Good morning. Would you please pray with me? Merciful Father, we are so thankful for this day, another day which you have given to each of us to serve. Thank you for this great joy and blessing. Lord, I ask that you would keep Martin County and all who live and work here under your care. We also thank you for the various individual gifts which you have given to each of us, gifts which you command us to use for the benefit of our neighbors. And today, we are especially thankful for the gifts given to each of our county commissioners and that they would continue to serve the people of Martin County with wisdom, compassion, and joy. Lord, I pray for your guidance and strength to be with our county commissioners as they discuss the administrative issues brought before them and that they would carry out their work this morning and every morning, work which is undertaken for the welfare of the citizens of Martin County and that their decisions would be made with a spirit of enthusiasm, grace, and humility. And Lord, we are also thankful for all who work in and for our county government. May their service to the people of Martin County be joyful and rewarding. And I ask that you would bless each one of them and their families as well. Lord, I lift up all these petitions in the name of your son, Jesus Christ. Amen. Thank you. Pledge the allegiance of the United States of America, which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. We have a number of presets today. At 9.05, we'll hear from the public. At 9.30, we'll have an Office of Management and Budget item. At 5.05, we'll have our final budget public hearing. At 5.05, we'll have public comment. There are no additional items. There are several requests to withdraw. The first is Consent 9, which is an approval of an interlocal agreement between the Martin County Board of County Commissioners and the Town of Jupiter. Pardon me. Consent 12 is a request that Martin County grant four utility easements to South Martin Regional Utility for the Gomez-Petway potable water main installation project in Hope Sound. Consent 13 is approval of maintenance maps for a portion of Southeast Petway Street. PHQJ is a public hearing to consider a request for approval of the revised major final site plan for the Trailwind Farms Tower project. Is there a motion to... Excuse me, Commissioners. I just want to point out for the Trailwind Farms Tower project that the supplemental memo says they're asking to continue the item until October 13th, but they have actually withdrawn their application altogether, so it will not come back before the board at all. So I just want to make that clear on the record. With those changes, I'll move approval of the agenda. Second. There's a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? That motion passes unanimously. Let's hear our proclamations first. We'll start off with a proclamation declaring Bible reading week in Martin County. The year 1990 was proclaimed by a joint congressional resolution and presidential proclamation as International Year of Bible Reading, and Bible Reading Week has been celebrated annually thereafter. In recognition of Bible Reading Week, the 26th annual Bible Reading Marathon will be held from October 2nd through the 6th at the Bandshell in Stewart's Memorial Park and will feature a 90-hour continuous read-through of the entire Bible. And here to accept, we have Pastors Mary Williams, Pastor Donna Hilton, and Dr. Julie Bjornsson, and I believe Pastor Hilton and Dr. Julie are going to speak. Hi there. I guess I know some of you that, I live in Jacksonville now, but 26 years ago, this Bible Marathon started and is continued for, this will be the 26th year. And the reason it started was because the towers came down and the Lord spoke that we should do the Bible Marathon for protection for terrorism against our nation. And it's continued, and I appreciate that we've had proclamations every single year from the wonderful people here in Martin County. And I miss the place, I miss Martin County, but I'm blessed to be here, and I'm blessed to be able to be part of this Bible Marathon. John, Joanne and Eddie, we turned it over to them, and they're not able to be here now because they work. But I just want to thank you all, again, for the proclamation, and I just bless you, and we want to bless this city and this county, and we just thank the Lord for what he's doing here in our area. Amen? Treasure Coast. So people come from all over. Some people come, even call from, you know, other states and everything to read for 15 minutes. So if you know anybody or you want to bring your children down, it doesn't matter how old or how young, they come and read a couple, a verse, 15 minutes, whatever. But anyways, I want to thank you all very much. And Dr. Julie has something to share about the reason was protection from terrorism. So we thank the Lord that he's watched over this county, even though we did have a couple bad hurricanes, I remember, because I lost my house during one of them. But anyways, thank you so much. Thank you. Okay, you know me. I always write something down, and I read it. This is, I want to thank you. This is my 26th time to stand before you and thank you for your proclamation. For 20, I can't wait with glasses. For 25 years, we have read the Bible. This is a one-tenth tithe to our nation's 250-year history. And for over 20 years, I have set up 9-11 tribute with signs indicating terrorist attacks after 9-11, adding more signs each year. This year on 9-11, bomb threats were called in at Martin County High School and at the college. Students passing by our display during the bridge walk were notably affected. Terrorist attacks are real today and can happen in Martin County. I just spoke to the sheriff out there, and he asked him about how we are doing, and he said we have had no terrorist attacks, and they are very vigilant with Port St. Lucie and with West Palm County. So we are really aware of what's going on. But what I say is there is a God in heaven who loves us. He gave us the Ten Commandments, four to honor God, and the other six to rules to live by, honoring parents, don't kill, steal, and the rest. For peace and prosperity, protection and security. Ignoring the word, according to the Bible, brought eventual hardships, death, destruction, including enemy attacks, importance that we... So our nation is divided today. Our constitutional government is biblical, but our culture isn't. In the Bible, the Assyrian nation, once saved through Jonah, after he was split out of the whale, neglected to teach the children that God saved them, and eventually they were destroyed. So have we neglected our children? Jesus said, let the children come to me. We're to teach them the God of the Bible, the true word. But we have found that there is a New Age doctrine of unconditional love freely being expressed in our liberal population. With God, there is right and wrong. But changing the word or not teaching our children, deception is created. Our culture has changed our children. They are affected. Our schools are not teaching the word of God. Reading has become a problem. Many students can't read. The prisons I go to are filled with non-readers. My research, preschool academic readiness, is the braid ready to go to school. We have problems, and we have solutions. Illiteracy in the United States. Do you realize we're now 40th in the world in illiteracy? Biblical illiteracy also exists. People are not reading the word. And what's the result? We have autism at 1 in 25. We have 50% of our kids with chronic illnesses, 50% with learning problems. We've got increased infertility and sterility, zero population growth, a male brain. 95% prisoners are male. We've got adoptions, addictions, suicides. What more do we need? We need God. Okay. What are the national consequences for neglecting our children? The Bible says the loss of God's protection and peace. And there is hunger and enemy attacks. So what can we do? We keep God over our nation. We need to vote to maintain our freedom. We need to continue to support religious freedom and stop the ongoing persecution of Christians. Right now there is a calm before the storm. Hunger and threatening terrorist attacks. We need to read the word. Satan tested Jesus for 40 days. Hunger was the first test, followed by death and authority. Is there a God or no God? Each time Jesus replied, it is written. The written word is so important. So we need to recognize that hunger is an increasing problem. It just means, wait, now we have a fertilizer shortage. Millions of acres are not being planted. There's going to be less and less food next year. It is going to be inevitable. Roundup is destroying our crops. It's destroying our children. Autism started the same year that Roundup started being used. It destroys the nutrient quality of our food, which our kids' brains need to be able to learn to read and become viable taxpaying citizens. And, you know, I've lectured on citrus greening caused by Roundup. I've provided lectures by organic farmers on GMO and Roundup's destruction of livestock and feed. We've had transportation attacks so that we don't get the oil and fertilizers. We get financial insecurities so parents can't even buy food that they need. And processed food is now 70% to 80% of our grocery items. We need to think twice about what's going on. And nonstop Roundup use at Lake Okeechobee is contaminated. Our water release is affecting our fishing industry. Whether these problems are attributed to God's judgment or not, God warns of destruction when ignoring God's word. But we have a solution. Martin County has a solution. We can control, we can have control over the food shortage and hunger. We can become an organic mecca. So I'm appealing to you to at least consider that we might need to have real food grown locally. We may not have transportation anymore. We may not have the oil for the cars and the trucks. We may not have the fertilizer. But we can create an organic food supply here in Martin County. We are an oasis of greenery. And we need local farms. The encroaching development, which I know is happening, means less and less land for food production. We need to reconsider. I've given you two cards, and I hope you only need one, putting the Bible first and hopefully supporting the Bible reading marathon. The other one is how to survive a terrorist attack. I hope you never need that. But it's there. It was information from Act for America. So thank you very much for your proclamation. We need the word of God. I want to give it to Joanne and Eddie. In turn, they've taken over, and they couldn't be here, but they said to say, thank you so much again for it. And anybody can come down. We'd love to have you come down. Anybody else can share it? Just come and park if you can. Just visit us, okay? Thank you so much. Thank you. I have done the Bible reading in the past. Oh, thank you so much. Absolutely, I have. Yes. If you want to sign up, you can sign up today. I have the card. I will. My husband and I will come. Thank you so much. I appreciate it. And I know it's a blessing for our county and for our city. And, you know, we're facing, actually, we're facing Jerusalem down there. And we actually have the Ten Commandments on the land, and actually we'll have whatever. I mean, we're blessed to be able to be on government land and to declare God's holy word. And so I just thank you guys. Thank you so much. I just miss Martin County so much. I really do miss it. Thank you. Safe travels. Our next proclamation is a proclamation declaring Fire Prevention Week in Martin County, Florida. Martin County Fire Rescue personnel are dedicated to reducing the occurrence of home fires and home fire injuries through prevention, education, and community risk assessment. The Fire Prevention Week theme, Safe Charging is a Superpower, works to educate everyone about using lithium-ion batteries safely. In recognizing October 4th through the 10th as Fire Prevention Week, the Fire Rescue Division Board, the Board commenced, goodness gracious, the Board commenced the men and women of Martin County's Fire Prevention and Fire Rescue Divisions for their efforts to educate the public in fire prevention practices. And here to accept, we have Deputy Fire Marshal Chris Hansen and Community Risk Reduction Specialist Josh Jenkins. Thank you. Thanks. Good morning, Commissioners, and good morning, Martin County. Thank you for this opportunity to be here to accept this proclamation of Fire Prevention Week. I'm Community Risk Reduction Specialist Josh Jenkins at Martin County Fire Rescue. And a little history first for anybody that doesn't know. The first observance of Fire Prevention Week was in 1922. The National Fire Protection Association sponsored the first public observance of Fire Prevention Week in commemoration of the Great Chicago Fire of 1871, which displaced over 100,000 residents and took the lives of over 250 Chicago residents. So in 1925, because catastrophic fires were still an ongoing issue, President Calvin Coolidge proclaimed that Fire Prevention Week would become a national public health observance. And today, Fire Prevention Week remains as the longest-running national public health observance in our country's great history. So during Fire Prevention Week, what happens? The fire department and myself, we visit audiences of all ages and abilities to deliver fire and life safety education in hopes of reducing fire casualties. We actually do this year-round, truth be told, but we get a real influx of requests during Fire Prevention Week from schools and scouts and churches and HOAs and everything, because this health observance is kind of, it's pervasive. It's been around for so long that people kind of expect this rhythm every October. So the theme for this year is related to lithium-ion battery safety, specifically charging safety. And the theme this year is called, Safe Charging is a Superpower. And for the crowd today, I did bring copies of NFPA safety tip sheets for this theme, so if anybody wants to bring one home, they're on the table out in the lobby. So to talk more about this year's theme, Deputy Fire Marshal Chris Hansen will explain more. All right, good morning, everyone. So as Josh had mentioned, the National Fire Protection Association creates a Fire Prevention Week theme based on emerging hazards that are happening throughout the country. Last year, we were here to talk about lithium-ion batteries, and we are here again to talk about lithium-ion batteries, but this time it's a little bit more specific. Safe charging is your superpower, so that tells us how we charge these batteries matters. Over the last three years, the State Fire Marshal's Office has been collecting data on these lithium-ion fires, and while the overall number of lithium-ion incidents has gone down, the number of them related to charging has increased. So that really tells us how these batteries are charging is going to make a difference. Here in Martin County, we are no stranger to these lithium-ion fires. In fact, just last month, I was on two fires doing a cause and origin investigation. One of them was a golf cart. The other one was a power tool for yard work. Both owners stated that they like to keep them fully charged and on the charger. That way, they're ready to be used when they want to utilize their equipment. So this Fire Prevention Week, we just want to encourage everyone to pay attention to how we charge these batteries. Use the proper charger. I know we've said this before. Make sure you're using the one that was provided from that manufacturer, and do not opt for a cheaper Amazon option. Make sure you're charging them on a hard, stable surface. If they become unstable, they can pull on the cord, damaging that charging appliance, or even damage the battery casing, which will cause the phenomenon called thermal runaway. Keep them away from other flammable and combustible materials while charging. They are known for generating heat, so we do not want that heat to easily catch other things on fire. And most of all, do not leave them unattended charging. I like to think of this as our vehicles. We do not leave our cars running 24-7 just in case we need to go somewhere. So think about your batteries the same way. We might want to plug them in right before we're going to go out to do yard work or before we're going to use it, but that charger is not a parking spot for that battery. So with that, I'd like to say thank you again for your time this morning, and we will see you all next year. All right. Thank you. Our next proclamation is a proclamation declaring Suicide Prevention Awareness Month in Martin County, Florida. It is recognized that suicide remains a significant public health concern that affects individuals, families, schools, workplaces, and communities across our nation and throughout Florida. 211 Palm Beach and Treasure Coast operates the 211 helpline and serves as the region's provider for the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline, offering free, confidential support 24 hours a day, 7 days a week by phone, text, and online chat, ensuring that no one has to face a crisis alone. September is recognized as Suicide Prevention Awareness Month, and the board encourages all residents to remember that suicide prevention is everyone's responsibility. And here from 211 Palm Beach, Treasure Coast, we have Chad Adcock. Yes. Thank you very much, Commission. This is not an easy topic to address, but it is an important one. It's something that is prevalent in our community and has been and will continue to be for a while. So I want to thank you for recognizing Suicide Prevention Awareness Month and for continuing to stand with 211 and the partners and the residents of Martin County that we serve. Our office receives thousands of calls every year from Martin County residents, and so I'm very grateful for your support. And knowing that the support is there for anyone 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, is very, and it's free and it's confidential. Anyone can call at any time. Everyone is going to go through a crisis at some point. If you're not now, then unfortunately at some point in the future you will, and know that help is available. And as was read, the focus this year on suicide prevention is that it's everyone's responsibility, that we all have a role in preventing suicide. It's the only cause of death that is 100% preventable. So we know that reaching out for help is challenging, but also asking for help is a very brave thing to do. There's nothing wrong with asking for help. We're all going to need it at some point. So thank you again for your support and for recognizing that Martin County residents are brave enough to reach out for that support and that we are here to answer those calls whenever they need them. So thank you again. Thank you. Our next proclamation is a proclamation, well, we're going to get a reimbursement from the Florida Inland Navigation District. Minister Daugherty. Good morning, Commissioner. It's Jeff Daugherty, Director of the Building Department. Today we're going to talk a little bit about the Derelict Vessel Program. The Derelict Vessel Program is a team effort from law enforcement by Florida statute. They determine whether a vessel is derelict. At that point, Martin County takes over and removes the vessel, and we have to do that, and there's a cost. And through the generous support of FINE, the Florida Inland Navigation District, they're here to present a check, and FINE Commissioner Mr. Michael Kennedy is here to speak more about the program and present the check. Thank you, Jeff. I'm just going to take a few minutes. I see you guys have a very busy agenda today. With me is Janet Zimmerman. She is the one that makes it all work. She is our Executive Director. She gives guidance to the 12 of us that are running around for each of the counties. The reason I wanted to make this presentation, I have the check here, but the real reason is in our board meeting last month, this project got a lot of compliments, compliments the way that the Building Department and the Sheriff's Department have taken this and have efficiently working to get rid of derelict vessels. We don't want derelict vessels. We don't want to see them on the water. We know there are environmental problems. We know there's navigational problems. If a storm comes, they get blown into docks. We want them out of the water, too. And you all have been very proactive on your mooring fields and with Jeff's project and the Sheriff's Department to get rid of these. And so we're happy to present this check for $55,995, which is reimbursement, and I hope that we can continue and maybe make it a little bit greater. It makes our waterways a lot better. Thank you very much. Thank you. We have the Sheriff's deputies come up for a picture. Thank you. Thank you. We will hear public comment now. The first request to speak form I have is from John Dial, followed by Ann Vandersloot. While Mr. Dial is coming up, we are still in election season, and 