is one use also that we were asking to add to it. What was that use? It's... It's a full manufacturing sales and service. Right. I think we need to separate that. Members of the board, may I suggest we open the public hearing and then do the presentations? I would agree. I'm real unclear how we should proceed with this. I think we need to... Commissioner Campy. Well, I can sense that you have confusion. However, our staff attorney has said she feels comfortable bringing it forward. The applicant's attorney feels comfortable bringing it forward. That's supposed to be... Yeah, that's exactly how it works. When our attorney, a legal professional, gives me legal advice, that's how it works. That's why they're here. Otherwise, we could just be up here freestyling. Commissioner Vargas. Yes. Okay. I do need clarification. So, we're changing the name because they want to change the name. Is that correct? So, they are proposing an ordinance that changes the name, that adds another use, and that included the additional acreage. The board already did not approve the additional acreage. We can treat this like we treated all the comp plan amendments today where we didn't include language that wasn't approved in Chapter 4. It's kind of the same concept. You're just going to eliminate that additional land that they're trying to add to AgTech. So, right before you will be the name change and the use, and you can approve both or one or none. It's up to the board, whatever you desire, if that makes sense. But we've been doing it all day with Chapter 4, so it's the same concept. Okay. And so, the use is not something that right now the property has. Correct. And what use do they want? Ms. Lovelady is going to present all the changes to the ordinance, so she'll be able to explain it further if we ask it. Good afternoon, Commissioner. Samantha Lovelady with Growth Management. This is CPA 2304, Sunrise Grove. Excuse me. And this is a request by Martin Triangle Property and Sunrise Grove Commerce Center. It's a site. And Martin Triangle Property is the 205 acres. So, they're out. Mm-hmm. They're out. They're out. Just by them. Mm-hmm. And Sunrise Grove. It's a request to change the name from AgTech to Sunrise Grove for the freestanding urban service district that is existing today. It would also add a permitted use to the AgTech policies in Policy 4.13A.9. And policies, again, are a name change and adding a use. And Policy 4.7813 was for consistency. Also, Section 4.2.A. for internal consistency, but that acreage is in that policy would not change. There would be no change to Figure 4-2, which is this figure here. The request was to add this acreage onto 4-2, but you did not approve that. And I believe DAF recommendation is for you to approve the name change and add the permitted use on the 1,717-acre property. Commissioner Capps. I'm ready to make a motion for both, to change the name and to add the permitted use. Second. Transmittal. Yes. This is for Transmittal to the State Land Planning Agency. Yes. It would still need to come back to you for adoption. We would remove all references to expanding the Freestanding Urban Service District from the proposed text before it gets transmitted to the state. Commissioner Vargas. Yes. So, I need to clarify in my mind, if I may, Ms. Elder. Yes. The use presently, because now they're looking for a different designation of use, is that what I'm understanding? They're asking for an additional use on the property, which is vehicle manufacturing, I believe. So, there's other uses that are permitted in the land use designation. So, they're trying to add one more. And I think Clyde is bringing it up on the screen, what's allowed right now. So, they just want to add one use, which is the vehicle maintenance to the list. So, that's not allowed right now. So, they want to add it as a possible use. Vehicle manufacturing. And, ma'am, on the screen, there are the existing permitted uses for that future land use designation. Are they going to be constructing cars there? I'm not sure. I would permit. It says vehicle manufacturing, sales, and service. Okay. So, it'll be a factory? Well, no. There's nothing planned now. That is a permitted use. And we're adding it in response to the proliferation of e-vehicles, electric vehicles, which is, you know, something that could be manufactured on site. There's no intention to have a, you know, a regular car manufacturing. But there are e-bikes and e-vehicles that are, it's a new technology, and they want to be able to allow that on the property if we have someone that wants to do that type of manufacturing. So, the uses would be limited to 5 million square feet of warehouses plus some car manufacturing and car