Thank you. Mr. Sparger, will you lead us in a pledge? I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Our meeting today will consist of presets. At 9.05, we'll hear from the public. At the conclusion of the meeting, we will hear from the public again. There's one additional item, and that is Consent 11, which is adoption of a proclamation declaring Economic and Business Development Awareness Month in Martin County, Florida. There are two proclamations this morning. Is there a motion to approve the agenda, including the consent agenda? Make a motion to approve. Second. There's a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? That motion passes unanimously. And just for the record, Commissioner Hetherington will not be joining us today. So if I forget, Layla, there are only four of us here today. Let's first of all hear from proclamations. The first proclamation is a proclamation declaring Dyslexia Awareness Month in Martin County, Florida. Good morning, Commissioners. Jackie Dillon, Helping People Succeed, is here to accept the proclamation. An estimated one-fifth of Americans are affected by dyslexia, a neurological learning disability that disrupts how a person's brain processes written language. It can also affect a person's ability to read, write, and spell, as well as a person's ability to put things in order, follow instructions, differentiate between left and right. In an effort to assist parents, educators, and individuals with dyslexia, the International Dyslexia Association has designated October 2026 as Dyslexia Awareness Month. Good morning, and thank you for having us to accept this recognition and bring awareness to dyslexia in our community. As a Martin County native and a former school district teacher and now a private reading specialist, I thought it would be important to share why I'm accepting this. Not only for my son Joseph, but for all of the children in our county sitting in class now who may be struggling to read, and for their families who are searching for answers and wondering where to turn next. I personally have the benefit of an educational background and knowledge and means to seek out this specialized instruction to support children like Joseph. But many families don't have those same resources, and they may not know where to turn or how to advocate or afford their services that their child desperately needs. And no child's opportunity to read should depend on their family's financial resources or the parent's ability to navigate the system. Reading is not just a school subject. It's actually an essential life skill to secure employment, read road signs, shop for groceries. Literacy opens doors and opportunities and allows us to participate fully in our community. Unlike spoken language that children acquire through listening or interacting, reading is learned and needs to be explicitly taught. So how do we turn this awareness into action? We need teachers who are trained to recognize dyslexia and provide evidence-based instruction. And we need administrators who will engage with current research, listen to families, and take meaningful steps. May this proclamation serve as more than a symbol of awareness. May it be a commitment to doing better for the children who depend on us. I accept it for Joseph, my husband Chris, for my students right now, Micah and Lily, and thank you for having us. Our next proclamation is a proclamation declaring 4-H week in Martin County. And we are excited to have David Hafner, 4-H youth development agent, UF-IFAS, and a bunch of 4-H folks in here today. 4-H is America's largest youth development organization, and they support nearly 6 million youth across the country each year. 4-H has helped local youth become confident, independent, resilient, and compassionate leaders. I think we've seen that time and time again in our chambers and out in our communities. So, Mr. Hafner. Good morning, commissioners. Thank you so much for having us. I know I'm not the star, so I just want to say thank you. I'm going to let them talk. Nice. It's taller than you. My name is Sawyer Hafner. I'm part of the Martin County 4-H Team Literacy Club and Martin County 4-H Rifle Club. I'm going to say the 4-H Pledge. I pledge my head to clear thinking, my heart to greater loyalty, my hands to larger service, my health to better living, my club, my community, my country, and my world. Good morning, county commissioners. My name is Ellen Milton, and I'm 8 years old, and I've been doing 4-H for 3 years. I'm part of the Martin Grade Wrestlers 4-H Club and Martin County Shooting Sports. In 4-H, I've learned many different skills, became more confident, and more responsible. In 4-H, we learn by doing. I'm thankful for all the volunteers that can help me learn and grow. I've got to work with animals, learn about agriculture, and compete in archery. With your support, thank you for your support, and with your support, you can help 4-H to make the best better in Martin County. Good morning, commissioners. My name is Tucker Hafner. I've been in 4-H for about 10 years now. I'm part of the Martin County 4-H Team Leadership Club, along with the Martin County 4-H Archery Club. Along with this, I'm also part of the Executive Board of Florida 4-H. Because of 4-H, I've been able to develop more leadership skills and connections throughout the nation. Through this experience, I will be presenting a workshop at the National 4-H Conference in Washington, D.C. this spring. Thank you for this proclamation. Good morning, commissioners. My name is Olivia Lockwood, and I just wanted to say thank you for everything you've done for 4-H. Sweet. Back to school. We'll now take a public comment. I see that there are some strangers to us here, so you will have three minutes to address us. Mr. Graham, would you like to read the disclaimer because it's a political season? Yes, ma'am. Before we begin public comment, I just want to remind everyone we're still in election season, and I just wanted to cite our policy. Since we are in election season, politicking is prohibited, which is defined as advocating the election or defeat of a candidate for public office, either partisan or nonpartisan. This includes the use of words, dates, signs, props, and or wearing apparel that convey a message of support for a person or a group of persons. Thank you. Thank you. The first request to speak form I have is from Heidi Siegel. Ms. Siegel will be followed by Doug Farley. Good morning. Good morning. My name is Heidi Siegel, and I'm a resident of Martin County. I am mom to a 21-year-old who depends on Marty access. A little bit about us is she is 21, as I stated. She lost her leg while she was a freshman in Tallahassee and came home to live with me shortly thereafter. She's a below-knee amputee, and she uses access to get to and from school. She now has a prosthetic, so she's not using her wheelchair as much, but still uses the paratransit. As you can imagine, the disruption on Monday caught us all off guard. We quickly corrected. I did reach out directly to Mr. Donaldson and heard back from him almost immediately, even though he was out of the office, which was really great, and kept in touch with Mr. Stokas and Mr. Graham throughout the week on possible solutions. On Friday, she was able to connect with United Way, and that's what I want to talk about. Yesterday, she was able to go to and from school using a Lyft link that they provided her. It's an amazing program. I'm going to put on my other hat. I'm a municipal manager in the area. I've worked in local government for almost 30 years, and I've seen these programs work and not work throughout Florida. For paratransit, using on-demand systems such as Lyft is a really great solution. It cuts down on overhead. It is efficient, and it also provides dignity. She is now 21 years old, not getting off of the paratransit bus ramp, but instead getting out of a Lyft. There are options for wheelchair users as well. I would like to recommend that we contract directly with the United Way on the paratransit portion to continue that service. They have it already in place. They have the system in place, and it works really, really well. She came home yesterday, and she was just so excited. She read us the whole text change from Lyft. She's very independent. She's getting her bachelor's degree in early education, and it was a new day for her to get to and from school. I'd also like to recommend perhaps a blue-ribbon committee of key users of the entire public transit system, those who might use the public transit to get to and from work, medical appointments, the fixed route, the paratransit, five, six people to come and meet with county staff and share their experiences. Because at the end of the day, this is a community service, and hearing directly from them might help how this proceeds and how the issue is solved. And, of course, I'll volunteer my daughter. She's at school right now. I'll let her know that I did that when I got home. But I think it's just one meeting. It might be good to hear directly from the users, not social media, not people calling the county administrator's office, but instead those users. And a thank you again to the staff for fixing this quickly with a Band-Aid. Thank you. Thank you. Doug Farley is next, followed by Janet McGee. Morning. I'm here to talk about quiet zones at railroad intersections. I'm here to talk about how they benefit us on two levels. It's a two-fold benefit. It brings a greater quality of life to citizens who live near those intersections by eliminating the noise pollution. It makes it safer. The upgrades that the Federal Rail Commission has to satisfy quiet zones make them actually safer. And I've got a story that would work as a bit of an analogy to kind of help explain that. So I'm a grandparent now, and our grandkids come over to visit, and we love it. But there's a danger in our house that we have a staircase, a two-story house. So that presents a danger to our toddlers. They go on that staircase. They're going to fall down. They're going to get hurt. They can't be reasoned with. So we tried yelling at them. Stay off the stairs! They don't listen to that. They ignore that. So I had a solution. Put up this gate. This gate right there. Put it up the staircase. Now the toddlers can play with their toys, and if they start wandering towards the staircase, I don't have to yell at them! Because that doesn't work anyway. And it creates an unharmonious household. It's very disruptive. Nobody wants all that yelling. So the gate fixed that problem. Now on to the analogy about the train's intersection. The horns yell, and it bothers people. Day and night, it doesn't even work. What works is a gate. Now currently, at intersections, they've got these gates. But most of them, they've only got the one gate. It doesn't block the entire intersection. That allows a motorist who wants to drive like a toddler to simply drive around the gate. So what do you do? How do you fix that? Well, you put a double gate at the intersection. Now, that person who wants to drive like a toddler is trapped behind the double gate. He can't drive around it anymore. Now the horn doesn't have to yell and bother everyone living there. So it's twofold. If you follow the Federal Abel Commission's guidelines for safety zones, you're going to get these double gates, and they can turn off the horn. We can have a greater quality of life, and it's safer. Thanks very much. Thank you. That's like a TED Talk. Nice job. Thanks. Janet McGee is next, followed by Dave Bell. Good morning. Good morning, everybody. Good morning. My name is Janet McGee, as you just announced. I am here regarding Marty and the transport system that is currently no longer working as of noon on Friday. I do not personally ride Marty, but I'm very familiar with it. I've been a home health nurse in Martin County for about 30 years, and I deal with a lot of people who depend on that sort of transport to get to the doctor, you know, to work, to wherever they need to go, the grocery store. So for that to end so quickly, my questions sort of are, and I'm sure you will get to them later, is when did the county know about this? Where are those employees? Are they offered new jobs? We're always looking for bus drivers for Martin County. Well, these people drive buses. They know the roads. I mean, are they offered new positions? Is there a plan to, I heard this gal talk about lift, which is a great idea, but the number of people, I don't know what it is, 150,000 a year that utilize Marty to get from point A to point B. I'm simply concerned about the already, I don't know if underprivileged is the right word, but it's the people who require more assistance to get to where they need to go. We want our county to thrive. We need to get our county residents to where they need to be, be it school, work, groceries, work. Are these people out of work? Yes, they're out of work all of a sudden. People were left at bus stops all of a sudden. It was a pouring rain day on Friday. The whole thing hurts my heart simply because of who I am and because of who they are. And thank you. Thank you. Dave Bell is next, followed by Christopher Collins. Good morning. Good morning, everyone. As I said, my name is Dave Bell, and I'm here regarding a storm recovery project at 3390 Degler Court in Palm City. I've sent an email to you, and I know the intent was to try to get together, and we haven't been able to do that yet. So I'm here before you guys to just ask for a little bit of help. And we've been in permitting for over a year on this. When I originally came in to the building department, we talked about the project, and I was told that the county wanted to expedite these, that they wanted to get folks back and in business, and that the permit fee would be waived, and that the existing survey would be sufficient if we weren't making any changes. And once we got the engineer stamp on the foundations, that contractors would be able to pull their permits and get rolling. And we sit here almost 15 months later from that date, and we still don't have a permit. The goalposts seem to continue to move every time we submit something, and I think that this has really been looked at as a new development rather than a rebuild. And the reality of all of this is that we have the building damaged. We have designed the exact same building from the exact same manufacturer, Butler. It's going on the exact same foundation. There's no changes to layout. There's no changes to impervious surface. There's no use changes. There's no site changes. This is just straight a replacement-in-kind project that we can't get through permitting for whatever reason. And really, I'm just here not tasked for any special considerations or code exemptions or anything like that, but just some help getting this over the finish line and allow us to erect the building. It's been sitting on site for the last 10 months, waiting to be erected. And I just need some help, I think, from you guys, hopefully, to get the group together that needs to come together to come up with the list of things that we need to get this permit closed. We will meet those requirements and then get the building built so we can have a new tenant move in. So I appreciate everyone's help and look forward to hearing back. Thank you. Thank you. Christopher Collins is next, followed by Alexander Cook. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning. Soon. I know she left it vacant just for me, I guess. I'll come up there. Don't tempt me with a good time, Ed. Okay. I just wanted to, one, really commend you guys for bringing forward the data center moratorium. I'm really hopeful that it will pass today. In Martin County, you know, that Martin County difference protecting agricultural land, my hope is that through that year we can really take a look at and probably unpack many different reasons why hyperscale data centers do not belong in Martin County. You know, property owners right now do have property rights with regard to more classic data centers for data processing. But these hyperscale 2 million square feet goliaths truly do not belong here. So I'm very hopeful that this board will take that opportunity for a year to pause, prevent any applications from coming in. And, you know, secondarily, also, I hope we can see the threat of massive companies like Metta with teams of lawyers. You know, if we were not wanting to face Ethan Loeb, certainly you don't want to face the thousands of attorneys from New York and everywhere else that these guys have access to. So please help keep this out of Martin County and protect us for the future. Thank you. Thank you. Alexander Cook is next, followed by Linda Smith. Mike's a little higher. Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Alexander Cook, and I am very hopeful that you are doing the moratorium. I really hope you do approve this. It is a necessity at this point. You know, just a quick fact. In the U.S., there are 5,000 data centers already. And we hear about the boogeyman, China. China has less than 500. We already won. Okay? We already won the build. So don't lose to the boogeyman game, because what will happen is you will build too many, and then we will need them for grain and feed. And when that happens, we lose. Because remember, you cannot eat data. Thank you. Linda Smith is next, followed by Nicholas Molero. Yes, sir? Good morning. Good morning. Linda Smith, current Sierra Club Loxahatchee Group Executive Committee Chair, representing our members and supporters in Martin County. I live in Jupiter, Florida. PH1, the moratorium. Please pass adoption of an ordinance establishing this temporary moratorium on accepting large-scale data center applications. I understand that staff will be asked to evaluate 25 specific criteria. I am requesting you consider item 6, noise, as two separate criteria. The low-frequency, LFN, which is hard to block, can pass through walls, spreads in all directions, versus the typical sound measured in decibels, which is directional, like our voices. Also, add to item 22, environmental impacts, or more specifics, environmental impacts on wildlife. These suggestions may already be on your staff's minds. I would like to make sure they are also on your minds. Please pass PH1. We cannot say yes to data centers without accountability, and data centers should be required to disclose their resource use, all resources. Resources are finite. The resources they use will not be available to your citizens. And on to the MARTI transit system. Sierra Club, obviously, supports mass transit, and we were disappointed to hear about the abrupt stop on MARTI services. I understand there are some Band-Aids in place, and we encourage you to expand on that. But we hope you can start this process quickly and start MARTI back as a mass transit system, possibly evaluating expansion or possibly revising routes. This might be a good time to reset MARTI and make it more efficient and more beneficial to your citizens. And my third point, because I get three minutes, is waste reduction. Sierra Club supports zero-waste goals. One of the quickest and most financially beneficial ways to reduce waste is to pay as you throw. I would appreciate discussing this option with the appropriate staff members. You folks have my contact information. I'm afraid I just don't know who to contact. Thank you for your time. Nicholas Malero Heron is next, followed by Susan Heron Malzoni. Good morning. Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Nicholas Malero Heron. I was hoping my brother would open up it for me, but I was called first. I'm here as a younger brother who has watched someone I love spend five years trying to do what is right. The violations on my brother's property were created by a previous owner long before he owned it. He didn't walk away. He cleared invasive vegetation, restored the land, and worked with his own hands in the Florida heat to meet every requirement that the county set. He has invested his entire life savings, more than $100,000, into correcting violations created by someone else. One of the hardest moments for me was when my older brother, someone I've always admired for his strength and independence, came to me for financial help to keep meeting the county's requirements. I helped him without hesitation. That's what family does. I want to be clear. My brother loves his property. Sorry. Caring for the land has never been the burden. The burden has been paying for someone else's violations. Even after achieving compliance, he still faces nearly $1.5 million in fines that remains unresolved because of limitations in the current code language. So I'm asking the board to amend the code, section 198B, to allow fine reductions for owners who did not cause the violation and have brought the property into compliance. I understand Martin County has granted substantial reductions in the past, including complete relief in some cases. This change would give other families a path to young couples building their futures and families who never could afford a penalty like this. Buyers should be able to trust that fixing a problem is enough. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Thank you. Susan here in Malzoni is next, followed by Joe Giulio. Morning. Hello. I'm the mother of these two children. Honorable Chair and the members of the Martin County Board of County Commissioners, I thank you for allowing me to speak today. I'm Susan Malzoni, a proud Floridian, Martin County resident, and most importantly, the mother of these two children. I'm here to respectfully ask you to issue a directive to modify the language of the current rules to exclude exceptional cases like ours, where a total release would be allowed. Five years ago, my son Roderick and I purchased a home with existing code violations, violations committed by the previous owner over 17 years ago. For the past five years, my son has worked to correct them. He has devoted his time, his limited financial resources, and physical labor to bringing the property into compliance. Through a long and difficult process, he has persevered because he wants to improve his home, be a responsible neighbor, protect the environment, and contribute positively to Martin County. Today, we ask you to direct the language be amended so that the magistrate has the discretion to grant a total release in truly exceptional cases, taking into consideration the circumstances and the work done to achieve compliance. We understand why code enforcement matters. It protects neighborhoods, our property values, and our quality of life. We respect those responsibilities and the work you do to uphold them. But I ask you to consider what happens when someone working to remedy another person's violation faces penalties that threaten to overshadow years of effort. At what point does a penalty stop encouraging compliance and become an overwhelming burden on the person trying to make things right? My son has shouldered the responsibility of correcting problems he did not create. He now desperately needs relief. The amendment we are requesting would allow the magistrate to evaluate exceptional circumstances and, where justified, grant a total release. That decision could be based on documented efforts, compliance, and the individual facts of each case. Clear standards and thoughtful discretion can work together. Clear, exceptional circumstances deserve opportunity for exceptional consideration. I have always taught my son to do the right thing, to take responsibility, to work hard, and honor his commitments. He has done the right thing here, spending five years addressing violations he did not create and doing what the county asked him to do. Now I'm counting on you, our Martin County Commissioners, to do the right thing as well, direct that language to be modified, to allow a total release in exceptional cases like this one. Thank you. Thank you. Joe Giglio is next, followed by Roderick Malero. Good morning. Thanks for your ability. I have to lower this a little bit. It's a little difficult. If I had a platform, it would be easier. What you're getting, I'll explain in a second, but just to introduce who I am, et cetera. My name is Joseph El Giglio. I am a sole proprietor, licensed in Martin County. I was a professor at FIT in Jensen Beach in the 1980s. I later founded and served as president of Wetlands Management, Inc., which I sold in 2006. The company continues to operate on the Treasure Coast under new ownership, and I believe it still serves Martin County in environmental issues to their benefit. I am now the founder and president of Lake Okeechobee Restoration Initiative, a 501c3 nonprofit organization. We are currently providing pro bono guidance to the city of Stewart as it seeks a proof-of-concept grant to use nanobubbles to remove organic muck in the St. Lucie River. It's the first time this has ever been attempted. I just wanted to give you a background of who I am and what I have done and I'm still doing. So I am here today as a Martin County-qualified environmental professional representing Mr. Molero. Martin County has issued both a dredge and fill permit as well as a preserve area management plan to fully restore the environmental issues on this property. These approvals are interconnected. Once implemented, they will restore the 20-acre site's native ground cover, preserve its large wetland and its 50-foot upland buffer, and protect its scattered native pine and ground cover sections. Today, exotic plants, chiefly acacia, are continuing to spread and to densify. For example, one acacia tree can produce up to 160,000 seeds per tree per annum. It's a very difficult – looks great, but it's not according to Martin County standards or my standards. They're exotic and they spread so easily. So what Mr. Molero is missing is your generosity. He needs the money, and any monies that he would be excused from, I'm quite sure he will spend over and above to implement both the dredge and fill permit as well as the PAMP. Spike Klein is environmentally responsible, as I've never met his mother before, but I heard what she said. And he is prepared to implement the PAMP and the dredge and fill, which will include little zones, et cetera, et cetera. So please be kind to him. Thank you. Thank you. Oh, and what you see is one aspect, just the first aspect, probably the cheapest aspect of what he's going to do on the PAMP. Roderick Molero is next, followed by Carl Casper. Good morning, commissioners and staff. My name is Roderick Molero, and I'm here regarding the proposed amendment to Martin County Code Section 1.98.B concerning the reduction or release of code enforcement liens in extraordinary circumstances. My family purchased our agricultural zone homesteaded property in Martin County in 2021 with an underlying code violation that dates back to 2009, approximately 12 years before our ownership, and resulted from work performed by the previous owner. The violation involved digging retention ponds without a permit, work that was undertaken during an emergency to protect livestock, and help safeguard the home and family from flooding and other immediate threats. Since purchasing the property, I've invested more than $100,000 in five years of personal effort into restoring and preserving the land, in addition to paying the substantial property taxes associated with owning and maintaining it. Approximately 15 acres remain affected by invasive, non-native vegetation. Addressing this property requires substantial additional investment in professional contractors and heavy equipment. When I sought financing and complete the work, the title company identified a code enforcement lien approaching $1.5 million. I subsequently retained engineers, surveyors, and environmental consultants, worked with county staff, and obtained the required excavation and fill permit, as well as a preserved area management plan. I've satisfied the outstanding compliance requirements. On March 6, 2026, Martin County officially confirmed that the property was in compliance. However, the accumulated lien remains approximately $1.5 million for an originally misclassified violation. Under the existing ordinance, even a 90% reduction could leave me facing $150,000, an amount neither I nor any other middle-class young family can afford. The lien also prevents me from obtaining the financing necessary to complete the remaining environmental restoration, which is way beyond compliance. It creates a situation where a homeowner who did not cause the original violation and who has subsequently brought the property into compliance remains financially restricted from making further improvements. The amendment proposed with our attorney, Tyson Waters, addresses that concern. It establishes a limited process for extraordinary cases involving longstanding violations, current owners who did not cause the violation, and homesteaded properties that have been since brought into compliance. Importantly, it would not eliminate the county's enforcement authority or automatically forgive liens. It would provide discretion to evaluate exceptional circumstances individually. The issue extends beyond my property. Other Martin County homeowners and families could face similar circumstances with substantial financial consequences even after achieving compliance. I'm requesting that the Commission consider advancing this amendment so qualifying cases can receive an additional review. Thank you. Thank you. Carl Kasper is next, followed by Eric Barnes. Good morning, Commissioner. I want to thank you for this opportunity to speak regarding the adding an extremely important amendment drafted by former Martin County Attorney Tyson Waters to the current code, Section 1.98.B. My name is Carl Kasper. I've lived in the agricultural ranch colony community for over 40 years, and am a neighbor to Roderick Malero, who is one of the most amazing, hardworking young environmentalists I've ever had the pleasure to meet. I've personally watched him and his wife as a young couple struggle financially to be proactive in bringing their property into complete compliance from a minor no harm done and actual improvement for the wildlife excavation violation created by the former owner to protect his home, family, and livestock during a massive flood 17 years ago. Roderick did not commit this violation and was not even aware of the financial severity this minor violation had soared to during the 17-year period. Historically, during my 40 years in Martin County, I've witnessed countless more severe exceptional violations being completely dismissed time and time again for the homeowners who, like Roderick, did not commit the violation, were completely innocent, became the proactive, and brought the property into complete compliance, which historically has been the bottom-line results that we all desire, with emphasis on compliance and not punishment. Such an amendment will not and has not historically created a massive amount of exceptional cases. As commissioners, we environmental volunteers want to thank you for your leadership and positive thinking by dismissing violations and purchasing the highly damaged wetlands within the Gaza, Palmar, and Hungryland properties. This same positive, realistic type of planning is similar to the one that I was involved in 10 years ago with Martin County that finally came to fruition in 2003 with the acquisition of 3,547 acres known as the Cypress Creek-Loxahatchee River Purchase. In summation, our ultimate goal throughout history, as stewards of the land, has not been to severely punish or financially punish the innocent, but rather assist and encourage them to bring their properties into compliance, which Roderick has done. So let's do the right thing. Accept the amendment to the current rule. Thank you very, very much. Commissioner Capps. Madam Chair, these folks who have spoken about the code enforcement matter are from my district, and I have met with them on prior occasions to talk about their issues. And what I'd like to ask at this point is, are all of you done speaking about this, or is there still someone to speak about the matter? Okay. So, Ms. Elder, what are these folks' options? Can you tell us what our current policy is on code enforcement and then what their options might be? Okay. So our current policy under Section 1.98 is that the special magistrate who governs our code enforcement has the ability to reduce fines to 10 percent, as low as 10 percent of the value of the fine. A few years ago, I think in like 2024, the board delegated that authority to the code enforcement magistrate and took it out of your own hands. So at this current time, if an applicant or a property owner wants to reduce a fine, the code enforcement magistrate does a hearing, and then they can reduce it to as low as 10 percent of the value of the fine or of the value of the property, whichever is lower. So I haven't seen the amendment. The speaker spoke about an amendment drafted by their attorney. I haven't seen that amendment. I don't know what's in it. But if there's an amendment to make a specific exception for an individual property owner, I would not recommend that first for the county to bring that forward. We would have to have a public purpose, and one property owner might not be enough. But it would also potentially create equal protection claims because this kind of situation actually happens frequently where you have property owners who didn't cause the violation, and they're correcting it. So if you just do it for one limited, then another property owner could come in and sue us for an equal protection claim. Someone who already paid might get upset that you made one exception. So if the board's going to make a change, it should just be a generic change to the policy, giving the special magistrate the ability to reduce the fine as low as he thinks is necessary. That would be a cleaner approach than carving out a limited exception for one property owner. The other thing is if the property owner has a specific revision to the code that was drafted by their attorney, we do have a mechanism that the property owner can apply to the board for a code change. So through our growth management department, they can apply for a change. This would be to our general ordinances and bring it before the board if they have a specific code provision that they want changed. And applicants do that all the time. I think the Boys and Girls Club just did one. So that's also an option. So I would say the board should make a general revision to the code if that's the will of the board. And if not, then the applicant can bring forth their provision. I haven't seen what they wrote, but that would be my recommendation. Another matter, I was wondering if maybe one of our senior members of this board who have been around longer than I have could maybe comment on the history of code enforcement and how it's worked over the years, what some of the problems have been, and why we developed the policy that we currently have. I can tell you that statistically, code enforcement sees about, I think, about a 97% compliance. The compliance rate is very, very high. And frequently, we've seen these cases many, many times when a violation was caused by a prior owner. We do give relief to the current owners if they win and if they bring the properties into compliance. So it seems to me that, as I'm aware of code enforcement right now, it works. So I don't know what specific changes might be beneficial