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 have three minutes to talk. At 15 seconds before your time is up, you'll hear a brief buzzer. Thank you. I need to have a proclamation so I don't have a time limit. My name is John Dial. I live in Martin County here, and I just want to bring up a couple items. One is a social media post. I know you guys don't pay much attention to them, but I've learned to since the last six months. And there's been over 17,138 interested parties in our Rocky Point wastewater project that's going on there. And pretty much what I did from all the feedback of the people, I went around Rocky Point, and there's 19 sites that have been started since August the 10th and still haven't been completed where they've taken up a lot of grass for drainage, which there's no apparent difference in it. Some of them are done in property without the communication or notice to the homeowner. One homeowner was out of town and saw it on the cameras where they were doing the other side of the street and started doing his and had them stop. It still hasn't been completed. What happens is the grass is removed, the weeds start to grow, and sometimes they come back with an inferior quality product that was there. So there's no real gain. And they're doing a lot of footage. It doesn't need to be done. So we're asking you to steward our dollars and please follow up like old Bill Belichick says. Just get them to do the job. So if a county is doing supervision, please have them do a proper job in the supervision. On that same note with the social media, just to let you know, I geofenced these answers, and 3,631 people were interested in Amendment 3. Whether it's going to go or not, we don't know. AI centers out that Silver Fox one, there were 6,758 people that were interested. Don't know if they were positive or negative. Didn't ask that question. But the last thing I want to bring up is the consideration for Mr. Corey Beaton. I don't know if he's here. Yeah, he is. I don't know him, but I was here when his last appeal was set, and I thought that was passed. And here we are revisiting again. My personal opinion from the research I've done on it, two acres is two acres. He's not asking for a subdivide. He wasn't asking for a dock. He wants to just put a house up there. So I hope that when you reconsider this, this is the final time this guy's got to go through this and let him have his house. I know what it's like to be in that position where we had to do a subdivide, where we had to do a water test and contamination test and flood test. And there were pre-approvals from another development and everything else. I ended up putting that in with Commissioner Hurd into the park because it was the right thing to do. But please consider him and give the guy his right to put his house on, which I thought we had done before. Thank you. Thank you. Ann Vandersloot is next, followed by Yamila Roland Escalona. Thank you. It's Vander Steele. Sorry, I was very sloppy this morning, Commissioner. Okay, sorry. All right. Good morning and thanks again. I'm back to talk about the hyperscale data centers. We just heard John Diles talk about 6,758 comments on social media. I'm probably many of those myself. And, yes, Project Silver Fox is back, a 606-acre development, 2 million square feet. It was represented on September 21st. And what I'm asking you all, the commissioners, to do is to consider a ban on these hyperscale data centers in Martin County because I think the last thing we want to do is turn Western Martin County into a hyperscale data center corridor for, you know, for the rest of the country to benefit from. We have – I see that you all have published a business impact estimate for the data center moratorium, which is very exciting to see. I'm thrilled to see that. I would also like to note that as FP&L's own rules actually tell us, large-scale or large-load customers must fund their own engineering studies, pay grid connection costs, provide collateral, sign a minimum 20-year contract, and pay 100% of the cost of any new power generation required to serve the project. So my questions are really simple. Who's going to be the actual end user here in Martin County for these proposed data centers? And there's more than one. What are the real electrical demands, anywhere from 100 to 500 or more megawatts being required to support them? Are there currently any FP&L-engineered studies, capacity reservations, substation plans, or transmission expansion plans improved tied to these sites? And before one is granted, where we are truly independent – I mean, what we really need is a truly independent study on water demand, aquifer impacts, contamination risks, wetlands, wildlife, tonal noise, agriculture, livestock, cumulative impacts from these multiple facilities. I'm asking you that no hyperscale data permit move forward without an independent third-party impact study done on environmental water use, et cetera. And by independent, I mean that the state or county selects the firm, the applicant pays for it, and that firm has no direct or indirect financial relationship with the applicant, investors, or affiliated entities. So please, pass a prohibition on hyperscale data centers, or at a very minimum, adopt an immediate moratorium until Martin County knows who the operators are, how much power and water they require, what infrastructure is being planned, and what the cumulative environmental and community impacts will be. Thank you very much. Thank you. Yamila Roland-Escalona is next, followed by Darren Woods. Good morning. Buenos dias, commissioners. You already know who I am, so I'm going to save all of that. Tonight at 5, you will finalize a budget. 5.05, right? And I want to be very clear about what's in it and what your own community told you you should contain. As we close out Suicide Awareness Month and Recovery Month, pay attention to how the following will affect higher overdose rates, relapse, and death by suicide. In the county's 2024 Opioid Abatement Community Assessment, which I did mention last time, 71 residents responded. And what did they say? 68.5% said opioid settlement funds should provide access to recovery housing. 69.9% said funds should provide wraparound services. The second biggest challenge identified in the entire county after treatment availability was affordable housing. And the report's own recommendations included increasing access to safe housing for people in recovery. Now compare that to the tentative budget book. The housing division received $146,598, about one and a half staff. Public safety spending estimated over $237 million. That's more than $1,600 on public safety for every dollar on housing. Corrections alone, $32.6 million for the jail, is roughly 220 times the entire housing budget. Your FY 2027 targets 15 clients approved for housing assistance, 20 rehab projects, 33 households receiving rental assistance. For the entire county, the Homelips grants, the total is only $35,000. The community asked for housing. This budget answers with a jail pod. Your own capital plan includes a whole correctional facility, a mental health housing pod. Housing for people, only if they're behind bars. I have four requests for the record. One, we emailed Thursday with no reply. Where's the budget resolution for the administration category where human services falls? Is a second hearing required? Because we didn't see it in those resolutions. Two, we understand that the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee is making an appointment today. We learned this only through our own review of the agenda attachment. No notice, no outreach, despite months of us asking how people with lived experience could participate. Who's being appointed? Were lived experience applicants even sought? Three, our FOIA request on MCSO opioid spending remains unresolved, and we're receiving different timelines from different offices. We're asking for your help to expedite this. We have yet to hear anything. Four, Mr. Donaldson. In August, your recommendation for public workshops to hear our recommendations, including the Dignity Bus proposals. Two months later, no workshop. Tonight, the budget becomes final. When does the public get a seat at the table you promised? The community already spoke. Tonight, you'll either listen or you won't. Ma'am, your time is up. Thank you. Darren Woods is next, followed by T.C. Ducasse. Mr. Woods is not present. Mr. Ducasse. And Mr. Ducasse is the last request to speak for him I have. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning. All right. Can you guys hear me? Can you? Yeah. Okay, I'll go. All right. So, last night was 727 days. We all know, like, what I'm talking about, so I don't have to elaborate. Though, I'm here for a kind of different reason that I've been wanting to talk to y'all about for some months now. It's just, you know, emergencies come first. And it's kind of fitting with the budget hearing is these flat cameras. And before I forget, please can we tell, like, the senator to amend the law? That would be great. Okay. As far as, like, the housing thing. Now, there are 12 cameras in Martin County, 12 flat cameras. Now, I think it was, like, the governor, like, that said that we, like, have to take them off of the county-owned right-of-ways and, like, highways and stuff like that. Though the cameras that are in Martin County are on none of those, so that doesn't apply to us. Most of the cameras that we have are on Lowe's and Home Depot property. So we know how invasive it is, but my real problem with it is I'm not sure on this, but I don't think that we voted for flat cameras. I'm not sure. And the community resoundingly, like, does not want them. So my main thing is I feel like the Martin County Sheriff's kind of, like, bypass democracy, kind of, because it's, like, we don't want them. We didn't vote on them, but yet we paid $37,000 for them. Now, I think that the cops are funded by the taxpayers. I'm not sure. If I'm wrong, then correct me. You know what I'm saying? And so that means that we pay for these things. And I want to, like, remind everybody that, like, the citizens are, like, the roots and, like, the trunk of the tree. And therefore, like, the president has a job because of us. The cops have a job because of us. If it weren't for us, then there would be nothing. You know what I'm saying? And so along that same line, I believe that the community has spoken as far as, like, the data centers. We don't want them, period. So that should mean no, like, a capital N-O, period, point blank, case closed, in my opinion. All right. So we need to put in safeguards to make sure that nobody is illegally accessing the flat cameras like how that one cop in Fort Pierce was. That's all I have time for. Thank you. Would anyone else like to address us? And we've come to the end of public comment. We'll now take up brief commissioner comments. Commissioner Vargas. Yes, I wanted to ask that everyone that can hear me, see me, or is here present to speak with everyone they know or don't know, and please ask them to vote. We are just over 30 days away from our November 3rd election. We had a very dismal 27.8 percent turnout in the primary. Our supervisor of elections anticipates that that will increase to close to 50 percent, but that's not enough. Everybody wants to have a say. This is your opportunity. So I am asking you to please be conscientious. Just say, hey, are you registered to vote? It is so simple. It is easy. And they are more than willing, those gals and guys down at the office, supervisor of elections, to be able to accommodate you on time. So I could talk about all the places I've gone and visited, but for me and many people I've spoken with, this is paramount. We are in a year that is going to turn one way or the other, depending who has the say. Several days ago, I went to the groundbreaking for the new Martin County Fairgrounds, which will be right next door to Indian Hound High School on Citrus Boulevard. It was a great event, very exciting. Commissioner Vargas was also there. And we want to applaud the efforts of the board. It looks like they're rocking and rolling and things are moving, and we want to be all the encouragement we can for them. It was an exciting evening, and a lot of money was pledged, over $50,000. So we're excited about February of 2028 when we'll have a new fairgrounds in Martin County. Thank you. I would just like to tell the public there is a very important amendment. Amendment 3 is coming up on the November 3rd ballot. The public needs to be educated about the impacts of Amendment 3. The League of Women Voters in Martin County are holding a panel on October 7th from 6 to 8 at the Unity Church on Central Parkway. It's open to the public, and it will be bipartisan. It will be just providing information about Amendment 3. Commissioner Campy. Madam Chair, thank you very much. We heard briefly about it this morning, and we've talked about it in the past. The ladies that come to discuss it, the Dignity Bus, I did have an opportunity to go to Vero and see it. And I went with Mr. George Stokas, Michelle Miller, and Carolyn Mockler, some of our county staff. Tony, who runs the source and is responsible for the Dignity Bus, was very gracious and generous with his time. We were probably there for, it felt like, probably three or four hours. We toured everything that they've been doing in Vero. The bus itself was very, very well done. They get, obviously, used motor coaches. And the folks that are experts at building them out are former homeless people. Most of the people that work on building these new buses are people that slept in the bus originally. It was very respectful. It was spotlessly clean. The sheets are changed. And the, you know, the towels and blankets and sheets and pillows that people receive each day were freshly washed every single day. It, you know, a lot of these issues boil down to just literally the name of it is Dignity. And I thought it has a restroom on it. They get on at 9 o'clock in the evening. It is very safe. The driver works a 10-hour shift where he or she sits in the front and then in the middle and then in the back. On a 20-minute rotating schedule. But the bus is not the only answer because you need a tremendous amount of wraparound services that they also supply up there. Where do people shower? Where do people eat? Where do they, you know, if they have pets, where are their pets going to stay? If you can't bring a pet into the bus, they had fenced kennels. They really did a remarkable job. So it is something that the staff and I and I'm sure my colleagues here on the dais will be looking into. I think it's a very viable option for, it's not the solution, but it's an option. It has had many, many years, successful track record. It's not something that they've just started to do. The community up there has embraced it. I think it's something that we can do here. We have originally had Ms. Miller and Mr. Stokas and I have already started to reach out. There they have sort of a one-stop, not-for-profit organization that can handle many of the services that are necessary. Here we're more of a quilted approach with different not-for-profits in Martin County. So we would, and I know that they get along and work well towards a mission of helping people. So we would have to have a different kind of a version here. They also had something in Vero that was called Dignity Ranch, which is 20 acres, that was originally, I guess, a boys kind of camp for similar to when we had the Samaritan House here in Martin. It was similar to that that had gone out of business, if you will, and this organization purchased it. And it's remarkable. So I would like to thank Tony and his volunteers and his employees for spending so much time with us. I think I recommend strongly our colleagues to get an opportunity if you can. It's a commitment to go and spend the day. But what we've also discussed is Tony coming down, and we might have, like, a little conference or a seminar of what some of the features and opportunities that they offer their citizens up there that we don't have to reinvent the wheel. We can see what they've done successfully. So I think it was time well spent. I appreciate my colleagues, you know, our county staff coming with me, or I get to go with them, I guess. It was definitely worth the trip, and it's something that we will, at least I will be spearheading, how we can bring it to Martin. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Hetherington? Yeah. I could not make the fairgrounds groundbreaking, but I wish I could, because I lend them my full support and encouragement and look forward to them having their first fair in western Martin County. And I will also congratulate Mr. George Stokas, who won this weekend the Business Advocate of the Year, I believe, at the Stuart Martin County Chamber. And on that note, too, I attended a great ribbon-cutting ceremony for Iconics, which is an ammunition primer manufacturer in Indiantown. And speaking of business advocates and businesses in Martin County, they're one of the few ammunition primer manufacturers in the entire United States, and we are fortunate to have them right here in Martin County in the village of Indiantown. So I wish them much success, and I'm so happy to see that we're diversifying our tax base and bringing in commercial businesses that will benefit the taxpayers for a long time. So congratulations to them, and congratulations to you, George. Madam Chair, may I also say that Mr. Stokas also received the House of Hope Hope Award this week, last week. He had a big week. He's a two-time award winner in just one week. Good for you. It's a job well done. I'm glad you got a chance to be recognized. I know how much you like to have the attention and draw a spotlight on you. Mr. Donaldson. No comments other than congratulations, George. We'll have to get a picture with you later. If he's available. Ms. Elder. Thank you. We'll move on to our 930 preset, which is a resolution authorizing the lease purchase financing for the acquisition of fire equipment. Ms. Murley. Good morning, commissioners. On OMB today, which I'll come back later with the remainder of OMB, unless you want to do it now. We have a resolution authorizing the lease purchase financing for the acquisition of fire equipment. Martin County is requesting an additional lease schedule to its current tax-exempt non-bank qualified master lease purchase agreement in an amount not to exceed $7,034,694 to finance the purchase of fire rescue equipment. In our CIP, every year we program approximately $1.2 million for anticipated lease payments. And in this round, we are requesting the purchase of four fire engines, one rescue squad engine, and five rescues and ambulances. Our municipal advisor, PFM, Jay Glover, who's not here today, reviewed the proposed financing and recommends adding the lease schedule to our current Bank of America master lease agreement. We are having a proposed financing fixed interest rate of 3.99% for a seven-year term. This will be repaid through our ambulance fee revenues and public emergency medical transportation, or PEMT, reimbursements. And we are just requesting approval of the lease purchase resolution and the budget resolution accepting those proceeds. And here today I have the fire rescue department and also Dwayne Draper with our bond counsel for any questions. Questions? Ms. Murley, the ambulance fee revenues are not fixed. So what if there's a shortage, a shortfall in the ambulance fee revenues, and we collect half as many as we hope, then how are the lease payments to be made? Very good question. So since this is a lease purchase agreement, we are able to use ad valorem in order to make up that difference. So in the event that the ambulance fees revenues do not come in, which generally they have been stable over many years, we would have to subsidize that through ad valorem in the event there's a sudden downturn of ambulance fees. And what is the amount of annual ambulance fees that we're predicting to collect for seven years? Well, we're – I'm sorry, fire rescue administrator. We actually haven't seen a downturn in our ambulance fees in my entire career of almost 20 years. It's steadily increased. We're actually collecting over $7 million currently. And we adjust those ambulance fees annually by the CPI, so it continues to go up. And what are public emergency medical transportation reimbursements? That's a Medicaid reimbursement program that we've been participating in for approximately eight years now that we found that helped offset any ad valorem impacts in our capital improvement plan. And on average, we collect $775,000 annually. And there's no danger of that funding being scrapped? I don't think so. It's a federally funded program that's, you know, well endorsed. You have more faith in federal reimbursements than I do. True. Commissioner Vargas. I'm very concerned about this because you're depending on the federal government. Already $40 trillion in debt. And we spoke about this at a meeting recently. The three of you were in the