dealerships? Not plus. You have your maximum cap on what can be. Okay. So, 5 million square feet of warehouses, including car manufacturing and dealerships in Western Martin County. Okay. There's a motion in this. Would anyone from the public like to address us? There's a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Opposed? Opposed. That motion passes 3-2 with Commissioner Vargas and her dissenting. Let's take a 10-minute break. This is our final agenda item. It's Department 3 approval of an as-is purchase contract and adoption of a resolution approving and accepting a special warranty deed for the acquisition of a parcel of property in off Salerno Road in Port Salerno. Ms. Johns. I'm Elise Elder, Deputy County Attorney. Before we begin, Commissioner, so Departmental 3 is consideration of a contract for the purchase of property between the county and Christina Walden Fortin, also known as Christina Walden Fortin-Ardigo. She's on one of our NACs. So, under Florida Statutes 112-313, if there's a conflict of interest, the good thing is that under that same statute, it provides an exception where the board can waive that conflict upon two-thirds vote of the board. So, we need a motion from the board to waive any potential conflict from purchasing property from an NAC member. It's a completely waivable conflict under the statute. And then we would need that to pass by two-thirds vote, which is for commissioners, before we can vote on the item. Okay. Staff recommends providing an authorization to waive the conflict of interest requirement is our recommendation, and then we'll hear the regular item. You'll still have the opportunity to discuss the item in full. Correct. This is just to hear the item. Commissioner Hetherington. I'm sorry, Elise. You're going to have to go back a little bit. To waive the conflict, why wouldn't you do that, like, in a Form 8B or something like that? That's a good question. The statute's very clear on how you have to do it. The board has to do it at the hearing prior to a vote on the item that has the conflict. You have to do it at the public hearing. It has to be by two-thirds of the vote. So, the board is actually waiving Mrs. Ardigo's conflict. She can't waive it herself. The board has to waive the conflict for her. So, that requires a board vote at the public hearing. So, there's no form involved. It's a procedure that's done at the public hearing. And it's, for all advisory board members, it's a common exception. So, it's recognized under Florida law. So, it's just a, it's really a matter of procedure. Commissioner Kamps. I move that we waive the conflict. Is that the way to, the correct way to state that? The conflict for the seller of the property, yes. Yes. Commissioner Campy. Let me start off by saying, with all due respect to my colleagues, if this was happening anywhere else and led by anyone else, this throws up a ton of red flags to me. This woman, I don't know her. She's not an employee. This is her property. She sits on the NAC. This deal is obvious. I'm only hearing about it recently, but this deal has been pending. She could have easily resigned from the NAC. I think it sends, I go to my NAC meetings. How are we going to waive, and so that the county can buy property from someone who sits on the Port Salerno NAC? It's her property. And we're going to participate in, as Commissioner Hetherington was saying, she's not waiving it herself. We're waiving it for her. And under a different set of circumstances, I'd be getting my head handed to me if this was my idea. I am not supporting that decision. It makes me very uncomfortable. I didn't even know we were going to talk about that. The regular agenda item makes me concerned. This, what message does that, we're always talking about transparency and doing the right thing. We're going to allow a member of the NAC to sell her property to the county, and we're going to vote to waive her conflict. It is a conflict. She's on the NAC. Hey, this whole agenda item has a lot of issues. That one is a non-starter. In my opinion, if you can rustle up everybody else. Commissioner Capps. This exception right here. Yes. Can we put it on a screen and maybe have somebody read it? It seems to be like a hand-in-glove application to this situation. Madam Chair, if I may. So, normally, if this would be part of the agenda item, unfortunately, and our staff and our – we've been negotiating back and forth on this property for, I think, about a year. The first time there was a suggestion that this might fit, and it wasn't until recently that we were able to complete a contract. In the preparation of this, in negotiation, staff, we were unaware that they – that the Public Works Department, in