in order to make that 3% work even better. Don't know. Commissioner Campy. Thank you very much. As one of the members I believe my colleague was thinking of, I've had the opportunity to hear many of these cases. In the old days, they were heard by us. And then, as you heard our attorney mention a couple years ago, we transferred that authority to the magistrate. You know, Larry Massing, who was the head of our building department for a long time and has passed away, he would be the gentleman that would bring these cases forward. And sometimes they were a little bit controversial because it looked like we were forgiving fines or liens on people that had caused the issue that was before us. It was through their own fault that now they were looking to have their fine reduced. And as Ms. Elder said, dramatically, 90% reduction. I had had the opportunity to speak to Mr. Malero and to Mr. Waters about this. Yes, it's not in my district, but as all of us know, it is in my county. So all five of us have an opportunity to weigh in, although I traditionally respect the district authority as the person who's closest to the issue. This particular case, and you heard just a scratching of the surface of it, is unique for several reasons, in my opinion. One, we're not talking, look, most of us don't have 20 acres. You have a third of an acre or a quarter acre or a half an acre, and we know it's a lot to take care of if you're doing it, especially if you're doing it yourself, especially if the yard had been left. And I'll tell you, I'm helping my daughter and future son-in-law, and I thought I was going to whip their backyard into shape in a couple of weekends, and it's been a year. And so I get it. It's hard work. Now imagine 20 acres that had been left really to just fester for a long, long time, and when you don't have a whole crew of people, or more importantly, all sorts of expensive equipment to do it, or hiring people to do it. And the work when you hire is hard, so it's expensive to hire those professionals to come and do it. But this happened in 2009. It was 17 years of this fine just constantly just continuing to accrue to the point of $1.5 million. In all my years of sitting here, I've never heard of a fine that had gotten that high. So even if we were to follow the policy of giving them a 90% reduction, you're still talking about $150,000. And for most of us, that is a number that's not attainable. No one can write that check. Now imagine they bought this property, his family, and they wanted to live in the house because there's a house on it, and it's going to be their home. It's not an investment property. It's where they're going to live and where they do. But instead of being able to use your money that you saved your money and you figured out how to purchase the property, and now you have a little bit left over to do what any one of us would want to do is improve your home. They had to use all of that money to just fix up the property, not because they wanted to, because they had to, because it had a violation on it. So you spend your money that you were going to use to fix up your home, and then you go now and do that. And now you go to the bank and say, hey, wait, I'd like to now borrow money so I can do what I originally wanted to do, fix up my home to live in it. You can't. It's got a lien on the property. So I get what my colleague, Commissioner Chair Hurd, is saying, that, yes, in most cases, maybe even 97 percent of the cases, the system works. And if this is one of the 3 percent that the system doesn't work, I take it upon myself that it's our responsibility to fix it. It's a unique set of circumstances. It doesn't come up that often, but I think it's important. Now, I also agree with what Ms. Elder said, that we can't start saying, yes for you, no for you, yes for you, no for you. And I mentioned that to Mr. Malero, and he said that he had been working with a local attorney, because most of us would have no idea how to craft logical language that the staff could have an opportunity to review. And not only did he craft one version, he crafted two versions. So I'd like to give that to Ms. Elder. I'm sure you can get it through the proper channels, but I had gotten it, so now it's yours. It didn't mean much to me, but I'm sure it will to you. To me, it's just a matter of what Mr. Massing always said. We're not looking to punish our residents, especially the ones that didn't cause the problem in the first place. We're looking for compliance. I appreciate your neighbor coming, because it's not just a benefit for the property owner. It's a benefit for all of the property owners that surround the subject property. It's a benefit for the neighbors in the neighborhood that doesn't have, you know, you could live in a beautiful neighborhood. You all know the property in your neighborhood. You all know the property on your street where those people, for whatever reason, they struggle to keep their yard up. I actually enjoy watching videos where a group of people go around and clean up people's properties for free, and what a blessing that would be. So I would make a motion that we ask staff to review the information that was received and to work either to, I think we need to change the policy completely that would allow the magistrate, who we do give a lot of authority and decision-making power, to decide if the case warrants it or not. I personally, if I was the magistrate, would issue you a complete release of the fine today. But I'm not. But what I can do is hopefully get a couple of my colleagues to agree that our staff should review this and give the magistrate the authority, the flexibility to bring a fine all the way down to zero if the circumstances warrant it. And I personally think in this particular case, it certainly warrants it. That's my motion. Commissioners, we're not going to solve this problem this morning, and this is not the appropriate venue in which to try to solve the problem. I'm confident that we can solve the problem. This is not the place to do it. So let's pause and study the matter, study the proposed amendment, and figure out if it's appropriate, but let's not do it on the fly. My motion had nothing to do with making it happen right this moment. It was purely as a motion to direct staff to bring it forward, but in an expeditious manner, because this has been a five-year issue, and as the time clock clicks, so I wasn't asking it to be dissolved today. I'm just trying to give clear direction to staff. Commissioner Vargas. I never like to move quickly without thinking this through, and, you know, it's a lot of blah, blah. But the point is we already have on our books certain requirements, and this deals with growth management, also deals with building and zoning, also deals with legal department. And I have no idea what their attorney drafted. I guess maybe you do now, Ms. Elder, or she got a piece of paper that's wrinkled, and it's on there. I have no idea. Title company. Wasn't there a cloud on the title? Did I understand that correctly? Everybody's staring at me. Yes? This is not the proper venue to discuss this. All right. So I'm just going to leave the question there, Madam Chair, please. The thing is that I would check my title insurance. I've said that before in this meeting. We have to have uniform compliance. I'm going to favor you. No, you don't get it. That does not work at all. The thing is that we have in place to allow the magistrate, who was appointed, to make the final decision. And this is where this should be put in place. I agree with you, Madam Chair. This is not the venue to make this decision. I think the process has worked well, and I think we ought to follow along with that. If it were in my district, any district, I work with the county. So Commissioner Camps. I was thinking, Commissioner Campy, that maybe a good way to handle this would be to have an agenda item at a future meeting to have a discussion about code enforcement, the history of it, how we deal with things, and whether anything should be changed for the benefit of newer commissioners. You know, Commissioner Vargas and I were elected in 2024, and we really haven't taken up this issue in public before. And then we have a new commissioner, Commissioner Collins, who will be joining us in several weeks. And I think it might be beneficial for us to just study the issues together and have a discussion to make sure that the current policy is what it should be. Would you be satisfied with that, Commissioner Campy? Well, I don't know how that addresses the issue before us. I'm more than happy to make it a larger agenda item, but I think what we've heard from the folks today is a compelling case that is unique. Even at 10%, a $150,000 fine is a punch in the face for most people. And I think, I don't know, that's why there's five of us in this today, four. To me, this is pretty cut and dry. Here's a family that purchased property that for 17 years had a lien and a fine accumulating on it. He's worked very hard. His whole family has worked very hard physically and financially put everything in, and they've come to the board looking for a lease. I don't think it was blah, blah, or whatever was referenced. I think that I said it should be handled by the magistrate, given the authority. What the magistrate's authority is today is he can only go to a 90% discount. And if this was a $100,000 fine and it was going to be 10% and we said, hey, listen, you're going to have to come up with $10,000, I think we wouldn't even be having this conversation. But when you're talking about, hey, we need you to come up with a penalty that was not your fault of $150,000, I'm looking at the faces in this room. No one would be interested in that. They put five years' worth of effort. It's not like he bought it six months ago and said, hey, I need a break over here. They've been killing themselves, and I'm surprised that the board – I thought it would be a 5-0 for him today, not a 1-0. But it is what it is. So I would entertain your idea of, yes, having a history of how this process has happened, but to address specifically this person, let's give the magistrate the ability, the authority to bring the penalty to whatever they think it's appropriate. We gave up our authority to do that. I didn't want to. I like that we made that decision. There was five of us. But I would be happy to let the magistrate do it. But we need to change the policy so he could, because today he couldn't, even if he wanted to. And my motion still stands, unless it fails, for lack of a second. Commissioner Vargas, let's wrap this up. Yes, I want to. Ms. Elder, I think that you can please look at whatever document you received. I mentioned about the title company, reaching out to them. We can review what we have in place right now, and this is where it should stand today. Commissioner Kapps. Yes, I'm going to look to what our county attorney has just told us, which is that we need to be careful about changing the policy just for one applicant, because that could spark legal issues with equal protection and whether it was truly for a public purpose. And she advised us to look at the issue of making, considering perhaps a general change to the policy where we would perhaps have a future agenda item and a discussion about whether the 10% penalty is appropriate or whether it should be, whether the magistrate should be able to go down to 5% or 3% or to zero. So I would favor a future agenda item and a discussion on the matter. That was my motion. You can second what I said. Yeah, but I think I'm just going to make a substitute motion for a future agenda item and a discussion about what our policies are and whether they should be changed. Okay. Would that be said? That's acceptable. I second that motion. We'll review it and then we'll be more experienced, Commissioner Kapps, you and I. There you go. And our coming Commissioner Collins, too, could be in the loop. There's a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Opposed. That motion passes 3-1 with Commissioner Campy dissenting, Commissioner Hetherington absent. We will continue with public comment. Eric Barnes is next, followed by Kimberly Caldwell-Blazy. Thank you. And definitely a tough act to follow. But hopefully this is a layup for the individuals in front of me today. Good morning. My name is Eric Barnes, a parent and resident of Canopy Creek right across from Citrus Grove Elementary School. First, let me say that several people warned me today that there's a lot of data center discussion. It could mean a long wait to speak. I understand that issue deserves attention and it pains me that I even have to say this, but I ask you to bring that same urgency to a crossing that children use to get to school every single day. We appreciate the crossing guard, the traffic signal, and the improvements staff has already made. My question is whether those protections are sufficient under today's conditions, and the handful of near misses this school year alone suggests they are not. Parents experience this road every single day. County officials do not. And let's be honest for a second, if the speed limit on that street is 45 miles per hour, we all know a majority of folks are going 50 plus, with little kids crossing the street every single day. Your own staff acknowledge that pedestrian and bicycle activity increased as Canopy Creek developed, yet the explanation for rejecting a reduced speed zone leaned heavily on longstanding county policy, which we're open to changing. The age of a policy is not evidence of its effectiveness. And whether for better or for worse, this county is not the county it was 20 years ago, or 10 years ago, or even five years ago. Five years ago, Canopy Creek wasn't even at 50 percent capacity of homes built and inhibited. In March, we heard that additional signs and flashing lights could distract drivers. What evidence specific to this crossing shows that a properly designed school zone would make it less safe? And for that matter, if additional signs and lights would distract drivers, why do all the other schools in Martin County have a school zone? Are those signs and lights not distracting drivers? I'll leave you with this. Imagine a December morning, just before winter break, kids excited to get back for Christmas and Hanukkah. You're having coffee at home when your phone rings 7.15 in the morning. A child has been shrugged and killed outside of Citrus Grove Elementary School. The red light was active. The crossing guard was in the middle of the street. Imagine the headline. A child killed at a crossing where parents repeatedly requested and begged for a reduced speed school zone. You have the opportunity to act while prevention is still possible. The tragedy has not occurred yet. Please don't let this first decisive action come after the first tragedy. Thank you. Thank you. Kimberly Caldwell-Blazy is next, followed by Andrea Horst. Good morning. Good morning. My name is Kimberly Caldwell-Blazy. I have 844 signed petitions against rezoning and development of Parcel A091-002. To our elected representatives, the local zoning board, the planning commission, and the Martin County Forever Land Acquisition. We, the undersized residents and stakeholders, and the Port Salerno Neighborhood Advisory Committee formally object to the proposed commercial or high-density development of the property identified as A091-002, as well as any zoning changes intended to alter its current designation. First, the infrastructure and traffic concerns, clear-cutting an entire forest and splitting a 3.2-acre parcel into a high-density development of 22 single-family, two-story, 1,500-square-foot homes with parking for two cars on 35-by-70-foot lots with five-foot easements on front road named Lod Lue. In conjunction with nine new homes recently built on front road, an additional eight homes called the New Monrovia Development will cause a significant increase in local traffic, intersecting with Cove Road, the Railroad, and Dixie Traffic Circle. Raises safety concerns for the residents and pedestrians, especially the elementary and middle school children that must walk to school who live within the two-mile radius of Murray Middle and Port Salerno Elementary. Infrastructure and neighborhood character, a change to an ANR-8 would introduce an inappropriate level of density of residential or commercial development that conflicts with the R3 residential standard of the surrounding neighborhood community. Concern over the brown ground or brown field, as they are called. This parcel was used as the dump for a pineapple farm for over a hundred years. The Ashley Gang produced moonshine on this property during Prohibition. The forest still purges trash every day of every season of every year. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection needs to evaluate the land for industrial waste. Four, serious concerns over the stormwater retention. When it rains, when it rains, it pours. The forest retains millions of gallons of water. The forest floor becomes a pond that breeds 10,000-plus frogs who, in turn, eat and mitigate the mosquitoes. The native protected species on the property that can never be removed include sable palms, slashed pines, straggler figs, one which stands 75 feet tall and has a hefty girth of 14 feet. This tree is considered to have one of the most significant canopies in the state of Florida and is a protected species. This strangler fig would qualify to be evaluated. Ma'am, your time is up. Three minutes. Thank you. Do you want to submit your petition or a copy of it? You've done it electronically, right? Okay. Thank you. Andrea Horst is next, followed by Kendall George. Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity today to speak. I'm here to address the arguments against establishing a school zone in front of Citrus Grove Elementary School. First, we are the only school with student walkers that does not have a school zone. Other schools in Palm City have traffic lights and designated school zones with flashing warning lights and reduced speed limits. Those schools are on roads with 35-mile-per-hour speed limits. Our school is on a 45-mile-per-hour parkway where drivers may be traveling 55 miles per hour or faster. Bessie Creek Elementary, which does not have a traffic light, has two school zones, including one a mile from the school, along with a speed table to slow traffic. Clearly, a traffic light alone is not considered sufficient protection for students at other schools. Second, a traffic light does not guarantee safety. In 2025 alone, there were 421 red light violations in Martin County. That's more than one per day. And those are only the violations that were recorded. How can we rely on traffic lights alone when drivers continue to run red lights? Third, the proposed Newfield Parkway traffic light does not solve this problem. It will be approximately 0.82 miles from our school, and that gives drivers ample opportunity to accelerate back to highway speeds before reaching our school's crosswalk. With more than 4,000 additional drivers expected from the new field development, the danger will only increase. Yes, I'm asking you to consider the cost of doing nothing. We have heard an $80,000 price tag associated with this safety measure. But what is the cost of a child being struck by a vehicle? No dollar amount can measure that loss. I want to personally invite every one of you with school-aged children or grandchildren to join us as we walk with our students beginning November 2nd, when the mornings will be darker following the end of daylight savings time. Don't please come for one day. Come for a month. Experience the traffic firsthand. Witness those close calls. See the conditions our children face simply trying to get to school safely. We should not have to wait for a child to be seriously injured or killed before we take action. I'm asking you to approve a school zone with flashing warning lights and a reduced speed limit in front of our school. Our children deserve the same protection afforded to other students at other local schools. We will continue to advocate through every appropriate channel until this safety's concern is addressed. I sincerely hope you will choose to act now while prevention is still possible. Thank you. Thank you. Kendall George is next, followed by Gail Goldie. Morning. Morning. My name is Kendall George. I'm also a Canopy Creek resident, mother of two children who attend Citrus Grove Elementary. And I'm obviously here to also advocate for a school zone to be implemented in front of Citrus Grove Elementary. Today I'm speaking on behalf of Kelly Roboto. She's also a fellow Canopy Creek resident and mother of children at Citrus Grove. Kelly is the Citrus Grove Elementary PTA President and Martin County Council PTA Advocacy Chair. At the March 24, 2026 Board of County Commissioners meeting, agenda item Department 4, file 260646, this board discussed establishing a school zone at Citrus Grove Elementary. At approximately two hours and 40 minutes into that meeting video, it was stated that the county is legally able to establish a school zone at this location. The board was presented with a 20-mile-per-hour school zone option, established at approximately $80,000, with Traffic Safety Capital Improvement Program funding available and implementation described as possible before the 2026-27 school year. Yet Commissioner Canopy made the motion to leave conditions as is, and this entire board voted with him. Today, that is especially difficult to understand because at the March 10, 2026 Board meeting, Commissioner Canopy listed as a District 5 priority, correct the Citrus Grove Elementary School Zone crosswalk issue. Then, at the October 6, 2026 Commissioners meeting, Commissioner Canopy stated that laws prevented the requested signage. So today we're asking him to cite those laws specifically. What Florida statute, what Florida statute prevents it, what FDOT rule prevents it, what MUTCD provisions prevent it, what Martin County ordinance or adoption policy prevents it? Because the March 24 record says the county is legally able to establish the school zone. We have also repeatedly been told that increased law enforcement presence would deter unsafe driving around Citrus Grove. But families who use this roadway every day have seen no police presence at all. So at this point, families are not asking for another study, another discussion, or another delay. The action we are demanding is clear. Establish the school zone and enforce it. Put up the proper school zone signage. Implement and reduce the speed and flashing warnings. Martin County has already adopted Vision Zero committing to reduce serious injuries and fatalities through engineering, education, and enforcement. Your time is up. Thank you. Thank you. Please consider. Gail Goldie is next, followed by Vera Castleberry. Good morning, Commissioners. Gail Goldie, Martin County resident. I'm here, hopefully, to put a smile on each of your faces. You know, we all need a smile. And I want to personally thank Commissioner Vargas. On June the 15th, I requested that the parking at Sand Sprit Park be addressed. We had boats, boat trailers that were blocking the sidewalk all around the side of the Sand Sprit Park walkway. And I want to tell you that I made a call, I sent photos, and Commissioner Vargas took it upon herself to call whoever it was, because that's not her area, that's not her district. But this was corrected. It was June 15th. That was the height of the fishing season. A lot of boats were parked there for several days, because a lot of those fishermen had those enormous boats with those enormous trailers. And they were, I guess, over in the Bahamas or somewhere out fishing. And I hope they caught a lot of fish. July the 11th, I went back, and again, those trailers were parked over the sidewalk, along with several of the trucks. So it has been completely changed. They have put a barrier around the sidewalk area to stop the trucks from backing in their trailers and putting them over the sidewalk. This was an ADA violation. This is something that really needs to be watched in all of these parks, these ADA violations. And that's for people with disabilities, those who don't understand what ADA is. So we need to make sure that the parks are there for all residents. And I really want to appreciate, as I said, I appreciate that I didn't have to come in here and have everything go before the committee and have all of this done through a meeting and an assessment and everything, that this was handled through the Parks and Recreation. And we have beautiful parks. We have over 73 beautiful parks here in Martin County. That is one of our points of difference in Martin County. And I'd like to see them all stay as beautiful and as useful to the public as possible. And that's all I have to say about that. But I do want to thank you for that. And I hope it all brings a smile to your face because it was taken care of and people can now use the park without having a problem. And I also, in parting, I just want to say, please pass PH-1. We don't need the data center without the moratorium. Thank you. Thank you. Vera Castleberry is next, followed by Kay Seeley. Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Vera Castleberry from Hub Sound. This morning, I'm representing the Guardians of Martin County. And I'll be reading a brief synopsis of a 23-page executive summary on the construction and operation of data centers in Martin County. And you will be receiving this document. With the rapid rise of artificial intelligence, companies across the country are racing to develop new data center projects. The opportunities associated with data centers are incentivizing local and state governments with the promise of economic generation, job creation, and tax revenue. When data centers do create opportunities, they also present significant environmental and societal impacts that potentially threaten the integrity of the land and pose short-term and long-term risks for local communities. The carbon footprint of data centers potentially threatens local, state, and national climate goals. Their construction and operation may also jeopardize threatened and endangered species, wildlife habitats, migration patterns, wetlands, and local ecosystems. Additionally, the quality of life for residents has the potential to be negatively affected. The continuous operation of cooling systems, backup generators, and other equipment contributes to noise and light pollution, which may negatively affect both residents and wildlife. Despite economic benefits offered by the establishment of AI data centers, leaders and policymakers must be mindful of the long-term environmental and social costs association with their development and operation. Balancing technological innovation with ethical resource management, community well-being, and ecosystem protection is critical to ensuring that the expansion of AI infrastructure is sustainable. In southeast Florida, where climate is subtropical, water is a precious commodity, and varied upland and wetland vegetative communities provide habitat for a diverse assemblage of threatened and endangered species. The guardians of Martin County recognize the societal needs for data centers and believe that with proper engineering, design, construction, operation, and monitoring to identify the need for adaptive change, The owners of these facilities in Martin County have not only the ability, but also the responsibility to make every effort to minimize environmental impact, ensure proper monitoring and accountability, and endeavor to maintain prospects. And your time is up. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Kay Seely is next, followed by Scott Butler. Good morning. Good morning. My name is Kay Seely. I'm an Indiantown resident. I don't live in the village, but I live on Fox Brown Road. And they have, to my understanding, five hyperscale data centers planned within a three-mile radius of my home. So I'm hoping that your moratorium on data centers passes, because there needs to be a lot more research done on the effects to humans, wildlife, farm animals. So I would appreciate the passing of this moratorium. Thank you. Thank you. Scott Butler is next, followed by John Dial. Hi. Good meet. Good meet. Good morning. Good afternoon, commissioners. Scott Butler, longtime resident of Martin County. I'm here on behalf of the moratorium for the data centers. I'm an activist, conservationist, drone pilot. You guys know me from what's happened before. But I feel it's very important and pertinent to talk about this right now, because I'm just a guy with a voice who wants to be heard. I talk to several constituents around the area. Everybody's in fear about the data centers. I think it's because of the lack of knowledge. You know, nobody really knows what they're there for, what their intentions are for. So I think in a moratorium to give us, like you said, Commissioner Hurd, give us more time to understand and pay attention to what's happening, do more research, you know, put these to the back burner. Ultimately, it would be a great idea if we didn't have them, period, you know, because what we have left in these areas, which are like wildlife areas, you know, the animals. And once you decide to go ahead and approve something like that, once the PUD is done, there's no turning back. You can't take the concrete back. You can't take the businesses or the buildings back. All those animals, the water, everything's going to suffer. So, unfortunately, Stacey's not here today, but I'm sure she'll hear my voice. And I vote for no on any data centers, but the moratorium right now is all I can ask for. I appreciate your time here today, and I hope I don't have to come back. Thank you again. Thank you. John Dial is next, followed by Jim Moyer. Good morning. Good morning, Commissioners. First off, I'm John Dial, resident of Rocky Point. I'd like to thank you, Commissioners, especially several of you have been very active, posting on media, giving us information, which brings me to the things that I've kind of learned, that your words matter, your actions matter, the truth matters, and campaign promises matter, especially after the fact. On the AI hyperscale data centers on PH1, we, I'm imploring you, I'm begging you to enact this moratorium for a year so we can get facts. I've been trying to ask people about facts on them, and I don't know if anybody's ever been there to one of them. But if you have, that information should be shared with us, both pro and con. All I've gotten is anecdotal things from people, but I personally have never been to one I'd love to go. And then to pick up Ms. Kimberly Blaze's speech that she didn't give it all to, there's an extremely large ficus tree on that property. It's commonly known as a banyan tree, and it could potentially be a couple hundred years old. It's a 228-feet circumference, 70-foot high, and a cavity that covers an acre of land in the Anderson Landing. The developer from Deerfield Beach wants to cut it down. Mathers Engineering told us in a meeting at the Port Salerno Neighborhood Advisory Committee, which I was there and so were you, their plan is to clear-cut the entire wet forest. Although the banyan tree is considered an invasive, exotic species, this particular tree, because of its age and size, is a historical tree and falls under the Canopy Tree Protection Act of the state of Florida. Both the strangler fig and the banyan tree have enormous root structures that continually seek water, which this forest has plenty. Between these two trees, they soak up over a million gallons of water every year, along with thousands of other trees, bushes, and plants that need to be evaluated by both arborists and foresters. This delicate ecological forest is preventing the adjoining neighbors from flooding. Consider this land as a natural spun. Over development, the community seeks to maintain the current balance of use. The Planning Commission and local elected representatives must reject this development to protect our neighborhood from escalated flooding risk and protect the ecological integrity of our environment. We, the people of Martin County, ask that this ecologically sensitive property be protected by the Martin County Forever Land Acquisition Act and sales tax and never be developed. Being in that situation before with a piece of property that I could have developed, but with Commissioner Hurd, we put it in the park and did a good job with it. Thank you. Thank you. Jim Moyer is next, followed by T.C. Ducasse. Good morning. Good morning, Commissioners. Good morning, Madam Chair. Good morning, staff. My name is Jim Moyer. I'm an Indian Riverkeeper. Sorry about that. Also, I'm representing Waterkeepers of Florida. There are 15 of us in the state. You guys are going to be deciding on whether to do a moratorium on hyperscale data center development in Martin County. I hope you go ahead and do that. There are lots of unanswered questions. One that I think you all should be, you know, considering is that data centers beget data centers. The more data you need, the more data you store, the more data you're going to require. This goes on exponentially into the future. Data centers are huge consumers of energy. There are also huge emitters of energy. A 300-megawatt data center is going to emit something on the order of a billion BTUs per hour. That's an enormous amount of heat. What we do with that heat, how we disperse that heat, whether it's air conditioning systems or water, you know, the water is going to warm up. It's going to hold less oxygen. There are lots of reasons that heating up water in the state of Florida is a bad idea. Turkey Point nuclear power plant is a pretty good example of that. When you just emit heat into the atmosphere, you're creating a heat envelope that is going to be potentially disastrous for wildlife. The other energy outputs of these data centers are not only just nuisance, they're environmentally destructive. These things can be studied. We can have a better understanding of what we're getting into. The moratorium is a very good idea, and I hope you go ahead and do it, because it is one of the very few things that we have solid ground on that we're not being preempted from doing, and it may give us the chance to understand what we're getting into in the future. Thank you very much for your consideration today, and I hope you do the right thing. Thanks. Thank you. T.C. Dukas is next, followed by Sergey Kelly. Nice. Okay, we're queuing it up right now. Wait a minute. Are we going to zoom in or see anything? We have to stay by the moment. Okay, okay, okay. All right, so we talked about this, like, last meeting, but I just wanted to show you all the proof. This is actually all, like, public records, and you could, you know, about the flat cameras. Now, as we can see here, that is how much they cost, $43,000 in total. The purchasers are right there. That is the Martin County Sheriff's Office signed by Captain Gavin Werner of the Martin County Sheriff's Office. Now, my problem is if we didn't vote on this, which that is an assumption, correct me if I'm wrong, then, and if the sheriffs are funded by the public, then we pay for this, and we didn't vote on it. We don't want it. So, yeah, that's pretty much my thing with that. That's the contract between FLOC and Martin County Sheriff's Office. Now, this is the FLOC audit law that I basically had to fight