meeting. This is a big ask. This is a big ask. You're depending on ad valorem in the event that the ambulance fees don't cover. We're in a year where we should not be counting on any ad valorem at all to prop up. Whatever you're asking for. Or any other department. So I'm not in favor of this at all. This is tenuous. This is like a three-legged stool. Well, I'd like just to remind everybody that this was approved back in April as part of our capital improvement plan. And in the event that we saw a loss in revenue for ambulance fees or the PEMT, we could cut other areas of the capital improvement plan that are ad valorem funded, like our bunker gear replacement program, our cardiac monitor replacement program, or SCBA. Although not ideal, we could – because the most important thing is maintaining these trucks and getting them ordered and on the way. The build times are four years now. Well, just for a little bit of anecdotal evidence, we just received a truck that we purchased four years ago, a month ago, that was $693,000. The same exact trucks that we're ordering are now a million. So the longer we wait, it just delays being able to receive these trucks at a reasonable price. Okay. Well, you're asking for this amount for four trucks, correct? It's ten trucks, actually. All right, ten trucks. How about half that amount? Since you can stagger it. Again, I'm not going to repeat my comments. We had a big discussion about this. We've talked about this before also. Everybody is having to make cuts, including our taxpayers, those that support our government. For the record, Chad Chancholi, Fire Chief, Martin County Fire Rescue. Commissioner, we appreciate your comments, and we'll take it under advisement. I think it's important. We want to support you, but we're not an endless spigot. We are not at all. I'm feeling it also. So I cut in my home, too. I appreciate it. I really do. If you could go back to the table, and we can have another discussion. Okay? That's my opinion. Commissioner Campy. Thank you very much. I appreciate your, as another example of Mr. Resch and the department figuring out clever and innovative ways to meet the requirements that the county demands and expects. Yes, the taxpayers will pay for this equipment, but it will also be the beneficiary of the equipment. As you said, you have about 20 years' worth of information that says ambulance fees are not going down, not going to be one of those sources. Sadly, it would be great if ambulance fees and the collection of ambulance would mean that people didn't have to rely on taking an ambulance as often. So I think you made a perfectly clear case. You've spent probably weeks, if not longer, researching and figuring out exactly what we need. I'm sure you didn't come looking for 10 when you needed five. If you don't buy them today, I think everyone can, whether you agree or disagree, most people realize things are not going to be getting less expensive. If it takes that many years to get it, I think it's a smart strategy. In a line of smart strategies and decisions that you've made, I think it's fiscally responsible. Our residents require it. And if you didn't do it, I think it's a bigger risk to the community than you doing it. And I gladly and happily make a motion to accept staff's recommendation for exactly what you asked for. Second. Commissioner Hetherington. Yes. Recently, you provided a statistic on what the trucks were costing in, say, 2019, 2020, and what they're costing. Can you bring that to our attention again? Sure. I just mentioned the one that was built four years ago that went from $693,000 to over $1 million. Prior to that, they were in the $500,000 to low $600,000 range. So we're seeing anywhere from a 63% to 80% increase in those costs. And in actuality, we made some reductions to the specifications on the fire truck to try to control the costs and reduce lighting, foam system, hose line capabilities. But it's still, the prices are just what they are. Almost, well, more than doubled the price in the last five years. Yeah. Thank you for your efforts. Commissioner Vargas. Okay. Again, we should quantify rather than fluffy words because some of us, not myself, like to emulate without having hard figures. It's all about hard figures. It really is. These are times when all of us need to pull in our belts, all of us. And if you don't and you just suspend thrift, well, then that's what you propose, what one proposes. Having said that, Madam Chair, there's a motion to approve. May I make a motion to not or? We have a motion and a second already. Well, I'm asking if I can make a motion, Ms. Elder, to not approve the 10 trucks. So typically if we have a motion and a second, we would vote on that. And then if it doesn't pass, we'd make an alternate motion under the procedures. Chief, would you like to add anything? Yes, I would actually. So when we come before the board and we understand public safety is a very, very big expense for the taxpayer, we will never, and I've made this pledge more than one time, we would never come to this board and ask for the taxpayers to spend their money on something unnecessary. When we talk about these trucks, these apparatus, we have these trucks on the road for 15 years. These are, and there's a variety that you have in front of you, but just talking about a fire truck, 15 years. Most people don't keep their regular car for 15 years. But to compare the same, if you look at a fire truck and you look at just a regular automobile, the maintenance, night and day difference. To keep these trucks on the road for the amount of time that we do, it's just the impeccable work that we have, again, with our employees and fleet services that keep these trucks rolling. It takes four years to build these trucks. Four years. Not six months. So if we don't do something now, we stay proactive and we stay ahead of this thing, we're going to come to a point, which we lived in the past, to where we were having trucks on the road for greater than 20 years, and those trucks break down and we fail responding to calls. We cannot do that to the public because it's a disservice. We've lived that life. We understand that. Mr. Resch has been here for a very long time. He is the most fiscally responsible individual that I've ever seen with his creative financing to ease the pain of the taxpayers. So if we come and we ask you for something, it's because we're doing our fiduciary responsibility, we're being fiscally responsible, and we're doing what's right to serve the community, not to serve ourselves. So essentially what we're asking for, it's a need. It's not a want. What is your budget this year, Chief, the dollar amount? $80 million. Okay. Can't you find this money in the $80 million, start cutting somewhere else? Commissioner, if you want to suggest where you want to make those cuts, I'm all open ears. No, you're the expert. If you want to talk about reducing level of service to make those cuts, please let me know. But I'm not coming forward showing you that because we are already a lean organization. So if there's something you see that I don't, and you're right, we are the subject matter experts. That's why we're here presenting to you. However, I'm not telling you to cut the level of service. I'm not telling you to reduce the apparatus that we have. That's my recommendation. So the answer to the question is, no, I can't do anything to pull back on these apparatus without impacting the future demand of our level of service. I would suggest you go line by line. I did on your budget. And there are places where you could start to pull in. Again, Commissioner, I always appreciate and thank you for sharing. I appreciate your comments, too. Ms. Elder. So I'd just like to make a correction. I just reviewed the rules of procedure for the board, and a substitute motion can be made, even though there's a vote and a second. Have at it. Thank you. So if you want to make a substitute motion, you certainly can. Yes, I make a motion that we are not going to approve the 10 trucks and the other supplies that were requested at this time. We are over 30 days just out to a big election. This is not the time to be making decisions that could affect the pocketbooks of our taxpayers. This is not the time to do that. So I make a motion to deny this at this moment. We can revisit it again, depending on what happens after November. And take another look at your budget, too. There's a motion. Is there a second? Seeing none, we will vote on the motion that's on the floor, which is to approve staff's recommendation. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Opposed. That motion passes 4-1 with Commissioner Vargas dissenting. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Now we're going to take a break. May we take two more items right before the break for clerk's signature needs? Sure. Okay. So, thank you, Sam. If we go to number 7 and 8. We're in Department 1. Department 1, 7 and 8. We have two items that kind of go together regarding permission to accept amendments to the loan agreement for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. So, the Utilities and Solid Waste Department was awarded originally $20 million for the Septic to Sewer Program. And what numbers 7 and 8 do is they go ahead and split it into two separate loan agreements for Utilities and Solid Waste for $2.2 million to go to the Western Extension Sewer Project. And then the second loan is going to approximately $17.7 million for the Ports Loan and Sewer Project. These SRF loans are repaid through non-advalorum special assessments. And we're just requesting the approval of these amendments to the SRF loan agreements for the Utilities and Solid Waste Department. Ms. Murley, what's the difference between 7 and 8? Well, one is amending the Western Sewer Extension Project, and one is amending the Ports Loan Sewer. So, they kind of are the same thing, just split in two. Okay. Questions? I'll move approval of items 7 and 8. Second. There's a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? That motion passes unanimously. Thank you. We now will take an early break for 10 minutes so that we can sign some papers. Commissioners, we're going to need your signatures, too. We are back on air, and we need approval for the consent agenda. I'll move approval of the consent agenda. Second. There's a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? That motion passes unanimously. Shall we take up B and C 1, which is an Affordable Housing Advisory Committee appointment? Sure. Donna Gordon for administration. I'm asking you to reappoint Chester Edwards for the residential home building industry and Michael Dooley, citizen actively engaged in real estate professional in connection with affordable housing. I did not note, and I apologize, that Michael Dooley is also on the Board of Zoning Adjustment. I failed to put that in my item. And of the voting sheets, Mrs. Sarah Jessica Hernandez received four votes for the citizen who resides within Martin County. I'll move approval of Chester Edwards, Michael Dooley, and Sarah Jessica Hernandez. Second. There's a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? That motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Thanks. We'll take up public hearing number one, which is a public hearing on the proposed Martin County Trico settlement, Pamela Sheldon-White versus Martin County, Board of County Commissioners. Good morning, Commissioners. Heather Dayen, Director of HR Risk, for the record. This item is a required public hearing regarding a proposed settlement in the case of Pamela Sheldon-White versus Martin County. The claim arose from a low-speed collision in which Ms. White's stopped vehicle was struck by a county vehicle, resulting in a personal injury lawsuit. Martin County is self-insured through Trico, and under the Trico settlement procedures, excuse me, adopted by the Board, proposed settlements exceeding $5,000 must be presented at a public hearing before the settlement can be finalized. This settlement has been recommended by Trico and the county's assigned council as being in the county's best interest. Trico fully funds the settlement and is within the reserves previously established for the claim. Thank you. And that concludes my presentation. Questions? No vote? Okay. Commissioner Vargas? Yeah. Just so that everyone can hear, what happens, and this might be a question for Mr. Donaldson, when we have a county vehicle that is in a mishap such as this, what happens here at administration for that employee? Well, under the terms of our HR, we require that the driver, any driver that's involved in an accident, be drug tested immediately. And then there's an accident and investigation, and any disciplinary action as a result of that investigation is implemented in the terms of our HR manual or under the terms of our union contracts. Okay. So that becomes part of the record of the employee. Is that correct? That's correct. Any further comments, questions? Thank you. We'll move on to public hearing number two, which is a public hearing to consider adoption of an ordinance amending Chapter 163, Article 2, and Article 3, Health Care for Indigents, General Ordinances, Martin County Code. Good morning. Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Caroline Mochler, Assistant County Attorney. I appear with me, Michelle Miller, Human Services Director, by whom this item is requested. This item requests the board consideration of an ordinance amending Chapter 163, Article 2, and 3 of General Ordinances of the Martin County Code to align to the county's health care for indigents provisions, House Bill 4007, enacted June 10, 2026. House Bill 4007 requires the county to establish by ordinance a distribution process for county health care fund payments to licensed hospitals to define eligibility criteria for indigent residents for county-paid hospital care, and it eliminates the county health care review board and the county's authority to acquire welfare repayment liens. Adoption is necessary for statutory compliance and is in the public interest. Section 163.32 is amended to specify that county health care fund monies may be used to pay hospital, administrative, and doctor's costs incidental to hospital care within Martin County for indigent residents who meet new eligibility criteria to fund health care programs required by Florida statutes and other board-determined health care programs. Licensed hospitals must submit indigency applications to human services for review. Eligible applications will be compiled and proposed distributions presented quarterly for board approval with funds distributed on a first-come, first-served basis subject to available appropriations and board approval. Sections 163.33 and 163.34, creating and assigning duties to county health care review board, are repealed. Sections 163.61 through 163.65, authorizing welfare repayment liens, including lien creation, recordation, enforcement, applicability, and cancellation, are repealed, removing the county's authority to impose such liens. Any health care funds that are not used remain in the fund from year to year. Disbursements still require board approval, which is consistent with the county's existing fiscal controls. And we move that the board adopt the proposed ordinance amending section 163.32 and repealing sections 163.33, 163.34, and 163.61 through 163.65 of the general ordinances Martin County Code. Questions? Ms. Vargas. So, as my understanding, and I was aware of this before I had the conversation with Mr. Donaldson the other day, if I were an indigent individual, yet I owned real estate, real property, something of value in that regard, then there could be a lien placed on that property. Easy to collect? Difficult to collect? So, good morning. Michelle Miller, Human Services Director for the record. So, this ordinance would remove that lien that exists now. This would remove it. So, even if they had real property, however, in the eligibility criteria, if they do have real property in excess of a certain amount, they wouldn't be eligible for the program. Yes. I'm familiar how careful you are in following the dictum for granting monies to those that request, which I appreciate. And so, you would obviously have to go through a qualification with the individuals. Yes. Okay. Even if they're emergency care, they went to the hospital, hospital bill needs to be paid. How would that work? So, the hospital originally screens the patient for eligibility, primarily to make sure that they don't have any existing insurance or are not eligible for any existing insurance. They have to have been and be a Martin County residence for at least six months, and they have to be under 150% of the federal property level. If they meet those qualifications, then the hospital would take their information and forward the information to our office with the application packet, and then we do a separate review just to make sure that all of those things are accurate. I understand hospitals have to care for patients regardless, one way or the other, but they're trying to make, with the social worker, trying to make the provisions for that patient to move forward beyond that difficult situation. I understand what you're saying. Any further questions? Is there a motion? Move approval. Second. There's a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? That motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you. We're on to DPQJ No. 1, which is an Article 10 appeal, reconsideration of Article 10 appeal by Corey Beaton regarding denial of building permit for the construction of a single-family residence. This is quasi-judicial. Any exparte disclosures? Commissioner Vargas. If I have any, that report has been filed. Commissioner Capps. If I have any, they have been filed. If I have any, they've been filed. And Commissioner Campy. If I have any, they've been filed. And Commissioner Hetherington. If any, they've been filed. Anyone who's going to be providing sworn testimony, yeah. Stand up, raise your right hand, and be sworn in. You might as well. Do you swear or affirm the evidence you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I'll help you, God. Okay. Okay. Good morning, Commissioners. Elise Elder. This is a very unique situation. So, the board heard an Article 10 appeal in one of their August meetings, and it was an Article 10 appeal of the denial of a building permit. The board reversed the denial. The next day, one of our engineers discovered some information that was inconsistent with some of the information provided during the Article 10 appeal process and during the building permit process. This board, at its last or at its meeting in the subsequent meeting in August, voted 5-0 to reconsider the decision of that Article 10 appeal meeting. So, what that does is that reopens the Article 10 appeal hearing. Staff, all the information, all the evidence is already in the record, so staff was not planning on rehashing all the information unless the board wants us to. In addition, because the board is limited to what was provided during the building permit and appeal process, we can't consider new evidence in an appeal. So, what staff is asking is for the board to remand the building permit to discuss the new information with the applicant. So, that's what staff is requesting right now, so we can run it to ground since it was inconsistent with some of the information provided during the process. If the building permit was issued and it was discovered later that subsequent evidence was contradictory to what was presenting during the process, the building official would actually have the authority to revoke a building permit. So, this isn't something out of the blue, like this is allowed through the code, but because this was an Article 10 appeal, it's a little different circumstance. Questions for Ms. Elder? Are you asking to re-then the Article 10 appeal would go back to the administration for re-healing? Well, staff would talk to the applicant about the information that we've discovered and see if we can work it out, basically. But, well, we talked to them, but yeah, but that's what we're asking for, to remand it back, because we can't bring it in in this proceeding, because it's limited. It's a very unique situation. Okay, so do we now go on to the appellant presentation? If the board wants that, yes. But, like I said, what was presented in the original hearing, this is just a continuation that's already in the record, but yes, definitely. Okay. Good morning, Madam Chair, Commissioners. Corey Beaton, 18250 Southeast Loxetche River Road. I'm the property owner and applicant. I brought my family here today so the board can see that this decision goes far beyond me. It has major consequences for my family. So I understand there was some more information that the board wanted and some questions that needed to be addressed, so I'm more than happy to answer those. Before I get started on that, I think it's important to, again, state what this administrative hearing is. It's whether procedural due process was afforded, whether