working on it, did not know the individuals on the NAC at the time. So, ultimately, it's under my responsibility, if you will, that this did not come forward with the proper waiver beforehand. In the attempt to continue on with this item, we would like to – in order for it to even be considered, the statute is also clear in talking to our county attorney that you can't even consider the property acquisition of it without first passing this first piece. So, if – if, you know, my suggestion would be, if you are uncomfortable or need other time, then we would need to perhaps bring this back at the next agenda. Otherwise, you know, our recommendation is the same piece would still apply. There's certainly a valid, we believe, reason for acquisition of this project in the district, and we do support that. I apologize that the proper forms were not completed in terms of identifying this waiver prior to the agenda item coming forward, and I'll take responsibility for that. Commissioner Vargas. As a licensed real estate broker, which I am still, this – this is not an arm's length transaction. It'd be as if – it'd be as if I asked the county to buy one of my personal properties, and I didn't disclose I was on the commission. You know, people don't know who's on the NAC. I mean, they know I'm on the commission, and I do have to – I do have to agree with my fellow commissioners, Mr. Campy and Ms. Hetherington. Also, I would be – I'd be reticent about going forward with this at this point. I know it's been worked on for quite a while, but it's not like the lady resigned, you know, before the contract was drawn up. This may not be a terrible property to purchase, and I did look at the appraisals, and sometimes it's difficult. You have to add and subtract for variances, but I think we really need to put the brakes on this today and take a real, real good look and a step back. Ms. Woods. Okay, well, I can certainly see where this is going, which is too bad. This is a lovely piece of property that would be an extreme asset for Port Salerno to have. This is in the old part of Port Salerno, which is a traditional mixed-use area. It's very old and developed and platted, and there's not much green space. There's very, very little, and the little that there is is not available to the public. So this was going to be a really important parcel of a public acquisition of green space for what I think will eventually be a pretty densely developed part of Port Salerno. And I'm familiar with some of the large cities in the world, and I think that what makes those places livable is their beautiful green spaces, their beautiful park spaces. And it was my intention just to provide an inimitable green space in Port Salerno, so I'm disappointed that it's not going forward. Commissioner Campy. First, a question. Are we discussing the conflict of interest, or are we discussing the agenda item? And secondly, if we are going to discuss the agenda item, which it seems like we were, I went back. I'm struggling to believe my ears because I went back to watch the agenda items where I was looking to purchase the acreage in Palm City to stop 90 apartments from being built. And green space, which is what the neighborhood and I would have preferred, was never even allowed to be on the table. When we discussed the agenda item for the referendum, I spoke of if we only buy, and I like all of the properties that were targeted with the sales tax referendum, but I asked about we have to also protect the few remaining green spaces within the communities that we needed to protect them. And a couple of weeks ago, when I was here trying to re-enhance Charlie Layton Park to keep that as a green open space with river access for all of us in Palm City that don't have any access to the water, that passed three to two, with passionate reasons why that shouldn't count. So I'm just surprised that when I came forward with something for District 5, it was completely dismissed as not even an option and passed by the skin of its teeth. And now I'm hearing how wonderful this project was. This is the first I've ever heard of this when it became an agenda item. The Palm City property was discussed at an agenda item when we talked about doing the deal. Then when we got the appraisals, they were discussed and voted on. Then when we did the RFQ. Then when the RFQ comes back, we probably heard that five times. This is the first time I've ever heard about this. I'm hearing our administrator say it's been negotiated for a year. And the frustration for me is that when someone spoke this morning, the NAC board, who we task as volunteers to handle these situations, didn't want to do it. And it seems a little controversial. So with