followed by the Pledge of Allegiance, which will be led by Todd Ross. Good morning, Pastor. Good morning. Thank you. Please pray with me. Father in heaven, we are so thankful for the joy and blessings of this day, an opportunity for each and every one of us to serve our neighbors as you have served us through your Son, Jesus. Lord, we're thankful for the various gifts which you have given to each of us, and we pray that you would lead us to serve one another with our gifts, with a feeling of joy, compassion, and wisdom. Lord, I also pray for guidance for our county commissioners and the work that they put in to lead this county into the future. We thank you for their efforts. We also ask you to bless their families as well. And Father, we're also so thankful for all those who work for the county, in the government, in their various positions, in police, especially for me and the fire, for those who work in the county parks and recreation, all of them, and I pray that you would bless each and every one of them. And Father, as we celebrate the 250th anniversary of the birth of this great nation, we remember all those who have sacrificed so much that we can be here today living in freedom, peace, and joy. I ask this in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen. Amen. Thank you. 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 liberty and justice for all. Would you tell us a bit about your career, please? I was in the U.S. Navy from 1981 to 1987. Aviation electrician, translated from that into flight engineer, so I flew as air crew the last two and a half years that I was in the Navy. Spent most of my time in the Mediterranean, a lot of time in Spain, Sicily, flying anti-submarine missions and surface interdiction, drug trafficking when we were stateside, and enjoyed it a lot. It was a good experience. It was VQ2 to me. VP5. Yay. VQ is reconnaissance, but we did anti-submarine patrol. Thank you very much. Good knowing that. Thank you. Thank you all for your pleasure. Agenda today will consist of presets. At 9.05, we'll hear from the public. At 9.30, we'll hear a fire rescue presentation. At 5.05, or at the conclusion of our meeting, we'll hear from the public again. There are no additional items. There's one request to withdraw. Department 2, which is contracts that meet the threshold for board approval, of $1 million or greater. And we all can also, there are no consent pulls, so we can also approve the consent agenda along with the agenda. I will move approval of the agenda and the consent agenda. Is there a second? Second. There's a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? That motion passes unanimously. We'll now take up a public comment. The first request to speak form I have is from Dustin Driscoll, followed by Kerry Driscoll. Please come forward. While they're on their way up, just as a reminder, since we are in election season, politicking is prohibited, which is defined as advocating the election or defeat of a candidate for public office, either partisan or nonpartisan. This includes the use of words, dates, signs, props, and or wearing apparel that convey a message of support for a person or group of persons. You'll have three minutes. At 2 minutes and 45 seconds, there'll be a yellow light indicating you have 15 seconds left. Thank you. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning, members of the board. I'm an owner of KW Records Service. I come before you today to seek help on a matter concerning Martin County's towing rotation. Since 2023, my company has been on the rotation list, and we have served our community with the utmost pride. As of March of this year, we were kicked off of the list for our first and only offense that was nothing more than a clerical error. My company and others for years have been telling the Sheriff's Office that the rates they have set and the wordings used are incorrect and are actually hurting the citizens of the county. And this error is just one of the reasons that my company has now been affected. On March 20th, we were called out for an accident on Canter Highway near Indiantown involving two larger commercial vehicles. One owned by Coastal Waste out of Hope Sound was recovered and towed back to Coastal Waste's yard per their request. Typically, when towing to a location other than our own yard, we receive payment at the drop-off location. But because we had a working relationship with Coastal, we told them we would help handle the bill later. Later on, the manager, Bo Milton, contacted us and asked why the bill was so high. We assured him that we would take a look. Before we were able to fully break down the bill and see the mistake, Bo said that he called a rival towing company and Commissioner Blake Capps. Bo said that he and Commissioner Capps called MCSO together and put in a complaint. Our truck times run off of an app, and due to the lack of service at the scene, our computers were not given accurate times of when we arrived and left the scene. MCSO sent two officials to talk to us. They said our times were off according to their records, which is when we explained the GPS issue, and changed the invoice to the times the officials told us to. The officials informed us that there was another mistake and told us to change that as well, which we did. Even at that time, we had never taken any payment and did not have possession of the vehicle. The next day, we were informed by phone that Sheriff Budenseek deemed us a threat to the community for malicious overcharging, and that we were being removed from the rotation effective immediately, even though we never accepted any money and fixed the issues they told us to. This simple mistake was our first and only mistake ever reported, and yet we received the harshest punishment when other companies were given 30-day suspensions or less for much worse offenses. But still, we followed a procedure that was set forth in the contract that the commissioners approved, which is Resolution 17-5.17. We asked for an appeal, and after the lawyer for MCSO, Bernardo Romero, was made aware that we never took any money and didn't have the vehicle, he acknowledged that it wasn't intentional. Yet Sheriff Budenseek still deemed this small mistake as a removable offense. My company has been active within this community for 22 years, and we are family-owned and operated in this community. We go to schools to teach about moving over for emergency vehicles. We are the only tow truck company that annually attends the MCSO trunk retreat and many other efforts within the community. I ask that you truly look into this, see that this was a simple mistake, and please help put my company back on rotation where we can serve this community with true pride like we always have. I only had three minutes, but the packets I have provided to each of you have many more details to help you understand all the circumstances. Thank you. Carrie Driscoll is next. And Douglas Adler, do you want to speak at public? Yeah? Okay. You'll be after Ms. Driscoll. Good morning. I'm an owner of KW Record Service. I am here to bring to your attention the rates and wordings in the record rotation manual for the Sheriff's Department are incorrect and have been for many years now. Myself, as well as other companies, have tried telling the record rotation coordinator on several different occasions, and each time our concerns have fallen on deaf ears. The wordings and definition changes that were approved are incorrect and have need to be refined. These small mistakes are potentially costing the citizens of Martin County hundreds of dollars. As of now, with how the rates are worded, a simple tow that uses a flatbed could cost a citizen $694 for the hookup. The actual rate should be $202 for hookup. This is because the commissioners and MCSO don't understand the difference between a Class A and a Class D in the towing industry. A Class D is a heavy-duty call, such as a tractor-trailer or bigger, but the manual has Class D as any flatbed. This not only affects a rotation call, but also private property tow-aways, which also have to go by Martin County rates. Also, the contract contradicts the state law of Florida when it comes to storage timeframes needed for the statute to be correct. We have also brought to their attention the rate known as extra man is fundamentally wrong. The rate as of now is a flat rate for any extra man, no matter how long he is on scene. Most accidents don't require an extra man, but the ones that do tend to be major accidents that require hours of manpower. While most other extra fees state in the contract tend to go by segments of 15 minutes after the first half hour or hourly, this rate tells the tow truck companies that if they send out an extra man on any accident that takes hours to clear, those workers are getting paid less than the minimum wage to help clear our roads safely and securely. Second, the manual does not have a clear procedure of how to handle disciplinary actions against a towing company or even a company's ability to have proper, unbiased appeals process for any error or disciplinary action. And the procedure that is in the manual is too vague. As you know, ambiguity in a contract should benefit the ones that do not write it. Meanwhile, my company made a clerical error, and we are called dangerous to the citizens and are forced to be on the verge of closing, where others have only been given a suspension of 30 days max. But we are kicked off, even though no funds were ever exchanged. In conclusion, the Record Rotation Manual of Martin County should adopt the Florida Highway Safety Motor Vehicle Rule, Chapter 15B-9. Like many other counties have done, it is more comprehensive and defined. It protects the citizens, as well as gives more secure definitions and rules for the towing companies and the Sheriff's Office to follow. I implore you to look into this and fix these issues. Thank you. We will thoroughly review this matter, I assure you. Yes. Douglas Adler is next, followed by Mr. McChrystal. Would you like to talk now or at fire rescue presentation? Robert Wolfe is next. Good morning, everyone. My name is Douglas Adler. I live here in Stewart. I'm speaking to you today because I just found out about the proposed changes to Chapter 17, Section 17.9, which is rules and regulations regarding Martin County Parks, more specifically the public beach properties. According to this proposed amendment, we're going to be striking out some laws and some rules, which really, in my opinion, are crucial to the safety of the public. As of right now, shark fishing is illegal within 1,000 yards of a full-service public beach. That's a beach with a bathroom, a shower, and a lifeguard. So that's like Stewart Beach, Jensen Beach, Bathtub Beach. If we allow shark fishing within those beaches, could you imagine the calamity? Along with striking out that language, we're also removing the ability for a law enforcement officer to warn someone that where they're fishing is dangerous. In other words, if someone's casting out into a crowd of people at Stewart Beach and a police officer says, hey, I think that's dangerous, maybe you should cast down the beach, that police officer now has no authority, and the fishermen can just continue fishing into a crowd of people. On December 31, 2024, I was surfing at Santa Lucia Beach, which is within 1,000 yards of Stewart Beach. I was caught in a shark fishing line, a braided line wrapped around my ankle, tore through my wetsuit. It was one of the scariest moments of my life. I'd like for that to not happen to anyone else here in Stewart. Something that I think is important to add, if we're going to be amending these rules, there should be some amendment regarding shark fishing using drones, which has become a huge problem on our beaches. The day that I was trapped in the shark fishing line, they were sending their bait out several hundred yards offshore with drones, and they were standing up in the dunes with their fishing rods, no way of even knowing that they were fishing on the beach. I went out surfing, tried to catch a wave. Next thing you know, it's wrapped around my ankle. And, you know, I had no idea they were even there. And so we're going to make this totally okay at any of the beaches, go shark fishing, baiting, chumming the waters. You know, the proposed amendment says it's to better align with the Florida state fishing regulations. Well, we're also striking out language that prohibits chumming and blood baiting. The Florida fishing... Your time is up. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. McQuarrie, do you want to... Robert Wolfe is next, followed by Robert Volpe. Robert Wolfe. Thank you. Good morning. Good morning, everyone. So my name is Robert Wolfe. I live here in Stewart, Florida. I moved here in 2004 before Francis and Jean and was living on Hutchinson Island at that time. I am a beach user, a swimmer, a surfer. And as Doug said, we see these shark fishermen coming up from all of South Florida to get a picture of them holding a shark on the beach so they can post it online and tell everyone where they caught it and how big the shark is. And I don't think that's good for tourism. If the tourists find out that these guys are coming to Jensen and Stewart and Hope Sound Beach to shark fish and posting these pictures online, that's not good for our local community. Plus, it's not safe. One of the other items... I'm sorry to jump ahead, but I am talking about the changing of the language for Chapter 17, Article 1, 17.9A, about county beaches and fishing regulations. Here is striking the time for shark fishing from these full-service beaches, striking out at any time. And so that means that they can shark fish before and after guards open the beach and close the beach, which is around 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. So can you imagine a shark fisherman at the middle of Jensen Beach at 8 o'clock in the morning chumming the water, which I do believe is illegal by the Florida Fish and Wildlife. So that's already aligned with Fish and Wildlife. And this language that's in the Martin County rules right now is good language, strong language that protects the citizens of Martin County and the people that swim along our beaches. So taking these words out is not protecting the people, but it says here that the reason for striking these out is to protect the people. So it's very confusing there. So can you imagine shark fishermen set up with drones, huge fishing lines, multiple lines going all the way out, 8 o'clock in the morning. Swimmers are already there. Joggers are already there. People are using the beach already. People are also using the beach after 5 p.m. when the guards close the beach. You don't want shark fishermen showing up and throwing bait and stuff out. Leave the language how it is. It's great language. It's strong language. It's beautiful. Thank you all for putting the language in in the first place. Please don't take it out now. We fought hard to get the language in there so that we don't have these problems. The other thing that I'd like to say is that we did lose one of our surfing community back in 2010, Stephen Schaefer, rest his soul, buy a shark bite at Stewart Beach 16 years ago. We don't want that to happen again. Is that my three minutes? Fifteen seconds. Huh? Fifteen more seconds. Fifteen more seconds. So there's only three beaches full service. Stewart, Jensen, Hobesound, and Bathtub. Imagine again, fishermen at Bathtub Beach, family beach, inside the tub, shark fishing and chumming because your language is taking out the chumming. Leave it in there. It's part of the Florida State statute and it should stay in there. Thank you. You guys have a nice day. Thank you. Thank you. Robert Volpe is next, followed by John Dial. I asked to speak on PHQJ 3, the public hearing. Okay. Just to clarify. Yep. Thank you. I'll move it there. Thank you. John Dial is next, followed by Jim Moyer. I'd like you to hear. Okay. Good morning, Commissioners. My name is John Dial. I live in 5254 Southeast Horseshoe Point Road in Rocky Point. I'm here today to talk about the physical impact presentation of the Homestead Exemption. I think we need to all be very proactive as if this will pass and not if it will pass. And we cannot afford to be reactive as this will be the will of the voters. And I've studied the results of the 2008 and 2010 downturn, and it was not very pretty. I urge you to schedule a workshop, if you can, for the future so we can at least have a leg up on this if it passes with the 60% it needs. We cannot afford to fund or to defund or cut our first responders in any way. It's just not an option. And we have to find ways to maintain our current Martin County way of life. The second thing I'd like to bring up is Mr. Derek Powell's property. I went out there and visited him again this last week when it flooded. It's a simple solution. I took an engineer out there on my own dime, and I know that the county commission and everybody's been out there looking at it. Last time I think there was four paid county employees out there. And the guy that I took out there is very well-versed in this. He said it's a simple fix, just a drain box and a couple lines, pitching it back to the wetland in the back. It's real easy. And I just urge you to please get this resolved not only for him but for the contractor and the developer next door who's having their sidewalk underwater right now. It's a real easy fix. And thank you for your time. I appreciate the work you all do. Thank you. Thank you. Paul Laura is next, followed by Angela Rantanella. Yes, Angela, you want to wait, too? Jay Noyes. My name is Jay Noyes, and I'm here to support the local surfers in town here. Also about the shark fishing. I myself have been caught in shark fishing lines, and it is not fun, you know. So I really don't have much to say, but, you know, that's where I stand on the matter. Okay? Thank you. Thank you. Let's see. Diane Shriver. It's been addressed. Thank you. So you don't want to speak to us? Okay. Thank you. Darlene Van Ryper. Good morning. Good morning. I'm Darlene Van Ryper, Executive Director of the Martin County Taxpayers Association, a taxpayer watchdog organization. I'm here to express the organization's dismay at the misleading information being put out to sway the voters from voting for Amendment 3 in November. If you all have not broken Florida statute use of public funds for lobbying, you have walked right up to the door and knocked as hard as you can. You will not admit that your information. You will not admit that your information is misleading. You will say that the public has the right to know what the consequences of losing revenue will be. I'm here to tell you that when you don't tell the whole story, you mislead. There is a reason when you put your hand on a Bible in a court of law, you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Let me share the rest of the story with the public. There was a clubhouse built on the county golf course. It cost $10 million when a $5.6 million building had been agreed to. Did we need a $10 million building to serve hot dogs and beer? Some might say that was excessive spending. We have a $600,000 walkway through one of the county's 75 parks. It goes through mangroves. I wonder what the yearly maintenance of that is. Some might call an expensive walkway through mangroves in a county where there are many miles of beaches to walk excessive spending. It was stated by a commissioner at one of these meetings that the fire rescue department had gone $10 million over budget on the burn training complex that they built. Sorry, you cannot blame all of that on inflation. Some might consider that excessive spending. Phase three of that facility alone cost $6.7 million. The reason it was built was to relieve firefighters from having to be transported all the way to Fort Pierce for this specialized training. That transportation cost approximately $120,000 per year. A commissioner even pointed out that it would take a long time to break even. Martin County Taxpayers Association did that very easy math. It will take 55.8 years. Some would say that is excessive spending. Allowing the Community Redevelopment Agency to give TIF dollars to private industry without a means testing on affordability would be considered by some excessive spending. I could go on, but I thought I was out of time. Maybe we should talk about the list of nonprofits that you give money to our taxpayer dollars every year. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Your purse. Your purse. Dottie Lancey is next. Followed by Ellen Asselin. Again, my name. Good morning, everybody. My name is Dottie Lancey, and I live on Hutchinson Island. I'm a member of the Hutchinson Island Preservation Initiative. And our mission is to preserve and protect the natural beauty of Hutchinson Island in Martin County. I'm here today to urge you to reject the proposal to lift the ban on shark baiting on our county beaches. I could not believe that the commission was even considering such a terrible idea. Who in their right mind would suggest something like this that would endanger the safety of residents and visitors alike who want to enjoy our beautiful beaches? If you took a ball in the county to see who would support this plan, I think you would realize how foolhardy that this proposal is. And to bring it up at this point in time when most people are away on vacation and don't have any public notice about it is doing a big disservice to your constituents. I only learned about it when your agenda was made public a few days ago. The previous administration who put this ordinance in place, forbidding shark baiting on beaches protected by lifeguards, realized that this was a good idea. Have you asked for any input from the Martin County Fire Department who provide the lifeguards at our beaches? I believe they're here today. Do they support shark baiters able to use their drones to chum the waters in front of their lifeguard stands? Attracting the sharks to the shoreline where families with children are swimming? Please, put the public safety first. And instead of lifting this important ordinance, I believe you should extend it to include all of the beaches in Martin County, regardless if lifeguards are present or not. You saw what the surfers said about that. I personally want to tell you about an incident that I witnessed. A group of four or five men spent the weekend on the beach in front of my house. They had their cameras, equipment on tripods, and many fishing poles stuck in the sand and were using a drone to fly out from the shore to chum, to quite a distance off the shore, to drop the chum to attract the sharks. I don't know if they were successful or not, but the next morning, after they had gone in the exact same spot where they had their equipment, a family of four put up their umbrellas. They were completely unaware of what – and two young children were playing in the water there. They had no idea what took place the day before and that some hungry sharks might still be there in the area attracted by the previous activity the day before. I really hope you will not, under any circumstances, lift that ban on shark baiting in Martin County and instead extend the ban to protect the people using all our beaches. State rules concerning this do not prevent local government from passing laws of their own restriction in the interest of public safety. And just this past February, Miami Beach passed a law banning land-based shark fishing. I hope that I – to hear from you, each of you this morning, on what your position is on this. Thank you. Thank you. And I have a picture – I have a picture of the shark baiters if you care to see it. Well, maybe later. Thank you. Ellen Asselin is next, followed by Victoria Blake. Good morning. I'm Ellen Asselin, and I received the letter about the fact that you're going to increase the – Can you move over to the microphone, please, so that we can hear you? Sorry. I received the letter that you are going to increase the amount of assessment that we are going to have for trash pickup. It comes as a very bad time. I realize I have read the reasoning that your contract has gone up with waste management, and it's going to have to be charged to us. But it comes at a very bad time when you've got this Amendment 3. It's just another panic that people are going to say, I need to vote yes on that. And that's what worries me. Thank you for the time. Thank you. Victoria Blake is next, followed by Angela Harrison. We're back. Hi, I'm Victoria Blake, and I represent Tent City Helpers. So we've spoken many, many times, and we just don't know what we need to do to get on the agenda, and how can we receive funding. We need land, at least, or better, a shelter. Little Vero has a shelter. I recently just had a camper donated to Tent City Helpers. We have nowhere to put it. And it has the ability to give showers to the homeless. Can you imagine if we had 5 or 10 acres where our homeless could be unhoused, can use a free shower? Out of respect for their identity, I'd like to give you a couple examples of some wins that I've witnessed personally. I'll call him Bobby to save his true identity. When I met Bobby, he was very drunk on a few occasions, and he worked very hard to get his license back, all his identifications. He got a job recently. He's a totally