the essential requirements of law were observed, and whether the county administrator's decision was based upon competent, substantial evidence. And Article 10 appeal is not an avenue to just kick it back to staff for reconsideration and reconsideration every time the goalposts continue to move. There were some comments made at the last hearing that I would like to directly address before I answer the questions. Madam Chair, I highly respect you and the decisions that you make on a day-to-day basis sitting on this board, but there was a comment made at the last appeal that I feel was not accurate, and I feel caused some public scrutiny on the decision that was made, your response when it came time to vote was so we're essentially going to issue this building permit in violation of the LDR and the comp plan. And I think that that statement automatically assumes that staff's interpretation of the policy, the actual reason was denied, is true. And that's the very issue that I appealed, that I challenged, was their interpretation of what the policy says. So I think I'd like to, you know, when I walked out of the last meeting, I wasn't very happy that it was a 3-2 vote. I expected it to be a 5-0. So I think I didn't weigh enough on the actual policy, the true reason why this permit was denied. So Mr. Fox had already made it very clear to me that the county wasn't disputing my property boundary line or the fact that I owned a two-acre parcel. They were just saying I couldn't use the submerged land portions of it. So after months of asking, based upon what, why can't I use the submerged lands, I was given 4.1 E4. That policy is very specific. It has two parts to it. It says that where land abuts the Loxahatchee River, the boundary shall be delineated as established by the state statutes. That is what I've done. My survey establishes the boundary based upon the legal description and records contained within the public records of Martin County. Now, this isn't some legal description that I created. It's been there for 65 years. The assessment maps, I've went back to the property appraiser maps. They have assessed it in its configuration since 19, like, mid-60s or so. The current property appraiser records recognizes it as legal acres, too. The zoning requires two acres. So the second part of the policy says no submerged land areas, water word, of the boundary described above shall be included. Think about what that says. It specifically calls out the boundary, not the mean high water line, not the shore line. It's calling out a boundary of a parcel. It does not simply say that all submerged lands are excluded under this policy, and those words have meanings. We can't add words to the LDR, and we can't take words away from the LDR. We have to look at what is actually there. The submerged portion at issue is contained within my legal description and inside the property boundary that has been legally established. If the policy intended to say that no submerged land areas could be used, it could be that easy. It could say no submerged lands can be used towards density, period. But it specifically calls out the boundary. Taking it a step deeper, if there was a policy like this that would have been detrimental to the property and to the development rights of it, it should have been listed in the formal zoning inquiry letter that staff issued for this parcel. They never mentioned it. They never mentioned that there was a policy like this that would affect the use of submerged lands. All they asked was just to please verify that the lot is two acres, which is what I have done. Staffs made the comment that submerged lands have never been allowed to be used towards density. I've provided three examples within my same neighborhood where they have over four decades now. They now call those mistakes, all of them. So whether it is a mistake or not, these approvals just show that the policies has always been historically interpreted and applied in a different manner in my area. The property in its current configuration complies with the applicable zoning and density requirements of the LDR and the comp plan. So moving on to some questions that were asked of me, the board needs to understand there's a tremendous amount of pressure that's on someone when they're up here fighting for their property rights, their family's rights, where they're going to build their home in their future. And sometimes the words just don't come that easy. Commissioner Campion, one of the first things you asked me is what I did for a living. I told you I was a fireman. That's true. I've been doing it for 19 years. I'm a public servant. I love what I do. I serve the community that I grew up in. But I probably sold myself a little short in that. And I probably left a lot of people wondering how a fireman could ever afford a property like this. Because I couldn't. Absolutely not. I also own and operate a cattle ranch here in Martin County. And I'm an outdoorsman. I have an absolute love for the land. I've bought and sold a lot of property throughout my life. And about three years ago, I sold a significant portion of that to Palm Beach County because it was going to conservation. At the time, I had a private offer for over $100,000 more than what I sold it to the county for because that was important to me for it to go to conservation. That's the legacy I left in Palm Beach County. And that's the same legacy I want to leave here in Martin County. I currently own about 225 acres in this county. And I have a plan right now that is going to put about 200 of that into conservation. That's the legacy I want to leave here, not this. So, Ms. Vargas, I understand you had some questions. One, I think the first was about taxes. I went back and looked at what I said at the last meeting. My exact statement was the county has collected over $269,000 in taxes on this parcel in the last 25 years. I went back and verified my math, and the exact number was $268,804. So, I was off by like $100 or so, consistent with my original number. I never said that I personally paid $269,000 during my period of ownership. And if that was misunderstood, I hope that clears it up. I was just simply referring to the taxation history of this property and the vast amount of money that the county has assessed and collected, which is perfectly in line with the other properties in the same neighborhood that are buildable and have homes on them. It is true that during my ownership, my taxes have been significantly lower because I maintain a bona fide agricultural operation on this property. I do not make the rules regarding how agricultural property is treated or taxed. I follow the laws that exist. Agriculture was one of the very reasons why I selected this property over others. And it has proven to be an extremely productive and useful property for agriculture due to its close proximity to Jonathan Dickinson State Park. There's tens of thousands of acres of forage availability and some very unique habitat for bees. The mangroves, it makes a very unique honey. So, it's been very usable and very good. And it's rare to have agricultural land in a section of the county like this. It really is. There was something else, I believe, that was said about rezoning. The staff had suggested rezoning as some sort of solution. I'm not voluntarily rezoning this property to solve a problem that doesn't exist. I purchased A-1 property. I have a legitimate agricultural use on it. The zoning calls for two acres. I have two acres. Changing the zoning introduces uncertainty regarding future agricultural use, taxation, and what rights may or may not exist down the road. And I'm not going to surrender that certainty that I have today and exchange it for a different zoning classification just because staff does not want to recognize acreage that already legally qualifies. If it were up to me, I would prefer to never see another piece of agricultural land in this county ever be rezoned to a higher residential density. I don't agree with that. I think the zonings were set and established for a reason. That's my opinion. Commissioner Campy, you had asked me whether or not I had went to DEP. The question was a little deeper than that because it was led with staff gave testimony that you could have went to the DEP. Did you go? So my interpretation of your question was whether or not I had went to DEP to get some form of permission or approval or title determination as a prerequisite to this building permit. And I told you the same thing I told Ms. Elder and staff. Absolutely not. And here's why. The testimony that you were referring to was Ms. Elder stating that we asked him multiple times to go to DEP to get something, and he refused. It's true. This was not because I was being adversarial or stubborn. It was much deeper than that. Ms. Elder stated it herself on the record. Anyone can go back and look at it. She said it twice. Her position was that we asked him to go to DEP. He refused. But even if he had gone to DEP, he still couldn't use the submerged lands that are contained within his deed because the LDR and the comp plan doesn't allow it. So on one hand, she's telling me I need to go to DEP to get something. And on the other hand, she's saying even if I do, it's not going to make a difference. So I saw her request for what it was, which is why I told her and this board, absolutely not. I've presented everything I need to present to establish my ownership. So mind you, she's asking me to go get something from them for land that I physically purchased with my own money, which was conveyed by deed, which I currently hold the title to, and which I'm currently being taxed upon. And if someone's injured on it tomorrow, are they going to come after the legal record holder of title or someone that has a claim? And how quickly a claim would probably disappear. That's why I fiercely refused. And with land, it comes benefits, but there's also liabilities. That's why I gave the analogy that I gave at the same time. And I should have explained that deeper, but a landowner needs to be able to rely upon the records that are in the system. So, yes, I have communicated with DEP concerning ownership. I'm staying corrected. I have had separate communications with DEP concerning a boat dock exemption verification for this property. If you had asked me, have I ever communicated with them concerning ownership of the submerged land portion of this property, my answer obviously would have been yes. But my communications with them were not for this permit. It was for a boat dock exemption verification. And that issue is entirely separate from the application to build my house. In regards to the dock permit, I'll just go down that road just really quick, even though Ms. Elder's saying evidence outside can't be used anyways. Otherwise, I want to break that down because I don't want anyone to think that I'm trying to get away with something that I'm not or that I tried to mislead this board in any way. So this boat dock permit, it allows up to 500 square foot of a surface water area over the water area to build a dock if you own the submerged lands. So I was like, oh, well, that's a pretty neat statute. I'll apply for it. So I did. And DEP came back and said that its records indicate that the submerged lands were state-owned. I disagreed with that position, and I challenged it because I'm the one holding the title. And this is where it becomes extremely important. DEP's own title and land records worksheet says in capital letters, the conclusions and determinations set forth herein do not constitute a legal opinion of title and should not be relied upon as such. So that document is labeled worksheet short form for internal DEP use only. So I appealed the decision because in their own denial, they're admitting that their determination is not a legal opinion. Therefore, as the record holder of title, I still felt I was eligible for this permit. So DEP then rendered a final order. And in the final order, they went even further. And they said, in any case, a circuit court is the final arbiter of the ownership of submerged lands. It then stated that its administrative proceeding could not resolve an ownership dispute. Then I educated myself. I found multiple instances within the court records where DEP made similar claims. The most recent was in Lake Worth in 2021, where they claimed a private landowner submerged land similar to this. A lawsuit followed, and the landowner prevailed in the fourth DCA. Anyway, this proves that claims are just that. It's a claim. It does not divest me from my ownership in the property, nor does it make it accurate or correct or give them ownership in it. There's an avenue that they can take if they feel they have a superior claim of title, and I'm okay with that. That's how the system works. But as of now, I'm the record title holder, and the burden of proof is not on me. It's on them. I'm the one holding the title. If they feel they have a better interest, sure, let's go to circuit court, and we can hash it out there. But here's the best part. I'm not asking this board to adjudicate title. There is no ownership dispute to resolve here. We have property rights for a reason, and there's a path to take if they choose to go down that path. But for now, it is what it is. We have to rely upon the records that are contained within Martin County. And I'm asking this board to review the building permit decision that's actually in front of you. I've provided deeds, license surveys, chain of title documents, historical records, aerials, assessment maps, a full tax history that is all contained within the record. This process has taken an enormous toll on my family. I'm not saying that for sympathy. I'm saying it because these decisions have major consequences outside of this room. My wife's at a breaking point over what this has done to our family. This has consumed our lives. We've made major family and financial decisions in reliance upon the decisions made during this process. And every time we believe we can move forward, the rug gets pulled. We're trying to build a home for our family. That's it. Something special for my wife and for my kids that I've spent years working to provide for them. This is not just another property to me. This is our home and our future. It's a property that I call endgame because I fully intend to die on it. The zoning requires two acres. My parcel contains two acres. The submerged area is inside my legally established boundary, and therefore it is not submerged land waterward of the boundary that policy 4.14 tells us to exclude. I'm not asking for a variance. I'm not asking for an exception. I'm not asking for special treatment. I am asking Martin County to apply the rules that are actually written in line with how they've been historically interpreted and applied over the last four decades. I'm asking this board to please abide by the LDR and the comp plan, and I'm asking that you stand behind the decision that was made, direct that this building permit be issued and move forward, and put an end to this. I just want to do the best I can for my family and my kids. I thank every one of you for the tough decisions you have to make, and I'm open for any questions that you may have. Mr. Vargas. I don't even know where to start for questions because there was some, in my mind, what I heard, and I think other commissioners heard, is that you pay $269,000 in taxes. I'm like, oh, my gosh, it's agricultural zoning. How did this happen? But that's over 25 years that I have. You know, I have a restricted record right here. The other thing is, having lived on the water, you know, I couldn't do anything without the state's approval to build a dock or anything. Put new riprap in, nothing, nothing. I'm from Florida. So I totally get all of this. But my understanding, and I look to Ms. Elder and I look to Mr. Schilling, is that you are able to build your home on this property for your wife and children. You are able to do that. What I'm understanding is that you say, and, of course, documents that I have here, surveys, that you have two acres versus the 1.6, 1.7 acres, as I recollect. But you are still able to build your home. You do need to ask the state of Florida for permission for the dock or whatever you wish to do. Why are you reluctant, then, to work with staff further so that we can resolve this and put an end to this and bring some peace into your life and your wife and children? Sure. Great question. I did try after the last commission meeting where the vote was denied, and staff has one solution, rezone it. That's it. That's the only option that they have. Rezoning comes with a lot of uncertainties, and I will be taxed out of this property and not be able to stay here, I can promise, without the current zoning and the exemptions that I legally qualify for. I understand you have agricultural zoning. However, you're putting a single-family home. Are you planning on having cattle? No, no. I will always maintain bees on this property. This is one of the most proven and good bee lots that I've ever seen. The forage availability in the area is outstanding, and it's very unique. There's very few places where you can graze bees and where there's mangroves. Like, there's no agricultural land that's close to mangroves. So it does provide an extremely unique opportunity. And mangrove honey, I'm not sure if you've ever had. It's quite delicious. I have not. It's interesting. It's very dark. We'll make it a point. Yeah, it's got a good taste to it. Madam. I'm sorry. So the actual lot, though, is two acres, and that's what the zoning qualifies for. That's what's contained in the record. That's what I'm paying taxes on is a two-acre parcel. If you look up the Martin County property appraiser tax roll, it says legal acres two. It's not 1.69. It's not. These are the records. I didn't create this legal description. I didn't invent it. Madam Chair, may I? Paul Schilling, Growth Management Department Director. Just a couple items of clarification to Commissioner's point. The issue here is the A-1 and the zoning, which is a 1967 zoning code. It's in Section 3.411.1A. And of that, B, required lot area. Required lot area shall not be less than two acres. That has been conveyed numerous times over the past three years. Fast forward to probably earlier this month. We had a phone call with the applicant and provided information that for a future application, those notices, the signage, and those items would be covered by the county, in essence, for a land use and rezoning. That would, should it be successful, would cure the lot size issue because, as you pointed out, Commissioner, the upland area on this lot is 1.67 acres approximately, give or take. It does not meet the two acre. So, land use change from rural to a state density, I believe, and then a accompanying rezoning to RE-1A would allow for the applicant to use the entirety of the upland area, cite a dock subject to DEP approval, and you would no longer have a zoning issue on this property. That was declined, respectfully, and so we're here today. So, as it sits today, this lot was created, and this is all part of the record, this lot was created in the year 2000. It was not created prior to the zoning code or the land development regulations. So, and I'm talking about the split that the applicant owns. This is a unique area. There are pieces of property that have been carved up over the years, over the last 40 or 50 years. There are tributaries in here and so forth. It's a very unique area. But the bottom line is that the zoning of A-1 requires two acres of lot area, and we don't have that today. That has been the issue the entire time. And if I may just clarify, so in order to get an ag exemption in Florida, you do not have to have agricultural-zoned property. It could be anything. It could be zoned anything. As long as you keep bees on the property, you will maintain an ag exemption. You do not need agricultural, land-use, or zoning. So I just wanted to clarify that. That's correct, yes. Mr. Schilling, are you a surveyor? No, I'm not. Okay. So a professional licensed surveyor gave you a letter and staff that's contained within the record that says that the lot area of this lot, and he broke it down into the square foot, I can't remember what it is offhand, but is 2.01 acres, is the lot area. It's not up, what's up, what's wet, what's this and that. It's what's contained within the legal description. The lot area is 2.01 acres, is the lot area. Yes, Ms. Elder, you're correct. You can have agriculture on non-agriculturally zoned property. Do I think that that will be here after Amendment 3 passes? No, I don't. I think that if that passes, there's a high probability that any land that is not zoned for agriculture will likely be removed from the tax rule of agriculture. It also does not, beyond the taxes, the Florida Right to Farm Act is pretty specific, and it references having agriculturally zoned property. So I don't think that I would be protected under the Right to Farm Act. And if someone complains about my bees or cattle