all due respect, I get it. But, you know, remember those things countywide, not just in our own backyards. Because I would love to support these projects. My frustration wasn't on necessarily the project. There was questions that we could have asked. This woman could have just easily resigned from the NAC. She's not an elected official. She could have easily resigned. And then we wouldn't even have had in this conversation. We would have debated the up and down of whether this should have happened in Port Salerno. Why wouldn't she have resigned? And I don't blame you, Mr. Donaldson. It makes perfect sense that someone couldn't be negotiating something that they're part of. It literally sends the worst messages to every other NAC member would be like, well, wait a second. I'm on the NAC because I'm a property owner. I didn't realize I could sell it and have sort of an inside track. Not that this woman necessarily had that, but a little more tuned in than the average citizen. So, this whole thing is the twilight zone. Commissioner Capps. Yes. The reason I made the motion to waive the conflict was because we have clear language right in the statute here. Very, very clear language. And also because the transaction is well supported by the other appraisals, which are below the asking price. So, it's not like we're doing something shady here. There's plenty of evidence to suggest that the deal is solid. And I also think that district commissioners should have broad discretion over their district funds. And Commissioner Hurd thinks this is important for Port Salerno. And I'm glad to support her and her aspiration to have green space in the downtown area of Port Salerno. I think it would be a beautiful addition to Port Salerno. So, I hope that something can be done. And, Commissioner Barkas, I would encourage you to read this statute that's yellowed in right here. I mean, you've got clear support that they made this exception for a reason. You know, and it's a good deal. We should do it. Thank you. Mr. Erler, would you like to speak with us, to us? On the agenda item or the? Not the agenda item. Not the agenda item. Okay. Mr. Donaldson had said that they've been in negotiations for over a year. Uh, Christina Arrigo was put on NAC by a 5-0 vote, uh, unknowns that, first of all, that this was a deal from a year ago. Um, I've personally seen this on a couple different, uh, plans. It's been a parking lot. Now it's green space. Um, there's been other things. It's been a residence since 1945. It needs to either remain that way, and you're, you're, um, I read through the appraisals. Everything to get that appraised value calls for improvements on the property. The structure itself is not worth anything. It's 1945. Uh, county tax collectors have it at $173,000. Um, that's basically what she pays tax on. Um, and that's, that's straight from Jenny Fields. Um, she's owned the property 10 years. She doesn't homestead it. I'm, I'm not arguing the fact of the green space. If it was green space, uh, we wouldn't have an upland facility at Manatee Park right on the water. Um, I'm sorry. I, I will speak on the other item once we get to that. Thank you. Commissioner Capps. Yes, uh, the public speaker mentioned, um, Jenny Fields' tax, uh, number on the property appraiser's website. Those numbers are always drastically lower than taxable value or, or, uh, fair market value of a property. I mean, if you, if you envision to yourself, you know, what is my house worth? You might say, uh, $500,000. You go to Jenny Fields, uh, website and, and it'll be worth, you know, like $375,000. Um, those numbers are way lower than, than fair market value. So you can't go by that. Understandably so, sir, on a, on a homesteaded property that it doesn't continue to rise. This property increases in value every 10 years. She's owned it for 10 years. Oh, yes. I'm sorry. Thank you. Okay. Okay, we've come to the end of our meeting. Time for commissioner comments. Commissioner Vargas. Okay. I think that, uh, that I'm good right now. Yeah. Thank you. Well, we made a motion. Are we still voting? It failed for lack of a second or something. Okay. It just kind of petered out there. Clearly, it's the chair's prerogative on how the meeting moves forward. The item that required a vote, there was a motion and, or, and there was, it needed a second to have the vote. So, I assume it dies and you, it's the chair's prerogative, whether you can, you either continue on discussing this or, or end the conversation and it ends the meeting. That's my interpretation. Mr. Capps. Is there any way to continue this issue to another meeting? Like, um, perhaps, uh, the seller would figure out a way to overcome this concern that some of