different man. And he looks me dead in the eye and is like, I'm so proud of myself. I'm so proud of you, brother. And when he drives to work every day at 7 o'clock, he listens to the church bells ring. I think that's God, if it's nothing else. I'll call him David, not his real name. But my church, Calvary Community, donates Bibles. David looked at me last week in the eye and said, I read my Bible every night in my tent. Victoria, thank you so much. And I'm like, God bless you, man. Then he got hit by a car, cracked his neck, and the driver drove off. I mean, these are how we're, in Martin County, treating our unhoused. The last one I'll mention is Tyler. Tyler recently passed, and I'm going to cry. A credible man. What a wonderful man. And thanks to Kirsten and Roshanda, he was housed the last month of his life. He had air conditioning for the last month of his life. And when I was driving to his service, it occurred to me, I was watching a Kobe Bryant documentary that morning, and I was driving to the service. We had about 25 people attend, and I thought, you know what? Tyler is just as important as Kobe, right? Amen. So please tell me, I mean, what can we do? I know the elections are coming up. I think it would be important to Martin County residents if we found a place for our unhoused, rather than sleeping in the woods or under the bridges, and or the police hunting them down with dogs. I mentioned last time that Doug Schmidt was bit by a dog while being chased by the police, and he died by the infection. Shortly thereafter, his son hung himself as a result of this tragedy that just keeps going on and on. So I beg you for a solution. Again, I don't know what we can do to warrant some investment. You invest in Brightline, and that's great, but how about we invest in human lives? And I beg you, please let us know how we can get on the agenda and how we can apply for funding. God bless. Thank you. Thank you. Angela Harrison is next, followed by Tom June. John? Good morning, everyone. It's always a pleasure to be here. Angela Harrison representing TIT City Helpers. I do have a few resolutions that hopefully we can all come together with. So I've been in contact with Tony a lot with the program called The Source. He has something called the Dignity Bus. Tony would like to be placed on the agenda so that he can come and give you the full details of what the Dignity Bus is. From what I understand, it houses at nighttime 20 to 30 people. There is space for them if they have animals. It does have showers, but of course we would need somewhere to park this bus. Also, on August 4th, Gail Harvey, our amazing leader, she found somewhere where we can go and apply for a $100,000 grant, which we will be doing, Victoria and myself. I believe it's August 4th. So I'm hoping that if we get that money, maybe you guys would be willing to kind of, you know, like I said, I'm going to keep coming with solutions. And then eventually we'll come together and we'll figure something out for our unhoused people. But like I said, if you guys ever have a chance, I know your schedules are huge. I mean, they're busy. But if you ever have a chance to come out on Monday with us just to meet our people, we serve anywhere from 50 to 70 people. We provide necessities, tents, sleeping bags. And like I've said before on our many visits with you guys that we deeply appreciate, it actually costs more money for them to be unhoused than if we do provide housing for them. And we're talking anywhere from $180,000 per person down to $10,000 per year. And that's out of our, of course, I'm a taxpayer here in Martin County, so that kind of hits all of our pockets. So if we could really get him on the agenda to kind of come and talk to you guys, that would be such a beautiful blessing. And we would be so just grateful for that. Again, thank you always for having us and giving us the opportunity to speak. Everyone have a beautiful, blessed day. Thank you. Thank you. Tom John is next, followed by Dr. Justin Grubich. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning. My wife asked me to come just moments ago because a subject of sharks came up. So I go back in the shark. Oh, my God. When I was a little kid with hair, I started surfing. And I mean literally at 10 years of age in California. California is pretty well known for sharks, great white sharks. And I'm, by the way, I don't have the fear of sharks that seem like everybody I knew had. So I would go surf Ananduevo. And Ananduevo State Park. I used to be able to go out there all alone or with one or two friends because everybody's so dang afraid of sharks. But we'd sit out there. I'd sit out there right at the edge of the kelp bed. And I'd watch the shark fins go by. And then I'd see the killer whale go by. And I'd go, why am I out here? And I'm out here because it's one of the only places I can get a great wave and nobody will go. So I was like, whoop, love it. And then see how long you can last, right, before the fear eventually does set in. But anyway, somewhere along the line, somewhere, somebody decided that this could be an attraction. And they started fishing from the beach and chumming. And now those sharks that I used to watch go right by would come right to the shore. Great whites. And it became completely, you do not go out there. And if you search it on your phone, nowadays, Ananduevo, you'll just get pictures of big sharks, right? So sharks are prehistoric animals. I grew up fishing with my grandfather and my uncle, both of which were commercial fishermen. And they were explaining to me that a shark is almost impossible to kill. Don't bring them aboard. They have a brain the size of a pea. They have no bones. They have no, they only have a nervous system that runs down them. They're very prehistoric, like an alligator. They come from that same age. You got alligators. You got sturgeon. You can't kill a sturgeon either. And the weird thing about them, they have no brain, but they can smell food a long ways off. And that's why if you want to catch sharks, you chum. You want to bring alligators in, you chum. They're very, very prehistoric animals. My only thing I would say is we have a lot of tourists here. I'm now in Florida. I'm no longer in California, right? And you see everybody at the beach. But I tell you, you start putting chum in the water, you will have sharks. And those sharks are like alligators. They're like a stray cat. You feed them, they come. And like I said, I'm not afraid of them, but you will get shark attacks. That's something that happened in California. That was a mistake they made when they allowed that chumming, going back to the original spot and in Nuevo, they not only got shark attacks, but they spread all the way down to another place right beside there. I can't remember the name. The creek, Steams Creek, whatever, another surf spot. But you feed sharks, they will come. So that's all I got for you. Not much, but I don't think it's a great idea. Thank you. Dr. Justin Grubich is next. And Dr. Grubich is the last request to speak for him. If you would like to speak to us on a non-agended item, please fill out a request to speak for him and get it to the bailiff. Good morning. Morning. Morning, commissioners. My name is Dr. Justin Grubich. I've been a resident here now about five years. I moved up here for the surf and the fishing. From Fort Lauderdale, I'm a native Floridian. Met my wife in the waves. She's here today. She's the one encouraging me to come up and speak. I work in marine conservation throughout the state. I've done research on sharks in the past. I was only made aware of this this morning, that there was going to be a language change in some of the regulations you have to be consistent with Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission. I think keeping that language that you have now is probably the prudent and best option. It is consistent the way I read it with FWC. And what we're trying to do is prevent sort of that chumming activity, which is adding more bait and blood to the water that attracts more sharks. I was recently at the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership Luncheon in Orlando at the ICAS. I'm a big recreational fisherman, so I love fishing as well as surfing. And there's new scientific evidence or more accumulated scientific evidence that you can create problem sharks, like problem bears. So if you have blood baiting going on or chumming in public beaches, especially near guarded areas, you could create sharks that get used to coming to that area. And eventually you're going to have an interaction, a wildlife interaction, and that would be a tragedy. So I suggest keeping the language the way it is. There's scientific evidence that suggests that you don't want to be bringing sharks to those types of areas so that you're having those types of potential dangerous interactions with bathers, surfers, other beachgoers. And there is ample opportunity for recreational fishermen to take advantage with the current rules in place away from those public beaches during those time zones without blood baiting. And that is actually banned by FWC, period. So that's all I have to comment on. And thank you for your time. Thank you. The next thing on the agenda is a proclamation recognizing July 26th as International Day for the Conservation of Mangrove Ecosystems in Martin County, Florida. Good morning, Commissioners. Mangroves are keystone species and an iconic feature of Florida's coastal ecosystem that provide critical habitat for native Florida wildlife, including at least 220 species of fish, 180 species of birds, 24 species of reptiles and amphibians, and 18 mammal species. Root systems of mangroves can trap sediments and pollutants, absorb excess nutrients, and filter heavy metals in wastewater before they make their way to the Indian River Lagoon. Mangroves also protect our coastline, acting as natural barriers during extreme weather events. In recognition of this special day, the board urged the community to help contribute to the restoration of mangrove ecosystems. And here to accept, we have Indian River Keeper Jim Moore on behalf of the Marine Resources Council. Thank you very much. Thank you, Commissioners. You know, Florida's lost about 87% of the mangroves that it used to have. It's unbelievably important. And it is a foundational species. It has made much of Florida. And I think that we in this county have some of the biggest, most magnificent black mangroves, as you know, Commissioner Campy. Down in Jupiter Island, there are some wonderful mangrove marshes. There are beautiful black mangroves. It's a fantastic mangrove ecology. And we are doing our part by designated July 26th as UNESCO International Mangrove Day. And I hope that we'll consider July as Mangrove Month. And perhaps every other day in the year is Mangrove Day as well. There are some serious problems that mangroves are having besides being bulldozed and having seawalls in place of themselves. There's a pretty serious pathogenic fungus that is killing mangroves that are stressed out. And so in our mosquito impoundments and other places where we tend to put a high load of stressors on those mangroves, we need to do a better job of protecting them. Thank you, Commissioners. Thank you for loving mangroves as much as we do. Thanks a lot. Thank you for bringing it to our attention. Thank you. Madam Chair, I know you're going to bring, we're going to have our preset, but the conversation for fishing on the beach is public hearing number two, and the assessment for the special assessment for the tax collector is number one. Since we have the members of the public hear, can we switch to in front of number one after the firefighter presentation? Sure. And, Commissioners, we need to adopt the proclamation recognizing July as International Day for the Conservation of Mangrove Ecosystems. So moved. Second. There's a motion and a second. Any objections? That motion passes unanimously. I can attest that how important mangroves are. I have really, really healthy mangroves on my lot, and I have my rain gauge on my dock, and I checked it on Sunday morning because we had a big thunderstorm on Saturday night, and there were snook this long and this long under my dock because I have such healthy mangroves. We're now going to have a preset, which is fire rescue presentation, Department 3. Good morning. Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Chad Chanchule, Fire Chief, Martin County Fire Rescue. Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Rocco Napoli, Deputy Fire Chief, Martin County Fire Rescue. Good morning, Commissioners. Matt Resch, Fire Rescue Administrator. So today we're here to do a presentation for you, and I've got to be honest with you. It's been on my mind. I want to make sure that I open this the right way because it's important. There's been a lot of attention to a presentation we haven't even conducted yet, and it has no context, none at all. We have media attention, and we have social media attention. So the opening is extremely important. So what I would like to do is this. I'm going to bring you into the mind of a firefighter. A firefighter who trains on a regular basis. This is how we operate. This is how we think. When we train, we train as close to real world as possible, and it's important. We have to because when we arrive on scene, we want to make sure we have no tactical gaps, none at all. So if I'm going to do a training iteration, and it's going to be a residential structure fire, and I'm on the street, one of the backbones of running any operation has to do with your communication. It essentially is how you do your command presence and how you actually run the tactics of the call. So if I just jumped into that training, and I jumped on the radio, and I initially started with a size up right out the gate, and I said something like, arrival on scene, single story, CBS structure, approximately 2,000 square feet. I have smoke and flame showing from the Alpha Bravo corner. We're about 20% involved, and we're going in an offensive mode of operation. If the department was listening to the radio, which they do all day, and they heard me do that size up, they're immediately going to want to know where I am, what I'm doing, and how quick do they need to get there. So why am I sharing that? What I would normally do in that training exercise, to make sure I de-escalate that, is I would get on the radio, and the first thing I would say is training, training, training. This is a training exercise only. Then proceed. And then I don't have to worry about anyone coming on scene of a training exercise. So I share that with you today, because today we're here to do a presentation. This presentation has to do with, if the homestead exemption vote passes in November, and there is an increase to homestead exemption in year one and two, there are direct impacts, obviously, to the entire state, to the county, but I'm just here to speak about those impacts to fire rescue only. So we're going to talk about just year one, and we're going to talk about year two. This is a training exercise, and a training exercise only. However, these numbers, they're real. This isn't fear-mongering. This is real. We have to absorb those impacts, and we're going to break that down, what that looks like. So let's begin the exercise. So first, let's talk about how fire rescue is funded. So the lion's share of our fund comes from the Municipal Service Taxing Unit, the MSTU. And if you think about how that works for a revenue stream, it's going to be based off the taxable value times the millage rate equals the revenue. If the homestead exemption does pass, and the first year is going to be $150,000, it increases. It means our taxable value will drop. Millage stays the same. Revenue drops with that as well. And then in year two, it climbs up to $250,000. Same scenario. Tax value drops again. Millage stays the same. Revenues drop substantially. So let's talk about what year one and year two look like. In year one, when it's $150,000, if this passes, fire rescue receives a reduction in our budget of $9.5 million. And then in year two, it compounds. In year two, we receive an additional $7 million reduction, which is a total of $16.5 million just to our budget. That's a 22% decrease with how we operate today. And that's something that we have to make sure we pay attention to because those decreases, they have impacts. What I want to do is bring you back to literally two weeks ago, we just did a budget meeting. And I think in the budget workshop, the biggest message I think I presented in that workshop is 93% of fire rescue's budget is people. So just bear that in mind. So I'm going to go with year one. In year one, what I'm going to show you is the cuts in services. I have to reach the benchmark of roughly $9.5 million. There's only so many ways I can do this. So we're going to go through what that's going to look like. If this passes in year one, we're going to go ahead and close down Station 18, and we're going to close down Station 33. I'm going to show you later in a map for context. Station 18 is at the northern end of the county. Station 33 is at the southern end of the county. The cost to operate a station on an annual basis, roughly $390,000. So that's going to come to you with some of roughly $780,000. I have to reach a 9.5 benchmark. I have currently 13 of our firefighters that are at the end of their career that are going into retirement, and they're going to leave the department. Typically, when those 13 firefighters would leave, I would go ahead and backfill them with new employees that keep our staffing levels the way they're supposed to be at our minimum staffing. Well, in this scenario, we're not going to backfill those employees, and that's going to be a cost of $2.6 million. I also have nine additional vacancies right now as we sit. We're not going to backfill those as well. So essentially what we're doing is letting those full-time employee spots pretty much just retire out of the department, and I'm reducing my staffing by 22 full-time positions. That's going to bring me to roughly $4.3 million. Now we're going to slash overtime. Overtime with fringes is roughly $1.4 million. Now what does that mean when I cut overtime? This is what it looks like. When we shut the stations down, we took all of the apparatus and the personnel, we redistributed them to the other stations that are still open. And you've got to keep in mind those stations aren't built to take in all that extra equipment, and they're not built to house all the additional personnel in one dwelling. But when we slash the overtime, if I have somebody that is out, it could be vacation, it could be sick, it could be FMLA, it could be workers' comp, whatever the case is, and I don't have the staff on duty to fill that position, I'm not paying overtime. Typically we would call an off-duty person, offer them to work that day for the extra hours and pay them, and then keep that truck running. Well, now we're shutting the overtime down. I don't have that ability to do that. So essentially what happens is this, you have stations that are still operating in the county, but on a randomized basis, some of those trucks will get shut down. So it's going to be a very inconsistent level of service. You can have a fire truck shut down for a day, depending on my staffing, or you can have a rescue truck shut down for a day, depending on our staffing. But that's the inconsistency that's starting to occur. Next, special teams. Special teams we're going to eliminate. That's going to bring us to roughly a 6.17 mark. That's a cost of $381,000 to operate those teams on an annual basis. I'm going to talk about three of these teams real quick. We have the HAZMAT team, technical rescue team, and our dive team. Our HAZMAT team, I want you to think about Martin County. And most in the public, they're not the wiser. They don't really know. We have hazardous material transit through this community on a routine basis, all day, all night. You think about I-95, the Turnpike, Federal Highway, the railway, and the marine industry. We are surrounded by it. Our HAZMAT team, it's not an ordinary team. This team is a nationally recognized team. And proof is in the pudding. We literally had some high-level incidents out in the western part of the county, FPNL. And this is something they're able to handle. We had two large-scale incidents in one year. The public went to bed and woke up the next day, and everything was just fine. They had no idea. However, we were able to operate that call, mitigate that incident, and by the next morning, everything was good. The public doesn't know what we can do internally, but they have that ability to do that. So if I eliminate this team now, what's that same scenario look like if I have an incident in the future at FPNL? Well, this is what happens. Our crews arrive on scene. They're going to identify it's a hazardous material call at an industry, at a factory, or at a plant. And they're going to go ahead and secure the scene, isolate the scene, evacuate far and wide, and then they're going to go ahead and call for outside agencies. They will call for St. Lucie County or Palm Beach County. One, they're going to ask them, do you still have a team? And two, if you do, can you respond to our incident to mitigate it? Now, that's going to be something called a mutual aid agreement. A mutual aid agreement is simply this. They could have the assets to give you, but if they don't have the time to give you those assets, you're not going to get them. But you're definitely not going to get them in a timely manner. One thing to understand about a hazardous material call, those calls escalate at a very rapid time frame where we're going to sit there and we're going to watch this and secure it the best we can until we get the proper assets on scene. Next, a technical rescue team. This team has got many different disciplines just in the team itself, but I'm going to just kind of extract one for you because it's something you see on a regular routine basis. It is their ability to do complex vehicle extrications. I've said this a thousand times before. There's something about this county. The type of vehicle collisions we have in this county, they are extremely traumatic. They are fiery. And the amount of damage sustained is just unreal what happens out there. There are some scenes that we go on. This isn't a typical fender bender where there's just a door pop. There are some scenes that we go on that are so complex with how to cut these people out of the car, we have to deploy this team. This team has a specialized skill set. They have the specialized training. They have specialized equipment to be able to mitigate that scene. It's extremely important. But we're going to eliminate that. So what's it look like? We're going to go to these scenes, and we're still going to throw everything at it that we can. And we're going to try to perform that extrication. But if it goes beyond the tools that we have on scene or the skill set, then we're going to have to, again, call for an outside agency to mitigate our incident. It's either going to be St. Lucie County or Palm Beach County and have them come to our scene, which is going to delay the entire point of patient care and transfer them to appropriate facility. The last is our dive team. Our dive team, if you think about Martin County, Martin County is over 700 square miles. Roughly 200 square miles is waterway, 22 miles just coastal line. We have incidents where we have vehicles that go off the roadway into it could be canals, lakes, ponds, whatever it is. And the way we have built this team, we built this team to where it can actually be in a rescue mode of operation. What does that mean? Essentially, what they're doing is we deploy them immediately from the incident, and then they get to dress out en route to the call. And then as soon as they hit the scene, they splash the water. They have a 45-minute window to stay in a rescue mode to perform an effective, positive outcome. But essentially, if we don't have that team, we're going to go ahead and be on the side of the water, whatever bank that is. We're going to secure the scene. We're going to secure our witnesses. And then we're going to call counties north and south of us to ask that they still have those assets available, a dive team, and then if they can respond to us. And then when they do respond, essentially what they're going to do is a body recovery. Because your rescue window of opportunity, it's shut. Now you're just going to pull bodies out of the water in that scenario. All right, next I'm going to move on to capital and equipment deferred project. This is roughly a $3.1 million cost. I'm not going to go into that now, but it's worthy of its own slide. And Mr. Resch will do that when I finish this slide here. And you'll understand those details and the ramifications. So next, I'm going to move on to Lifestar. So for the general public, Lifestar is our trauma helicopter. We have a trauma helicopter for a reason. What we do not have in Martin County is a trauma center. We don't have a trauma hospital. That's why we have a helicopter. We're held to two standards. One is someone that is deemed a trauma alert. This is a very specific criteria. This isn't criteria that Martin County Fire Rescue came up with. This