or whatever it is, then... We're venturing outside the scope of this. Commissioner Vargas, do you have any further questions? Not at this moment. Commissioner Hetherington. Oh, what were the other properties that were issued their building permit? Were they A-1 zoning, or did they rezone to RE-1A? The one that I'm aware of most recently that the applicant pointed out was the same situation. It was split, and there was a survey provided, and in essence, it was just missed, the lot area, unfortunately. What year was that? Approximately three or four years ago, I believe. Two weeks before I bought this property, when I relied upon the decision that they made, because I was trying to buy that man's property, and he said, I'm trying to decide if I want to sell it or if I want to build on it. Holger Maluche is his name. And he said, and it was the same exact scenario. It was a lot split. It was split off of a larger parcel, and it wasn't a legal lot of record. It was less than two acres of upland. It was everything that I needed to move forward making the right decision. And he said, you know what? Now I'm just going to go ahead and build. I got my building permit approved, and that's it. And I said, oh, okay, great. And that proved that, okay, well, you just need to have two acres. The formal zoning inquiry letter that the staff issued does not reference 4.1 E4. We can't go back on that. If there's a policy that is going to severely debilitate the development of a property, you need to say that in a formal zoning inquiry letter. Are you referring to the 2016 letter, sir? Yes. Commissioners, it may be a benefit as well, and the applicant is well aware of this. He asked that the application be vacated while he purchased it, or shortly there during that same time frame, he would agree. We had a current application from a different owner, Appletree LLC, to do the exact same thing I just talked about, which changed the zoning and the land use. We had a letter from a local land use attorney that indicated the lot did not meet the lot split criteria and therefore necessitated a land use and rezoning. So in 2023, that was also part of our file. Ms. Elder. Yes. Your light's on. No, that's Johnson. So the issue surrounding the lot boundary is obviously a paramount piece to this, and my decision, you know, you have a surveyor that simply plotted the meets and bounds that was provided to them. You know, the history of the lot and the change in boundaries of state to upland ownership is complicated. My decision on the original application, while there was a survey, I didn't feel that there was substantial and competent evidence that the submerged lands were, in fact, entirely owned by the applicant, and that was part of my decision. And the fact that there was a, if you read the surveyor's description and the analysis was, they basically plotted the survey that was provided by the owner. As you do lot splits and you take parent parcels. And so that was essentially doesn't mean, you know, that it isn't, he doesn't own it or does own it. It was that I didn't feel that there was substantial and competent evidence at that time to permanently decide that there was ownership of the submerged lands. The other issues regarding the boundaries of whether or not we can include the land or not were essentially the two, the two principal parts of this, of the applicants was one, was that the, as he stated before, the, the, the, the, the appeal based upon the, the staff analysis that you only count the uplands and, and then two, that he owned the submerged lands by virtue of the survey provided. Um, I felt that the survey description said they had plotted it based upon the applicants, um, um, uh, you know, providing the meets and bounds survey, but I didn't feel that there was, um, testimony from the surveyor clearly defining that the submerged lands were, uh, entirely owned by the applicant. And we know that under state law that the changing of the rivers or the coastline that, um, the state generally claims ownership of, um, all tidal and submerged lands. And as that boundary moves or either through erosion or accretion, that boundary can change. And so, um, that was ultimately, um, again, simply my decision was simply based upon the fact that there was not substantial competent evidence at the time to clearly prove that the land was, all of two acres was owned. Mr. Hetherington. So based, based on those comments, Mr. Donaldson and Mr. Beaton, right? Mm-hmm. So the 4.1 E4, I think that's the policy you stated, says that it's the boundary that's to be considered. Specifically calls out the boundary. So when you considered, even though you said the surveyor may have, you know, but he relied upon a survey that then set the boundary, right? I didn't provide him with that legal description. It's been contained in the county records for 65 years. And secondly, can you explain that the claim? So if you rely upon the boundary, which this property owner now has a vested right because he's relied upon all of the due diligence materials, including the boundary survey, the title, and says that if a claim is to be made by the state, then they can take that claim up with the property owner. By all means. So if the state disagrees with us and says that they are going to claim that, then they can take that up with the property owner. So it's our job, to me, is establish he has a vested right, he purchased the property, he did his due diligence, he relied upon zoning verification letters, he reasonably relied upon the record, and I do agree that you surrender certainty by rezoning it. There has been historical evidence where others didn't rezone it. The boundary has to be relied upon, and a claim can be made by the state to, in effect, take, you know, to rely upon the fact that they own that portion. I don't believe it's our position to take the state's authority to rely upon that claim. I believe that we rely upon what is in the record, and I believe you produced all of that information in the record to move forward with your building permit. Mr. Campy. Thank you. Excuse me. Sir, you mentioned that there were three parcels in your neighborhood or your street or whatever that were able to do that. Mr. Schilling mentioned one. Can you tell me what the other two are? I don't have the addresses offhand, but the one is directly adjacent to the 2023 application. Is there a house on the property? There's a house. That was done in 2016. Property, I believe, is around 1.9 acres of dry land, 2.2 and change total. It doesn't have two acres of dry land. There's another one that was done in 1984. I could get you all the addresses for those. You need the addresses. I'm just trying to let me see. There's another in 1984 that is a year or two after the comp plan was created. The people that knew it better than anyone else. Less than what's the acreage of that? And they approved it. 1.95 dry, still less than two. And it's two point. And the 2023, what was the dry acreage of that? 1.6, smaller than mine. Thank you. Mr. Schilling, you just heard what he said. I know you mentioned the 2023 one, and you, this time, like last time, you were very forthcoming, and I appreciate that, that it was an error or a mistake. Are you familiar with the 2016 and the 1984 ones? No, sir. As I mentioned, there are a variety of situations in any given piece of property in Martin County. A lot of what we do on a daily basis is research of deeds and actual property configurations. Those actions are private actions. They are done separate and distinct of any regulations. So you can have someone come ask whether they can split the property. We simply give them the zoning and the land use. I would propose that some of these instances may be either situations where the home was constructed prior to the lot split, and then the subsequent owner split the remainder of the property off. There could also be situations in which there was a house built prior to any zoning regulations, let's say in the 50s, on a lot that was inadequate sized of the accompanying 1967 zoning code. So there are, you name it, there's situations, anything under the sun can happen. But the bottom line is, the one I am aware of is one that we missed. Yes. Okay, but this is 2016 and 1984, not in the 50s. You're speaking generally, correct? Yes, sir. Not specifically of this area. Yes, sir. Now, what I'm getting at is if someone constructs a home or there's survey work that's done maybe that reflects a different acreage, there may be disagreements on that. There may be situations in which, let's put it this way, technology has really advanced, especially in the last decade, but there can be situations in which lots were split that don't necessarily meet the criteria, and they may surface sometime in the future. The way they do surface is with a building permit. There are private actions all over the place, Palm City Farms, Hope Sound, you name it. Jensen, where people are splitting property that doesn't necessarily meet the zoning code, and it's a private action. It's a recorded deed that someone may have to clean up in the future. Correct. Correct. So that being said, if, and I hear what you're saying, and I've been involved in some of those situations, especially after the fact, but you're not necessarily disputing that there is a, the 2023 one you agreed, there could potentially be a 2016 one, and there could potentially be a 1984 one we're taking. He's been sworn in. He's on the record. These three could be his neighbor's homes, correct? There could be situations out there in which those, everything under the sun I mentioned, it would all be part of that investigation. One second. I'm just weighing in on the fact of if this had happened three times on his block, not anywhere else in the county, but on his block, and he's purchasing, and the 2023 one, you know, he seems like he's done his research. If he was closing two weeks after that approval happened and he did his due diligence and he saw that, yes, someone with a 1.6-acre lot dry was able to build their home, and he then took that into consideration to decide, hey, I will buy this property and build it. You know, caveat emptor, let the buyer beware. I believe that, in my opinion, he was aware, and he was being aware. So to me, all of the extras, the B's and the DOC and the DEP and all of that, to me, I boil it down as simply as three other people on his block were able to build homes on lots that were smaller than two acres, and if he wasn't interested in doing that, we would never even know it. Like you said, a lot of this just happens, and it's behind the scenes, and until something rises to the surface, but it has. So if I put, take all of the other ancillary information that we've heard, to me, my decision would be based on, he's trying to build a house, you know, and I get he's saying it's two acres, but it's, what do you have, 1.69? One point, yeah. He's got 1.69, and three other times on his block, people were able to do the exact same thing that he's asking that I can't see as recently as three years ago, and then 10 years ago. 1984, I get that was like a, might as well have been 100 years ago. It's a whole different thing. Technology is different, but these, these cases, especially that one, then why was it okay in 2023? Now someone's here basically begging and demanding that, that we do it. That's where my decision is, is shaped. Commissioners, this is all very interesting and very anecdotal, and it's so far outside the scope of this proceeding. It's true. My goodness. That's true. This is, this, you know, this, we're devolving just as we did the last one. Instead of doing, we're being asked a very, very basic decision to make. That's right. Based upon the evidence that's provided, and we just keep going down these rabbit holes that are completely irrelevant to this proceeding. So please concentrate on the task that we have been assigned today, which is to determine whether or not Mr. Donaldson considered all the evidence and made a decision, and what, we don't have the ability to, to, to make this final decision. Mr. Kappers. So the staff recommendation on page 855 is move that the board remand building permit number BLD-2025080317 back to staff to review the newly discovered information with Mr. Beaton. So that, that's not a final decision, right? No, that's not a final decision. It would remand the, um, the building permit back to staff. It would open it back up. Um, and that would typically be the decision if you consider the three things you're considering on this appeal, whether procedural due process was accorded, whether you would, uh, Mr. Donaldson adhere to the essential requirements of law, and whether it was based on competent, substantial evidence, even if the board disagreed with what Mr. Donaldson done, the action typically would be to remand it back to Mr. Donaldson or to staff to correct the issue. So typically the board wouldn't issue a permit. Um, but yeah, so we're asking it just to go back to staff to fix whatever error the board might think occurred, and if not, um, to, to review the newly discovered evidence. I'll make that motion. May I ask what the newly discovered evidence is? So you already touched on it. It was the DEP communications where they had told you that they sought ownership of the land, and we've had this conversation on the phone, and it was the miscommunication on the taxes, not that that was, um, it was a misinterpretation of that. So we talked about it. It was the DEP information that we discovered the morning after the hearing that you had communication with them, and they said they owned the land. So that was the newly discovered information, which I communicated with you on the phone. Um, if we're going to get into like law and essential requirements of law, I'd love to start breaking down case law. I have a ton of it. A claim is a claim. I could claim your house. Once again, we're getting to be outside. Yeah, that's up to the board to decide, and we'll be here for three hours. It's really not getting outside. Commissioner Hedrington. May I ask if you remand this back to you? I feel like this is a ping pong ball, and we've done this three times. If I remand that back to you, are you going to then instruct him to rezone it, or are you going to take in additional evidence to issue a building permit? Because if you just simply, we remand it back to you, and then you tell Mr. Beaton to rezone it, we've not made any progress in the last three meetings we've had. So what's, what's the resolution for him to get his building permit other than rezoning? Are you going to take more evidence in, and hear the article 10 or 12 all over again? If we remand it back to you? If you remand it back to staff to discuss the new evidence, we can, we, that's what staff would do. I don't know what the outcome would be. If Mr. Beaton provides a title, I don't know. I don't know what the outcome would be. We would just remand it back over the evidence. It might be result in another denial, because the lot size is not big enough. And then it would go back to Don, and then Mr. Beaton can file a lawsuit if he wants to. But if staff negotiates with him, and, and I can't speak for staff. I don't know, honestly, what would happen. That, that's why I'm uncomfortable with remanding it back, because I don't see any resolution. Are you going to come up with a different determination? I, I'd like to see this resolved, and Mr. Beaton be able to move along with his building permit and build his house. So, could I, did you make a motion already? Yes, the motion's already on the table. Well, apparently earlier we could make a substitute motion. So, can I make a substitute motion? Sure. So, I would like to refer back to the original motion. Somebody might have to, either the clerk or Ms. Elder, when we originally made the decision, and it was voted on 3-2, to reject the, it was to issue the building permit. It was to issue. It was, it was to decide that Mr. Donaldson, or the Article 12, had been heard, and had been heard. And all, we did not agree that all the evidence was taken into account. And in addition to that, we instructed the building permit to be issued. So, that's the motion that I would make. Is there a second? Not yet. Yeah. Commissioner Vargas. I would like Commissioner Capps to please repeat the motion that you made so that I can understand there's been a whole lot of dialogue here. No problem. It's just staff recommendation on page 855. Move that the board remand building permit number BLD-2025080317 back to staff to review the newly discovered information with Mr. Beaton. Mr. Beaton. Yes, ma'am. Talk with the staff. We want to see your home built for you and your lovely wife and your beautiful children there. We do. But we're just trying to come to a resolution as quickly as possible so you can move on with your life instead of calling you back here. Or are you going to court? Mr. Schilling, are you willing to move the building permit forward based upon the LDR and the comp plan as what it states now? Or are you going to only just say you have to rezone? I would need to look at all the evidence, but There's no evidence. I own the land. There is no evidence. There's nothing more. Just for the record, this is beyond the scope of the Article 10 appeal, so we can't have you guys negotiating right now. I mean, we're playing ping pong. Just keep moving the finish line and moving it. Moving the goalposts around. What am I supposed to do? There is no going back to staff. They made it very clear two weeks ago. We're not giving you your building permit unless you rezone. I'm not rezoning. So my only other option is to uphold the decision that was made at the last meeting. Or the alternative is not to put me back to staff. The alternative is to make a decision on those three items. Whether procedural due process was followed, the central requirements of the law, and the last one. Those are the three things we're here to discuss. That's it. There's no going back. I'm going to court after this, like, if I have to. And I don't think that's necessary. And what's the end result? There's going to be an answer. Mr. Selder, there is a request to speak from the public. Is that allowed? Typically, we don't have public comment during Article 10 Appeals. Okay. Commissioner Campy. Thank you. Just to remind everyone that when this came up originally, I had requested that it be sent back to staff. And Mr. Donaldson, very forthcomingly, said there would be no reason to do that because he felt that the response, the result would be the same. That was what my motion was. And then my hand was forced to say, which I agree, Commissioners and this Board should not be issuing building permits. But I would need to have some reassurance that he's not just going through a process. Even after this was voted to be reconsidered, weeks have passed. There has been some dialogue. I'm looking at our staff, who I highly regard. I'm looking at this applicant who's obviously, in my opinion, my chair had said that we're getting out of the scope. But some of it has to be taken into consideration. We're not making decisions in a vacuum. I have to take into consideration all of the back and forth of how many acres is what. Three other people on the street were able to do this, and he wasn't. But sir, I would tell you, based on what I'm hearing up here and handicapping the votes, I'm still in support of you having the ability to build your house the way you want. Seconding Commissioner Hetherington's motion will probably be an exercise, but I will do it. I'll second her motion. I don't see it necessarily happening the way you want today. Ms. Elder, if I pass the gavel and second Commissioner Capp's motion, which motion is voted on first? So, probably the one that was second and first, I would guess. Okay. We'll take up Commissioner Hetherington's motion. Does everybody understand? Yes. So, she's essentially saying that we are going to substitute our judgment for staffs and issue a building permit. Is that what you said? Correct. No. I actually said that I didn't believe due process was followed. And in addition to that, since there seems to be no resolution to issue the building permit. So, I reject, accept the Article 12 appeal, 10 appeal, do not believe that due process was followed, and the building permit should be issued. That's my motion. Okay. There's a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Opposed? Opposed. That motion fails. Two to three with Commissioners Heard, Capps, and Vargas dissenting. We'll now take up the other motion, which is Commissioner Capps to remand. All those in favor? You have to pass the gavel to do that. We have to have a second. Okay. And then make a second, just so we're doing it the right way. Okay. Are you seconding it? I'm seconding it. We have a motion by Commissioner Capps, seconded by Commissioner Hurd. That is to staff's recommendation. Correct, Commissioner Capps? Yes. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Opposed? Opposed. Opposed. That motion passes three to two with Commissioners Campy and Heathering dissenting. Thank you. Thank you. Unreal. Thank you, Mr. Beaton. We will now take up Department 1, Office of Management and Budget items, which require board approval. Good morning again, Commissioner. Stephanie Murley, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, here to present the other 15 items on OMB today. Last meeting of the fiscal year, we have a lot of cleanup to do. So item number one is a permission to apply for the Florida Department of State Division of Library and Information Services Annual State Aid to Libraries Grant. Our Martin County Library System is requesting application of $85,005 in order to provide funding for the management and coordination of free library services to Martin County residents, and there is no cash match required for that one. Item number two is a permission to apply for the Cities for Financial Empowerment Fund 2026 City Start Grant. Our Human Services Department is requesting a grant award of $100,000 to develop a financial empowerment blueprint for historically disadvantaged neighborhoods and low-income families. These grant funds will be used to develop an actionable blueprint outlining financial financial empowerment strategies such as financial education and counseling, asset building, access to banking, and consumer protection, and there is no cash match required for that application. Item number three is a permission to apply for the Bureau of Justice Assistance or the BJA Fiscal Year 26 Edward Byrne Justice Grant Program. Our Martin County Sheriff's Office is requesting to apply for $24,141 to be utilized to purchase an enclosed trailer with upfit package and three radar speed measuring devices. The purpose of this grant is to enhance the existing traffic enforcement and safety equipment operations and promote safer roadways throughout Martin County, and there is no cash match required for that grant either. Item number four is a permission to accept amendment number one for the Florida Department of Transportation or FDOT vehicle gate and security improvements at the Martin County Airport. Our airport is requesting an acceptance of $67,200 to cover the cost of an additional security gate. There is a local share in the amount of 20 percent or $16,800 that will be provided within the Airport Enterprise Fund budgeted in the capital improvement plan. Item number five is a permission to accept the Florida Department of Transportation grant for pavement dressing conditioner and medium intensity lighting replacement replacement. Our airport is requesting a grant award of $3,680,000 to replace the pavement and replace the medium intensity lighting. There is a local share in the amount of 20 percent of $920,000 that would be provided from the Airport Enterprise Fund budgeted within our Airport Capital Improvement Plan. Item number five is a permission to accept the FDOT public transportation grant agreement for South Airport facilities. And I do need to make a slight modification to this one. It's a grant award of $10,000 with a match of $2,500, not $2,000 that I need to update the budget resolution on for a little Scrivener's error. But this is for the purposes of the access parcel for redevelopment of current non-aeronautical for aviation use. And as I mentioned, the match is $2,500. We did number seven and eight earlier with Sam Amerson and the SRF loans. Item number nine is permission to accept the fine small-scale derelict vessel removal project grant. You did have your check this morning from fine. This is the technical of appropriating it within the budget through a budget resolution. We were awarded $55,995 to reimburse us for those funds expended on the removal and destruction of derelict vessels. There was a 25 percent grant match that was covered through our derelict vessel fees. We did number 10. And then finally we have adjustments to the fiscal year 2026 budget, our cleanup for our last fiscal year meeting. First is a budget resolution to accept the 2026 Florida Power and Light Care to Share funding. Each year, FPL administers the Care to Share program, which provides funds to Martin County Human Services to provide for electric bill assistance to eligible households in Martin County. We are in receipt of $12,084.15 and OMB is requesting the adoption of a budget resolution to accept those funds into the budget. B is a request to allocate the unanticipated contribution from the Paradise Lake Plan unit development agreement and master final site plan. The county is in receipt of $50,630 from the Paradise Lake PUD agreement that is paying Martin County in lieu of constructing a sidewalk along Southeast 138th Street. And OMB is requesting the budget resolution to appropriate that within the budget. Where's Paradise Lake PUD? That's an excellent question. It's in South County on 138th off of Bridge Road. Okay. So it's a very rural. Right. Item C is a request to allocate insurance proceeds for damages sustained at various park locations. Martin County is in receipt of $58,571 for various damages that were related to parks and recreation fencing, Indian Riverside Park, Francis Legford Pavilion, Sea Turtle Cafe, and Seaside Cafes. We're requesting the $58,000 be appropriated back into those fixed asset replacement budgets that offset the cost of those related repairs that were done. Number D or letter D sorry just I'm all numbers. Martin County Sheriff's Office requests for funds previously earmarked. If you recall at the beginning of last year we had set aside funding from Martin County Sheriff's Office excess fees from their annual budget to support the down payment for a helicopter. We made the initial transfer of $894,000 back in March of 2025 and the remaining $7,000 is now being requested. OMB had set these aside in reserves and so per our fiscal policy we need to transfer from we need an action to transfer from the dedicated general fund reserves to remit the funding to the Sheriff's Office for this final payment. So go back to that. So this the down payment is being made with one time excess funds. Yes. And yet we're going to use that down payment in order to do a lease purchase agreement which is going to require continuing funding? Which the Sheriff's Office has budgeted within their past two fiscal years. From what? From their funding source? Their ad valorem operating budget. Okay so they're going to take in order to to make the down payment they're using a one-time excess funding? That's my understanding. And then they're going to rely upon how much in ad valorem each year in order to execute the lease purchase? I'm not exactly sure what their lease payment is but I can find out from Mr. Youngblood. Counting on something that may not appear. And this is in our CIP? This was set aside in general fund reserves from their excess fees two years ago that we've set aside for the purchase. Is the lease purchase in the CIP? No they they maintain their own lease purchase agreements over at the Sheriff's Office. I wish somebody was here from the Sheriff's Office. Can we remove that particular item and bring that forward? I think I think it would be wise. I think it'd be very prudent to do that at this point. Okay. E is a request to allocate additional revenues collected for health insurance. During 2026 our health insurance is anticipated to exceed our revenue collection in the FY26 budget by 1.6 billion and we're just requesting a budget resolution to appropriate those additional revenues into the budget. And I also don't don't understand this. There's 1.6 additional dollars in health insurance. From where? From internal service fees. So we have retirees paying into the pot. We have other constitutionals. So when we budget where we're basically estimating how many people are going to be in the plan. So it turns out we had gotten additional fees through internal services rebates through pharmacy and also stop loss catastrophic. Okay. Thank you. No problem. F is a request to allocate the unanticipated reimbursement from FDOT. We're in receipt of a reimbursement from FDOT in the amount of $50,996 resulting from third-party damage to a traffic signal cabinet located at Dixie Highway and Monterey Palm Beach Road. OMB is requesting a budget resolution to allocate those back into the traffic signal and streetlight rehab CIP to offset the cost of those repairs made. G is a request to allocate additional revenues collected for the Martin County Airport. So during 2026, Martin County exceeded their revenue collection budget by $1,023,658. And that was through various different fees that the airport levies. So OMB is just requesting that budget resolution to appropriate the additional revenues into the FY26 budget. And last but not least is a request to allocate additional revenues collected by the Martin County Library. So our Martin County Library exceeded their revenue collection in FY26 by $18,638. So OMB is requesting a budget resolution to appropriate the additional revenues into that budget as well. I have a question on number six, which is the grant award of $10,000 to access parcel for redevelopment of current non-aeronautical for aviation use on the airport. Mr. Bean, can you explain what this agenda item is? MR. Yes, Commissioner. So Andrew McBean, airport director. This item is the FDOT grant for some environmental administrative work that needs to do for the public works parcel. FDOT early gave us a grant for that work. There's also an FAA portion of that grant will come in a couple of years. MS. And are we going to reassess the intended use? MR. No, the intended use for that parcel is still light general aviation uses. MS. Is it non-aeronautical? MR. It is. It's aeronautical. The current use is... MS. So we're going to redevelop it as from non-aeronautical to aeronautical? MR. Yes. The current use is with public works. That's a non-aeronautical use of that parcel. And the future intended use or the master plan approved use is light general aviation, which is aeronautical. MS. And is there either taxi or runway access? MR. There is a taxi lane access to taxi lane Charlie, which is just by the Witham Aero Club. So there is access, yes. MS. So that's the taxiway that's just to the east of Witham Aero Club? MR. Yes, that small one there. MS. And that's also the one that the flight schools use? MR. Yes. MS. Are there rules governing how much... I mean, that's a lot of use. That's a lot of people using... I know that when the flight school started using that taxiway, it was problematic for the owners in Witham Aero Club. And now we're going to add another 12 acres? MR. Yes. In the master plan, that area calls for about 60 shade hangars. MS. Questions, comments, motions, commissioners? MS. Are we going to remove that one item? MS. If you want to. MS. If we ought to. MS. Commissioner Campy. MR. Thank you. I hear your concerns, and I understand that it would have been potentially more beneficial to have someone here from the Sheriff's Office. But like many things in the past, they've reviewed this with their staff. Ms. Murley and her staff has reviewed this. I'm sure their legal or our legal have reviewed this. And I am comfortable with the thought process that brought these items before us today. And I wouldn't want to, on basic anecdotal information, try to substitute my opinion of what the Sheriff and his people think needs to happen here. I'd make a motion for the complete presentation that Ms. Murley made. MS. Second. MS. I would rather that you not do that, because then I'm going to vote against the entire package. MR. I will make a motion for the presentation, less number six. MS. Second. MS. There's a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. Aye. MS. Opposed? That motion passes unanimously. MR. Now I would make a motion for number six. MS. Second. MS. To approve number six. There's a motion and a second. Commissioner Capps? MR. What would be the consequences to delaying number? MR. Commissioners, you know, the Sheriff has made a commitment under his budget to acquire and decommission his other helicopters. And so delaying this, I believe, would have consequences with their lease arrangement with the delivery of the new helicopter. So they had included that in their budget. And they've been relying upon, you only approve the entirety of the Sheriff's budget. You don't have line item control over their budget. They have been planning for replacing their aging fleet. This would complete their final acquisition. And I believe they've already issued a contract for that lease purchase. So while you do have control over moving these funds, they would have to, I would just suggest that that is a plan. And it it would have consequences with the Sheriff's operation should this not proceed today. But certainly, you could, you know, if there's a desire to postpone it or postpone it till this evening, we could have the Sheriff's come in and talk to you or postpone it till the next meeting if that's your desire. But that's my understanding. MR. I make a motion that we postpone it until this afternoon so that the Sheriff can send a representative here to explain it further. I'll contact them. MR. Madam Chair? MR. Second. MR. There are lights on? Do you want to address that? Or does the new motion take care of your questions? MR. Yeah, I'll second Commissioner Campi's motion. Okay. MR. Commissioner Vargas? MS. No, I just wanted to be sure. So we're going to be removing this from this vote right now. MR. We're already on the other ones. MR. If the motion passes. MR. Yep. MR. And Staff Dias is... MR. I just want to clarify, the item that you want to remove from the vote is item number six. That's the airport item. MR. Oh. MR. And the Sheriff's item is D. MS. Good call. Good call, Andrew. MR. Andrew looking out. MR. 11D. MS. So it's going to be... MR. Back to six and... MR. 11D. MS. 11D. MS. 11D. Thank you, Mr. McBee. MR. Okay. MR. So I make a motion that we approve, item six. MR. I think we already did. MR. No. MR. We already did. MR. And I took it out of it, remember? MR. No. MR. And then we motion... MR. Okay. MR. All right. MR. Listen, we took it out of the motion, so it wasn't there when we voted on it, so now I'm making a motion that we approve number six. MR. Okay. MR. Second. MR. There's a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. Aye. MR. Opposed? MR. That motion passes unanimously. MR. No. MR. Now I make a reconsideration of my motion that approved the entire remainder of this agenda item. MR. Okay. MR. Second. Okay. MR. We have a motion and a second for reconsideration. MR. Yeah. There's a motion and a second for reconsideration. MR. All those in favor? MR. Aye. MR. Opposed? That motion passes unanimously. MR. Now I make a motion that we approve all of the agenda items except for letter D, 11-D, and we will bring it back this afternoon at 5 during our budget presentation, and we'll have someone from the sheriff's office to explain it in more detail. MR. Second. MR. Second. MR. There's a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. Aye. MR. Opposed? That motion passes unanimously. MR. Thank you. MR. You're welcome. MR. Keeping us straight here. MR. Department two is contracts that meet the threshold for board approval of one million dollars or more. Ms. Brotherton. MR. Good morning. Christy Brotherton, your Chief Procurement Officer. I have one item for your consideration, which is our contract award for the Port Salerno Peninsula Resurfacing Project. And staff is recommending that the board award the contract to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, which is LP Asphalt, in the amount of one million one hundred thirty four thousand nine hundred ninety five dollars, and move that the board authorize the county administrator or designee to execute all documents related to this request. And that's... MR. Questions? Is there a motion to move staff's recommendation? MR. Move approval. MR. There's a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. Aye. MR. Opposed? That motion passes unanimously. MR. Thank you. MR. Department three is a request to amend the Martin County Comprehensive Planning and Growth Management Development Review fee schedules based on legislative mandates. MR. Good morning, Ms. Nobby. MS. Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Jenna Nobby, Senior Planner with the Growth Management Department. MR. Who do you have with you? Who's that? MR. Clyde Doolin, Comprehensive Planning Administrator, for the record. MR. And before you today is a request to revise the Comprehensive Planning Fee Schedule and the Development Review Fee Schedule of the Growth Management Department in response to two different bills that were passed by the Florida Legislature in the 2026 legislative session. The first bill that this fee schedule amendment is in response to is known as Senate Bill 686, which is the Agricultural Enclaves Bill. This bill took effect on July 1st, 2026, and it's a two-pronged approach in terms of the review that Martin County Growth Management staff will do. So the first part of the Senate Bill 686 is that a property owner may apply for a request to certify property as an agricultural enclave. From the day that the Growth Management Department or the local government receives this application, we have 30 days to review the application, analyze it, and issue a report to the applicant. From there, 30 days after that report is issued to the applicant, a public hearing must be held to either approve or deny the certification request. So just on the certification aspect of it, there's a lot of policy analysis and extensive time that goes into these applications. And so they're highly time sensitive. And as we've learned, we've kind of had to drop everything that we're working on and prioritize that application over all the other normal work that we do at the Growth Management Department. So that's the first half of the Senate Bill 686. The second part of that is if a property is certified as an agricultural enclave, then a property owner may submit development plans for that property. And the development plans that are submitted for that property must be reviewed and approved administratively, they don't come before the board, within 180 days from the day that the development plans are submitted. So for the first part of that, the certification request, staff is proposing a fee of $8,150 on the comprehensive planning fee schedule. This fee is consistent with the existing comp plan text amendment application that we currently have. And for the development review fee schedule for the development plans that may be submitted, staff is proposing a fee of $16,600, which is consistent with the major PUD or major PLAT or PUD PLAT application review that we currently have. So the second bill that was passed during the 2026 session is known as House Bill 927 or the Qualified Contractors Bill. And this bill provides an option, not a requirement, but an option for applicants to utilize a qualified contractor or qualified contractor firm to supplement staff's review of certain development applications that are enumerated in the statute. And those are the administrative applications, like a minor site plan. So with this qualified contractors review, staff is proposing a fee of $8,750, which is the same fee that's collected for the review of a minor final site plan. And this fee would be for the review and processing of a qualified contractor or qualified contractor firm's application. So that concludes our presentation and we're available for any questions. So going to qualified contractor consultation services, do we have that list? Who provides us the list of the qualified contractors consultants? Good morning. Pete Walton, Deputy Growth Management Director. Due to the language being watered down in the House Bill 927, staff has determined that we don't feel it's necessary to go out and get the qualified contractors. Anybody that's interested in partaking in that can get their own contractors to fulfill that pre-application process if they so desire. We don't feel that anyone actually looking at the process will actually partake in that, because it has a 45-day review and it still comes to staff for approval at the end of that. So it's a very similar ending product, but instead of going through another round of review with staff like we normally would, they would have to start all over in the process after a 45-day waiting period for us to review their product. So if someone does decide to take that up, we'll review it according to state statute, but we don't feel it's necessary to go out and get the qualified contractors. And it's still an administrative approval just like a minor is? Correct. Mr. Vargas. We don't vet, we don't screen. The applicant says here, here's my qualified contractor or the firm, and then they work with you directly. Is that my understanding? Am I correct on that? Yeah, they would be able to choose their own contractors to do the whole application process. Okay, but they're representing the applicant, never Martin County. Yeah, just like an engineering firm would represent an applicant for development, it would be the