the commissioners have here today. And maybe the deal could come forward on a future agenda. There's nothing that would restrict us from being able to put it back on the agenda, uh, with, uh, more, uh, details on either situation or, uh, if the situation changes that we could also bring it back. So, yes, I don't believe it needs to be continued. It's just in a departmental item. Um, so, uh, we could, we, we could put this back on again. Commissioner Vargas. Okay. So, um, I, I've read this three times. I read it before the meeting, just letting you know. Um, and I'm looking at it as a business person and also a real estate professional. Um, and I understand the legal aspects to it. Uh, is this seller going to resign from the board? At this time, all we have are the facts that are before us. Um, um, if the facts change or some other reason to bring it back, we would put it on the agenda. But there's no other information I can give you other than the fact is of, uh, of the disclosure requirement and, uh, and the vote that was required. Yes, I understand. But, um, you know, whoever, I guess it would be, uh, Chairwoman Hurd, since it's her area, might she speak with her and say, you know, we have a problem here. And, um, and she can look at the video and see our discussion back and forth if, if, uh, Chairwoman Hurd would like to go forward and pursue this property. Um, so, I mean, something needs to be configured here, worked here, you know, divulged here. Yeah, I promise you the staff will work with our chair and if we can, if there's a means to bring it back that, uh, can, uh, alleviate the concerns, uh, we will. Thanks. Commissioner Campy. If it were to come back, I'd like to have a legal opinion on if she negotiated the deal while she was on the board. That's where the conflict was. If she negotiated while she was on the board and then resigned, then I need to know, I'm not a lawyer, and I always say that I value our lawyers' opinions. If the conflict already happened, then just because she now steps off, if that's, if my legal department says, look, we worked that out, it's fine, bring it back, we'll have an actual discussion on whether this is the appropriate purchase or not. And I value district opinions within the district from the commissioner of that district. But that's a two-way street because it never works for me. Mr. Kamps. Uh, Commissioner Campy called for a legal opinion on a matter. Uh, maybe, maybe, maybe we can get one right now. So the statute provides that the waiver occurs right before the vote. So I think we're okay with the negotiation happening. I will double check that. But based on the wording of the statute, that the conflict is waived right before the board takes action. I think what we've done to date is perfectly legal. If she resigns, potentially we could come back. That's up to staff to talk to her. Do you need a 4-0 then or no? No, because potentially there'd be no more conflict. But I will definitely double check all that before we come back to the board. I can't say we don't have a lawyer on the board anymore. We do actually have a lawyer. Yes, and Mr. Gordon just pointed out, once she sells the property, she can't be on the NAC anyway because she doesn't live in Port Sillerino, most likely. So it might work its way out anyway. I don't know her. She might be lovely. I'm just saying, as far as I'm concerned, it's person X. It's just crazy. Commissioner Vargas. In the future, to avoid this, Mr. Donald said, could we double check and see the background of the folks that want to sell property or we have negotiations with them about real property? As it pertains to the county? Yes, we've already talked to staff about having a form and an affidavit required by every contractor or potential seller that they would have a conflict waiver signed before we would bring it to the board. So we've already put that in place. Commissioner comments at the end of the meeting. So nothing's dead yet. Nope. That's all I have to say. But let me get on the real estate negotiations next time. Any further comments? Commissioner comments? Commissioner Campy? Okay. Commissioner Hetherington? I'm all set. And Mr. Donaldson? Ms. Woods? I'm set. It's the end of the meeting. Any public comments? We are adjourned. Thank you. Thanks. Thanks. Thanks. Thanks. Thanks. Thanks. Thanks. Thanks. Thanks. Thanks. Thanks. Thanks. Thanks. Thanks. Thanks. Thanks. Thanks. Thanks. Thanks. Thanks. Thanks. Thanks. Thanks. Thanks. Thanks. Thanks. Thanks. Thanks. Thanks. Thanks. Thanks. Thanks. Thanks. Thanks. Thanks. Thanks. Thanks. Thanks. Thanks. Thanks. Thanks. Thanks. Thanks. Thanks. Thanks. Thanks. Thanks. Thanks. Thanks. Thanks. Thanks. Thanks. Thanks. Thanks. Thanks.