the Martin County Sheriff's Office of Records Department for. They did not want to give this up. So, as you can see here, this is what, like, they searched up and, like, their reasoning for it. As far as I believe all they have to do is pick from, like, a drop-down. There's no requirement for, like, a case number or anything like that. You can flip it. It's just, you know, it's just three pages of this, no case number. And then, yeah, pause on this last one. Welfare check, I don't know why that, like, constitutes a license plate reader search, but whatever. Please, thank you very much. And my question is just what, like, what's the difference between our deputies and the other deputies that have been caught using these stuff illegally? I'm not saying that anybody is. I'm just saying that what makes one human better than the other, you know what I'm saying? Automatic license plate readers do not fit the slow-growth model of Martin County. And this also ties into, like, the data centers, obviously, because AI, we don't have to get into the privacy invasions. So my request is that we not just ban these privacy invaders, but we physically remove them. And also, I think it was the governor that said that we should take down all of the cameras off of the county-owned right-of-ways and highways. None of these cameras are on that. This is on private property, mainly Home Depot and Lowe's. And thank you guys for your time. Especially thank you for listening to us and the constituents. I love you guys. Thank you. Thank you. Sergey Kelly is next, followed by Joe Flanagan. Perfect. Great to be here. Great to be here. And I would just continue with what everyone is saying on supporting the AI data center moratorium. Obviously, these are becoming a huge threat across Florida, and in my opinion, it's the next form of reckless development. You know, we've had this sprawl. We've had this stuff cleared out in the, you know, agricultural and wild areas of Florida. And now data centers are another piling on top of that. But it's almost worse because, you know, they're going to be used to monitor us. They're for our data. They're going to take water, air, energy, the hums and the vibration. It's going to displace wildlife. There's really not many benefits, especially to the hyperscale data center. So I'm glad you guys have put this forward. It's a great step forward, especially if we have other counties in Florida that are kind of lagging behind. I would suggest, though, in the language of the moratorium, to actually strengthen it from the state definition of a hyperscale of 50 megawatt to something lower, you know, 30, 20. Counties in the panhandle have even entertained, you know, 5 megawatt or 10 megawatt being the barrier that they used to either initiate a moratorium or even all-out bans. That's also something that's happening across the world, not just the moratorium but an actual ban. So I would suggest strengthening it for sure because still, I mean, the 5 megawatt to 50 megawatt is a lot of varying different sizes of data centers that could still be proposed and built in Martin County pending the whole process. So thank you for that. I would also commend the recommended denial for the agriculture enclave you also have on the agenda by the 96th and I think it's – what group is it? But it's on the agenda. That one, also glad that it technically does not fall in a designation for agriculture enclave and glad you hopefully listened to the staff recommendation to deny it. This is another sneaky form that Tallahassee found to expedite land to development. It is essentially saying if it's a huge plot of agricultural land, has residential or, you know, developed use surrounding it, you can speedrun it to pavement. Fortunately, it does not qualify in this one. So please heed the staff recommendation and deny that agricultural enclave as well as any that do come forward because obviously there's tons of agricultural plots here in the county. And seeing them preserved and not essentially speedrun to pavement and development would be great. And a lot of these things, whether it's agricultural enclave or it's these AI data centers, the biggest cost is the next generation. Obviously, there's a lot of costs now to build all of this, but the extenuating effects of it and consequences are going to be faced by those, you know, the next generation and the several ones following. So definitely it is awesome that Martin County has kind of taken the step of preserving more of itself. It's one of the counties that has not, you know, been an onslaught like Palm Beach or Cuyler. So thank you. Thank you. Joe Flanagan is next, followed by Gary Erler. And Mr. Erler is the last request to speak form I have. If you would like to address us, please fill out a request to speak form and hand it to our bailiff. Good morning. Great morning and terrific Tuesday to everyone. Some very serious and intense things going on here this morning. I hope to kind of liven that up a little bit. Project graduation. The idea is that when you graduate from high school, you may be academically intelligent, but judgment-wise, not so much. So for over 30 years, back for those of you who have been around, Stella Bolin and Steve Mocum, deputy, established this to keep safe our seniors because foolish things happen on the night of graduation. So I've been in charge of it for the last four or five years, and I'm still very involved with it. And we appreciate the support from the commissioners. And for those of you in the audience also that are not aware of project graduation, this past year, on May the 19th, Jensen Beach High School graduated, started at 7 p.m., ended at 9 p.m., and by 10 o'clock, they have to be wherever I assign them. And this past year, we had the Elevate Fund that's in the Treasure Coast Mall. What a great time. And in the 400 students that graduated, over 200, almost 230 students showed up. And we kept them safe. We keep them there until, like, 4 or 5 o'clock in the morning. We feed them. We entertain them. We do some great things. And it continues going on. I still remember back in the day, it used to be in the fairgrounds, and that was when graduation was in June. And it always rained, and so the humidity was, like, 150 percent, and we were outside. Then we went to the YMCA. Then we went to the Boys and Girls Club, and now we're at Elevate Fund. And they do a great job of it. But I wanted to thank the commissioners for your support. I have a little certificate for each of you. So if you would, please hang this proudly. And I stuck one of the QR codes. By the way, QR stands for Quick Response. So go ahead and take out your phone and do it as soon as you get to speak. And thank you again. Thank you. Gary Erler is next, followed by James Martin. Mr. Martin is the last request to speak for him I have. Good morning, commissioners. Gary Erler, Port Salerno. Tough crowd today. A lot of time. AO 91-002 is a, it's actually, it doesn't come before the board. It's the, it's the banyan trees, the ficus trees. Like everything else in this county, and it becomes interest to me, I take a ride by. It leads into the back neighborhood that Miss Kimberly lives in. It looks like a park. There's actually a culvert running across to the drainage ditch. Whenever I first heard about it four months ago at our, or two and a half months ago at our NAC, I was like, oh, okay, I'll get a look at that. Then I came back at our last NAC, and she brought some neighbors. It's, I can't even explain it. You need to see it for yourself. Take a ride, if you would. Take a ride, if you would. It doesn't come before the commission. It's, it's a by right development. And I don't understand how you're putting 1,500 square foot homes on 35 by 50, 35 by 60 lots. Where's the green space? Where's the drainage? They're going to clear cut everything and put back a couple palm trees? I'm sorry. Please take a look at it. Thank you. Thank you. James Martin is next, and that's the last request to speak for him I have. Good morning, Madam Chair, commissioners. Thank you so much for considering the data center moratorium. I stand before you today not only as a candidate for federal office but as a fourth-generation Martin County local. So this data center moratorium is deeply important to me and for, you know, the future Martin County residents that I am raising in Hope Sound. I want to urge and raise a few concerns, not only the well-trod environmental concerns on residents, but I also want to open the aperture as a candidate for federal office and remind both the commissioners and folks maybe listening that it is entirely conceivable that we are living through an AI bubble right now. So I have grave concerns that, because recall, these are AI companies that are operating at tens of billions of dollars in losses a year, and I want people to remember that not only the deleterious environmental effects and personal effects on people, but also that it is entirely conceivable that many of the tax promises and some of these job promises that are being promised will be pulled from the rug will be pulled in several years. So I thank you for bringing this moratorium before the board, and I urge you to consider it. Thank you so much. Thank you. Ann VanderSteel is next, followed by Maureen Steele. Good morning. Thank you so much. We've heard a lot about hyperscale and AI data centers today. I want to just bring to your attention, commissioners, five locations which warrant scrutiny for potential hyperscale development. Silver Fox, a roughly 606-acre Indian Town proposal, was withdrawn and then revised and brought back in September. Now it's subject to litigation in the village over approvals and claim development rights. You also have Project Growler, 146 acres of reported proposal at 18,300 Southwest Warfield Boulevard on a former Superfund site whose current application and approval status remain unverified. Then you have the Beskar location, 1290 acres, an industrial land use planning track linked by TC Palm reporting to a proposed $2 billion hyperscale project with no current final site plan approval verified. Then you have Tesoro Groves, a whopping 5,722-acre location annexed into Indian Town with an approved PUD framework and a dismissed legal challenge. There is no hyperscale activity approval verified yet, but again, when you couple that with the site that was brought to attention several weeks ago back in Hope Sound, an industrial application, that also is subject to potential use for a hyperscale data center. So when you consider all that you've heard today with respect to the concerns over the environment, the water, the land, the noise ordinance, the noise considerations, property values, not to mention the fact we are in a hurricane location, which we regularly get hit with hurricanes. Why would you ever want to locate a hyperscale data center, which requires a lot of energy to cool and to keep operating in an area where hurricanes can have imminent damage onto such a structure? Then you also have to consider what are the use applications and use cases for these hyperscale data centers, to which you heard a gentleman speak about flock cameras and, of course, the surveillance state that seems to be growing. Steve Bannon reported earlier today about flock cameras, 13 of them, I believe, or 14 in St. Lucie County that they weren't even aware of. This is unacceptable, particularly when you have so many other ways of being surveilled, including our cell phones today. So just considering a one-year moratorium, I think, is the least we can do. We need to have serious studies completed in order to go forward with something of this consideration. And for this requirement, I'm actually requesting that an independent third party, meaning a firm selected solely by the state of Florida and paid for by the applicant who wishes to build said hyperscale data centers with no other direct or indirect financial relationship with the applicant and any project investor or any entity sharing ownership ties with them. And residents, we deserve the credible evidence behind what the risks are to our water, our land, our health, our agricultural livelihood, and, of course, property values before we consider any of these risks to our community. Thank you very much. Thank you. Maureen Steele is next, and Ms. Steele is the last request to speak for my half. Good morning. Good morning. What is happening here in Martin County is no longer just a local issue. Across this country, Americans are questioning the rapid expansion of massive AI data centers into their communities. From Florida to North Carolina, Tennessee, Ohio, and New York, residents are organizing, demanding transparency, and questioning what they're being asked to sacrifice, and people are paying attention. In September, right here in Martin County, the village of Indiantown considered a moratorium on large-scale data centers. The council voted four to one against the proposed language after a developer's attorney warned of potential litigation. Nine days later, the village directed its attorney to draft new moratorium and transparency ordinances. That should tell us something. These decisions are complicated, consequential, and deserving of careful scrutiny. And while Indiantown has its own municipal authority, the impacts of these developments don't necessarily stop at the village boundaries. Across America, developers are pursuing enormous tracts of land, sometimes offering property owners extraordinary sums of money. Now, private landowners have every right to sell their property, but the public has an equally legitimate interest in understanding what happens when those transactions depend on zoning changes, government incentives, infrastructure commitments, or public approvals. Who owns these projects? Who stands to profit? What financial relationships exist between developers, landowners, consultants, and decision makers? Are these undisclosed conflicts of interest? Are taxpayers being asked to subsidize private investments? I'm not making accusations against anyone here. I'm asking for the transparency necessary to establish the facts. Because once land is converted into industrial use, the consequences can remain long after proposed project changes hands, stalls, or never becomes operational. Meanwhile, what happens to our water, our electricity rates, our roads, our rural character? How many permanent jobs will actually be created, and what is the true financial benefit to Martin County? These questions deserve answers before commitments are made, not afterward. And I want to emphasize something. Public scrutiny of these developments is growing nationwide. Land transactions, public records, financial incentives, and development agreements are increasingly becoming subjects of investigation and public debate. This scrutiny is a legitimate part of accountable government. Martin County has an opportunity to demonstrate what transparent decision-making looks like. Whatever course this board takes, residents deserve full disclosure, independent impact studies, and enforceable safeguards, and a clear accounting of who pays and who benefits. Because once the land is gone, once the infrastructure is committed, and once the public inherits the consequences, promises won't be enough. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner, that's the end of public comment. Now we'll do Commissioner comments. Commissioner Campy. Thank you. A lot of interesting comments this morning. I wanted to address my neighbors from Canopy Creek. I had no idea that you were even coming this morning, but based on the very well-articulated concerns you made at the joint meeting last week, I went back to our staff and asked, you know, some of them were in the room, some were not, and I went back and asked them the questions that you asked more universally because the information that I have shared is information that I obviously receive from staff. I'm not a traffic engineer and I'm not an attorney. And then when we discussed that, I completely agree that we want to be on the right side of timing, and God forbid it ever happens. We have seen situations happen in school zones. Obviously, people that are breaking the law, whether it's 20 and they're doing 30, 40, 50, we've all seen it. I think what I've said many times is traffic concerns is, at least in my world, it feels like it's the number one issue, the constituent service issue is traffic safety, speeding, and all that it takes. And I had requested of our staff, and I see the head of our public works department is entering the room. I had already told him that, you know, unless they could, to you all, come up with a very legitimate, concrete reason why we could not have a school zone there, we will have a school zone there. And if it's a matter of putting it into the budget that's already been approved, I have district funds. We all have access to specific district funds. And the concept that we could not afford to do it is obviously ridiculous. When you have a multimillion dollar budget, 80,000 or whatever it ends up being, because I think that was more of an estimate, whatever the number is, there is no price to compare it to someone being hurt. Even on Map Road, several years ago, the crossing guard got hit by a car. So, I mean, I don't want to pretend that the school zone will be a magical cure for people's recklessness and inconsideration. But that being said, I don't want to obviously participate. My colleagues don't want to participate. And our staff don't want to be involved in something that could potentially be misconstrued, that we didn't act when we should have, so we absolutely will, and you will absolutely get a school zone. And if you want to hear from the folks that do actually know, our county engineer is here, our public works director is here, so we were ready to tell you that anyway. But now we get to say it right to your faces. Would you like to add anything, Mr. Grzelka? Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, I'm Michael Grzelka, the county engineer. Yeah, you are well within your purview to designate a school zone. I would just ask that if you're going to do that, that you make a motion and do it as a... My pleasure. I make a motion that we request and require staff to initiate the process of creating a school zone on Newfield Parkway that will service the children that go to Citrus Grove Elementary School and have it done as fast as possible. Thank you. I will second that motion. I was going to make a comment. You all spoke very well, and I know there are many other parents, but you've been solicited to do this this morning and at the joint meeting also. It tugged at my heart. I was a high school teacher at one time. And those high schoolers, they still don't do the right thing. But anyway, we can help in this regard. Every driver must follow the law, and this would be a sheriff issue. But we will have everything in place for you. It will not be too soon. So thank you very much for coming again. Commissioner Kaps. I'm going to support the motion and the second, but I would like for the county engineer to briefly summarize for us what the arguments were on the other side of it, just so that we all remember what those are. I think that's important. Like I said, I'm going to support it. But I would like for us all to remember what those concerns were. The big concern on and all is driver overstimulation where they start ignoring and they become distracted as they're driving. That's why you normally do one or the other. I mean, the recommendations are always for one or the other type thing, either put the school zone in or have a full signal. So, but you guys, as the final ultimate authority on Martin County Roads, you have that authority to go ahead and authorize that as a dual thing. But then Commissioner Vargas said the same thing, too. A lot of it will still come down to enforcement. So the normal thing is either a light or a zone, a school zone, but not both of them together. Correct. Oh, and that's also like technically against some type of uniform traffic book that has all these standards in it or something? Yes, the standards don't, they recommend one or the other. They don't recommend doing both of them. So, I mean, it's not that it says you cannot do both of them. It's that the recommendation is you don't, so that you don't overstimulate the drivers. So they start ignoring one or the other. Thank you. I appreciate that, but many areas in the county, including in Palm City, have the traffic signal and the school zone. So right on Martin Highway for Palm City Elementary School and Hidden Oaks Middle School. So I get it, and that's the conversation that we've been having. And like I said, I'm not an expert. These are our experts. But if he's telling us we have the authority to do it, we have the authority to do it. There's a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? That motion passes unanimously. 4-0 with Commissioner Hetherington absent. We'll continue with Commissioner comments. Commissioner Capps. This past Thursday, the contractor who runs our Marty public transit buses abruptly and without notice abandoned their contract and walked off the job, leaving many of our most vulnerable residents standing at bus stops with no ride to the hospital, the grocery store, or their place of employment. I want to express my empathy to our friends who don't have the resources to own and operate an automobile, but who get up every morning and struggle to do their best to press on to meet their obligations and responsibilities. To the drivers and support staff of Marty, I am also sorry that you woke up Friday morning without a job. After I got the news mid-morning on Thursday, it was amazing to see what happened through the afternoon. I was informed around lunchtime that staff was organizing a press conference at the Emergency Operations Center at 3 o'clock, so I decided to attend. And while I was scrambling to get my head around the issues involved, staff remained very much in control of the situation. There was a podium in front of the reporters with a well-written, full-page statement sitting on it, thanks to our communications department. Public Works Director Jim Gorton and Assistant County Administrator George Stokas calmly explained the situation to the press and revealed temporary solutions for the riders who rely so heavily on public transit. They told us that the United Way of Martin County, through its Ride United program that uses Lyft drivers, had decided to respond to our community's need by ramping up this program. We can't thank United Way enough for responding in our time of need as a community, and we can't thank the residents enough for supporting United Way so that they had the resources to help us when we needed them. With every setback, there are silver linings if you look hard enough for them. One is that you don't know what you have until you're about to lose it. Another is how important it is to have competent, creative, and innovative staff and community partners in a crisis. And another is the warmth you feel in your heart when you see your community pulled together to solve a problem. My sincerest thanks to all involved. We look forward to a quick, permanent solution that gets our buses up and running so we can put this matter behind us. Thank you. Commissioner Vargas. The Marty contractor walked out of the agreement at 530 in the morning, and instead of giving the county the required 180-day notice, and this is by either party, either Martin County or that contractor, it is terrible that the drivers are out of a job. This happened to a lot of people, different jobs, and that the riders were left stranded. I took the city bus when I was going to Miami Beach Senior High, so I know how much you depend on that. And I believe that we should look at some other type of mode of transportation, which I've mentioned. Obviously, the paratransit, Jitneys, Miami-Dade adopted this also. But I do want to thank the United Way for stepping in, stepping up immediately, and they are irreplaceable. Now, I have a couple of things that I want to talk to you about. You know, rather than me talk and talk about going to lunches, ribbon cuttings, which are great, eating sandwiches, whatever it may be, dinners, I want to give kudos, and I want to give Amy Offenbeck of our growth management department. She saved three little girls on Hutchison Island at Bob Graham Beach, and I'd like her just to come up and tell what happened. It could be anywhere. Oh, by the way, Amy, I didn't know you were a surfer. She's a terrific surfer. But she happened to choose that beach, that day, that time, and employed what your skills are for life-saving skills. I think CPR. Thank you. Morning, commissioners. My name is Amy Offenbeck, and I'd like to thank you for honoring me. I truly believe that it was not a coincidence that I was in the right place at the right time. A friend of mine, first of all, I was off that day by chance, and there were storms rolling in to the place we usually surf, and so a friend of mine suggested we stop there, and there was usually never waves there, so we never surf there. So we happened to stop there and walked up to the beach to look at the waves. We saw three people in the water holding onto a surfboard and one girl on the beach holding a surfboard. And so we looked at the situation. It looked like the girl was going to go in with the surfboard to join her friends, and the girls in the water seemed okay. So we went back, and we went to turn around and grab our surfboards out of the car because we were going to go surfing there. And they started waving in the water, and the girl on the beach turned around and said, Can you help my friends? I can't really swim. And so that made the situation escalate. I yelled to my friend, Go get the fins and come help me as soon as you can. I grabbed the girl's surfboard, rushed into the water. It had no wax on it, so I'm slipping all over the place. I got out there as soon as I can, got to the girls. The two girls that were with the one that needed help kind of pushed the one towards me and said, Help her! And so I directed her to get up on the surfboard. I climbed down behind her, paddled in. She seemed kind of dazed and confused. I sat her up on the beach. I ran to my car to get my fins to go help my friend, help the other two get back in. And then we just walked up to their towels. She said that she passed out underwater, and she inhaled water, and she had a severe headache. And so that made me think we need to go to Jensen Beach to get her checked out with the lifeguards. And so we drove her there. We offered to give her friends a ride, and they met. The one came with us, and the other two met us there later. Knocked on the door. All the surfers or all the lifeguards were inside the building because of lightning in the area. And so they finally came down and opened the door and checked her out, called the ambulance, took her to the hospital. I didn't know what happened to her afterwards, but apparently she was okay, and I'm so thankful that everything worked out. And, you know, the lifeguards, EMTs, and police officers, they're doing this kind of thing every single day. I've had a little bit of lifeguard training in the past, but I really want to share the spotlight with them because they're the real heroes of this situation. And I want to shed a light on water safety and tell anybody that's going to spend the day on the beach to check the conditions before you go, be prepared, learn about how rip currents work and how to get out of them, and go to a lifeguarded beach or take your friends because you never know what could happen. How old were these little girls? I didn't know at the time. I assumed they were old enough to drive. And then when we went to the lifeguard station, they said that her friends couldn't take her home because she was a minor and she needed a guardian to pick her up. So I found out later the girl who needed the help was 17 years old. It could happen at any age. Yeah. Thank you very much, Amy. Anything else? Fantastic. We really appreciate it. Thank you so very much. So I wanted to share that story and, of course, invite Amy to be with us. And, of course, her director is right there and very proud. But thank you very much. It can happen to anyone. Water safety is paramount. This is where we live in paradise. So let me talk to you about something else. I did attend a Florida Association of Counties conference in Gainesville, and we had an excellent presentation on data centers by a University of Florida professor. And he is in consultation with attorneys that specialize in data center contracts. I'm not finished with him yet. He is getting us more information because they are in the process of developing an ironclad contract. As you know, this is all the buzz all over the state and for the country, for that matter. And now it's not just this issue of a data center, but it's also the legalization. That is a framework that needs to be constructed, the contract with the correct verbiage, the guardrails, the transparency. We're talking about the water. We're talking about environmental issues. We're talking about local control, your control. We're talking about protection. We're talking about the rate payer protection also. We talked about the speeding towards agricultural lands. I think somebody mentioned this morning that we are heading towards very close to an AI bubble. I agree. I agree. This is a repetition of what we saw in real estate also. And I've tried to acclimate myself to listening, reading both sides of the issue. However, as somebody stated today, once it is built, whatever the is it, whether it's homes, whether it's data centers, you wipe out the beauty that was Martin County. It still is. You have time. Having said that, I stepped into, I was in a National Association of County meeting last year, and I just stepped into a manager's meeting, county manager's meeting. And I heard several comments from county managers stating that they had regretted not having more locks and controls, guardrails, making more ironclad, before they agreed to allow data centers being built. But you know what they did? One admitted, and one admitted truthfully, we trusted the developer's word. I'm a contract lady. I trust in God. Everybody else signs their name and whatever else comes from that. I think somebody mentioned earlier today, I don't know if the gentleman is still here, but talked about China and the U.S. If you have 10 data centers, we're talking the mega, of course, the U.S. is way ahead. We have eight. They have two. He was correct. We will have to go to them. I lived in China, so I understand we have to go to them for our food. Don't be fooled by this. And I think also you need to look at all of these impacts, but also if somebody wants to build a data center, they have to bear all the cost, every single cost. We will eventually make the decision if this is what we want. I did propose a moratorium last time, and I definitely feel that this is something we need to take a stand on today, and I'm speaking to my fellow commissioners. We do not know enough about this. I do not get my information from social media. I do my homework. Most of you know me. I do my homework. And if it takes a year, a year and a half, two years, whatever it takes, whatever it takes, we should be doing this. I want to address one other issue. I'm going to leave the data for right now. Railroad safety. I was at a chamber function, and they had the reps there. They talked about double gates. I think a gentleman stood up here before. And they are willing to come and speak to the county commission, and I would like to make a proposal that we do have them come and speak about the quiet zones, the benefit, detriment, whatever it may be. So I really would like to request that we have them here, and they're willing to come to a meeting and present whatever facts they need to for our county. Who is they? The Railroad Safety Commission. We'd spoken about that before, bringing them before us. I have the contact. I have all the contacts. Thank you. Mr. Graham. Yes, commissioners, I just have one item for you to consider. I would like for Jim Gorton to provide an update on Marty at the end of the board meeting, if possible, and to get direction on how to move forward. And I also want to thank Mr. Gorton and Mr. Stokas took really fast, decisive action on Thursday after Marty walked out on us with absolutely no forewarning. You did a terrific job, as always. Thank you. Excellent. I'm all set. We are going to take a 10-minute break, and then we're going to take up public hearing number one. Number one, which is the first public hearing to consider adoption of an ordinance establishing a temporary interim planned planning period moratorium on the submission and acceptance of applications related to large-scale data centers. This is the first of two public hearings. Good morning, commissioners. My name is Elise Helder. My name is Elise Helder. On August 25th, the board requested that we bring back an item to establish a moratorium on large-scale data centers. So we're here today to bring an ordinance to the board establishing a temporary interim planning period for large-scale data centers and a moratorium on the submission and acceptance of applications related to large-scale data centers. So the ordinance before you, the first almost five pages are really the legislative findings. This is the legal justification that supports the adoption of this ordinance to establish the moratorium in the planning period. So I wasn't planning on going through all that. There's just a lot of legal reasoning behind it, but I can if the board would like me to. So going into the guts of the moratorium under Part 1, so Section A just establishes the board's authority to enact this moratorium. Section 2 establishes the legislative findings that I just mentioned and justifies the reasoning why we are implementing this moratorium. The definition of large-scale data center is following the statutory definition in Florida statutes, 373.2034. So we mimic the Florida statute definition for large-scale data centers, and that's what's going to be the subject of this moratorium. Section C establishes an interim planning period and also establishes the suspension of the submission and acceptance of applications related to large-scale data centers. So that means that once this ordinance, if it is adopted, that the county would not be able to accept applications and applicants would not be able to submit applications for the development of large-scale data centers. And under D, we establish a duration of 12 months for the interim planning period, and that's to give staff sufficient time to investigate, to research, and determine what kind of regulations are necessary to address large-scale data centers in Martin County. Right now, we do have some permitted uses in our code. They were adopted in 2016, and it allows for data processing. So data processing centers are allowed in various sections of our code. And at the time of that adoption, nobody could fathom the scale of a large-scale data center. So those code provisions are really insufficient to address these large-scale data centers. So that's why we're imposing this moratorium. On Section E, that really justifies the length of the moratorium. We really need at least a full year to investigate these, and we have 26 different areas that