same type of scenario. It has to be expeditious within 30 days, and I know you just clear your desks to make sure it gets done. Sorry about that. That's okay. Staff Dias, that's you, Mr. Walden? I believe so. Any further questions? The chairwoman was asking questions. I'm sorry. Is that light yours? Yes. Okay. You want to add anything? Not unless there's any more questions. Okay. Any more questions? Motion to accept staff's recommendation. Okay. There's a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? That motion passes unanimously. Oh, you heard that right. I made that motion for you. Thank you. We've come to the end of this portion of our agenda. I do have two public requests to speak, and I'll allow them. Mr. Erler, would you like to address us? And another one by Corey Beaton. You're good? Okay. Mr. Beaton. You'll have three minutes, Mr. Beaton. Commissioners, I'm going to keep this brief. I came here asking for one thing. Apply the law, apply your own code, and let me build one home on my property for my family. What happened to me and my family is atrocious? You've made my next decision very easy. Tonight, I'm launching BeyondTheBoundaryMC.org. BeyondTheBoundaryMC.org. And this is no longer going to be just about my property. It's a community initiative exploring whether or not the current county boundary line still makes sense. For a long time, I've watched families on the side, on this side of the Lox Hatcher River, live one reality while being governed by another. Our properties lie in Martin County, but our daily lives overwhelmingly point south. Our children, our jobs, shopping, doctors, hospitals, restaurants, churches, sports, parks, utilities, and our friends and families are all tied to Jupiter, Tequesta, and Palm Beach County. The simplest way I can describe it is this. Our tax dollars go north, our lives go south. BeyondTheBoundary is going to put that entire issue in front of the public. The maps, the services, the schools, the utilities, the taxes, the history, and the public records. And yes, what happened to me and my family when we tried to build a single family home on property, we believed, complied with the county's own rules based upon what they told us. I'm not asking anyone to take my word for anything. That's the entire point. Read the records, look at the maps, follow the money. Look at where these communities actually live their lives and decide whether, decide for yourself whether or not the boundary still makes sense. Martin County has every right to defend the existing boundary, but now it can defend it publicly with facts in front of the people who live here. Because what happened to me convinced me of something much larger. Residents should never be afraid to question whether the government structure they inherited still serves the community that exists today. I will pursue every lawful avenue available to me concerning my property. But separately, beginning tonight, a much larger public conversation begins. You have the authority to deny a building permit. You don't have the authority to stop people from asking questions, from organizing, and you cannot stop them from deciding for themselves whether or not the line on the map still makes sense. Beyond the boundary, mc.org goes live tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioners, we are going to take up our budget hearing at 5.05, and I think that it would be prudent to come back at maybe five till five to take up the sheriff helicopter item. Let's dispose of that before we take up the budget. Does that sound good? Yeah, that sounds great. So we are finished with our work until then. So let's reconvene at a return at approximately five till five. Okay. September 29th, 2026. We are continuing an item that we left off earlier today, and that is in department, it was department one, department three, department one, it was item 11D. It was about a sheriff's helicopter in the intervening hours in between the time that the meeting ended this morning and now. I talked with the sheriff. My concerns are allayed. I believe the sheriff talked to you too, Commissioner Capps, and the sheriff attempted to talk to you, Commissioner Vargas. I also met with the sheriff. Okay. Did you meet or talk to the sheriff? I did. He called me. Okay. Are you satisfied? Well, it was already voted for prior to me getting how they put outside money for this, so that's where I am. So you want to summarize what this agenda item is about? So 11D on our department one is a couple years back. Our Martin County Sheriff's Office had remitted what's called excess fees. So it's essentially the amount of their budget that went unspent for a fiscal year. They had worked with county administration and OMB to go ahead and set aside those funds in order to save up for a down payment for this helicopter that they had planned in their capital replacement program. So we had set aside 1.6 million dollars a couple years ago. Back in March of 2025, they came and made a presentation to the Board of County Commissioners and requested the first like tranche of the down payment. And the whole purpose of having this money set aside for a down payment is to hopefully reduce their ongoing lease payments for that that piece of equipment. And so what this item was is that they were requesting the second tranche of that down payment and we just needed to remit to them through our fiscal policy since it was set aside in our reserves. Our fiscal policy states any transfer out of reserves has to come before the Board for approval. And so OMB was requesting the budget transfer for reserves to to remit to them those funds that we had set aside for them a couple years back. Okay. Any further discussion? I'd make a motion to accept 11-D. Second. Any further discussion? There's a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? That motion passes unanimously. Thank you. We'll now take up public comment. The first request to speak form I have is from Olivia Lockwood followed by Maureen Keelian. Good afternoon. Good evening. Nice to see you all again commissioners. My name is Olivia Lockwood and I'm 12 years old. I'm here again tonight because I want to talk to you about something that means a lot to me. 4-H. First I want to say thank you for the support that you've already given to 4-H and the kids of Martin County. Because of that we have opportunities to learn, grow, compete, and become leaders. I know you have a difficult decision to make when it comes to the county budget. And I know every dollar matters but I'm asking you to please remember the kids when making those decisions. I believe that when you choose to invest in dollars tells us kids what our community believes in is important. I hope you will continue to invest in us. Please don't look at 4-H as just another line in the budget. Look at the kids standing behind that line. Look at the skills we're learning. Look at the confidence we're building. Look at the responsibility we're developing. And look at the future that we're preparing for. I'm only 12 years old so I can't tell you that I know everything about budgets or government. But I do know what 4-H has done for me. And I know that I want other kids to have the same opportunity. We're not just the kids of today. We are the future of this community. And I hope you will continue to believe in that we're worth investing in. Thank you all for taking the time to listen to me tonight. Thank you. Very good. Maureen Keelian is next. And Ms. Keelian is the last request to speak to him I have. Unless, Ethan, you want to address us? You were number one last week. You know what they say not to follow kids or pets. I'm usually here in the morning, but today I'm here tonight. Maureen Keelian, Southeast Florida Recovery Advocates President and a constituent of District 1. First of all, I want to thank Commissioner Campy and Michelle Miller from Human Services Department for listening to the public, walking the walk, and talking the talk, and visiting the dignity bus in Vero Beach, which offers a safe place to sleep and wrap around services. That matters. It's a first step, a Band-Aid step, but it's a great step. We want a front door, not a jail door. As elected officials, your first job is to listen to the people you represent. Make time to meet and listen, not just hear your constituents. This budget will show whether you have or you have not. Public safety category is over $108.6 million. The sheriff, $147.4 million, which includes corrections, 32.6. Firearms, 13 million. Flock cameras that were never approved for a total of $256 million of your budget. Then, the housing division is allotted $146,700. Martin County has no shelter. House Bill 1365, sleeping on public property, has no legal place to happen. So people have nowhere to go and they end up with a jail door, not a front door. The sheriff has proposed a mental health pod. We fully support that. Paid with state dollars. Where's the county dollars? Are you going to match it? Are you going to help us? Why do our people need to be arrested before they're offered help? Why is a jail cell the first door we open to them? Jail interrupts treatment for recovery, erases jobs, and brings people right back to where they started. Jail isn't just the wrong door, it's the most expensive door. A Florida study showed that it will cost us $31,000 a year for one person, one chronically homeless person versus $10,000 if you gave them supporting housing. Housing costs one-third as much. That's not charity, that's fiscal responsibility. We have opioid abatement dollars coming down the pike. Seventy percent of your residents want recovery housing and wraparound services. Where are they? Recent headlines about Hollywood stars overdosing and dying. It happens every day. You just don't hear about it. It happens to your neighbors. Today, 11 Florida families will get that phone call. If you survey your constituents, please listen to them. So tonight, please dedicate opioid sediment dollars and other community dollars to recovery housing and wraparound services. Fund a housing-first response, including a shelter. It will pay for itself very quickly. Let's listen to the community and offer help before handcuffs. Thank you. Ms. Murley, would you like to kick it off? Sure. So, good evening, Commissioner. Stephanie Murley, Director of the Office of Management and Budget here. Tonight, we are here for the second public hearing on Martin County's fiscal year 2027 final budget. And if this sounds familiar, it's going to be very familiar. I did it about two weeks ago. So, this hearing is part of the state-required truth and millage, or trim process, and provides the board and the public an additional opportunity to consider the proposed budget and the millage rates before final adoption. I'll begin with a brief overview of the process that brought us to this point, followed by the final millage rates, the rollback rates, and the primary factors affecting the FY27 budget. And after the resolution reading, we'll finish the evening with a brief update on the county strategic plan, highlighting progress we made during FY26, followed by the re-adoption of the strategic plan for fiscal year 27. So, the truth and millage process, the statutory trim timetable for local governments. It establishes the statutory timeline for adopting the county's budget and millage rates. The process begins with the property appraiser's certification of taxable values on July 1st. Also, on July 1st, the proposed FY27 budget was made available to the board and the public for review. This was followed by the July 13th budget workshop, where the board conducted a more detailed review of the proposed budget and millage rate through presentations from the constitutional officers and county departments. The millage rates approved by the board at the budget workshop were then advertised through the trim notices mailed to property owners by the property appraiser's office. Then, the board conducted its first public hearing on September 15th for tentative millage rates and budget adoption. Tonight, we are at the second public hearing stage of that process where the board will consider the final millage rates and budget. So, as I mentioned, tonight is the second of two required public hearings for FY27 budget. The millage rates and budgets proposed today were advertised in the Stewart News on Friday, September 25th. The budget before you was developed to maintain current levels of service while funding the request of the constitutional officers, state agencies, and all other obligations required by the county. The process began with our 10-year capital improvement plan discussed on April 21st, which identified current and future capital projects. On July 13th, the board held its budget workshop and reviewed the cumulative budget including the capital improvement plan, constitutional officer and state agency budgets, and departmental operating budgets. Departments also discussed the programs and services funded by the budget and the cost trends that drove those requests. Based on the direction provided at that workshop, the proposed millage rates were established and advertised through the trim notices received by property owners in their mailboxes. And as I mentioned, two weeks ago, the board conducted the first public hearing that tentatively adopted those resolutions for each taxing authority's millage rate and corresponding budget. So, tonight, Florida law requires the board to formally adopt the final millage rates and final budget through separate resolutions for each taxing authority and its corresponding budget. And as part of this hearing, we'll also discuss the final millage rates in relation to the rolled back rates and the purposes for the associated increase in ad valorem revenues. So, the rolled back rate is the millage rate that would generate approximately the same property tax revenue as the prior year, excluding the impact of new construction and additions. As part of tonight's public hearing, the board has the opportunity to consider adopting the rolled back rate rather than the proposed millage rates. Because the FY27 budget was developed based on maintaining current levels of service, consideration of the rollback rate would also require the board to collectively identify and provide direction on the programs, projects, or services that would be reduced within each respective taxing authority to adjust expenditures with the lower revenue level. Under Florida's trim guidelines, the countywide taxing authority has a maximum millage cap of 10 mills with a separate 10 mill cumulative cap for the MSTUs. The FY27 final millage rate shown here and as tentatively set at the first public hearing are within the maximum rates permitted under Florida law. This slide shows the rolled back rate in the FY27 final millage rate for each of the county's taxing authorities. The final millage rates shown here are the rates that were presented and approved as part of the July 13 budget workshop in the first public hearing. With the budget currently structured to support the service levels presented at the workshop, adopting a rollback rate would require corresponding reduction within each taxing authority. For tonight's formal action, each final millage rate, its corresponding rollback rate, and the percentage increase or decrease over the rollback rate will be stated individually as each resolution is considered for adoption. The increase in ad valorem revenue or property tax revenue primarily supports maintaining current service levels for residents while meeting the county's statutory contractual and operational responsibilities. The largest portion funds constitutional officers and required state and judicial agencies. Additional funding addresses increase in retirement contributions established by the state, employee health insurance, contractual services, capital infrastructure, community redevelopment agency obligations and financial reserves. The budget also includes funding for two additional board positions that support cyber security and public record services. Overall, the county's millage rate did not change for countywide or for unincorporated Martin County with a total combined millage rate change of zero percent. The following is a summary highlighting the changes from FY26 to FY27. The county's taxable base increased overall by 6.38 percent. Approximately half the entire budget increase was ad valorem related. The greatest drivers for the other half of the budget increase are mostly non-ad valorem, specifically increases and charges for services and fund balances related to the county's utilities enterprise for projects detailed and identified within the CIP. As I mentioned, the budget also includes two additional positions for the BOCC and 6.9 positions cumulatively for the constitutional officers. And finally, the total millage rate reflects no change from 9.9185. So as part of the hearing requirement, the board must adopt resolutions for final budget adoption. The resolutions are not required to be read in full, but must state the taxing authority, the rollback rate, the percentage increase or decrease over the rollback rate, and the millage to be levied for FY27. The board must also call for public comment to comply with the public hearing requirements. And at this time, we can move to the resolutions or at the pleasure of the board. Would anyone from the public like to address us? Then we will please come forward. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. I'm Lori Scott, and this is Sarah Glover. We are local organic farmers here in Palm City. Good for you. Oh, thanks. Come on by. The farm's about to start opening for the season. But no, we wanted to hear to advocate for our local IFAS agent. We use them a lot for connecting us to different UF researchers and different research projects on the farm. She's helped us find funding for our own farming practices. What else did you want to talk about? I think that her ability to bridge the gap between the scientists who are doing the research and the farming that's actually being done is like we can't put a value on that because otherwise there would be no scientists out helping us. So that's huge. That's huge. And she's helped us, especially since we're organic farmers, which is pretty unusual in this area. And she's found lots of ways to help us. Not spray pesticides. Yeah, like beneficial insect programs. She's really helped us with our compost. She's helped us with lots of different things. She's never, never told us no to anything we've asked her. So she's invaluable to us. True. She comes out to the farm to help scout pest problems before they become a problem and spread to other farmers in our county and you name it. Yeah. Is your farm open to the public? It will be soon, yes. Our season kicks off in November and we'll have public access. Where is it located? Right off of Martin Hannaway. Do you know where Pinder's Nursery is? I do. Just west of that. Perfect. Yeah. Spread the word. Organic Oasis, that's the name. Thank you. All right, thank you. Okay, Commissioners, you want to begin resolutions? Our designated reader? Commissioner Hetherington. Yes. I have one change for Ms. Murley. I had listened to some residents of District 2 and heard the belt tightening talk and I would like to, although we did the rollback rate, right, we did the rollback rate originally, I would like to set my millage to zero. Okay. So I'll make that motion. Okay. Do I need a motion or? I have a motion. You want to do it at the time? We can do it at the resolution. Yes. Anybody else? Then we will begin. I move to adopt the final millage for Board of County Commissioners countywide rollback rate 6.2683, percentage of increase over rollback rate 4.68, final millage rate 6.5614. Second. Second. There's a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Opposed. That motion carries 4 to 1 with Commissioner Vargas dissenting. I'm going to sign them as we go. You want me to hand them to you? Or you'll wait. Yeah. Move to adopt the final budget for Board of County Commissioners countywide fund total 334,395,217. Second. There's a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Opposed. That motion passes 4 to 1 with Commissioner Vargas dissenting. Move to adopt a final millage of District 1 MSTU, rollback rate of 0.0643, percentage of increase over the rollback rate negative 0.93 with a final millage rate of 0.0637. Second. There's a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? That motion passes unanimously. Move to adopt a final budget for District 1 MSTU. Okay. Everything all right? Yeah. Oh. Okay. Got it. We were trying to be efficient. So did you complete that motion? No. Oh, okay. I'll restate it. Move to adopt a final budget for District 1 MSTU, $372,909. Second. There's a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? That motion passes unanimously. Move to adopt the final millage for District 2 MSTU, rollback rate 0.0713. Percentage of increase over the rollback rate negative 100 percent. Final millage rate 0.000. Second. There's