is state criteria. If you meet the qualifications of a trauma alert, you have to go to a trauma center with a trauma surgeon and a trauma teen within 60 minutes of window. That's the second standard, the golden hour. If we can get you to a trauma facility from that point of impact within 60 minutes of time under that benchmark, then you have a high probability of survival. If you go past that 60-minute window, you have a high probability for loss of life. This isn't frivolous information I'm just throwing out there. This isn't fear monitoring. This is fact. This is exactly what would happen. So how does that call look in the future after the helicopter is gone? It's simple. We get on scene. We do what we can do. We establish that it's a trauma alert. We will call for outside assets if they can still fly to us. But depending on the time delay, how long it takes them to get here because they're out of county, most likely we're going to be driving them. But the problem with that is we're not going to be achieving the goal of that golden hour to adhere to that standard. And that's going to change outcomes. All right. Last I'm going to talk about here is the cadet program that we have. This is an awesome program that we have in Martin County Fire Rescue. This is essentially investing into the youth of our kids in high school. And it's just recruiting our local kids to see if they want to be a part of fire rescue. And if they do, we bring them onto the program. We expose them what fire rescue is all about. And then if they do like it, then they go off to their formalized education. They get certified. They come back here. We hire them. That is a lifelong employee. Those right there services would meet the benchmark of the $9.5 million that we're looking to achieve in year one. This next slide I'm going to kick over to Mr. Resch. He's going to talk about the capital and equipment. Thank you, Chief. Good morning, Commissioners. So before I get into the context of this slide, I think it's really important to provide a little bit of context specifically about our capital improvement plan. So unlike our operating budget, which funds the day-to-day operations, the capital improvement plan is essentially our long-term financial strategy. And what it allows us to do is plan 10 years in advance for the replacement of critical infrastructure and equipment. And we've been successful over the years at maintaining a very consistent level of funding with minimal increases by employing two different effective strategies. First, we leveraged the county's exceptional credit rating to purchase our fire apparatus at historically low interest rates as compared to the retail market. Then, as those debt obligations expire, we replaced them with the next apparatus purchase. That disciplined approach has allowed us to maintain a reliable fleet while keeping our annual funding remarkably stable. Second, we've created savings accounts for the bulk replacement of our cardiac monitors, our SCBA air packs, our AEDs. So when they reach the end of their useful life in 10 to 15 years, we already have the money set aside to pay for them. So any significant reduction in our ad valorem revenue would force us to abandon a replacement strategy that has served us very well over the years. Now, as we dive into the details of the slide, the first impact would be approximately $1.2 million in apparatus lease payments, bringing the engine and rescue replacement schedules essentially to a halt. This brings apparatus reliability into question and increases our maintenance costs across the board. The next reduction would be $835,000 for bunker gear, extrication equipment, and our marine rescue unit. That means firefighters would have to continue wearing their personal protective equipment for longer than intended, and the rescue tools would have to be used well beyond their useful life. The next reduction would be $600,000 from our fixed asset replacement budget, which funds our large-scale fire station maintenance items, such as HVAC systems, roof structure, repair, and replacement, and dealing with any building envelope issues. In addition, we'd have to postpone those savings accounts that I just discussed, established for the replacement of our cardiac monitors, our SEBA, and AEDs. Obviously, these are all critical pieces of equipment that directly affect firefighter safety and patient outcomes. So in total, nearly $3.1 million in planned capital investments would have to be deferred. Unfortunately, however, deferral doesn't equate to savings. It just shifts the obligation down the road and increases the volatility of our future budgets. Thank you, Matt. So on this slide, we're still in year one. This is where I refer to Station 18 and Station 33. These are the two areas that are going to shut down in year one. What I want you to keep in mind is this. I told you I'm reallocating all those assets to the other opening stations, but now what I'm doing is I'm putting strain on these other zones, and I'm also creating greater travel time, which is going to change our response times. What does that translate into? It's the level of service. In our comp plan, our level of service is defined. In the urban service district, we have to respond to an emergency within eight minutes of time, 90% of the time. If we did this, we would be hard-pressed to make that. So if we're not adhering to the standard of the comp plan, there's a whole set of ramifications that come with that. Or the other option is you open up the comp plan, and you make a comp plan amendment, and you redefine what you view as an acceptable level of service in the community, but it will not be eight minutes. It will increase from there. All right, so I'm going to talk a little bit about ISO. I did this in the budget workshop for a reason. ISO is a very important rating, and this is for the community. When the community is looking to purchase a home, and they call their insurance company, or they're looking to reevaluate their bills, and they call their insurance company, the insurance company is going to look at where they live, and then they're going to look at their ISO classification rating. ISO stands for Insurance Service Office. Classification goes from a class one, it means it's the best class you can be in, to a class 10, which is the worst class you can be in. If you're in a class 10, your premiums will reflect that, and they will be much higher. If you're in a class 1 or 2, your premiums will be much lower. We are striving, we actually just reduced our classification to a class 2, striving to be a class 1 in the next couple of years. We are going to get reevaluated in a couple of years. However, if this scenario plays out, then ISO does come back in, they reevaluate us, and they see the things that have changed. There is very specific criteria with ISO. I'm only going to pull out two. And one has to do with how quickly we can assemble firefighters on a residential structure fire in a certain amount of time, and then also how quickly we can get water to that scene in a certain amount of time. Once they realize our services have changed, they will change that ISO rating in those areas, which means people today that are receiving a class 2, this class rating could change to a class 4 or possibly a class 5. If it translates to them, their premiums can go up from 5% to 20% depending on what classification they go into. All right, so I told you I was going to give you two options in year one. So I just explained all the services that we're cutting. That was option one. Option two is you keep all of the services. Stations are open. All the teams are there. None of that is affected. The other option to that, to meet the benchmark of $9.5 million, the only way I can do it is to lay off 64 firefighters. Remember, 93% of our budget is people. So, but here's the double-edged sword, the quandary you're going to be in. You have the services. You laid off the firefighters. Now you don't have enough firefighters to run those services because I don't have enough people to do that job. All right, so it's going to year two. So in year two, this is the compounding effect. Now it's an additional $7 million reduction. Now we're at that 16.5 in total, which is a 22% reduction of today's budget. There's only so much left to cut. I don't have much left to cut. So we're going to go ahead and shut down our third fire station, which is Station 23, and I'm going to show you that on a map so you have an understanding. And then you have to. There's no way around it. You have to touch the souls of firefighters and lay off an additional 52 firefighters. That is the only way we can reach the benchmark of that $7 million. All right, so the map, for context again, you have 18, 23, and 33. Pretty much runs right down the center. So why do we choose those stations? It's just that. There are zones surrounding them to where it's going to be a strain on the system, but at least we can try to pick up some of the slack. It will redefine your level of service. Just to point out, Station 21, Palm City, the square miles of just that area alone, it's difficult as it is, 64 square miles. Station 21 is one of the busiest in the county. The next busiest is Station 30. That's also the busiest. 23 is there for a reason because of those two stations. Now they're going to have to pick that up. They're going to have to increase their square miles of coverage, and how busy they already are is going to make it even stretched more and put more strain on the system. That's the impact to the level of service. So, again, the overall option for everything in year one and two, if you don't do anything with the services and you keep all the services, keep all your fire stations open, the only way to reach the total of year one and year two of the $16.5 million is to lay off 116 firefighters. For perspective, we have three shifts. An Alpha, a Bravo, and a Charlie. One shift consists of 116 firefighters. So now you have really spread this thin. Now you have to accomplish that over three shifts of coverage. But the problem is you have all these services. You don't have the firefighters to nearly run any of those services. So that is going to be a drastic change to what the level of service would look like. But that is a decision that you would have to make at that time. So at this point, I'm going to conclude the exercise portion of this. I want to just make a comment. And I've heard a recent comment, and it was really coming from a state level, that they want to see us go to pre-COVID budget numbers, right? Pre-COVID numbers, right? And it's interesting to, like, read that comment and understand that. And I would love to have that conversation because here's what I want. If you want pre-COVID budgets, then I want pre-COVID expenses. That means I want the fire trucks. I want the rescues. I want the ladder trucks. I want our medical supplies. I want the cost of insurances. Heck, the cost of a home. The cost of interest on a mortgage. The cost of supplies itself, just overall how to operate. If we can do all that in pre-COVID numbers, then maybe, maybe we can talk and have a conversation about a pre-COVID budget. I'm pretty confident that's not going to happen. So I want to leave you with this, and this is probably the most important part. I don't support this. I don't advocate this. Not one item in this document that I just shared with you. And I want to talk about our people, Martin County Fire Rescue. And I know you guys heard me say it a thousand times, but it's worth repeating. They are some of the most professional in the industry. The standard that we have here in Martin County Fire Rescue, I would put them up against anyone in the state, if not the nation. They are good at what they do, next level good at what they do. You lose one of these firefighters, it is a detriment to this organization. It is a detriment to this community. I'm proud to serve them. I'm proud to lead them. And I'm proud to be a part of them. So with that, I'm going to conclude my portion, and I'll open up to any questions. Questions for the chief. Apps. Thank you for that excellent presentation, chief. Yes, sir. I wanted to clarify one thing on page 640. We don't have the numbers like that. Which one are you looking at? Oh, I'm sorry. You got it? It's called the exemption arrives in two steps. Yes. It seems to me like the right column should say $16.5 million. Like if you're comparing a scenario where the tax referendum passes versus not passing, and you started with your $80 million budget that we have in the coming year, you know, the first year you lose 9.5, and in the second year you lose 16.5, not 7. It's 7 more than the 9.5. So in reality, when you look at what you're losing over a two-year span, it's 9.5 plus 16.5, right? No, 9.5 plus 7. Oh, I see what you're saying, yes. 9.5 plus 7. So it's really more like $10 million more than what it kind of is portrayed there. So I'm going to pass that to Matt. I guess the easiest way to look at that would be to use the numbers that you had just mentioned. Let's say we start with $80 million. So the way I see it is by the end of year two, or let's start a year two, we'd be down to $64 million roughly. Right. So it'd be $60 million off the $80 million. There you go. And that's just in the second year. Right. Right. So it's almost like it's worse than what that looks like there. And then I wanted to mention something about the Hobesound stations. We have 32 by Reed Park, and then we have 33 by Heritage Ridge. Correct. And the thought would be to shut down the one by Heritage Ridge and keep the one at Reed Park. And for Hobesound residents, I would wonder if maybe you could give an explanation about why that would be the choice. Sure. So when you look at the map and you look at those two stations, the newest station is Station 33, which is the one you were referring to. But we're shutting it down. The reason is the proximity, the location. So it may not make sense because it's a brand-new station. Why would you shut it down? You have to move your assets south because of the coverage that you have in the southern area of the zone. We have to cover all the way to county line. And if I move that Hobesound station and I move it up north, I'm making that square mileage that we were just talking about earlier. It's more and more of a strain. So the way we're looking at it is trying to reduce the impact. But let's face it. No matter what I shut down or what I do, it's a drastic impact to different parts of the community. Shutting one of these stations down is detrimental. In fact, we've already done a presentation where we need an additional station, as we're staffed today, out in western Palm City. And that has to do with the square mileage and the call load. So to play this exercise out, it's complicated to do because we're already identified that we need another fire station. One more question about insurance rates for homeowners that go up when stations close. Just for clarification, I believe the rule is if you're more than five miles away. Correct. Then you're going to pay higher insurance rates. Higher insurance rate. If you're greater than five miles, you're going to pay a greater insurance rate. And those are like, for instance, a new field area that's greater than five miles, that's a class 10 area. So that's essentially what would happen. And that means your premiums will reflect that classification. Right. And I believe my sense is that that increase is pretty substantial. It could be substantial. I mean, you could call any insurance company. It's a little bit randomized of some that you call, depending. But you can look at a 5% to 20% increase. But then you throw in hurricane season. Whatever happens with the hurricanes, we get hit. It seems like the insurance companies, they have to make it up somehow. And it's usually on the public. So thank you. You're welcome. Commissioner Campy. Thank you. Thank you, Chief. I appreciate the presentation. You mentioned it recently at our budget hearing. As far as I'm concerned, whatever the voters decide in November is what we will deal with. But in my mind, I think about, and I've been here for a bit, I think about a hierarchy of services, hierarchy of government services. And I think our residents not only expect, they demand that public safety is at the top of the hierarchy. That's fire, rescue, and police. So I appreciate this presentation. It's definitely a wake-up call. However, if the referendum goes the way that many would hope, that there is going to be sort of a constriction of money that's coming in. My first wish would have been that the legislature in Tallahassee spent more time worrying about home insurance rates than property insurance rates. Property tax rates, excuse me. I think that would have had a much more positive financial effect on more residents without the constriction of services. As far as I'm concerned, most of what you discussed today, and I'm sure as we have done in years past when budgets were tight, Commissioner Hurd and I were here in 2008, 9, 10, and your union back then also was generous to postpone rightful increases that they were entitled to through contractual negotiations back then, and they just did it again, so I appreciate that. But that being said, I think we'll have to look further down the hierarchy of county services before I would entertain any of this. Our residents, these are, you know, there's not a lot of services that counties offer that are a matter of life and death. This and what our police department and sheriff's office does is, in my mind, we would be doing a lot more belt tightening, slashing of budgets elsewhere, which is harsh, and I have a lot of respect for our other departments, but I wouldn't be participating in this level of slashing here. I would request of the three of you that are in front of us now to find where you could legitimately find cuts that you, without having, you know, the figurative gun to your head, could come up. I know Mr. Resch has done an excellent job in years past, not only where to shave, but how to gain dollars from the state and the federal government and any other outside source that could bring dollars in to backfill. That I would request of you and the department to find what you would say is considered legitimate cost-cutting measures, but not any of this. I'm not interested in closing any fire stations. I'm not interested in laying off any personnel. For the years leading up to this, we've been trying to figure out how do we keep personnel. How do we attract new personnel? How do we stop our neighbors from the, especially the South, from poaching our personnel? The value of the training and the experience of having our people that are already here, that know how to get in the truck, that know where Danforth is, that know where Poinciana Gardens is. We don't need to constantly be revolving door personnel that don't have the confidence of their training and their experience. So I'm not interested in any part of this. We can do a full hash beatdown on the rest of the budget before we would get to this. So I appreciate the presentation. I think it's good for the public to hear. People have asked me my opinion of the referendum. I'll do whatever the majority of the public says we should do, but it won't involve this. Thank you. Commissioner Hetherington. Yes. Thank you for the presentation, Chief. Could you go back to slide number one, I think, that has the services? And there's no doubt that when, you know, in November, should this pass, that the level of services across the county, across every department, will be impacted in some way, shape, or form. I was just curious how some of these numbers are derived. For instance, Lifestar, $100,000. That seems low. I mean, first of all, you're watching all the fatalities that you mentioned on 710 and 714 and 95. It seems like we have one or two, you know, major accidents a week now that Lifestar utilizes. It's only $100,000. I mean, that seems like a low number. So I'm just curious how you derived that number. So that was a contract change that we did with our vendor error methods. And originally, if you go back seven years ago, probably seven years ago, it was a completely different financial setup. I'll kind of kick it to Matt here. He can explain it way better than I can. But because of the program that we have now, it operates different as far as the revenues and the funding, what keeps that program in play. That's why you see it. That's, you know, I guess what you bring up is it's a really good example of the fiscal responsibility that we have of running the organization. We run it. And this is where sometimes I feel like you get faulted for this. We run a very lean system, extremely lean. I mean, we're cutting the edge right now with personnel that we have running on the street. But then when it comes to a time for cuts, people will come to you and they cut the fat, trim the fat. Well, I don't have any fat to cut. And that's an example of what I mean. There's not much fat in there. There's no fat in Lifestar. That's as lean as you can get. But I feel like you get faulted for that. We're like, well, you've got to have it somewhere. And that methodology, it would really lead you to, well, okay, in good times, then I need to inflate it. Because when the bad times come, because they come, then it's time for me to go ahead and cut some of that fat that I created. We didn't create it because we're very fiscally responsible for the organization. Anyway, I'll kick it to you, Matt, for the vendor. Sure. Thank you. So the reason why it's so low is in part of this exercise in year one, we were trying to avoid making any cuts to personnel. So what you're seeing, the vast majority, and Chief mentioned this in his presentation, of our budget is tied up in personnel cost at 93%. So what you're seeing as far as the cut here is strictly just the operating budget for Lifestar, which may seem low, but that's all it is, is $100,000. It used to be, prior to that contract change, closer to $2 million. So we cut $1.8 million, $1.9 million out of the Lifestar budget. So now all that remains, the majority of the Lifestar budget is the people that fly on the helicopter. So closing, for instance, closing station 18 and 33, is that $390,000 the way that those are derived? Is that personnel? No. It's the operating cost to run those stations. We just took a blended average of all of our stations. So it's your utilities, it's medical supplies, it's station maintenance, things like that. Okay. So the same with special teams. That's operating expenses. So you put the services here, and then the personnel are in those subsequent slides. Yeah. It's a last resort. Correct. So if you cut these, you almost have to cut some of those personnel. Well, you have to cut the personnel, right? No, you don't. If you cut the 9.5, how do you operate, like where are you putting the personnel from station 18? Well, it doesn't work. So if I cut these stations and the services, and you still have the personnel, it's going to redefine how you respond to calls now. The people, that's on the level of service. So that's what changes, and it's distance of travel, it's all that. And again, the building, the occupy, you can't even hold the people. This is like days of bunk beds in a room now. It's just it doesn't work. That's why I'm saying you look at the scenario, and you try to, like, make sense of it of, like, how can you make it work? It's kind of the point. You can't. It's complicated. It's very complicated. And then I have one more question. The special teams, for instance, you said you may not have the hazmat or the special extrication skills, and you would have to go to mutual aid outside of the county. Does our mutual aid agreement require that we pay those counties? So typically, mutual aid agreements are if we can provide like services. So if they call us and we have like services and we can provide that same service in return, usually there's no fee for that. But if we don't have the skills, we can't provide that. Correct. Could that change? Yes, it could. Today, it's not like that. No. Okay. Thank you. But you're also assuming that Martin County is the only one making these cuts. They're going to make these cuts in St. Lucie County and Palm Beach County and Okeechobee County, too. So you can't just assume if we don't have a helicopter that we can call on St. Lucie County's helicopter because they might not have a helicopter either. That's correct. And, Mr. Resch, did you do an evaluation of year three? No, we stopped at year two. Because our evaluation was that's when the extraordinary cuts occurred. And also, I think it's really important to, once again, emphasize that the union was negotiating a three-year contract, which was supposed to have begun September 1, and they stopped because this referendum advanced. And they're forgoing raises next year in order to save taxpayer money. And that's extraordinary. It is extraordinary. I agree. I have two requests to speak forms. One is from Ellen Asselin, and one is from Frank McChrystal. Again, this is Ellen Asselin, and I wondered how that they came up with the ISO rating. It didn't show up on the website when I was searching, but it's altogether different when you come up with the presentation. I want to go back in history. My dad was a fire chief. He started