staff will investigate over the course of the year to address the regulations necessary for the large-scale data centers. And during that time, this ordinance provides that staff will provide updates to the board periodically so you know how it's going, what we're finding out throughout the year. And then the last part I really want to point out to the board is the applicability section. So the first thing I want to point out is that this ordinance is applicable in the unincorporated Martin County, which means it is not applicable to municipalities that are incorporated, like the City of Stewart and the Village of Indiantown. The second part I want to point out is that this ordinance would not be applicable to any applications that were submitted prior to the adoption of this ordinance, any applications for large-scale data centers that were deemed sufficient, provided to the county prior to the adoption of this ordinance. And then finally, Senate Bill 180 was enacted by the legislature about a year ago, and in there there's a prohibition on moratoriums for a period of over a year. It expires in October of 2027, and it says that you cannot impose a moratorium on the construction, reconstruction, redevelopment of any property damaged by certain hurricanes, Hurricane Debbie, Helene, and Milton. So the applicability of this ordinance would not apply to any property that was damaged by Hurricane Debbie, Helene, or Milton to the extent it's protected by Senate Bill 180, and the county would require documentation if someone claimed that exception to show that their property was damaged and they are reconstructing. So it's not applicable to that as well. So that is the summary of the data center. I do think it's important to tell the board that yesterday the county received and was deemed a sufficient application for a data center in Martin County, and that would not be included in the scope of this moratorium. The data center, I'm told, and I haven't looked at the application. It just came in yesterday. It was deemed sufficient yesterday. It is located in a platted industrial park in South Florida Gateway on approximately 86 acres. It's not to the magnitude of the data centers that have been applied for in Indiantown. I think it's, I'm told, 100 megawatts. So I want to let the board know that that actually occurred yesterday. So with that, that summarizes the ordinance. Like Commissioner Hurd said, this is the first of two public hearings. The final public hearing is proposed by staff for October 27th. So under the Florida statutes, we are required to have two public hearings on this ordinance. The second has to occur after 5 o'clock unless the board votes to hold the second public hearing before 5 o'clock by a majority plus one vote. So we would need four votes of a unanimous vote to hold the second public hearing before 5 o'clock on the 27th. And that summarizes, that's the end of my presentation. Questions for Ms. Elder? I have a couple. One is related to D, duration of temporary interim planning period. I think that there's an awful lot of research that's going to need to be done in the next 365 days. I don't, what if 365 days is not nearly enough time to consider the suspension of applications? So that's why we have staff providing periodic updates. And if staff comes in one of the updates and says, we think we need additional time, the board can amend the ordinance and extend the time of the moratorium provided it's justified. A year is a good starting point. But I think once we get into the actual process that if the board or staff feels it's necessary, we can extend that provided there's justification. And then we just have to extend it through a subsequent ordinance? Yes, we'd have to amend the ordinance. Okay. And the other is, a speaker this morning mentioned that some municipalities have created stricter language about the megawatts. Ours is 500 megawatts or greater. 50. 50. I'm sorry, 50 or greater? Yeah. So what if we wanted to say 20 megawatts or greater? So the reason why I picked 50 or we picked 50 is because under Senate Bill 44, the legislature recently enacted Senate Bill 44, and it directs local governments to look at data centers and provide regulations for data centers. And it specifically identifies data centers, large scale of 50 megawatts and greater. So we're mimicking the Florida statutes. And that's in order to, for legal sufficiency and to just make sure that we are not susceptible to lawsuits. So once we deviate from Senate Bill 484, because of the impact of Senate Bill 180, it might compromise our legal position, which is why we took the 50 and follow Florida statutes and the direction of the legislature. Further questions? Is there a motion? Are we at the motion point? Well, this is a public hearing. Would anyone from the public like to address this on this matter? Those of you who have not spoken already about the moratorium. I don't see any. Commissioner Campy. Thank you. Ms. Elise, thank you to you and your department for bringing this forward. I know it was well crafted and there was a lot to it, to our staff that participated. I mentioned this a couple of meetings ago because, you know, whether you are for or against the concept of large scale data centers, I think that the speed of the debate and conversation was creating a situation where even folks that would reasonably disagree couldn't really wrap their hands around, their brains around the topic. It's very complicated. It's new technology. And so to, I know we're using the word moratorium, but to me it's also just like hitting the pause button. I did ask Virginia, Ginger Delegal, at the Florida Association of Counties, what the other counties in Florida were doing. This was maybe five or six weeks ago. And she and her staff were very kind to send a spreadsheet where a majority of the 67 counties were either had done it or were in the process of doing some version thereof. There were a couple that had addressed it and passed, meaning they didn't want to do any kind of a moratorium. There were a couple that did an outright ban. And most, we were joining that group, were in the process of figuring out what they wanted to do. Even personally, when you hear the debate on both sides, people saying it's forward, it's got economic benefits, it's not your grandfather's data center, there's a lot of talking points on both sides. I do also believe, not just on this topic, but on many, it's sometimes easier to scare people than it is to reassure them. So, from my own perspective, to have an opportunity to say, pause, let's hear from people, let's have the opportunity for experts to come and speak to us on both sides. I mean, a lot of what we've heard thus far are from advocates for opposing it, and that is fine because it is a complicated process. I did have an opportunity recently, completely as a side trip, I was at a conference in Loudoun County, Virginia. Nothing to do with the county government, but Loudoun County, Virginia is the data center capital of the United States, and from the research that I heard, they have 220 data centers in their county. And all you have to do is drive to Leesburg and just drive down the main highways, and there's massive, big buildings all along, like you were looking at just office buildings. Some of them proudly say, you know, so-and-so data center right on them, and you can see even the evolution of the architecture of them. Some have more of a sort of a lattice brickwork that I guess was designed either to be attractive, attractive, they're massive, attractive, or maybe even to just let some, you know, ventilation through them. And then some looked, all you have to do is Google and see what they look like. Some look like really, you know, concrete monoliths. My wife and I did have the opportunity on a Sunday morning to drive. Some of them are pretty far from the road, and some of them are closer, to get out of the car and shut the car off and listen. And there was a whole spectrum of what was what. Some of them you could hear, and some of them you couldn't. Now, of course, I don't know if you couldn't hear it because they weren't running at the capacity they would normally, or they were, and the technology has changed. So even from my own perspective, given an opportunity where we don't have to have the concern of applications coming to staff, like you just mentioned one did prior to our meeting, given the opportunity to just say, let's do some research, let's hear about them, I think it's reasonable. What I believe we are asking, I think, to Commissioner Hurd's point, is if a year is not enough. A year is a relatively long time. It is fast-moving, ever-changing technology. I've heard and watched that, you know, Elon Musk and others are talking about having data centers in space. I thought the comment this morning about data centers being on the bubble was an interesting comment because it sort of gives you a visualization of maybe it is a bubble. I don't know. Some of us are old enough to remember video killed the radio when MTV came out, that that was going to be the end of radio, and when cable came out, that was going to be the end of television. And when the cell phone came out, the only thing I think the cell phone did officially kill is the payphone, but people are still using those technologies. But there is a fear when new technology presents itself that people are concerned. Cell phone towers are still an issue that individual communities are dealing with. So for me, I think this is a reasonable request that even after having mentioned it and bringing it up a couple of meetings ago, the feedback that I have received has been positive from both sides so that they could have an opportunity to present what they think is their opinions in a calmer kind of forum where we don't have to worry about an application coming in right behind an agenda item. So I make a motion that we accept staff's recommendation of the information that was presented by Ms. Elder, and I think it is a legitimate and fair step for both sides to present themselves to not just the county commission and staff, but to our community. Thank you. Mr. Capps. I will second that, and I want to thank our county attorney and her team for a very well-written document. I know that there was an awful lot of work and research that went into that, so thank you very much. And a couple of things that I would like to put out there that probably a lot of people don't think about or even know about with regard to where data centers could potentially go in unincorporated Martin County. Now, this would not involve the village of Indiantown, but unincorporated Martin County. One thing that is comforting is that data centers are not an approved use on agricultural land in Martin County. Is that true, Ms. Elder? That is true. Right. So all of the western lands of Martin County that are zoned agricultural, data centers are not an approved use there. And the only way that you could have one on those lands would be that if the county commission created a new freestanding urban services boundary. And we have four of those in Martin County currently. There's Martin Commerce Park at 714 and 95. And then there's the old AgTech site out at 95 and 714 on the north side of the road, on the west side of 95, which is now called Sunset Grove. Sunrise Grove. Sunrise Grove. And we're quite familiar with what the developer at those two urban services, freestanding urban services boundaries and what they have in mind. They want to build places for small businesses. I think Martin Commerce Park already has a final site plan approved for theirs. So no data centers are going there. And then the one called Sunrise Grove, well, but the second one that I mentioned, Sunrise Grove, on 714, on the other side of the highway, on the north side of the road. The plan there, from all that we understand, is that that's going to be small businesses as well. What is the state of that one? Have they had a site plan yet? I don't think they have a site plan, but the land use and the zoning are in place already. They are, yes. Right. It used to be AgTech. So more than likely there's not going to be a data center there. And then there's one called 7Js, which is by the landfill back in there. And from what I've always understood is that that one is like heavy industrial. And it's not a likely place where a data center would go. Can't guarantee that. I don't know for sure, but it's not likely. And then the last freestanding urban services boundary we have is Florida Gateway, which was mentioned earlier. So that's where our freestanding urban services boundaries are now. And so I think that's a good thing to think about and to remember as we're talking about data centers going forward. I know we still need to study this super in-depth and put new rules and parameters on data centers. But it reminds me of something that I remember reading in Indian River County. I think their county administrator enunciated one time that the rules that they have in place kind of prevent data centers from their county. So they're not likely to happen there. And, you know, I don't think there will be a proliferation of data centers in Martin County for those reasons. I can't guarantee that. You never know who the commissioners will be at any given point in the future. They could create another freestanding urban services boundary somewhere. It's within their power. But that would require comp plan amendments and zoning changes and site plan approvals. It's a big, complicated process. And quite controversial, I'm sure. So, anyway, I wanted to give some feedback about the landscape of this and some insights going forward. We certainly need to be vigilant and to be thinking of all the right things that should apply if one were to pop up. I'm not minimizing the need for all that. Let's do it. Let's put a lot of focus on it in the next year. But I wanted to also mention some of those things as well. So I gladly second the motion. Commissioner Gargas. So who will be doing the investigative work? You said staff. Who is doing that? Because I'm doing my own work. So it would usually be the growth management department in conjunction with the legal department that would research and develop the code for the data centers. Our growth management department is full of planners, certified planners, and they would be the appropriate staff members to investigate and potentially hire outside consultants. I'm not really sure. I haven't talked to them about it. And then legal would also participate. Yeah, because I would like to obviously converse with them, too, on this. I do attend the Florida Association of Counties, and I do have a listing of all 67 counties and where they are. Obviously, Martin County doesn't have a moratorium yet, but by the end of the day, we shall. And having said that, some counties just to the north of this Indian River has banned data centers. It doesn't flow with their comp plan. So we're always compared to Indian River, so maybe we'll be tilting that way also. Having said that, so I'm very keen on this, and I have my homework cut out for me, and I've already applied myself intensively to this because it sees, as I said earlier, it's all over, and I want it all over the place. And I want to be absolutely certain when I make my decision to be able to state my case firmly to my constituents. There's a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? That motion passes unanimously, with Commissioner Hetherington absent. Thank you. We will now move on to public hearing quasi-judicial number one, which is a request for certification of an agricultural enclave pursuant to sections 163.3162 and 163.3164 Florida statutes. This is quasi-judicial commissioners. Commissioner Vargas, any exparte disclosures? 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? I don't have any, and that's been filed. Staff, have you sent all your required materials to the clerk? Yes, a copy of the agenda item, and my work history has been turned in to the clerk as Exhibit 1. Excellent. And anyone who's going to be providing sworn testimony, please stand up, raise your right hand, and be sworn in. That's including the applicant. 