a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? That motion passes unanimously. Move to adopt a final millage for District 2 MSTU, rollback rate. Oh, no. That was the sum total. You have to sum total. Yes, yes, yes. I got it. There was two there. Move to adopt a final budget for District 2 MSTU, fund total $0. Second. There's a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? That motion passes unanimously. Move to adopt a final millage for District 3 MSTU, rollback rate 0.0383. Percentage of increase rollback over rollback rate is negative 1.31, with a final millage rate of 0.0378. Second. There's a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Opposed? That motion passes 4 to 1, with Commissioner Vargas dissenting. Move to adopt the final budget for District 3 MSTU, fund total $324,881. Second. There's a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Opposed. That motion passes 4 to 1, with Commissioner Vargas dissenting. Move to adopt the final millage rate for District 4 MSTU, rollback rate 0.0463. Percentage of increase over the rollback rate, negative 2.81, final millage rate, 0.0450. Second. There's a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? That motion passes unanimously. Move to adopt the final millage rate for District 4 MSTU, fund total $214,038. Second. There's a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? That motion passes unanimously. Move to adopt the final millage for District 5 MSTU, rollback rate 0.0648, percentage of increase over the rollback rate, negative 2.01, final millage rate, 0.0635. Second. There's a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? That motion passes unanimously. Move to adopt the final budget for District 5 MSTU, fund total $370,000. Second. There's a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? That motion passes unanimously. Move to adopt the final millage rate for Special District A61, Hutchinson Island, MSTU, rollback rate 0.1732, percentage of increase rolled back rate 3.87, final millage rate 0.1799. Second. Second. There's a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Opposed. That motion passes 4 to 1 with Commissioner Vargas dissenting. Move to adopt the final budget for Special District A61, Hutchinson Island, MSTU, fund total $439,159. Second. There's a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Opposed. That motion passes 4 to 1 with Commissioner Vargas dissenting. Move to adopt the final millage rate for County Fire and Rescue Unincorporated MSTU, rollback rate 2.5353, percentage of increase over rollback rate 4.04, final millage rate 2.6376. Second. There's a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Opposed. That motion passes 4 to 1 with Commissioner Vargas dissenting. Move to adopt the final budget for County Fire and Rescue Unincorporated MSTU, fund total $90,105,720. Second. There's a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Opposed. That motion passes 4 to 1 with Commissioner Vargas dissenting. Move to adopt the final millage for Parks and Rec MSTU, rollback rate of 0.1415. Percentage of increase over the rollback rate 4.17, final millage rate 0.1474. Second. There's a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Opposed. That motion passes 4 to 1 with Commissioner Vargas dissenting. Move to adopt the final budget for Parks and Recreation MSTU, fund total $4,598,946. Second. There's a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? That motion passes 4 to 1 with Commissioner Vargas dissenting. Move to adopt the final millage rate for County Stormwater and Road Maintenance, MSTU, in unincorporated. Rollback rate of 0.5494. Percentage of increase over the rollback rate 4.15. Final millage rate 0.5722. Second. There's a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Opposed. That motion passes 4 to 1 with Commissioner Vargas dissenting. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Opposed. Opposed? Opposed. That motion passes 4 to 1 with Commissioner Vargas dissenting. Opposed? Opposed? That motion passes 4 to 1 with Commissioner Vargas dissenting. Move to adopt a final budget for building and permitting. There's a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Opposed. That motion passes 4 to 1 with Commissioner Vargas dissenting. Move to adopt the final budget for general unincorporated. Fund total $8,296,433. Second. There's a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Opposed. That motion passes 4 to 1 with Commissioner Vargas dissenting. Move to adopt a final budget for building and permitting. Fund total $9,492,356. Second. There's a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Opposed. That motion passes 4 to 1 with Commissioner Vargas dissenting. Move to adopt a final budget for non-taxing fund impact fees. Fund total $3,926,105. Second. There's a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Opposed. That motion passes 4 to 1 with Commissioner Vargas dissenting. Move to adopt final budget for special revenue. Fund total $34,650,023. Second. There's a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Opposed. That motion passes 4 to 1 with Commissioner Vargas dissenting. Move to adopt the final budget for grants. Fund total $2,687,286. Second. There's a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Opposed. That motion passes 4 to 1 with Commissioner Vargas dissenting. Move to adopt the final budget for other debt service. Fund total $9,692,582. Second. There's a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Opposed. That motion passes 4 to 1 with Commissioner Vargas dissenting. Move to adopt the final budget for other capital projects. Fund total $34,425,055. Second. There's a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Opposed. That motion passes 4 to 1 with Commissioner Vargas dissenting. Move to adopt final budget for utility enterprises. Opposed? Opposed. That motion passes 4 to 1 with Commissioner Vargas dissenting. Move to adopt the final budget for airport energy. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Opposed. That motion passes 4 to 1 with Commissioner Vargas dissenting. Move to adopt the final budget for solid waste enterprise. Fund total $54,164,524. Second. There's a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Opposed. That motion passes 4 to 1 with Commissioner Vargas dissenting. Move to adopt the final budget for airport enterprise. Fund total $4,168,189. Second. There's a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Opposed. That motion passes 4 to 1 with Commissioner Vargas dissenting. Move to adopt a final budget for golf course enterprise. Fund total $3,771,000. Second. There's a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Opposed. That motion passes 4 to 1 with Commissioner Vargas dissenting. Move to adopt the final budget for internal services. Fund total $49,130,723. Second. There's a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Opposed. That motion passes 4 to 1 with Commissioner Vargas dissenting. Move to adopt the final budget for trusts. Fund balance $85,000. Second. There's a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? That motion passes 4 to 1 with Commissioner Vargas dissenting. Move to adopt the final budget for community redevelopment area trusts. Fund total $10,638,336. Second. There's a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Opposed. That motion passes 4 to 1 with Commissioner Vargas dissenting. And that means we are at the halfway point. Okay. So just to end, kind of on. I'm only kidding. We're done. I just wanted to give a little update on the strategic plan that we implemented last year through the fiscal year 26 budget adoption. So the adoption of the FY27 budget represents a critical step in aligning our financial resources with our county strategic plan. This is ensuring that every dollar supports our highest priorities, allowing for more focused, efficient, and impactful implementation of the county's goals. So driven by the strategic priorities identified by the board, the team reevaluated the county's current strategic goals and objectives that align the financial planning with the county's key focus areas, which we had deemed quality of governance, quality of place, and quality of life. This is ensuring that budgetary resources are allocated responsibly and effectively to deliver public value to the county citizens, taxpayers, businesses, and visitors. So before we conclude, I just wanted to briefly highlight some of the progress made during FY26 through the board's strategic plan. Under our quality of governance category, the county continued its focus on strong financial management, maintaining a stable millage rate while again receiving national recognition from the Government Finance Officers Association for both our budget and financial policies. We also continued investments in technology, cybersecurity, and infrastructure, while expanding the ways we communicate and engage with the public. Under our quality of place category, FY26 included significant progress in environmental protection and infrastructure. The county permanently conserved more than 3,100 acres of environmentally sensitive land, including 1,699 acres of Barbie Ranch, while leveraging more than $32 million in donations and outside funding. We also advanced infrastructure, shoreline protection, and water and sewer projects, and adopted an updated economic development toolkit to support the local economy. And finally, under our quality of life category, the county continued investments in public safety, recreation, public health, and community partnerships. That included enhanced public safety training and coordination, improvement to parks and public access, continued progress on water quality and septic to sewer initiatives, and partnerships supporting crisis response services and affordable housing. These are representative examples of how the county strategic priorities translated into tangible projects and services that the community enjoyed during fiscal year 26. And with that, that concludes my budget presentation. Excellent. Commissioner Candy. Thank you. I just wanted to address one of the speakers that spoke earlier, Ms. Killian, to say that at this late stage of the process, the budget had been worked through for several, several months. But I will make a commitment. I received your email. And I think there are ways that we can work to do some redistributing to address some of the issues that you meant. It's something that the staff and the commissioners had been working on. Some of the budgets that come from the constitutionals are handled at that level. So, but for the things that we're able to do, I agree that there is a humanitarian value and benefit from doing that. But for folks that don't see it that way, there's also obviously an economic value. It's much easier to address a situation before it is a problem. It's much more expensive to address the problem than it is to address the prevention. So, I agree with you and I will commit that for the next budgetary year, I will push that we make that a little bit different. Mr. Kex. For our 4-H friends, what we can say is, with clarity, is that you got your budget this year. So, that is right, Ms. Murley. Yes, that's correct. That is correct. You're in good shape. You're in good shape. Yeah, we planned on cutting it to zero, but based on what you said, we had to put it back. So, good for you. I had one other thought. Back to page 528, where it says, Martin County's budget has been awarded the Distinguished Budget Presentation Award for the 28th year and has received special recognition for our financial policies from the Government Finance Officers Association for the third consecutive year. Perhaps you could just give us a few of the highlights of our financial policies. I always like to say the one thing I have in my office, we are award winning, and this is our one award, is our budget document. So, contained within our budget document every year, the board readopts what's called a fiscal policy. So, contained within that fiscal policy. And to get that special recognition, you have to have outstanding scores amongst all reviewers. So, it's regarded really highly for my office that we're glad we get that. So, there's going to be your reserve policies, your debt policies, your capital improvement plan policies on how you should be fiscally responsible and plan for long-term and short-term. So, many of those things, we do that in coordination with our procurement department, our clerk of the circuit court's office, in order to maintain the best fiscal policies for this board. And that's what guides our entire budget process each year. Great. Thanks. Thank you. I think the example of the sheriff's item, that is a very transparent way of how, you know, the money has to be put in a certain order. Staff just can't move the money around, and the clerk keeps an eye on how that happens. And that's why, procedurally, you know, while it may have been approved six months or a year before, there are still procedural matters a part of your fiscal policy that require it to come forward. And that was just an example that you saw today. Thank you. Commissioner Campy. Thank you. I think all of us have received emails where people in the public have questioned the process and how we've handled it up here, why we don't ask get in depth. It's a long, multiple-step process that started at the beginning of the year publicly, but the staff works on it, you know, year-round. And Mr. Donaldson will make a pitch. Then it has to go through legal, and then it goes through our Office of Budget and that staff. And then we happen to be fortunate. She is here at Clerk of the Court and Comptroller. Carolyn Timmon is here and her professional staff. By the time it works its way all the way through, it's been pretty well vetted. So I would recommend, and I've said this to people that have contacted me, if you do have issues, I know that Ms. Murley, Mr. Donaldson, Ms. Elder, and, of course, Carolyn Timmon and her staff in her office are more than happy to explain to the public and speak to them about the process. I don't want folks to think that we somehow just buzzed through this. It's been a very long process handled by dozens of professionals that are looking at this money like it was their own, because a small portion of it is probably contributed by them. But we're very fortunate. This award is 28 years that you've won it. Yes. Ms. Manning, before you, you've taken the mantle very well. But when people like it looks like the process is so quick, you're seeing just a sliver, the public sliver of how it works. So well done to our staff and well done to Ms. Timmon's staff. Ms. Mr. Vargas, any final comments? Ms. Yes, I would. I saw this quote the other day, and it really resonated with me. And thank you very much. You're always very professional, you and your team. So kudos to you, and I do mean that sincerely. Sailors prepare for a storm before the storm comes at sea. Amendment 3 may be that storm coming in November. As commissioners, many years ago, they should have passed and practiced fiscal responsibility. Some of the folks here, some of the commissioners, have been here for years. Not certain why they haven't made it a top priority. We are where we are right now. The expenses are too high in Martin County's budget, and we cannot continue to go to the well. That is the taxpayers' dollars asking for more and more and more revenue without addressing the expense side. The asks are for more and more revenue expenses, but we're ignoring what our responsibility is, which is to be the good stewards of every hard-earned dollar we receive. Our county will further become more bloated and less manageable. This is across the state and also federal budgets. House Bill 1329, Governor DeSantis has mandated that all counties and municipalities are required to present a budget that's reduced by at least 10%. Historically, this should have been done, but this is part of the local government financial accountability measures. Each budget year, we should have been looking at reducing expenditures across the board. I reiterate this at every meeting since I've been in office. And another thing, a mentor once told me, and he gave me this piece of advice, in times of prosperity, don't spend it all. This is what our commission has been doing. Thank you. Commissioner Capps, any final comments? I would just like to thank staff for a wonderful job. I know you guys work hard on this all year, so I have great confidence. And you, Ms. Murley, and your staff, you guys do a great job. And I just want to thank you. I want to thank the heads of all the departments for coming in reasonably and conservatively this year. And I think you read the room well, and you guys responded well to that sentiment. And I would just like to note and reemphasize that we are not really raising the millage rates. And the BOCC is only asking for two more people when it comes to full-time equivalent employees. We serve a community that is growing. And we're only asking for two additional people. I think that's very commendable as well. So thanks again to all involved. And I also want to thank the advocates for 4-H and for the IFAS and the Master Gardeners. It was wonderful of you to attend these rather dry hearings and express support for the programs that you cherish. And we think that they're important too, so we will continue to do the best that we can to fund the wonderful things. The children who have spoken at public comment were so well-spoken there. They truly are tomorrow's leaders, and you're doing a terrific job of raising them. And I also want to thank our Office of Management and Budget staff. They are peerless. I know that every department head goes in preparing their initial budget with Ms. Murley. And Ms. Murley is, I'm sure, very stern from the outset and says, you know, the board will not approve this budget. Trim it. And they all are responsive, and also there are no weak links in the Office of Management and Budget. You can go in there and query any one of the ladies on the staff, and they're all so responsive and so professional. So thank you very much. Commissioner Campy. I'm upset. Commissioner Hetherington. I also wanted to say thank you to 4-H. You truly are the leaders of the future. So thank you all for coming and participating. And to staff, Ms. Murley, and the entire OMB office, truly professionals. And it's been a tremendous pleasure always working with you. Last budget. Last budget. And I just have one thing that we missed. If I could get a motion to approve our readoption of our strategic plan for FY27. I will gladly move approval of your strategic plan. Thank you. There's a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Opposed. That motion passes 4-1 with Commissioner Vargas dissenting. Mr. Donaldson. Yes. And I appreciate the Board's hard work in this year's budget. And we are, unfortunately, needing to prepare for Amendment 3. And we are doing that. And we will be working with you all next year should it pass on how we transition to a new way of collecting funds. But really, most importantly, you know, we are in the people business and it's the people in this agency that makes us who we are. And we do have a great staff. And, of course, you see the stars of our budget office here. But all the department heads, the division managers throughout the organization all work very hard and throughout the year not to only spend the money that's necessary. And you would see not only with the way the sheriff did but through all of our departments have funds that if they have vacancies that we rely on to actually help fund our operations the next year. So all of that works together to keep us lean as possible government. But finishing that, I have to do one more work-related item, and that is I've had inquiries regarding data centers and, in particular, wanting to perhaps get more educated on it and visit them. I know we have a hearing next meeting. The next two meetings will involve that. And I'm just asking for the board's input, doesn't have to be today, on establishing a fund that would allow commissioners and staff to work on data center review or perhaps travel to see some. And because we don't have a budget for that at this point in time. So I would need some feedback from you on the potential of site visits in the future. Should we do that, I will need you all to establish a budget to do that. Thank you. Commissioner Campey. Is that something you want to talk about now or no? No, it's a heads up. It will be discussed at the next meeting. I'm not in favor of adding a budget for that. I happened to recently visit an area of the country where they had, in one county, 220 data centers in Loudoun County, Virginia. I did it on my own dime. I don't think after the budget hearing we should talk about, hey, how can we put another little package together? You want to go see a data center? Go see a data center. Ms. Elder. Ms. Murley. Oops. Sorry, Andrew. I've got nothing. Throw it in the pen. I'm over. You're adjourned. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.