a mutual aid in Franklin County with some other counties, including up into New Hampshire. It was the Connecticut Valley. You talk about a cadet program. He got together with the Boy Scouts, started Explorer. Every one of those Explorer Scouts went to the community college and took firefighting, took medical training to become EMS, and that was just with kids. Every single one of those kids became members of the department, some chiefs, some captains, because of their training, because they had that opportunity. So this is a valuable thing to me. And all the other things don't matter as much as that. Thank you. Thank you. If anyone else would like to address us, please fill out a request to speak form and get it to the bailiff. Thank you. Good morning. Good morning. The presenter is very good. Very good at his job. And as many times as he mentioned, not trying to be a fear monger, the reaction from the people my age and older back there in the back of the room, it was pretty fearful. A lot of gasps. I'm sure this whole thing is very, very complicated, but the reason I'm here this morning is when I read the presentation, the premise that this is the only way to cut is just like top to bottom. And I wonder, in a topic so complicated, why is the idea of maybe cutting personnel pay to make up a shortfall, not even part of the options? Just wondering, again, something this complicated, why wouldn't we not look at everything? And this idea of us keeping up with Palm Beach County in order to keep our employees, it's real. And maybe, as much as I hate to say it, maybe this could be something that only the state is going to solve and maybe have some sort of uniform pay schedule for all firefighters in the state. That might be an option. To my gentlemen in the audience, the firefighters here, this isn't about the rank and file. It's my belief that in any public service organization, 85 to 90% of the fat is at the top. That's that spot I call a swamp. However, gentlemen, if you want to serve yourselves better, here's what the public sees. They see firefighters driving $100,000 trucks, working every third day. If you want to help yourselves, look poor. Don't do that. And if you've got their wife who is into the image, ditch the wife. Thank you very much. Mr. Vargas. This last speaker was similar to what I've heard from a lot of others to when I've been out in the field. And I do speak with a lot of people. There are two sides here. And I appreciate your presentation. I also appreciate the union not negotiating for higher salaries. I don't think any one particular department should suffer the brunt of this. I just came back from a national conference where there were 3,100, over 3,100 counties represented across the country. There are other states that are also going through what we're going through right now. And I think that the motto, and I think that Commissioner Capps and I were at another meeting about a month ago, and it's do more with less. Do more with less. You really have to look hard at every line item. It's just like corporate, just like a corporation. And so, in effect, what we're doing is looking at what's the possibility. It could go this way or that way. If it doesn't pass, you still should pull back. I noticed that some of the biggest expenses next to salaries, which are huge, is the health care and the retirement. Now, that's mandated, the retirement based on the salary. But I think we have to take a hard look here. We're at a point where there's going to be no turning back one way or the other. It may be a couple more years if they have another swipe at it either way. So I want to ask our county administrator, Mr. Donaldson, would you please be kind enough to present a budget cutting 10% from every department of which the firefighters are part of, and show us what that would look like. I think that's very reasonable. I think it's tangible. And I think that it's something, if you're a numbers person, you can look at it and say, okay, this is reality. It's imminent, again, one way or the other, what we're going to wake up to the following day in November. And I've had a lot of people say to me, and this is something that I abide by also, why are non-government employees expected to live within their budget, yet the government can't live within their budget? This is a big resentful sound out there. And don't put anything past Martin County residents and taxpayers. They're an astute bunch. Believe me, they speak with me everywhere. That's why I go to another county to go to my gym so they can get some peace and quiet. But anyway, if you'd be kind enough to do that, I think that would be something that we could hold on to here and look at hard numbers. And I think that's something that's feasible. And I would urge my fellow commissioners to follow suit and support this. Mr. Risch. Thank you. I just wanted to circle back to something that you had mentioned, Commissioner Campy, about utilizing other departments throughout the county and cutting potentially from there to save the fire rescue budget. And I'm not sure if Stephanie Murley is here to confirm this, but the way I understand it is because we have a fire rescue MSTU with our own millage rate, that would constrain our ability to do what you described. I think that these cuts are legitimate, that they would actually have to come off the fire MSTU. I just want to make sure everyone's on the same page so that we have the correct information getting out there. I see Ms. Murley in the lobby, and she's nodding her head. Yeah. So the issue is that we have a general fund millage rate, and we also have a collection of MSTUs. And the funds that the MSTU are collected on are spent within that boundary. And so as the – and it is about tax rates and taxable values. And so as the amendment would be implemented, we would – it is – and a lot of these numbers here reflected, too, Commissioner, are what's generated from ad valorem. And so the example of the helicopter is where if there's insurance funds or other things funding them, that doesn't change. But you still – so your ad valorem funded or your property taxes are what's reduced. And how you adjust for that is determining what services are going to be provided. And part of what makes this bill complicated is not only does it affect the homestead exemptions, it also purports to describe what is an essential service. And the legislature reserves the ability to further define what is an essential service. So part of the analysis is determine if it is even an eligible operation. And so there may be, you know, areas within the county that are not listed under the bill as essential service, and they can be eliminated. And the one that comes to mind often is talked about is like parks and recs. It's not limited as a – so it may not even be eligible for that funding. So how you – first you have to determine what's eligible, what revenues you have, and you have to determine for this body what levels of service you're going to provide. So simply doing across-the-board cuts doesn't necessarily get you anything because it has to be specific to how they are funded to begin with. As Matt Resch described, the MSTU is limited to – it's funding a county unincorporated boundary, and that money can't be shifted. For instance, if fire rescue save money, it wouldn't be eligible to be shifted to other departments. It's got to stay within the fire rescue MSTU as the ordinance that created that requires. So the complication goes to – again, it kind of gets back to that core element is – is it even eligible to be funded? What's the level of service that you really want to make happen? And we'll go through that exercise for each one of these. So it should just pass. Commissioner Kapps. Just for clarification, I think what I just heard was that if this tax referendum passes, we can't just reprioritize the general fund and take a bunch of money out of the general fund and throw it into the fire MSTU. These cuts kind of have to happen out of the fire MSTU, and the only way we would be able to recoup some of that loss would be to raise the millage rate for that MSTU. Is that correct? That's correct. It would be – you would be looking at options for – I believe the term of art is a tax shift, right? So you would be looking at other revenue sources, whether it's through increased millages, fees, other means of doing a tax shift. So it's been described as one door is there's no tax shift. Do you absorb all of the reductions in their entirety as they're presented in the bill or you – the other extreme is a tax shift where all of the revenues are shifted on to other fees or millage increases. If your millage caps under the state law, allow it. We have a 10 mil cap in the state of Florida, and as you raise your millage rate to generate the revenue to replacement, you have restrictions on it. So all that ties into the conversation. Madam Chair, do you mind if I comment? Sure. So I just want to make a couple of comments. There was a lot of information kind of getting thrown around. One is I want to say this. All of our firefighters right now – All of our firefighters right now, they're watching this presentation, and they're listening to every word you say. So I just want to be crystal clear that, one, when you reference their firefighter salaries, in fact, if you like, I'll do a study for you as well. They are not overpaid. In fact, they need to be paid more. And that's a fact, and I can share that, and I can give you a study to show you that's dollars and cents. The other is what I encourage you to do is when you speak to people who claim to be a subject matter expert in an area that they have no experience, they haven't laced up the boots and done this job and understand this job and what it takes to do this job, I suggest you look elsewhere for a subject matter expert that understands the job, understands the financing of the job, understands how to be fiscally responsible in the job. That's where you're going to get accurate, good information. But if you make decisions based off people that really have ignorance in the profession, you're going to make some bad decisions. So I encourage you to seek out the right subject matter expert. Commissioner Vargas. We're going to have to make a decision, and you're going to have to make choices. Nobody is going to be immune. So I'm not saying, and I'm not going to insult the Martin County taxpayers or residents, but some of them do know a whole lot about how a fire department runs or shouldn't run. So when I'm doing a study, I will go to experts, but this is the mood of the community. Having said that, I appreciate everything that you're presenting, but also was spoken about, too, and this is where Commissioner Capps and I were at a Florida conference just about the last month or so. Very few legislatures have been county commissioners, and we have a tremendous job right now to figure out. And we will, and not everybody's going to like it, but we're not here as a popularity contest. We're here to do the right thing. That's what we're hired for. I appreciate fire rescue. I appreciate the sheriff's department, but we only have so many dollars to go around, just as a private enterprise would have to make cuts or changes. Tighten up. That's what we've been told. Okay. As always, thank you for sharing. Well, this agenda item is not meant to be one in which decisions are made. It's for to gather information, and these cuts here are theoretical, but the total is not. That's mathematical. So somehow, if the referendum succeeds, in the first year, $9.5 million will be cut. We don't know where you're going to cut, but we know that that cut is real. Thank you. We will take a 10-minute break, and we will return with public hearing number two. An ordinance amending Section 17.9, Rules and Regulations for Martin County Parks, General Ordinances, Martin County Code, Relating to Fishing on County-Owned Property. Good morning. Good morning. I am Melissa Petrick. I'm Senior Assistant County Attorney. I have with me Mr. Joseph Barron. He's going to be presenting the item. Before we do that, though, I wanted to bring to the attention certain statutes and rules that are in place based upon, I've heard, the public comment going on. Would you first introduce Mr. Barron? Sure. This is Mr. Barron. Good morning, Commissioners. Good morning. I am Joseph Barron, Assistant County Attorney. Excellent. And where are you coming from? Originally, I'm from Toms River, New Jersey. And how long have you been with Martin County? A couple months, three months. Welcome. So, the County Attorney's Office was approached by FWC regarding ordinances that we had on our books. We have certain ordinances that relate to fishing and saltwater fishing and including sharks. There is a state statute that has essentially preempted the powers from the county to regulate saltwater fishing. That includes shark fishing. Preemption meaning the state says, county, you can't control this anymore. The state has to control it. There are certain provisions that we are allowed to continue to do certain things. But overall, Florida Administrative Code 68-1.005 says the power to regulate the taking or possession of marine life is assigned to FWC. So, Fish and Wildlife is in charge now of saltwater fishing. The Florida Administrative Code, rule 68-2.001, which is a rule of the state, says chumming the waters from a beach is illegal. Our ordinance presentation here does not say that people are allowed to come to Martin County and chum our waters for sharks. It is illegal underneath the Florida Administrative Code. And if someone does chum the waters, their first violation is a second-degree misdemeanor. Their second violation is a first-degree misdemeanor, which would carry a penalty of up to 12 months imprisonment. So, the ordinance as presented, I just wanted the commission to be aware, we are doing this because FWC approached us, because there is a state law that says we are limited on what we can do, because also chumming is still illegal in the state. And, in fact, while fishing people who fish, you need a license from FWC. FWC has actually, it appears to have tightened the reins and said, if you want a shark fish, not only do you need a license, but you need a particular permit from FWC. So, if a member of the public sees somebody fishing on our beaches that involves chumming, throwing blood bait, they should be calling FWC so that person can get cited, potentially arrested, and whatever penalties FWC wants to put in there. So, just to clarify, that is the reason for this presentation and for the amendment on here. We did present to FWC, and Joe will explain that in there, our changes after our, we did a Zoom meeting with them, after our conversations with them. Obviously, FWC, they went through it. They didn't have any objection to the language that we presented. So, I wanted to lay that out first and foremost before Joe does his presentation, or if there's any other comments that we have from here. I'm sure. Yeah, Commissioner Campy. I was going to say, if I may, Commissioners. So, the ordinance presented today does eliminate our regulation of shark fishing. If the Board wants, we can rework the wording of the ordinance to not completely remove it, but to reference state law. While we do that in other areas of the code, and given the public's concerns, we can take the ordinance back. After you hear Joe, Mr. Barron's presentation, we can rework the ordinance, and then instead of eliminating everything, we would just reference the illegality of things under state law. So, that's always an option if the Board desires. Mr. Campy. That's a great segue. Anyway, this morning during public comment, I was very frustrated when I heard the public because I agree with them. When I had originally heard about this agenda item, I'm like, why are we doing this? And I had contacted both Mr. Donaldson and Ms. Elder and said, what are we doing? Because we had been receiving emails for several months from folks for and against this, and I'm thinking, I never remember bringing this up to our staff. I didn't think my colleagues did. So, this morning, that's why I asked to have the agenda item moved. I know a decent amount of the public speakers have left, but I certainly didn't want the folks, especially thank you for staying, to think that we had said, hey, let's do this, or let's make this easier. I have some friends that I know and family members that are either professional ocean rescue lifeguards in other counties, and asked them about this, and they said, yeah, of course you wouldn't do this. The thing that I heard this morning that I think needs to be brought into the conversation is it's another crazy new technology. I'd never heard of chumming with drones. It sounds so weirdly futuristic, but I guess this is where we are now. So, I would just say to our staff, legal staff, that if FWC doesn't address that in their language, we certainly need to address that in ours. And then finally, if they're setting up these casting lines up in the dunes that run through the beach out into the water, and our folks are out there in the water, bathing and surfing is originally what the whole beach concept that we present is about. So, I'm interested to hear your presentation. However, I wanted to make sure we had nothing to do with this. We didn't ask to do this. We didn't recommend it. And I like your idea that instead of striking the language, it stays in there and says refer to FWC. Thank you. Yeah, I agree. Reinstate W and also include the FWC language. Chumming is illegal. If you have to have a permit, put all that language reinstated back in our ordinance. Commissioner Vargas. Is this something that just pertains to, I'm reading here, the information, just to county-owned land, or what about those properties, condominiums, private homes that own the beach rights on Hutchinson Island? I mean, I don't want to go in the water if there's a shark. I'm a scuba driver. At least I can see and I can get away quickly. But, you know, this is something that is unfathomable. So the code is written. I'll read that. It says, The power to regulate the taking or possession of marine life as assigned to the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission by Article 4, Section 9 of the Florida Constitution is expressly reserved to the commission. The reservation does not prohibit a local government from prohibiting, for reasons of protecting the public health, safety, or welfare, saltwater fishing from real property owned by that local government. From what I understand, and correct me, I don't know if maybe I'm incorrect, I thought the beaches all along our land are owned by Martin County. So there is no condo that owns the beaches of Martin County. Correct. And our – so we own the beaches. The condos do not own the beaches. Our – Is that so? Oh, let's verify that because I understood differently. And that's why I'm consulting with legal counsel about that. And then the point problem comes to their – the waters of the land are owned by the state. Yes. So you're standing on a beach, which is technically county property. Now your fishing line is in the state's waters. That's where some of the – Carrying rights, yes. That's probably – my guess is maybe that's why they – I can't say why they put this statute in place, but that might be one of them. Just to clarify, the – I don't think your mic is on. Is the microphone is on? Yes. Yes. So the – there is a – there is private property that goes to the water that is the literal rights of those upland property owners, and it intersects the state-owned land at the mean high water line. The county owns various pieces of property. You have the private property owners, condominiums and other private property owners that also own property that goes to the water. Some areas we have – in our beach program, we have a mean high water line established or a coast line that – where the state still owns the dry beach in front of many of our properties. But for the state, as I understand it, for this particular conversation, the properties that we specifically own are the public beaches that we own. We do not own the property in front of the condominiums. There is a customary use doctrine that allows the public to transfer across it. But if there is no beach project, if there's a beach project, there is an established zone that is – it's a platted – we have a platted – for the state to reserve that beach that was created, and that is state-owned land. So, anyway, it is – the ownership boundaries are sort of complicated, so we may have to look at some nuances. But my initial reaction would be that we could regulate in front of the county beaches but not in front of the private properties. Commissioner Capps. Yes, I'm fine with leaving the language the way it is with the caveat that the preemption is the ultimate authority. We would be adding a line about that, right? We can do that. Yeah. But just so our residents have a real clear picture of what the change is, so there's no chumming allowed, and you have to have a license to shark fish, right? You need a fishing license. You need a permit now from FWC. For shark fishing. And there's a course I believe you actually have to take in order to do the shark fishing. Okay. And then folks who are not chumming and folks who have the proper permit can do this in the off hours at public beaches when the lifeguards are not there. Like, if say the lifeguards are there from 9 to 5, they can't do it then. But from 7 in the morning until 9 in the morning, they can do it. And after 5 o'clock in the evening, they can go do it. I hope it's on the beach. But no chumming. Fishing only. Got to have a permit. That's it, right? Correct. That's the new rule. The way it was is it eliminates – you can't fish in guarded beaches during guarded hours. So if there is a beach over along the coast where, let's say, there is no lifeguard, this does not apply there. We can't prohibit the fishing over in those areas. So if most of the surfers are over, you know, off MacArthur by the rocks, where I understand I don't think there is a lifeguard station there, we can't regulate that. So that, I think, is – I don't know if that answers your question. Right, right. But even at our public beaches, when the public beaches are not guarded, people are allowed to do this now. Correct. And what I would encourage our residents to do is to contact our state legislature – our legislators if that's not a good thing. You know, and it sounds like it's not a good thing. But that's the ultimate remedy because it's not in our purview. Correct. Proceed, Mr. Barron. Good morning, Commissioners. Joseph Barron, Assistant County Attorney. Before you today is an amendment to Chapter 17, Rules and Regulations for Martin County Parks, relating to saltwater fishing. The ordinance was properly advertised. The primary purpose of this amendment is to update the county's regulations concerning saltwater fishing to conform with current state laws. Section 379.2412 Florida Statutes reserves to the states the authority to regulate saltwater fishing. The statute does, however, recognize an exception allowing local governments to prohibit saltwater fishing on property owned by the county when necessary to protect public health, safety, and welfare. The amendment before you repeals provisions of the county code relating to saltwater fishing that are preempted by state law. The amendment also addresses public health, safety, and welfare concerns by prohibiting fishing within guarded beaches during guarded hours. It also prohibits fishing from boat docks when it's actively – when a boat is actively being launched or retrieved from the water. County staff, as previously discussed, discussed this amendment with Florida Fish – the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. FWC was provided with a copy of the proposed ordinance, and they had no negative feedback. Any individual with questions regarding the regulations of saltwater fishing should direct those questions to the state, specifically FWC, or to the local law enforcement, as applicable. This concludes my presentation. I move that the Board adopt a proposed ordinance repealing subsection 17.9 A2R, V, W, EE2, EE3, EE4, and amending subsection O and X of Chapter 17, Rules and Regulations for Martin County Parks, General Ordinances, Martin County Code. Thank you. Commissioner Vargas. Okay. So what are you recommending – I mean, tell me in English what you're recommending that we propose, that we adopt that you're proposing. So it would be a repeal of all of the county ordinances that are preempted by state law, and then amending the two provisions regarding the no saltwater fishing at guarded beach during guarded hours, and no fishing at a boat ramp while a boat is actively being launched or retrieved in order to protect the health, safety, and welfare. Yeah, because that would have to be policed, again, the sheriff, you know, thing, boat ramps. So if the beaches are guarded, certain hours, there is no fishing or just shark fishing? There is no fishing. Fishing, if any fish. Saltwater fishing. Oh, saltwater. Which would include the sharks. The ocean. Okay. What about the drones? I understand – I was speaking with a surfer during the break – got a line wrapped around his leg, and there was a cement block on the bottom of it because the drones had gone up, and they went out in little skiffs to drop the bait there. So what about that? How is that police? I don't quite understand. That would be the FWC because those are going to be your state waters. So they're in charge of the state order part. And then going back to the recommendation, that was our recommendation, but there were discussions just now that if the board wanted to make a motion that staff – that we rewrite the ordinance to address the concerns that just got brought back. I think that was your possible alternate motion you were going to make – somebody on the board was going to make. Yeah, okay. So because we're talking about the health, safety, welfare, as I'm reading this department legal sufficiency review, of those that are going to the beach. I mean, we might all go to the beach too. Who knows? It would be a vacancy come up. But anyway, having said that, our beaches are our crown jewels here on Hutchinson Island and Hope Sound too. So we have to protect, obviously, our bathers. And if you have, you know, this sort of activity going on, I'm certain you can understand people will go elsewhere, go to the west coast of Florida. So anyway. All right. So what we're going to do is then rewrite. Is that what I'm understanding? It depends on the motion made by the board. Okay. If the board wants us to redraft the ordinance to discuss the state preemptions, we can do that. We would have to research the drone issue because it seems drone fishing would be fishing and we're probably preempted, but we can research that. So my suggestion would be to table it, table this public hearing, and we can bring it back with a revised ordinance if that's the board's desire. I would make a motion to adopt what Ms. Elder has stated and give us a chance to look at this closely because the drone factor is real and it's not going away in every aspect. Should we hear from the public? Let me just add if I do. Okay. Just two quick things. One, if we can't regulate drones over the water, we can regulate drones being launched from the beach. So we might, if you could, at least when you're reviewing it, review if over the water is the state's prerogative, if we could maybe create that they can't be launched from the beach, that would potentially help. And then also I thought this morning we heard from folks that if the beach is being protected at 9 a.m. but people are there at 7.30 and 8 o'clock, do we have the ability, if you're crafting some new language, to say that can we add an hour before the beach is manned? So if the beach is manned from 9 to 5, can we say that we don't want shark fishing on the beaches an hour before and an hour after? Because I agree, if you're actively fishing and luring fish, sharks in this case, closer to the shore, they don't wear watches, I'm pretty sure. So they don't know, oh, it's 9 o'clock, we might as well swim off. I think if we could buffer that with an hour before and an hour after would give us a little – Understandable. Yeah. And I would second Commissioner Vargas' motion if those other items could be included. Jim Moyer, followed by Paul Laura. Thank you, Commissioners. Thank you, Commissioners. Thank you for doing the right thing. My name is Jim Moyer. I'm the Indian River Keeper. I live out in Rocky Point. You know, there are lots of other phishings that go on on the beach, not just for sharks, and I think we need to be careful about how we preempt some of those practices. There are other communities introduced more stringent regulations than the rest of Dade County had. I think it would be worthwhile looking into that and seeing if there's any language that we could conform to prohibit shark fishing in general from Martin County waters. It's a – you know, speaking for the animals, these animals are incredibly important to our ecosystems. The anglers offshore are complaining bitterly daily about how many of their caught fish are being depredated by sharks. Attracting more sharks to the coast is not only bad for human safety, but it's bad for angling. It's bad for our public awareness. It's bad for the sharks. I think we need to do whatever we can to not only protect the people, but protect the sharks. Just to be clear, the drones that we're talking about are boats. They're radio-controlled boats. They're not, you know, helicopter drones. Yeah, so they're running their boats out offshore and dropping either weights or chum. They're not flying a, you know, ruddery wing plane out there. Very high-tech. I mean, things are changing, and drones are getting bigger, but most of the ones that I'm aware of are boats. Thank you very much for doing what we can. You should call those radio RC boats. Yeah. Yeah, exactly. The drone is a fancier name, I guess. Thank you. Thank you. Paul Laura is next, followed by Angela Retinella. Look who's back. Paul Laura is back. Yes, good morning. My name is Paul Laura, and I'm director of environment for the Hutchinson Island Preservation Initiative, or also known as HIPPY. First, I'd like to shout out to the staff. You know, we sometimes forget about them, but they're getting a load of emotional emails right now, and people are saying, why are you even bringing this up to the commissioners? And the point is we, some of us, understand that they're just doing their job. So those that feel the pressure coming from the messages that they're getting, hopefully they'll get over that, and we'll be able to move forward. Coming to the discussion now on the shark, one of the things that I'm concerned about is the increased activity to attract sharks, because you're feeding them. They're not going to go away. They're going to learn how to get their food, and when even they're not getting it, they're going to remember, and they're going to keep coming more and more. If we encourage shark fishing. So we really need to control this, and when we heard the comment today from some of the people who were talking earlier, it already seems a little bit chaotic. It's really not in control, even with the regulations that we have now. So now we want to perhaps make them a little bit more friendly for shark fishers, fishermen, but is that really the direction we want to go? And I have a neighbor who is here, actually, and she called Fish and Wildlife because someone was shark fishing, and she felt it was inappropriate where they were doing it. So the question is, how long does it take a representative to come out and talk to the person who's maybe not within the rules? I doubt very much that they're going to come within a period of time, that it's going to be very effective. So in a sense, the state does not have effective control over shark fishing because they don't have the representatives, and if we go with the new Homestead Act that we're talking about, I expect we'll have less. So these are things you need to think about. All right, another thing I want to bring up, and I'm going to make this a little bit more personal to you. If I was a commissioner, I would do everything that I could not to put the public in danger. If you loosen up and make more flexible, you have to live with that. That's your legacy. And when you hear on the news that someone lost a limb or was injured or whatever because of the amount of sharks that come into our precious area on Hutchinson Island, you're going to have to remember, was that something that I did? Was it me? And because I changed the rules that allowed this to occur? And I don't think you want that. That would be your legacy, and it doesn't go away when you leave office. Thank you very much. Thank you. Angela Rantanella. Good morning. Good morning. After listening to what everybody's had to say and the reasons why perhaps an amendment was even suggested, I just want to remind everybody that we do have the right to have our own ordinances in place to protect the general public. And I don't know who owns the little beaches like Bob Graham Beach and Tiger Shores and all that. Is that Martin County? Yeah. Yes. So why wouldn't those rules that are ordinances that we have in place saying that, you know, you can't do it within certain hours of guarded beaches, why can't it just be all of Martin County property that is protected from this? So if we're going to rewrite the ordinance, I would hope it would include that and maybe go a little further with it, because I know I thought I read that, you know, between the hours of 11 p.m. and 5 a.m., they can fish at those guarded areas. But 1,000 yards from those guarded areas, they're not allowed to. And I've seen our signs out there that say, you know, you're within 1,000 yards of a guarded area. You can't shark bait here. So I was hoping we can extend these restrictions we have in place, because according to Florida Statute 379.2412 that gives the saltwater, possession of saltwater fish, you know, the right to the state to govern this, it does not prohibit a local government from prohibiting, for reasons of protecting the public health, safety, and welfare. It doesn't prohibit our local government from saltwater fishing from real property owned by the local government. That's what it states verbatim. So I would hope that we can incorporate that somehow into the rewriting of it, the ordinance. Obviously, we don't want to get rid of something that protects us from this. And the drones do carry, there are flying drones that are dropping the bait, not just boats, but there is also, we've seen it with our own eyes. So if you could kindly, please just keep in mind that, you know, this is the public safety. We go to the beaches. Imagine taking your family to one of our Bob Graham beach or something, and you go out there, and there's some guy luring sharks to the shore. I mean, would you want your children swimming in that? I mean, I wouldn't. I would want to go somewhere else, or it just doesn't seem fair that we should have to tolerate that. So it's just so barbaric. And it is harming our endangered species of sharks, such as the hammerhead. Three dead, three have been reported washed up on the shore dead in Hope Sound beaches, and also in Jensen Beach beaches. So these animals are being tortured, literally. So thank you so much for your time, and I know you all care so much. Thank you. Commissioner Campy. Just one other point. First off, I do agree with the last speaker that if it could be not just language about manned, you know, guarded beaches, if it could be Martin County property beaches, even if they're not. And then you had said that they need to have not just a license for fishing, but a permit for shark fishing. Is there any requirement that that permit be presented or shown while they're fishing? Because if it's something that they carry in their wallet, I wouldn't want Martin County residents to go up and start asking people, let me see your permit, because that's just going to create a situation of conflict and potential violence. So I don't know. Like, if you have a permit, but no one knows you have a permit, do you have a permit? I don't know how that permit is carried. I don't know if it has to be carried on the person or they're registered on with the FWC. That I don't know. Sometimes people have permitting, like hunting or whatever, they have to have it, you know, presented, whether they're wearing it around their neck or they have to have it on their equipment that someone can, because otherwise the permit is useless if it's a secret. Yeah. Thank you. So are you clear with the motion and the direction that we've given? Thank you. Any further comments or questions? Everybody understands the motion that was made and the revisions that we want to make to the ordinance? Yes. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? That motion passes unanimously. Thank you. I would like to take up public hearing quasi-judicial number three as quickly as possible. That's growth management if they're around. I think we can take up public hearing one first. Morning, Madam Chair and Commissioners. It's always good to be with you. I'm glad to be here on this item. As you stated, this is public hearing one. For the record, I'm Sam Amerson, your Utilities and Solid Waste Department Director. The title of this item is a public hearing to consider adoption of the final assessment resolution for FY27, the solid waste assessment and certification of the special assessment role to the tax collector. In summary, the Board of County Commissioners is required to adopt the final assessment resolution for FY27, the single-family and multi-family curbside solid waste assessment rates, a set forth in Section 151.56, General Ordinances of Martin County Code, and certify the special assessment role to the tax collector as required by Section 151.57, Martin County Code. For some background, on June 23, 26, the Board adopted the initial assessment resolution for the FY27 solid waste assessment as required in Section 151.52 of General Ordinances of the Martin County Code. Excuse me. A copy of the assessment role has been prepared and is available and open to public inspection at the Utilities and Solid Waste Department offices. As required by the terms in Chapter 151, the Martin County Code, and Florida law, notice of a public hearing has been published and mailed by first-class mail to each property owner proposed to be assessed, notifying them, the property owner, of the opportunity to be heard at this hearing. The Solid Waste Municipal Service Benefit Unit provides services to approximately 50,352 residential units in the county. The single-family dwelling unit rate proposed for FY27 for the Solid Waste MSBU is proposed to be $438.18. It's comprised of $330.72 for collection, $121.31 for disposal costs, and $31.15 for administrative costs. The change from the amount assessed in the prior year, which is this current year, is $464.37. This is due to cost increases in the solid waste collection, disposal, and increases in volumes of solid waste generated per household. These figures are also included in the resolution attached, and if I could break that down for you, I know sometimes you like to hear what that means as an increase. It's $18.81 per year. It's actually less than a cheese pizza these days. I knew you were going to say that. So, much less than it was a cheese pizza. Because I can't afford to after this. But if we look at Starbucks, I don't drink Starbucks, or I don't buy coffee out at Dunkin', but I've talked to some folks that do. So, my brief research this morning, that's about $6 for a takeout cup of coffee, your entry-level cup of coffee, right? So, that's three cups of coffee next year we can do without, and your budget and your body will probably appreciate you for that. How much is it per pickup? All right. So, we're providing four pickups per week, plus there's additional bulk pickup as needed per week. We run that route, but I'm calculating on four pickups, two garbage per week, one vegetation, and one recycling collection. That's 208 collections, pickups per year. That's $1.57 per month increase, $0.36 per week increase, and a whopping $0.09 per pickup additional cost. I love my service. I hope you can say the same thing. I've got no issue with the service. It's a high level of service. Do we get complaints occasionally? Obviously, most of the complaints, not so much a missed pickup anymore, but more recently with the freeze and the drought, we had a lot of vegetation. So, there were some concerns with piles left on the street for more than a couple, several weeks. That's been picked up, cleaned up, and we're back to normal service there. But I do feel it's a great service. I think it's worth the increase. As you know, we spoke about before, our increases are primarily inflationary pressures. You've heard me say I want to keep our vendors, those that process our construction and demolition debris, those that process the vegetation, those that collect our waste, process our waste, transport and dispose of that. We want those vendors profitable because when they're not profitable, the level of service is impacted, and we've all seen that in some local communities. And I think the increase is reasonable, and as I said, it's primarily inflationary pressures. Let me read the staff recommendation. It's threefold. Will staff move that the board receive public comment at this hearing? Secondly, move that the board adopt the final assessment resolution for the Solid Waste Municipal Service Benefit Unit, or MSBU. And thirdly, move that the board certify the special assessment role to the tax collector. And with that, I'll be prepared to answer any questions. Would anyone from the public like to address us? Seeing none, Mr. Campy. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Hammerson. It seems that every time this issue comes up, we receive some emails where people are saying, what are you doing? And I think that, you know, I know you were trying to make it more humorous, but $0.09 of an increase per pickup or $1 for the week is understandable. Gas prices are fluctuating, and all through the different industries, things are a little bit more expensive. But this particular service, and I remember going back to when we negotiated it and the waste management, now known as WM, was the highest of the three. But some of us at the time that were part of that were talking it was more of a service than it was like we weren't purchasing trucks. But we've also switched over the fleet. Waste management and WM has switched over the fleet. They're nearly silent. The old trucks used to, brakes, you'd hear them squealing. You knew when the garbage truck was coming, especially if you had not yet put your pails out. You could hear them coming down the road, the squealing of the brakes. You don't hear that at all anymore. You're right about the freeze. I myself had put out mountains of dead vegetative debris, and so did all my neighbors. Some people had it where it looked like it was 8 feet tall and it was 30 feet long. It was remarkable that people could put that much out. And two days later, it was all gone. So I have, I don't know about my colleagues, but I very, very rarely ever get an insult or a complaint about the service. It doesn't take much to read what's happening to our north where the municipalities have had to sue their service providers and settle and get settlements and how they have narrowed their services down to very few collections per week. I know some people don't generate a tremendous amount of trash, and they wish that we would narrow our services down. But for the rest of us that do, you wouldn't want a one-day, once-a-week pickup on trash, especially for neighborhoods where you're not allowed to have the pails outside and they'd have to be kept inside. So we've asked for public comment. There was none. I would move for staff's recommendation in all of those three categories that you mentioned. I know some folks from Waste Management WM are here. I'd like to just continue to say thank you. It's a very important service that affects nearly every resident, and they do a remarkably great job for the money that they ask for. Thank you. Commissioner Hetherington. What he said. No, actually, you took my talking points. But I will say that watching what's happened around our counties, maybe to the north of us, it's been a lesson learned. And originally, I think it was 2018 or 19 when we voted on the contract, I was not necessarily – I thought, let's take the less price. But one thing I will say is that I'm glad that my colleagues did not share in that sentiment because I think the level of service that we have received by Waste Management has been exceptional, and the service has been a benefit to our residents. And I would gladly – again, watching what some of our counties that did take the lowest bid per se, they have experienced a lot of hardships, not good level of service, and a lot of legal disputes. So I would gladly second the motion. Mr. Camps. I would just like to mention what great community partners Waste Management are or is. Yes. Yes. Thank you, Mother Grammar. Language reports teacher. Thank you. They are involved in virtually everything in our community and big contributors to so many wonderful causes. And we deeply appreciate their partnership and so many great things in our community. And I'll just mention this, that they're a hope-sound business, and we appreciate them being real close by. And I have their phone number memorized. If I ever have a little problem, it's 546-7700. So I don't even have to look it up or Google it or anything. Transfer station is in Palm City. Yes. Great. So thank you for all you do for us. Commissioner Vargas. I have visited both the transfer station, Western Palm City, and also the hope-sound facility, too. And I would, I mean, if you could say it's really immaculate. I mean, it's garbage, but, you know, not my thing. But the other thing I want to say is when I thought there might be a problem because there was a lot of trash, I called, pick up the phone. They didn't know who I was. But, yes, ma'am, no problem. We'll have it taken care of. Extremely polite. And I did mention that to Mr. Jeff over there. He's nodding his head yes. And I appreciate that because we don't find that too often, but they come punctually. Again, garbage twice a week, special pickup for shrubbery during the week. And then, of course, you have your trash pickup like clockwork. So, you know, if you're not at home, you can tell your neighbor, well, leave the can out. Would you please bring it in? You know, this time because they're going to be here on Friday or whatever it may be, wherever in your neighborhood. So I definitely say we stay with waste management at this point. We don't need what the other counties have been going through. Cheaper is not better necessarily. Mr. Cosgrove, did you want to speak on this item or for public? Public? Okay. And also I echo the sentiments. I love my garbage men. And obviously they are wonderful. And obviously waste management is a terrific employer because there's so little turnover. I've had, in the 30 years that I've lived in my address, two of the garbage men have been there for 20 years. And they're fabulous. There's a motion in the second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? That motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you. We will now take out of order public hearing quasi-judicial number three. So this is quasi-judicial. Any ex parte disclosures? Mr. Vargas. If I have any, they've been filed. And Capps? If I have any, they have been filed. If I have any, they've been filed. And Commissioner Campy? I don't have any. And that's been filed. And Commissioner Hetherington? If any, they've been filed. Excellent. Mr. Aguilar, have you provided your materials to the clerk? Thank you very much. A copy of my work history has been turning as a 7-1. Okay. If there's anyone who's going to be providing sworn testimony, please stand up, raise your right hand, and be sworn in. Do you swear or affirm the evidence you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? So I'll help you guys. Excellent. Please begin. Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning, members of the Board. My name is Luis Aguilar, Principal Planner for the Growth Management Department. I'm presenting a resounding application for a property owned by Outback Real Estate LLC. The applicant is requesting a zoning change from the existing M1 Industrial District to the LI Limited Industrial District. The subject site is located at 3101 Southeast Federal Highway in Stewart, approximately 560 feet north of Southeast Indian Street, and just south of Southeast Carnival Court. This is an enlarged area of the site. The property is built out, and its current use is Restaurant General. The future land use designation is industrial. The adjacent properties to the north, south, east have industrial designation as well. The property west of the subject site has a commercial land use designation with the city of Stewart. The zoning district is N1 Industrial District. The property is subject to two covenant agreements, covenant number 210 to LI Limited Industrial, and covenant 182, again to LI Limited Industrial. Therefore, this request to rezone is considered mandatory per section 3.401B. The zoning district for the property to the west is PUD commercial with the city of Stewart. Proposed rezone area is approximately 1.93 acres. There are three standard Category A zoning districts available to implement the industrial land use policies of the comprehensive growth management plan, which are LI Limited Industrial, GI General Industrial, and HI Heavy Industrial. A new PUD zoning is an additional option for applicants. The applicant is requesting to rezone the property to the LI Limited Industrial District. For comparison purposes, the permitted uses for these zoning districts are provided in detail on pages 2 through 6 of the staff report. And these are the development standards for the industrial districts. The limited industrial is, the maximum height is 30 feet, the maximum building coverage is 40 feet, and the minimum open space, 20. And these are the corresponding setbacks, which are the same for all of the zoning districts. These are the conditions supporting the requested limited industrial district. The limited industrial district is designed to minimize the potential for negative impacts on surrounding properties. The limited industrial zoning district is the less intensive industrial district, aligning well with the surrounding properties and zoning districts. The proposed limited industrial zoning district and the industrial future land use designation align well with the character of the existing land uses in the adjacent and surrounding area. This matter was heard before the LPA on July 16, 2026. The LPA voted to approve 4 to 1. Development review staff have found the Blue Horizons LLC resounding application to comply with all applicable regulations and the Comprehensive Growth Management Plan as detailed in the staff report. We recommend to move that the board receiving file the agenda item and its attachments, including the staff report as Exhibit 1, and move that the board adopt a resolution amending the Martin County zoning atlas to change the zoning district designation on the subject site from M1 Industrial District to LI Limited Industrial District. This concludes my presentation, and the applicant is here and is ready to answer any questions. Any questions for Mr. Aguilar? I don't see any applicant. Would you like to make a presentation? Good morning. Good morning. My name is Robert Volpe. Is this on? Robert Volpe with the law firm of Holtzman Vogel on behalf of the applicant. We agree with the staff's recommendation and the staff's report. They did an excellent job and have been wonderful to work with through this process. The rezoning is a mandatory option, as Mr. Aguilar mentioned. I do have one document, and this is just a wet signature affidavit. We already filled out this affidavit, but staff asked for a wet signature and asked that we provide it at the hearing, if you don't mind. Otherwise, we're available for comment or to answer questions. The engineer of record is here as well, and we ask that you approve this rezoning, and thank you for your time. Questions for Mr. Volpe? Mr. Wallace, would you like to talk to us? Yes, Madam Chair, I would. Good morning. My name is Bill Wallace. I live in Hope Sound. I'm here today to talk to you about this item because we are the contiguous property owners on one of our automobile dealerships, Wallace Kia. And the current arrangement is it's a shared driveway that they come into our facility and into what the former Outback Steakhouse, which is, you know, no longer in existence. And even while Outback was struggling, obviously they closed, so they weren't very busy. But even with that amount of traffic and that shared driveway off of US-1, it's a very dangerous turn. People are coming up from Indian Street. Indian Street. You cannot enter the property from the south. You have to enter the property coming to the north. So people go down to Indian Street, do a U-turn, and come back up. So all the traffic can only come in one way, and that's from south to north. And you have to make that turn in a very short period of time. And if you're making the turn, which we all do that work there from time to time, obviously customers, it's probably one in three times that you make the turn. Somebody is just racing up behind you. It's just a very, very dangerous intersection. And I have spoken with Mr. Volpe and explained to him what our concerns were. We've yet to see or hear from the applicant how they plan to deal with that. One time that was going to be their main entrance. Then they adjusted it where the entrance was coming off of Carnival. I'm not sure where they are now. But whether they are or they aren't, legally they can. And now is the time to address it. I understand that you're just dealing with a zoning issue. And I want to share with you that at the planning zoning meeting, yes, it was passed. But the planning zoning, the biggest conversation at the planning zoning department was, if this is mandatory, what are we talking about? Why are we discussing this? And if it's a mandatory rezoning, then there really wasn't a whole lot to discuss. It did come up that the traffic was an issue, but they did pass it 4 to 1. It's absolutely accurate. I think if you asked them, though, they would tell you, we were given a mandatory zoning request. So they just did that. So what I'm asking you is, before you just mandatorily rubber stamp something that's a problem, this is the time to deal with it. I think at the very least, they should provide us a traffic study. And let's get an analysis of how it could be handled. The right way to handle it would be to add a turning lane on that side. That's the only permit way you're going to resolve this. This was done 25 years ago, way before our occupants of the property. So I think we all know what's happened in the last 25 years in Martin County. Things have changed. So the amount of traffic is really something. To add to the – to exacerbate the situation that – MR. Your time is up. MR. Okay. Sorry. MR. Thank you. MR. Thank you. Can you just stick around if I can answer any questions? Commissioner Vargas. You mentioned an alternative was, Mr. Aguilar, was a PUD. MR. A PUD, correct. Okay. So what would be the difference between just a straight change of the zoning that's being requested or a PUD? Is one more advantageous to the applicant? MR. Luis, if I may, for a second. MR. Okay. MR. Mr. Aguilar mentioned that there's – MR. Mr. Wallace, you can sit down, sir. MR. There's a section of Code 3.401 that states all lands zoned Category C, subject to a covenant agreement, shall be rezoned to the most appropriate Category A zoning district. So I would urge caution in going down the road of potentially assigning a PUD zoning district to that. I do not believe the code allows for that. MS. Okay. And why would that be disadvantageous or advantageous? MR. Well, I don't know that it's permitted under the code. The code states it shall be changed to the most appropriate Category A zoning district. MS. Do you have a comment, Ms. Elder? MS. So a PUD is not within the Category A zoning districts, but also in order to have a PUD assigned to a property, you need agreement from the property owner. And if they're not giving the board agreement to do a PUD, then we can't just assign PUD zoning. So that's not a really good option, especially when the property owner is looking for a Category A and that's what's provided for in the code. MS. Yeah. Okay. I've noticed that in your presentation. Of course, I've driven US 1. That's a speedway. And if you cannot safely slow down to inch over or move over quickly to make a turn into a business, it could be a potentially dangerous situation. And not just for the person driving the car, it could be somebody next to you, the vehicle next to you, or the electric bikes that are there. So I think there may be some relief that the property owner should be giving in order to receive this change. Mr. Volpe? MR. Yes. Thank you. As Mr. Wallace mentioned, we have spoken. There's a shared driveway in one of the entrances to the property. And the traffic issue on US 1 will be addressed at the site plan stage. We would have to meet, this is in the staff report and in your code, we would have to meet all the requirements of code. US 1 is also an FDOT road, so we will have to work with FDOT on traffic studies, on access points. And to meet all of their requirements, FDOT would be the agency that determines those access points and how those are managed. And certainly we will work with them at the site plan stage. And I think that's the appropriate stage for that analysis. We don't have that full analysis for rezoning and it's really required once you have exactly and precisely what will be built on the site and how the access and internal maneuvers will work. But we intend to do that work and we intend to work with staff on that at the appropriate time. Okay. So this will come back to Growth Management Department to verify that it's a safe turn that's ingress, egress, I assume? That's correct. Through the site development process, Engineering Services will evaluate the traffic flow. Okay. Would there also possibly be another ingress, egress on the back street? There is access, yes. So there will be on Carnival Street on, I guess that's the northwest side of the property. So there will be at least two access points. And I think I've mentioned to Mr. Wallace, we will work with him because we have that shared access. Actually, the property line splits right down the middle of that access point. So we will work with him on whatever improvements or configuration is needed at that access. But yes, there will be two access points. Okay. All right. Just as long as you have oversight, that's important. Commissioner Campy. Thank you very much. Yes, it's mandatory. But I think it was important that we heard from your next-door neighbor about his concerns. Obviously, you want to be neighborly. There's also a bus stop there, isn't there, like right in front of the Kia? No, that's south of there. That's in front of Wells Fargo, right? Well, Wells Fargo, Kia, Outback, there's boom, boom, boom. So that being said, I think that I will make a motion to accept staff's recommendation with the understanding that when it is appropriate during our agenda process for when you come forward for the planning that you have reached out with your neighbors to make sure it's safer. It's not just for Mr. Wallace, but it's for the traveling public. That it is. I've done that. I've been to the Outback plenty of times. I've had to see that it went out of business. But you have to go to Indiantown, you've got to be in that lane, you've got to make the U-turn, and then you've got to immediately come over to get as quickly to the Outback or Kia as possible. So now that this window of opportunity has opened, let's take advantage of it and create something with both driveway entrances, your south and north side, that's safer. I mean, if Outback had continued to just do business, you wouldn't be here and we wouldn't be able to have this conversation. So sad for Outback, but potentially beneficial for the traveling public of Martin. So thank you. Understood. Thank you. Commissioner Capps. I think this is a good time to bring up the whole concept of road concurrency. Back in the old days, 10, 20 years ago, I understand you could require of people developing things that they fix the road first, and that would seem kind of reasonable, right? Get the road fixed and then build your thing. Well that's preempted by state law now. You can't do that, even though that would be the most reasonable thing. Basically the idea, and Ms. Elder can tell us the specifics, but the idea is that you've got to let them go on and build it, and then they can be required to pay a proportionate share of road improvements and that kind of thing. But you can't force them to do that first. Is that right? For concurrency, if you want me to address it. That's correct, that if a road is failing, this is for capacity increases, that we cannot stop development because of a failed roadway under state law now. And they've made it exceedingly difficult for counties to even increase their impact fees to deal with road improvements. But in particular, in relation to a driveway, we do have land development regulations that can help in this a little bit. But also you have to deal with DOT in this situation. So that will ultimately be the final arbiter in this situation will be the DOT and their regulations. So your motion is clear in the terms of I understand if there is a motion. And then all other items are suggestions to encourage the applicant to work together with their neighbor and our staff are apprised of these conversations and will be on the lookout. Commissioner Hetherington. I was just going to, as Mr. Volpe was up there, suggest that the concerns of Mr. Wallace and the applicant be addressed at the site planning process, which we just discussed. And because it's mandatory rezoning, I would second the motion. And just fun fact, the Outback, it will be missed because I was one of my, I worked there the day it opened in the 1990s when I was in high school. So we will miss that facility. Yes. Yeah. I'm looking at the aerial on page 574 and I don't see the connection between Carnival Court and the subject site. Right there. I don't think there is a connection. There is. Yeah, there is. There is. It's in the tree line. Yes, it's around here, if I'm not mistaken. So you have to go through the trees? No. You have to clip the trees. It may not be in the same location when the redevelopment of that site occurs. So it will be meeting the county's code requirements for distance and separation and make sure it's an access point that is up to the engineering standards. Yes. Okay. And also the site plan. This will presumably be a minor. That's correct. So it will not come back to us. Correct. It will be approved by staff. So it's… Staff heard us, right? Yep, they did. Yes, sir. Loud and clear. Look. Any further questions, comments? I was just going to reiterate that this is mandatory rezoning. If you look at Lewis's prior exhibits, there are two covenants and those were assigned when the sites were originally developed to be developed under the limited industrial zoning district. So that's why it's the appropriate district to assign to the property. Okay. There's a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? That motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you. We'll now return to the public hearing number three. Public hearing to consider adoption of an ordinance amending Chapter 155, Streets, Roads, and Bridges, General Ordinances, Martin County Code relating to speed limits, delegation of authority, required permits, and security. Mr. Griselka. Good morning, Commissioners. Good morning. I am Michael Griselka, the county engineer, bringing forward a code change to Chapter 155, Streets, Roads, and Bridges. There are two main changes that are involved here. One of them is authorizing the county engineer to sign all permit applications on behalf of the county for DOT permits, DEP permits, Army Corps permits, South Florida permits on all county property or county rights of waste, or to then be able to also delegate that authority to other department heads as deep to fit. The other major change to the code is that we have a right-of-way use permitting process in place in Martin County that we require all private developers to obtain those permits. This change is now requiring all internal Martin County departments as well as divisions within the Public Works Department to all be required to go through the permitting process to obtain those permits. The primary reason for that is so that the Engineering Services Division has the ability to review all the maintenance of traffic plans and keep them consistent across the board, as well as all the restoration of county right-of-ways. The other minor stuff that is in here are more cleanup items. The first one is we are removing the minimum speed limit of 25 miles an hour across the board, which then just leads us back to the DOT standards, which now allows, with their recent changes, to actually go down to a 20-mile-an-hour speed limit in certain congested urban areas and things like that. So it just gives us the opportunity to have that ability as well. The other items are I am adding back into this section of the code, the stuff to require bonds for work within the right-of-way. Right now, we have been collecting the bonds, but it hasn't been codified for it. So we are adding that in this section of the code, just the same language that we use for the plats and the bonds for the plats and the required improvements. We are changing just some date changes on when the board will recognize open roads and accept the roads into the county inventory. Before, you'd only see them once in a while. But nowadays, since the board does not see the plats anymore, all the roads that are getting platted are going to have to come in front of the board as well to be accepted as open roads within the road inventory. So I'm just removing the mandatory dates of twice a year because we may bring them more often as the plats come through just to get them all accepted into the inventory. And the other item that was kind of out there is there was some outdated language about taking of animals, vows, reptiles from public rights-of-ways, and how there was an emergency declaration in the county. So I've left the language in there about being not allowed to take any animals or birds from the county right-of-ways. However, I took out the whole language about being a countywide emergency and it being a declared emergency. Those are the main items on the whole thing with the cleanup items. So staff recommends approval and ask for your approval. Do you have any questions? Commissioner Kaby. Commissioner Kaby. Thank you. I had the opportunity, I think we all did, to speak to Mr. Griselka about these. They're primarily administrative kind of housekeeping issues. I would make a motion to accept staff's recommendation. Second. Any further questions? No. Any objections? No. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone from the public who would like to address us? Seeing none. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? That motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you. Next up is public hearing quasi-judicial number one, which is the second public hearing to consider approval of the First Amendment to the development agreement between Martin County and the master developer for Newfield and the second amendment to the conservation easement. Good morning, Mr. Walden. Good morning, Mr. Walden. This is a quasi-judicial public hearing. Any ex parte disclosures? Commissioner Vargas. I have none. It's been filed. Commissioner Capps. If I have any, they have been filed. I don't have any and they've been filed. Commissioner Campy. I don't have any and that's been filed. And Commissioner Hetherington. If I have any, they've been filed. Excellent. Have you given all your required materials to the clerk? A copy of my work history and the agenda item has been turned in. Excellent. Anybody who's going to be providing sworn testimony, please stand up, raise your right hand, and be sworn in. Do you swear or affirm the evidence you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? So help you God. I do. Please proceed. Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon, Commissioners. Pete Walden, Deputy Growth Management Director. I'm here today with John Mayo, your Environmental Resource Administrator. We are only going to talk about the First Amendment to the New Field Development Agreement today. There is a supplemental memo requesting that the Second Amendment to the Conservation Easement be removed for today. The applicant would like the opportunity to produce a formal survey and legal description of the property prior to attaching that to the Conservation Easement Amendment. So that will be coming back soon. The property has to be conveyed prior to the 700th residential permit. And we're about 300 permits in, so we have a little time. So this is a request for the First Amendment to the New Field Development Agreement. A little history again. This is the second hearing. Both hearings were noticed in the local newspaper, and the first – prior to the first hearing, a mailing was going out to – has gone out to local surrounding properties. So back to the project history. In 2018, the mixed-use village and the planned mixed-use village land use and zoning were both approved. In 2020, this development agreement was approved. There have been several conservation easements applied to the property, several master plans approved, trailheads have been built, soccer fields have been built, almost open, and numerous site plans for residential and commercial activity have been approved. So this is a staff-initiated amendment to the development agreement. It requires two public hearings, as I said, and this is the second one. The purpose of the amendment is only to amend Section 70B, which is the Open Space Conservation Lands. The wording is proposed as, Master developer shall identify 125 acres to be used by county for environmental purposes, including but not limited to the placement, storage, grading, and management of excavated materials such as muck soils, sediments, and related byproducts. The environmental parcel. So there was 125 acres on the regulating plan for new field that was designated to be built as a stormwater treatment area. John has identified a better use for the land, and that's why we're here today. The land is also part of impact fees that are credited to the developer. And, like I said, we will also bring back an amendment to the conservation easement to allow the use, and the property will still stay in the conservation easement. This is an area of the two areas that could possibly be used as the soil sites. The property next to it is the fine site. It's about 125 acres. The new field contribution is also 125 acres. I brought this display in. This is for two reasons. This is a proposed trailheads and trail activities that are being planned for a section of new field. And this also satisfies some of the impact fees for new field. But it's also a template that could be used to finish off once a spoil site is done. Something like this can be implemented. There's equestrian, biking, pedestrian trails, and a trailhead. And this area here is approximately the same size as the area that's going to be donated. Because new field has 2,200 acres of open space that is dedicated as such. And this will be the third formal trailhead for the public and the folks in new field to access those public lands. So, with that, I'll turn it over to John. Maybe I'll make the motion first. And then... Make motions. Well, I will recommend that the board makes a motion. Second it. Thank you for that. I'll second it. There you go. Perfect. Done. Move that the board receive and file the agenda item and its attachments as Exhibit 1. And move that the board approve the development agreement amendment for the new field project. And with that, I'm sure John's here to answer any questions you might have about the proposal. Questions for staff. Would the applicant like to make a presentation? Good afternoon. Good afternoon. I'm Kristen Spake of the Gun Store Offerm on behalf of the property owner. And we're happy to support this. I'm here to answer any questions that you all might have. Appreciate it. Questions? Motion. Would anyone from the public like to address us? Seeing none, we'll return to the board. I would actually make a motion. Appreciate the landowners as we've discussed this at the last agenda item when we had this at the last meeting. Appreciate the partnership. If John Mayle and our environmental folks say it's environmentally appropriate, then it is. And I like that we all work together to create this. And I make a motion to accept what Mr. Walden said. Commissioner Hetherington. I will second the motion, but I'll add that this past week over environmental summer permitting school, I had the opportunity, and it's relative to the spoil site, talk to, I was going to say this at my commissioner comments, but it seems sort of relevant here as well. Virginia Baker and Jean Allen, they were talking about how successful Brevard County has been in their muck dredging. And talking to Jean, she said, there's two imperative things that you have to. You have to have a spoil site where you can put the muck. So thank you very much to Newfield for participating in this. And that is absolutely imperative. And of course, you know, the second thing is you need funding so that you can match the dollars. And I can talk a little bit more about that on commissioner comments. So thank you because that puts us, this puts us one step further into Indian River Lagoon, improving the health of the Indian River Lagoon. And the spoil site was absolutely imperative. So thank you to staff for all the work that you did in achieving this too. And I'll gladly second it. Yeah, this is a huge, huge deal. This is, when it's completed, this will be the culmination, the necessary culmination of Indian River Lagoon South. It's the final step. You know, we will have in place approximately 9,000 acres of reservoirs, approximately 10,000 acres of stormwater treatment areas. We have a new Lake Okeechobee operating schedule that's going to eliminate discharges from Lake Okeechobee. We're buying natural lands. And the final project, which will ensure systemic ecosystem restoration, is removing the muck. And this is that necessary final step that's going to assure that, once again, Indian River Lagoon becomes the most biodiverse estuary in North America. So it's a very, very big deal. And also, I know that there are some who advocate severing the relationship that we have, the partnership that we have with the Army Corps of Engineers. And I can say that would be the biggest mistake Martin County has ever made because they're terrific partners. Thank you. Mr. Capps. I wonder if someone could comment about the potential scarcity of muck sites. You know, whenever muck removal begins, that's going to be a big problem, right? And this will go a long way to helping that problem. There are always going to be problems with finding places to put this stuff. Yes, that's true. And it's really the impetus for the whole conversation that started with New Field. When you look at a map of how you can best position a site to receive dredge spoil from the estuary, I mean, obviously, development was favorable near the estuary. That's the most valuable real estate. And so anything even close to the water has historically always had a lot of pressure. So finding a site that hasn't already been developed is really challenging. And this was the site that was contemplated by the federal government when WERDA 2007 was originally passed. And in the project implementation report that lays out the plan for how you would achieve IRL South, there's a map and it's got a box right around this spot. And I think that's probably why the Florida Navigation District acquired the parcel that they acquired. And it was just begging to be included in this. And if it weren't for this, it would be miles and miles further, which would involve large diesel pump booster stations along the canal and more disruption. And you would have to pump it at higher rates of water to sediment. And so the cost and the time and everything goes exponentially higher. So who do we credit for thinking up this idea? I would say the Corps of Engineers and putting it on a map. I'll take credit for seeing the opportunity, I guess, and bringing it up. And I will say the last meeting when I was coming forward to sit next to Peter, I said, what am I doing? Like, I have a pretty easy job bringing items to the dais and coming up here with this guy. I'm like, why did I think this was a good idea? Didn't they should use a bulletproof vest? They didn't. I knew you would skirt around that and that you would be humble and not bring attention to yourself, but I think you probably had a lot to do with that. True. So thank you. And the landowner. And the landowner. Because it would be very difficult to purchase that property now. So thank you. Yeah, I will say the first time that we spoke with the Newfield folks, I had about a 50-50 projection that they might just laugh me out of the room. You know, to change gears at this point and with those deadlines looming, they had already had under contract an engineering firm to start working on design of that STA. And, you know, that far along to say to pull back and completely change gears and to take that chance was I think they deserve a lot of credit for that. Thank you all. There's a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? That motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you. Next we'll take up public hearing quasi-judicial number two, which is a public hearing to consider approval of a planned unit development zoning agreement including a master final site plan for the Paradise Lake project. Mr. Aguilar, this is quasi-judicial. Any ex parte disclosures? Commissioner Vargas? I have none. It's been filed. Commissioner Capps? If I have any, they have been filed. I don't have any and they've been filed. Commissioner Campy? I had a conversation yesterday and that's been filed. Excellent. Commissioner Hetherington? If any, they've been filed. And, Mr. Aguilar, have you provided all your necessary documents to the clerk? Yes, Madam Chair. A couple of my work history has been turned in as Exhibit 1. Okay. Anybody who's going to be providing sworn testimony, please stand up, raise your right hand, and be sworn in. Do you swear or affirm the evidence you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? It's a healthy guide. I do. Please proceed. Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon, members of the Board. My name is Luis Aguilar, for the record, principal planner for the Growth Management Department. I'm presenting a request from Heisenberg Family Financial Investments, LLC, to revise a previously approved but now expired master and final site plan for an approximately 72 acres property. Included with this application is a request for a certificate of public facilities reservation. The proposed development includes 11 single-family lots on approximately 72 acres, resulting in a gross density of 0.15 units per acre, which is below the 0.5 units per acre density allowed by the rural density future land use. The proposal includes the dedication of approximately 1.40 acres of railway to Martin County along the south side of Southeast 138th Street as a condition of approval for the Paradise Lake Master Final Site Plan. The plan provides 94% open space, 32.38 acres of freshwater wetland, and 0.10 acres of restored wetland, all protected under the Preserve Management, the Preserve Area Management Plan, which includes removal of invasive species and restoration efforts. The subject site is located south of Southeast 138th Street, approximately a quarter of a mile west of Southeast Kitchen Creek Road within the secondary urban service district. This is an enlarged area of the site. The property is undeveloped. The zoning district is already PUD residential and has a rural density land use designation. As a reference, this here is the 2010 master plan. This is the proposed master and final site plan. Access to the site is from Southeast 138th Street, which will be here. Key features include an upland preserved area, which is this one over here, a 30-foot wide firewise defensible space, which is this one over here, dark, a 70-foot wide upland buffer, which is this one, and a tree mitigation area, which is this one over here. The Board of County Commissioners approved the Paradise Lake PUD project on March 16, 2010. However, the applicant did not obtain final site plan and plan approval within the required timeframe. As a result, the development rights in the original PUD agreement have expired. The proposed project originally approved for 12 lots on 72.40 acres, having reduced to 11 lots on 70.99 acres to preserve specimen oak trees and maintain native upland habitat. The project will provide 94% open space and 32.38 acres of wetland preserved. The site's maximum density is 27 units, while the project proposes 11 units, resulting in 0.15 units per acre. An existing recorded flow through drainage easement lies in the eastern portion of the site, as part of the 2010 PUD agreement benefits. The proposed PUD benefits include increasing the upland preserved area by 2.54 acres from 14.84 to 17.38 acres. Increased side and rear building setbacks from 30 to 35 feet provide 0.57 acres of native tree protection area that will be retained in existing native vegetation. The applicant agrees to prohibit guest houses on the lots and to donate $1,000 per unit, $11,000 total, to the Martin County Community Land Trust. As a reference, this is the PUD benefit and justification statement from the 2010 application. This matter was heard before the LPA on July 16, 2026. The LPA voted to approve 5-0. Development review staff have found the Paradise Lake application to comply with all applicable regulations and the comprehensive growth management plan as detailed in the staff report. We recommend to move that the Board receive and file the agenda item and all its attachments, including the staff report as Exhibit 1. Move that the Board approve the Paradise Lake PUD agreement, including the master final site plan and preserved area management plan. And move that the Board will adopt a double resolution approving and accepting the quick claim deed from Heisenberg Family Financial Investments, LLC, a Florida Limited liability company, for the occasion of right away and authorize the chair to sign any and all documents necessary to complete the transaction. This concludes my presentation, and I believe the applicant is here and has a presentation and is ready to answer any questions. Questions for Mr. Aguilar. Mr. Crady, would you like to... Mr. Crady, if you would allow yourself to be sworn in, please. Do you swear or affirm the evidence you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so I hope you got it. Thank you. And I apologize right off the bat because my clients were out here all morning and they went for lunch and so they're rushing back here. He was going to make a few comments before the presentation, but hopefully he'll be here after the presentation to say those comments. Can I borrow your mouse, please, so I can... I want to use the pointer if I can. MR. Can you imagine that conversation over the lunch table, like you called him and they're like... MR. You've got to run back. And for the record, my name is Morris Crady. I'm senior partner with Aceto and Associates, and thank you, Luis. He provided a very comprehensive and detailed report, and I appreciate that. And I do have just a brief presentation. I'm going to go rather slow to give him time to get here. Sometimes I talk too fast. But Mr. Heisenberg and his family purchased this property almost 20 years ago on July 14, 2006, and at the top of the real estate boom. And so we spent about the next two years working on the first PUD master plan application. I actually had Pat Liconti, who's the record engineer with me, and also my partner, Ryan Nolan, who helped process this current application. So in 2008, we submitted the first PUD application. And by that time, we started crashing. The recession started crashing. So we did get the final master plan approval in 2010 at the bottom of the recession, and it just delayed going forward with the final site plan to deal with that. And then right after that came COVID. So it's been a project that's been 20 years in the making. But we did follow through with the first public benefit for the 12 lots, and that was to dedicate a public drainage easement for the Kitchen Creek flowway project as a public benefit. And that was for the original 12 lot project. Ten years later, August 2021, the PUD timetable expired. And here we are three years after that. We submitted a brand new PUD application and negotiated additional public benefits as a consequence of the PUD expiration. This is just to show you the location. I'll give you more detail on the actual site plan in a moment. But here is the Kitchen Creek flowway project. And this is the drainage easement that we provide. It runs along our eastern property boundary. And, of course, we're located just south of 138th Street and have Jonathan Dickinson State Park just to the south of us. So to look at the existing current aerial, you can see the property has been vegetated. And this particular feature has been here since before 1980. Mike and his family has used it as a camping retreat. He's volunteered and had special events out there for Jensen Beach High School, ROTC, and has been managing the upland property very well and nurturing the growth of native trees and oak trees that he basically has to mitigate for now as he develops the property. But you can see – this is the 1986 area. So even 20 years before Mike bought it, you can see the upland area, which is this area here. And it continues down here. And you can see this particular area here is what staff has focused on because it's always been like a wildlife habitat native connector between these two upland areas. So from there we developed the site plan. And this is just to show you the north-south orientation. Again, the Kitchen Creek Flow Away Project is here. Our easement that we dedicated is located here, which provides a connection to Jonathan Dickinson State Park. And one of the major areas – one of the major changes that we made was we gave that up. We gave that 12th lot up to provide this wildlife connector and also created a 920-foot buffer adjacent to the State Park where, by code, only a 40-foot buffer is required. But all that's preserved area now. It's contiguous, and we're developing a much smaller footprint than what was originally approved. But as was mentioned, these are 75-foot buffers, not 50-foot buffers, because these are wetlands of special concern. And just to give you the comparison, now we're looking to the left of the screen is Jonathan Dickinson State Park. And to the right is 138th Street, so east-west orientation. This is the original approved project. You can see on this aerial – this is the 2010 aerial that identified the drainage – public drainage easement that was dedicated. So it's highlighted in blue. But you can see even 20 – in 2010, there's a lot less trees on the site. So Mike has been nurturing the growth of these trees. And the staff, again, was looking at this area as a critical connection. This is where most of the mature pine trees are located and some pristine native habitat. Now, but that wasn't – the staff also had us look at what we could do by right. Because one of our options was to come back and reinstate the PUD agreement with these additional public benefits and conditions. Or we had the option of just doing it under by right zoning, the RE2A zoning district. So we could have come under by right, and we wanted to evaluate how many lots could we get if we did it by right. So under by right, you're required to have two-acre lots, and you need to have 175-foot frontage on a standard road. And in this scenario, we could yield eight lots with a lake in this area and a lake in this area. But we take away the connectivity. On a two-acre lot, you can build a principal house and a guest house. You can have – you can develop all of the property. And we also did an analysis to see if we didn't do the lakes and we were going to haul and fill, how many lots could we yield? Under straight zoning, we could yield nine lots, nine two-acre lots under straight zoning. So compare that to what we have actually achieved, and you can see we've significantly reduced the development footprint, even though we have 11 lots. And these 11 lots are all one acre or just over an acre in size. But we're able to preserve an additional two-and-a-half acres more than what was previously on the PUD plan, and almost five acres more than what we could do under straight zoning. So, again, this is the rendered version of the plan. This is the area of mitigation. Again, one of the things that we have to do because these lots require fill and septic tank and wells, most of the site of these lots have to be cleared. So we had to go in and mitigate for all of the oak trees that Mike nurtured over the years and replant them. So we're replanting them in this area. We're doing live oak trees along the perimeter of the road. We're planting additional trees around the lake. We've created these common areas on the four corners of the lake so that you have access to the lake, whether you're on the lot or not. This is an entry feature that will be designed like an old Florida cracker house. What Mike wanted to do was have an area where you could sit on the front porch but also allow for deliveries. You know, mail will be delivered there, and that will be an area for equipment and stuff for the community. So looking at the site data, the 71 acres now, there was a 1.4-acre right-of-way donation, 50-foot right-of-way that we donated along 138th Street, and that's critical because that's where a ditch is located that provides drainage for 138th Street. The wetland preserve area on this site is significant, 32 acres. Almost 45 percent of the site is wetland, and all of that has to be preserved. So we're preserving all of the wetlands on site and even restoring some of the wetlands where they had access through the wetlands that was built decades ago. So just looking at the maximum density transfer, if we utilize the county's allowance to transfer density out of the wetlands and apply the one unit per two acres on the uplands, we would be able to yield 27 units. But we don't have enough upland area to actually build that many units. So just wanted to show you the numbers, though, nonetheless. If we did maximum density without the density transfer, which would just be based on the upland area, the yield would be 19 units. We're proposing 11 units, which represents 40 percent of the maximum density. In terms of native upland habitat, out of the total site that's upland, 31 is existing native habitat. The normal preserve requirement is 25 percent, but with the 75-foot buffer, that bumps up to 12.84 acres. And the upland preserve that we're providing on top of that, when compared to straight zoning, represents almost 56 percent of the existing habitat on site. Total site preservation, overall, is 50 acres of site preservation that's going to be preserved in perpetuity and managed under a preserved area management plan by Mike and his family. Mike, we are going to let you speak at the end of this presentation, so I apologize for sending you away. So in terms of the total open space, that's already been mentioned. We're 94 percent open space. We really exceed all of the criteria under a normal development scenario. And public benefits, again, the perpetual flow through drainage easement. Again, this area was set aside for the Kitchen Creek drainage project, but a lot of that was put on hold. And now that we have an active project and a PAMP, then it's going to be Mike's responsibility and his family to clean all the exotics out of that area and to open up those flow aways so that the water can go from north to south into the Jonathan Dickinson State Park. And he'll work with the county to do whatever that takes. So we're preserving, when compared to straight zoning, we're preserving over five acres of additional upland preserve, including the restored wetland buffer areas, tree protection areas, and a 920-foot native preserve setback from Jonathan Dickinson State Park. We are willing to prohibit guest houses and accessory dwelling units on this property. The lots are only one acre, so we feel like with a principal house and septic system, there's no need to try to force more onto the property. We are willing to contribute $1,000 per lot for the Martin County Community Land Trust. The only benefit – I'm not saying this is a developer benefit because Michael is not a developer. He's a property owner, a 20-year property owner, and he purchased this property before Atlantic Fields, before Grove 23, before any of that stuff happened out there. But what we get as a PUD is an additional two or three lots out of the deal in exchange for the public benefits. I think that's a fair deal, and I'm certain that Mike and his family are great stewards of the land now, and they're going to be great stewards of the land in the future. Mike, can you say a few words? Good afternoon. I apologize. We were told we had a chance to take a break, so we went and started to get some lunch. No reason to apologize. Anyway, I appreciate your time and appreciate you allowing me the opportunity to talk. As you probably know, this project's been 20 years in the making. We're 30-year-plus residents in Martin County. We've raised three children here and raising a bunch of grandchildren now. And it's always been a dream of mine to have a piece of property where we can develop and be able to have a neighborhood that's really just for the family, a family compound. And the family has worked very hard through several family businesses serving Martin County and the Treasure Coast. And we're finally ready to embark on this process of developing the property. And we're not, as Morris said, we're not property developers looking to make a profit from a piece of land. We bought this land with one purpose and it's to build our family compound. And it's taken us 20 years to get here, but we're here now. And what we're, we're, we're not developing land. We're, and we're not investing into a project. We are investing in our family and we're investing into the Martin County with what we're doing. So we ask you all to please approve the project and let us, that dream be fulfilled. Thank you very much. Any questions for me? I have a comment. It's a beautiful project and it's a, it's a, it's a noble one too. It's a, it's going to be beautiful when it's finished. Thank you. And I hope that the, I'll be sitting on that little porch watching my great grandchildren off to school in the morning. So that's, that's my goal. Thank you very much. I got a plug for Mike. He's the owner of expert shutters and he employs over a hundred people and, uh, is a very successful business. And, and, uh, it's, I appreciate it. Mr. Capps. Yes. Uh, thank you for that great presentation. I know it's, uh, lunch time, but I just would love to have, uh, Mr. Crady show us a picture again of the Kitchen Creek flowway and how this property can be used to, to benefit the benefit, uh, wetlands, uh, rehydration down in JD park and down south and even above there on this parcel and north of there. Uh, just to show us. Load it back up. Let me see. That benefit. Go ahead. How was that the end of the other line? Yeah. Probably the best picture, but this is the, this is, uh, and again, I'm, I'm not the expert on the Kitchen Creek flowway project, but I believe it encompasses all of this area up here that the county has been acquiring. I think there's been a recent acquisition of a piece of property in that area. Um, so that, so again, that ties into the wetland system and the, you know, and it will eventually allow the, uh, wetlands in Jonathan Dickinson State Park to receive their normal water, hot water flow. Hey, commissioner. I can say that getting that link from bridge road to the park, while it naturally overflows here and there, having a dedicated easement with the ability for us to manage it and improve it for that. And working with the state park has been a, uh, a project that, uh, staff has been working on for 10 or. Yeah, exactly. A long time. And so, uh, and there are some adjacent property owners who have, um, have attempted to work with us in the past, but they're rather, uh, have unique character is characters that, uh, where we appreciate this project is a critical and actually achieving that. So it's, uh, it is, it is an important piece of this project. Can't underestimate it enough. Thank you. Great. It looks like you're doing things in a very environmentally friendly way. And I would just like to say, welcome to district three. Do you live in district three now? Jenson beach. Okay. Well, welcome to hope. Welcome to hope sound. Well, if you, uh, when that works out and I would make a motion to approve with a caveat on page 367, there is talk about owners shall donate $1,000 per lot to the Martin County community land trust within 60 days of final site plan approval. You know, that is for the purpose of affordable housing. And we have a real challenge with that and Martin County these days. And I would like to see if you would consider bumping that up to a $50,000 donation instead of an $11,000 donation. Um, and if you would be willing to do that, I would make that motion to approve. We are fully committed and we are committed to seeing Martin County continue to improve. So we are 100% in favor of that. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Oh, I thought that was going to be a clapping moment. Thank you very much. Mr. Campy. Thank you. Um, first off, I love the concept of a compound. My oldest daughter has been wishing that for my family forever, multi-generational family compound. Uh, it's something that I think a lot of families dream of or aspire to, but it's just nearly impossible to reach. Um, I did mention to her this weekend about your project. So she has a renewed hope that it's a possibility. Um, I think with your history, it's interesting that you probably started this project thinking about it was going to be a place where you and the kids could live. And now it's a place where you and the grandchildren can live. And you said great grandchildren. It's taken my dad nearly 90 years to become a great grandfather. So I wish you well on that. Uh, I think it's an exciting project for your family. I think it's an exciting project for the community. Um, so I'd be happy to second commissioner caps motion and welcome you and congratulate you. I know the shutter company and you've recently had some exciting and great news that is well deserved. I've, uh, mentioned the project and people sang your praises that you're self-made and that you're really super hard working and that you have a beautiful family. Yeah. And that's what I figured. Um, yeah, some people, a family compound would definitely not work, uh, to be living that close to each other. Most people are like, no, thank you. But, uh, so it really speaks volumes to who you are as a family. And so congratulations. And thank you very much for doing it in Martin. Commissioner Hetherington. People will put the grandchildren in an accessory dwelling, probably in our town. Uh, it's a great project. I will proudly support it. And I wish you many years of happiness in your family at the property. This is a public hearing. Would anyone like to address us? Seeing none back to the board, there's a motion and a second. All those in favor. Aye. Opposed. That motion passes unanimously. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Oh, Ms. Murley, you're taking up department one. Yes, I am. Murley. Good afternoon, Commissioner Stephanie Murley, director of the Office of Management and Budget, presenting you the OMB item today. Our first item is a permission to apply for the State of Florida Department of Transportation Public Transportation Grant Agreement for the FY27 Section 5311 Non-Urbanized Area Formula Funds. This is a grant that provides operating assistance to continue the Indiantown Non-Urbanized Bus Route Service. Our Public Works Department is requesting $213,743, and the estimated grant match of the same amount is budgeted within the Public Works Transit Operating Budget. Our second item is a permission to apply for the FY27 Mosquito Control State Financial Assistance Agreement from the State of Florida. Our Mosquito Control Division of the Public Works Department is requesting $69,587.50 to provide funding for the Mosquito Control Division to be used for the purchase of chemicals and equipment used for arthropod control. There is a match of 20% which is budgeted through Mosquito Control's current operating budget with the purchase of other chemicals. Item number three is a permission to accept the FTA Section 5339 Bus and Bus Facilities Grant. Public Works Transit is requesting the grant award of $146,920 to partially fund the purchase of an Americans with Disabilities Act accessible bus to be used for the MARTI system. There is no local cash match required and soft match will be used by FDOT toll revenue credits for $36,730. Item number four is adjustments to fiscal year 2026 budget or some cleanup items for this year's current budget. The first item is a request to approve a budget resolution for the state FY27 allocation of Federal Highway Administration or FHWA funds for our Martin County Metropolitan Planning Organization or the NPO. The county is in receipt of $800,808 to be appropriated into the budget for the Martin County MPO's budget. The second item is a request to allocate insurance proceeds from damages to traffic signals and streetlights. Martin County is in receipt of insurance proceeds due to damages to county-maintained traffic signals and streetlights caused by third-party accidents. And OMB is requesting a budget resolution to allocate $19,404 back into the traffic signals and streetlight rehabilitation project budget to offset the cost of those repairs. The third item is the FY26 capital improvement plan amendments for the utilities department. Martin County utilities have completed a few projects and are now requesting to transfer the available balances to other projects in order to accelerate them from FY27 to FY26. And OMB is just requesting the amendment of these CIP sheets to recognize them. The next item is the allocation of funds for fiscal year 2026 salary adjustments. During the FY26 adopted budget, the board allocated salary adjustments into our reserve account. They were placed in reserves and according to our fiscal policy, moving monies from any established reserve requires BOCC approval. So OMB is requesting the approval to transfer those funds that were previously budgeted into the various departments in order to pay for those salaries that occurred on 10-1. And the last item is a request to allocate insurance proceeds from damages to Martin County Fire Rescue Vehicle. We are in receipt of approximately $167,207 for insurance proceeds for service trucks that have sustained body and structural damages due to third-party vehicle collisions. And OMB is just requesting a budget resolution to allocate those monies so they can offset the cost of the repairs. And that's all I have today. Questions for Ms. Murley? Move approval. Second. There's a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? That motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Department 2, contracts that meet the threshold for board approval of $1 million or greater. Did we withdraw that item? All right. 3. Department 4. Department 4 is adopt a resolution approving and accepting the acquisition of a 2.7-acre parcel north of Southwest Blue Water Way, as recommended by the Environmental Lands Oversight Committee, and approved by the Board of County Commissioners. Ms. Segura. Good afternoon. It's Carla Segura, Real Property Manager. This request is for the adoption of a resolution approving the acquisition of 2.7-acres located north of Southwest Blue Water Way. It's currently owned by Bruce Burstein and Wendy Hickson. The Board approved the ELOC nominations of 16 parcels. This one ranked number seven on that list. The two appraisals were conducted with an average appraised value of $700,000. Staff successfully negotiated a purchase price of $648,000. The title work's been reviewed, and there are no known encumbrances. A boundary survey and legal description are being finalized right now. They just got the draft one in. It has a couple more comments, and then they should be ready to go on that. Staff request that the Board adopt a resolution authorizing the chair to execute the vacant land contract in the amount of $648,000, and authorize the county administrator-designee to execute all closing documents necessary to complete this transaction. If there's any questions, I'd be happy to answer. Questions? Is any of this upland? I think a small portion of it is, but it's mostly mangroves? Yes. Black mangrove is my favorite. I bet it's mostly red. Any further questions? Over approval. Second. There's a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? That motion passes unanimously. And finally, Department 5, adopt a resolution approving the acquisition of 10 parcels of environmentally sensitive land located in Poinciana Gardens, as recommended by the Environmental Lands Oversight Committee, and approved by the Board. I'm Carlos Segura, Rural Property Manager. These 10 parcels in Poinciana Gardens total 2.717 acres. They're currently owned by Rose and Joseph McGillivray. The purchase will be funded through the Conservation Land Sales Tax Program. The parcels were approved as number 15 on the list. Based on the previously obtained appraisals, the county has traditionally paid approximately $92,000 per acre for these properties. Staff negotiated a price of $255,000 for these parcels in total. Real Properties completed its review of the title work, confirmed ownership, and identified that there are no encumbrances. Yes, the board authorized the chair to adopt and execute the resolution and vacant land contract in the amount of $255,000, and authorize the county administrator-designee to execute any and all documents necessary. If there's any questions. Any questions? I would make a motion to accept staff's recommendation. Second. Are you familiar with this parcel, these parcels? Yes. There's a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? All those in favor passes unanimously. We have one request to speak form, and that is from Joe Cosgrove. Would you like to join us, sir? Afternoon. Thank you. Once again, I'm here in front of this board. And other commissioners. Speak right into the microphone. Yeah. Oh, yeah. I'm sorry. Other commissioners, about this e-bike issue. It's gotten to biblical proportions now, so much as that they are legalized on the roads and sidewalks, so we have a private community. So they automatically come in from the street and terrorize our neighborhood doing wheelies, speeding around, almost causing accidents, interaction with residents who oppose it. I understand the state in July was supposed to take some sort of action about some legislation to address this situation. I don't know if that happened. I don't know if you know either. And if not, I was wondering if there would be any way possible that the county could take some sort of action, so much as a statute or some kind of an ordinance to address these menacing vehicles. These things aren't funny anymore. They're big and heavy. They're going 30 miles an hour on the sidewalk. I almost got hit head on about a month ago. If that hits somebody at that speed, the thing probably weighs over 100 and some pounds, plus the rider. I probably would have got killed. And also, there's not just e-bikes and electric bikes. They're motorized scooters, gas, electric, whatever. Skateboards, go-carts, golf carts. Now, golf carts aren't what we remember golf carts. There used to be a two-seater thing with a couple bags. These things, some of them have four seats. Some have six. You know what a smart car is? A smart car? People, they're bigger than a smart car, but they're allowed on the sidewalk. They don't have insurance, no registration, no driver's license. They have no safety equipment. As a bicycle rider, I ride every day. Pedestrians and bicycles are minorities on the sidewalks today. We have to get away from them before we get run over. I have to yield to them. They shouldn't even be there. We have to yield. We're authorized to be there. And if you do make mention, you get the usual verbiage and everything that follows. I'm just concerned, in your position, you probably, I'm sure there have been plenty of injuries. There's many accidents. I don't know if there have been any fatalities in the area, but I know this stuff is going on every day. It's getting to be, it's out of control. There's nothing to monitor these things. But yet, I have to have, we have to have car insurance. We have a driver's license. You have to have registration. You have to have safety equipment. A gentleman here was talking about a highway that was a 20 mile an hour speed limit. They're limiting a speed limit to 20 on a highway, but they go 30, 40 on a sidewalk. So, it doesn't make any sense. Somehow, we need to get more proactive and to protect the citizens of this community. Of course, somebody's going to get, I don't know if there's been any fatalities. I don't know. But if there are, if there haven't, we've been pretty lucky. And with that being said, I appreciate your time. Your time is up. Thank you, sir. And my time is up. But anyway, I just want to, this is about the third time I've been here. Plus, I've spoken to one of your assistants out in the hallway one time as well. That's four. We agree with you, Mr. Cosgrove. Clearly agree. Mr. Campy. Mr. Cosgrove, yes, we agree with you. This has been a problem. I represent Palm City specifically. It has been a huge problem for a very long time. You hit all the nails on the head. It's little scooters that are silent and low profile. The golf carts that can hold, everything you said is 100% true. They're riding all over the sidewalks. There was just recently, I think in Indian River County, a fatality, two young kids. It was a nine-year-old and a 12-year-old riding. The thing that's come back, which they used to have when I was little, was a little dirt bike. Like it had almost like a lawn mower engine on it and they were small. The only advantage to those is you can hear them coming. But the silent stuff, they ride all over the sidewalks, I'm sure everywhere. But in Palm City we have music in the park and the kids are racing around doing wheelies. And it's the full spectrum because there are some kids that look like they're about six or seven years old. No helmets. Most of the time they're not wearing, they're either barefoot or they're wearing flip-flops. But then there's also some kids that are much older, that are in their late teens or even I would dare to say young men, that are also racing all through the sidewalks, through the crowd, doing wheelies down the center of the road. But the sheriff, we've all had conversations. I've had a lot with him. If you were to come over the Veterans Memorial Bridge even today, we have an electric sign that's discussing. It's gone. It was there yesterday about the e-bikes. And we've put other signs because, you know, when you speak to the parents, and I'm agreeing with them, but when you speak to the parents a lot of them will say, oh, we didn't realize, we didn't know. Yes, you did. And so the other issue there is we've been using drones to combat them because, you know, if a deputy is either on foot or in a car, it's hard to chase after someone who's on an e-bike that can go through the trees and the bushes and race through the neighborhoods. So we have tracked them even with drones. And we do seize or confiscate the bikes that then have to be paid. You know, they're towed away, so they have the couple hundred dollar fee to get the bikes back. We've worked with the school district to see about not allowing the kids to ride them to school. But the only way that the only thing that that creates is that the kids would ride them to school and then lock them up off school property. So that's not really an option. The state, I don't believe, did take any action. They did, but the governor vetoed the bill. Okay. So, yeah, governor vetoed that bill. They didn't do anything. No. So that's out the window. So, yeah, it is on us locally. If you have specific issues, you can contact the sheriff's office, but it's not a light issue for us and it's not a light issue for the sheriff. It's a very serious issue because not only will they hurt themselves, but they'll hurt pedestrians or cyclists. But the other problem is that if you're a very conscientious driver and you look to your right to see if anyone's coming and then you look to your left to see if anyone's coming and then you start to pull out, that child on an e-bike or an e-scooter who was so far away when you looked right, you did everything correct, but you still hit that child, God forbid, and then you have all of the insurance and the legality and the emotional distress of having hit someone who most likely it was 100% their fault. So we agree we'll still keep working on it, but I like that you come every once in a while and remind us. Can I add one thing? Let me ask you a question. If you were going to add one thing, what would it be? Am I right? I'd just like to say that happened at our development. Somebody was pulling out. They got T-boned by one of those bikes. Their insurance paid them $100,000 and they got T-boned by one of those e-bikes coming out of the community. And it would be nice if you guys would fly some drones over there on Willoughby Boulevard across from the golf course. That's where all the action is. That's somebody else's district. Between Indian Street and Pomeroy. Noted. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you. Frank Titicus, would you like to address us? Frank snuck in just under the wire. Yeah, he did. My apologies for not being here this morning, but I was tied up this morning. I'm representing the Taxpayers Association. I think perhaps Darlene spoke. Oh, she did. And specifically I wanted to address the comments by the fire chief. And I missed his presentation, but I had an opportunity to review it. I'd just like to say that population growth in five years has been 8,600 people in Martin County. That's 5.4% or a little over 1.1% a year. Cost increases are on a per capita basis for the fire service have risen from $301 per resident in 2020 to a projected $460 per resident in 2000, fiscal year ending 2027. That's $159 or a 52.8% per capita increase. And it's outpaced the U.S. average per capita cost for similar services. Now, granted that a $9 million budget reduction is a big nut to swallow, as is, you know, the additional 16.5 total that would be after two years. And the chief has said that he would have to lay off 116 firefighters or roughly one-third of the force and potentially close three stations. But pure cuts of that magnitude are no longer and risk longer response times and reduced capacity. I think there are more sustainable approaches that focus on efficiency, revenue demand management, targeted operational changes while protecting the core emergency services. For example, overtime and staffing optimization, which is the highest percentage of cost, 93% of the cost, you can do that by fill vacancies permanently rather than covering it with premium overtime. You can improve the retention and compensation competitiveness to cut the high cost of constant recruitment training cycles. And you can evaluate dynamic deployment or selective adjustments to minimum staffing on low-risk units. Recent additions of personnel and rescue units have been partly overtime funded, converting those to sustainable models can yield multimillion-dollar savings. Also, there's an independent efficiency and operational review is in order. I would commission an outside consultant to come in and benchmark response protocols, station locations, apparatus utilizations, call triage, and administrative overhead. I'll be more than happy to mail this to you or email it to you all. The other aspects are revenue enhancement, demand reduction, and alternative response, and shared services and mutual aid. But there are ways to achieve running the department within those efficient or by efficiencies rather than 116 people being cut and three stations closed. Thank you. Thank you, and have a good lunch. Thank you. Appreciate you fitting me in. Would anyone else from the public like to address us? Seeing none, it's time for commissioner comments. Commissioner Hetherington. Oh, I think I gave all my comments during the conservation or the new field item just to say that at the environmental permitting school, which will be my 12th consecutive year attending, and I always look forward to meeting our regulatory agencies and hearing from them. But I'm super excited to learn more about Brevard County and how they managed to get all that muck out of the Indian River Lagoon. And I know that, Commissioner Hurd, that was one of your priorities. I think it's a noble one, and I look forward to us accomplishing it. That's it. Commissioner Campy. I'm all set. Thank you. I am, too. Commissioner Capps. I'm all set. Commissioner Vargas. As I had mentioned before, requesting that we receive a budget cutting of 10% across all non-mandated responsibilities. And I think that's something that we need to bring to the forefront now. So is this possible you can prepare this for us, Mr. Donaldson? I certainly can prepare it, but I'm not going to prepare it unless I have three commissioners that request it. If the board direction, I am prepared in terms of the potential reductions. And we have a whole slew of items that we would be discussing with the board should this pass. And part of that discussion, like I said, would be on reviewing the types of services that we are going to provide. You know, I think we've heard from commissioners today on certain priorities that you would have. But so I can do these various exercises on money changes and revenues. But it's simply an across-the-board 10%. We can certainly provide that. But I would like some, I would be asking you individually or collectively at a meeting sometime about within those particular operations, what is your focus on the priority services that within each of those departments they have. But if, you know, we have a budget that's been prepared for this year, we'll be prepared to discuss it at the hearings again. And then more importantly, come November, we'll have that year to do an adjustment. So essentially next year's budget will begin in December, really, through next August on all of the different reductions or changes or tax shifts, fees, revenues, all those different things, is what we'd be discussing for a majority of the year. So that's my current plan. If there's any change to that, then I'll need direction from a majority of the board. Thank you. Okay. So my next question is, do I have two other votes to receive this from Mr. Donaldson? Mr. Campy. Thank you. I have been involved in some of these exercises in 2008, 9, 10, when we had the now known as the Great Recession. Across the board, cut strategies don't necessarily work. There's too many variables within the different departments. Some could do more than 10. Some could never do 10. I did ask Mr. Donaldson to be prepared as we progress through the budget process to have an option for what a rollback would look like. You know, there's a couple of options for folks. You can raise taxes. You can leave a constant, which is where you do not change the millage. But if there is a property value increase, the government would still get the additional funds. And then there's a rollback, which is where you lower the millage to the increase in property values so that the government takes in the same amount of money that they took in the year prior. I did ask Mr. Donaldson to have that as a budgeting option available as we progressed. But I'm not in favor of having staff spend time doing a 10 percent across the board. It sounds terrific, but it genuinely doesn't work because it's not so cut and dry as that. And then also it requires a tremendous amount. If it's done legitimately well, it requires a lot of staff time, which they're working on other things. So, I mean, a rollback is something that could be on the table, legitimately on the table, versus an exercise of 10 percent across the board. That's my opinion. Anybody else? Okay. So, the Commission does not want to look at other numbers. So, we may not be receiving the same income. We may not be receiving the same income. So, we may have to cut the millage rate because this is something that is not static. And it's not a waste of time. It's a lot of information that we need to have to make viable decisions for those of us that will be here come December. So, okay, I put it out there. And the public hears. The board is not willing to do this. Another thing I want to talk about also is about the wrecker rotation, the KW wrecker service. What can we do to have the sheriff consult with them again so that they can be on the rotation? This is a small business, and we need to protect small businesses in the county. And especially if, as they said, they have done nothing that is incorrect. They corrected what they needed to do. So, it's a contract between the sheriff and the wreckers, the tow companies. It's not our tow contract. I mean, we could talk to the sheriff, but most likely we don't have any input on it because it's a direct contract between the two. I understand that. Mr. Donaldson, would you speak with the sheriff in light of what we've heard today by this business owner? Yes. We will let the sheriff know of the public comments and ask them where they are if there's any mitigating circumstances that they can look at. But that, again, as counsel stated, it's up to the sheriff and his contracting agents to make the decision. Yes. Okay. But they could reconsider, and certainly he values your opinion. I mean, you have the business owner here. It seems as if it was something that was an error, and businesses make errors, but they collected no funds. So, you know, there was no injury to the party in that regard. So, I'd appreciate if you could please do that. I will. I certainly know that in all contracting circumstances, we only heard a short piece of the story, and we don't know what the sheriff has in their information. But I think I understand that the case they made was certainly one of passion and certainly sounded of consideration, and I will pass that on to the sheriff. Anything else, Commissioner Vargas? Nope. That's about it. Commissioner Hetherington. This is just opining in on the previous conversation on the exercise of 10 percent cuts. I feel that this is the first time I'm hearing of that. I thought the budget workshop would have been a fine time to discuss budget, different departmental budget items, and we will have two more public hearings that you can certainly bring that up. Well, I'm asking for more information now. For those of us that will be here, it's very important to have as much as we can. So, you know, if you're really thinking about this for the future and you definitely want to leave a legacy of, you know, caring for your constituents, previous constituents, and residents, you might want to consider this. But Mr. Donalds will not do anything without two other votes. That's why we have two more budget public hearings coming up for everybody to discuss it. Yes, I understand that, but you cannot have too much information. Or maybe you can. I don't know. Mr. Donaldson, any further comments? Just going back to your conversation with Virginia Barker, she, like our John Mayle, is kind of a superstar in our state for doing coastal water resource environmental work. And I think we can learn some lessons from them on their environmental dredging and things that work on. And I appreciate the conversation you had with her. And also just kind of switching gears on, you know, since, you know, taxation and levels of service is always a focus. And one of the things that you have to remember, and we are caught in this situation where Martin County's population growth is relatively small, especially compared to our neighbors. But it is strongly influenced by our neighbors and their continued significant growth. We see it in our traffic counts, which our neighbors all complain about. But it's not self-generated. We are successful, have a number of successful businesses and a number of our, you know, assisted living facilities. The call load has certainly continued to go up on them. The call load for our services on 995 and these other things. So when I look at public safety's response, it's largely the call loads that are driven, not necessarily the population increases. So those are real things. It's kind of so I just, you know, when you look at how things are progressing in the county, you just need to look at, you know, we are not a county that's isolated in the center of Kansas. We have two major growing counties, one to our north and one to our south that have been adding, you know, building permits on the order of 5,000 and 6,000 building permits a year, over 10,000 people a year moving into both north and south of us. And that has an influence even if you don't grow significantly. And those are and those do influence our level of service. And with that, that's all I have for today. Thank you. Ms. Elder. I'm all set. Thank you. We are adjourned.