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 with that. I do. Excellent. Please, first. Yes. The mic's not on. I was sent a text that MCTV is down. I just wanted to confirm if that is down or not. Okay. Let's find out. We certainly want to make sure that we have a clear record. How long has it been down? It just said MCTV was down. Did they capture everything we spoke about in the earlier item? I hope so. I don't know. We can repeat it. The data sent out of here. I hope so. The data sent out of here. We're good. We're good? They said they're good. Okay. Please proceed. Ms. Nabi. Good morning, commissioners. For the record, my name is Jenna Nabi, senior planner with the growth management department. I have Clyde Doolin, our comprehensive planning administrator, with me. And before you today is a request for certification of an agricultural enclave as requested by the property owner, Kanner 96th Street Investments, LLC. So before we get into the specifics of this request, I'll go over some background information about this bill and these new regulations. So Senate Bill 686 passed during the 2026 regular session of the Florida legislature and became effective on July 1st, 2026. This bill provided some new regulations for properties known as agricultural enclaves. This bill amended sections 163.3162 and 163.3164 of Florida statutes to provide a new process for property owners to apply for certification of property as an agricultural enclave and added and revised the criteria for how agricultural enclaves are defined under Florida statute. So this new process is two parts. The first part, which is this process right now, is that a property owner will apply to a local government for certification of property as an agricultural enclave. Staff reviews the application and has 30 days to issue a report. And then within 30 days of that report being issued, a public hearing must be held where the local government approves or denies the certification request. Part two of this process is that if a property is certified as an agricultural enclave, the property owner and applicant may submit development plans for single-family residential use on the certified property. And the process for staff review, analysis, and final administrative approval of these development plans must take place within 180 days. This language says single-family residential use, but I also want to make it clear that the bill does allow some provisions for industrial or commercial development on property that is certified as an agricultural enclave if it meets certain criteria in the bill. So it's primarily single-family residential use, but it could also be industrial or commercial. Development plans that are submitted for the property certified as an agricultural enclave must be treated as a conforming use, notwithstanding the comprehensive plan, future land use designation, or zoning. And a local government shall treat an agricultural enclave that is adjacent to an urban service district as if it is located within the urban service district. So on August 28, 2026, Martin County received the second request for certification of an agricultural enclave for the three parcels that are owned by Canter 96 Street Investments, LLC. That's the subject of this application. This is an aerial map of the subject parcels. Parcel one to the west is approximately 275 acres in size. Parcel two is 96.8 acres in size. And parcel three is 26.35 acres. These three parcels collectively are known as the waterside property. And as we move forward in this presentation and in the analysis, we will refer to these as parcel one, parcel two, and parcel three. The subject property is located south of Southwest 96th Street, west of Southwest Canter Highway, and directly east of the St. Lucie Canal. And in total, it is approximately 396 acres. So now we'll move into the analysis of Section 163.3164.4 of Florida statutes. There are multiple different criteria for how an agricultural enclave is defined, and the language of the statute is not abundantly clear how many of these criteria need to be met in order for a property to be certified. So we're going to go through each of these criteria one by one, and they're analyzed extensively in the staff report. So this is a high-level overview, but we're going to go through each of these one by one. So criterion 4A states that an agricultural enclave is defined as an unincorporated, undeveloped parcel that, as of January 1st, 2025, are owned or controlled by a single person or entity. These three parcels have been owned or controlled by a single person or entity since January 1st, 2025, so this criterion is met. 4B states that an agricultural enclave is defined as an unincorporated, undeveloped parcel that have been in continuous use for bona fide agricultural purposes as defined by Section 193.461 for a period of five years before the date of any comprehensive plan amendment or development application. Section 193.461 of Florida statutes pertains to agricultural lands and the classification and assessment of these lands for tax purposes by the property appraiser's office, the county property appraiser's office. Section 193.461 per n-1 states that the property appraiser shall, on an annual basis, classify for assessment purposes all lands within the county as either agricultural or non-agricultural. And this section of Florida statutes mandates that the property appraiser's office in the appropriate county is the sole statutory entity for classifying land as either agricultural or non-agricultural. So staff reviewed the tax records and property appraiser's information for these three parcels as part of this request. And parcel one has been in continuous use for bona fide agricultural purposes for a period of five years prior to the date of this application. Parcel two in its entirety has not been in continuous use for bona fide agricultural purposes for a period of five years prior to the date of this application. Only 35 acres out of the total 96.8 acres of parcel two were classified for agricultural use by the property appraiser's office during the 2024 and 2025 tax years. Similarly with parcel three, in its entirety, it has not been in continuous use for bona fide agricultural purposes for five years prior to this application. Zero acres out of 26.35 total acres of parcel three were classified for agricultural use by the property appraiser's office during the 2024 and 2025 tax years. So this criterion has not been met. And as we move forward in this analysis, we have excluded parcels two and three from the analysis for the boundary perimeter due to the lack of agricultural tax classification and bona fide ag uses present on the property. This graphic here shows the property that we received in total for this application, which is the red outline. And then with the exclusion of parcels two and three, that's in the green outline here. It just shows locationally in the property which parcels were excluded. And so as we move forward with the calculations for perimeter frontage and all of that stuff, we have this green number down here, the 18,305 linear feet. That's the total boundary that we've analyzed and worked with in this analysis. And that is only for parcel one. Moving on, criterion 4C1A states that an agricultural enclave is defined as an unincorporated, undeveloped parcel that are surrounded on at least 75% of their perimeter by a parcel or parcels that have existing industrial, commercial, or residential development. The applicant stated in their application that this criterion is not applicable, but they did not state why this criterion is not applicable and why it was not analyzed. And since the language of the bill is not clear on how many of these criteria must be met to qualify, we did a preliminary analysis of the surrounding development to evaluate this criterion. And again, the boundaries of parcels two and three were excluded from this analysis due to the lack of bona fide agricultural uses as defined under Florida statute. So with the exclusion of parcels two and three from this analysis, the property is surrounded on 17.48% of its perimeter by a parcel or parcels that have existing industrial, commercial, or residential development. Since this number is below the required 75% threshold, this criterion has not been met. Moving on, criterion 4C1B states that an agricultural enclave is defined as an unincorporated, undeveloped parcel that are surrounded on at least 75% of their perimeter by a parcel or parcels that the local government has designated in the local government's zoning map and future land use map as land that is to be developed for industrial, commercial, or residential purposes. And at least 50% of such parcel or parcels is existing industrial, commercial, or residential development. So this specific paragraph is two parts. The first part is that the property for certification has to have 75% of its perimeter with land that's designated for industrial, commercial, or residential. The second part of that is looking at only what's designated. At least 50% of that has to be existing development. So as stated previously, parcels two and three have been excluded. And with the exclusion of parcels two and three from this analysis, the property is surrounded on 46.41% of its perimeter by a parcel or parcels that are designated for industrial, commercial, or residential development. And of the property that is designated for such development, only 30.49% of these parcels are existing development. So since both of these percentages fall below the required 75% and 50% thresholds, this criterion has not been met. This graphic here tries to put an image to the calculations that we just described. So again, only looking at parcel one, the boundary frontage with the land use designation of marine waterfront commercial and industrial were counted towards the designated calculation. And that's shown with the colored lines, the yellow for the industrial future land use and the blue for the marine waterfront commercial. And then only looking at what was designated for industrial, commercial, and residential, the white lines are what is existing development. And so you can see here this parcel that's north of Southwest 96th Street. That's vacant. That was not counted towards the existing development. And same with this land within the South Florida Gateway Industrial PUD. This is all vacant. So it was not counted towards the existing development calculation. So just to explain what this figure shows and how that calculation was done. Moving on, criterion 4C1C states that an ag enclave is defined as an unincorporated undeveloped parcel that do not exceed 75% of their vehicle surrounded on at least 75% of their perimeter by a combination of an interstate highway system and parcels within an urban service district and that the local government has designated for industrial, commercial, or residential purposes. These parcels do not have any frontage with an interstate highway system, so this criterion is not applicable. An agricultural enclave, criterion 4C2, states that it's defined as an unincorporated undeveloped parcel that do not exceed 700 acres and are surrounded on at least 50% of their perimeter by a parcel or parcels that the local government has designated on the local government's future land use map as land that is to be developed for industrial, commercial, or residential purposes. And the parcel or parcels are surrounded on at least 50% of their perimeter by a parcel or parcels within an urban service district area or line. So this one is three parts. The first is that it cannot exceed 700 acres. The second part is that it must be surrounded on at least 50% of its perimeter by lands designated for industrial, commercial, or residential. And the third part is that the property for certification has to have at least 50% frontage with an urban service district area or line. All three of those have to be met in order to comply with this criterion. So the subject parcels do not exceed a total of 700 acres. Again, we have excluded parcels 2 and 3 from this analysis. And with the exclusion of parcels 2 and 3, the property is surrounded on 46.41% of its perimeter by parcels designated for industrial, commercial, or residential development. And the property is surrounded on 46.41% of its perimeter by a parcel or parcels within an urban service district. So this criterion has not been met since both of those thresholds fall below the required 50% frontage. This image here shows the calculation for specifically the urban service district calculation. So the primary urban service district is located north of the subject property and directly adjacent to it with this marine waterfront commercial land right here. And then the South Florida Gateway PUD is part of a freestanding industrial urban service district. So this frontage was counted towards the adjacency to an urban service district requirement. 4C3 states that an agricultural enclave is defined as an unincorporated, undeveloped parcel that are located within the boundary of an established rural study area. Martin County does not have one of those, so this criterion is not applicable. 4D states that an agricultural enclave is defined as an unincorporated, undeveloped parcel that have public services, including water, wastewater, transportation available. There's some more there. Or the applicant offers to enter into a binding agreement to pay for, construct, or contribute land for its proportionate share of such improvements. The applicant stated in their letter that if there's any service deemed to be deficient during the site plan review, that they would enter into a binding agreement to pay for, construct, or contribute land for its proportionate share of any of these public services. So this criterion will be met if this binding agreement is reached. 4E states that an agricultural enclave is defined as an unincorporated, undeveloped parcel that do not exceed 1,280 acres. The rest of this paragraph are provisions for if the property does exceed 1,280 acres, but since this request does not exceed that 1,280 acre threshold, this criterion has been met. And finally, 4F states that an agricultural enclave is defined as an unincorporated, undeveloped parcel that are located within a county with a population of 1.75 million or less. Martin County's population is less than 1.75 million people, so this criterion has been met. In conclusion, the applicant has not demonstrated the application as submitted qualifies as an agricultural enclave. Due to Parcel 2 and 3's lack of classification for bona fide agricultural purposes, this application does not demonstrate compliance with Section 163.3164.4b of Florida statutes. The application also does not comply with the boundary perimeter criteria as established in Sections 163.3164.4c1a, 4c1b, and 4c2 of Florida statutes. Staff recommends that move that the board receive and file the agenda item and all its attachments, including the staff report as Exhibit 1. Move that the board deny the request for certification of an agricultural enclave as proposed by Canner 96th Street Investments, LLC. And move that the board adopt the resolution denying the certification of an agricultural enclave proposed by Canner 96th Street Investments, LLC, and authorize the county attorney's office to revise the proposed resolution as needed to reflect the board's findings of fact and conclusions of law. That concludes our presentation. Questions for Ms. Nobby. Applicant, would you like to make a presentation? The applicant can ask questions to the staff. Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon for Brother Nicholas Giesler, attorney for Canner 96th Street Investments. I just have a few follow-up questions about your presentation. Can you explain the reasoning, if I understood staff's position properly, of removing parcels 2 and 3 from the calculations? Can you speak a little closer to the mic or bring it closer to you? Sorry. I'll start over the question for the record. Can you explain the staff's reasoning for removing parcels 2 and 3 from the calculations made under the 4C analysis? Yes. So the statute for the Ag Enclaves Bill for Criterion 4B states that the bona fide ag uses have to be according to Section 193.461 of Florida statutes. When we look at that Section 193.461 of Florida statutes, it's talking about how the property appraiser is the statutory entity that's determining agricultural uses present on property. So when we looked at the tax records for parcels 2 and 3, and they did not have 100% of their acreage classified for bona fide agricultural purposes, we removed those parcels from this application and from the analysis, and parcel 2 specifically did not have 100% of the acreage classified for agricultural uses, and the statute for Ag Enclaves does not state that a portion of parcels classified for agricultural use is sufficient to meet that requirement. Is there anything in Section 193.461 that mandates that the property appraiser is the only entity who does an evaluation under Chapter 163.3164? So 193.461, paren 1, states that the property appraiser shall, on an annual basis, classify for assessment purposes all lands within the county as either agricultural or non-agricultural. So that reads that the county property appraiser's office is the sole entity that determines whether lands are agricultural or non-agricultural in nature. Under Chapter 163.31642, or is that just for classification purposes, for tax purposes and property appraiser classification? That's how this Section of 193.461 reads. Okay, so I was taking notes during the presentation, and I believe I heard you say that when you're talking about removing parcels 2 and 3, that the county analyzed the classification and the bona fide ag use. So did county staff rely solely on the property appraiser's interpretation, or did county staff do its own analysis of the ag use on the property? We reviewed the application materials that were submitted as part of this application, and that also includes the review that we did of property appraiser's tax records. Okay, so if the county staff, did the county staff do any kind of investigation to determine whether parcels 2 and 3, whether there was bona fide ag use on the property, other than just looking at the property appraiser classification? We reviewed the property appraiser's tax records that are conducted in accordance with 193.461, which is what the 163.31644B requires. And I'm sorry to kind of ask this similar question, but I just want the record to be clear on it. So county staff, the sole analysis was to look at the property appraiser's classification. Is that correct? Application materials. Yes, we looked at, in conjunction with the application materials that were submitted, we also reviewed the property appraiser's tax records for those two parcels. So was there an analysis done to determine whether the application materials evidenced a bona fide agricultural use absent of what the property appraiser's classification was? We did analyze the application materials, and that's seen on pages 130 and 131 and 132 of the agenda item. That's the pages of the staff report that go into our staff analysis of the application materials that were submitted. So if the application materials evidenced bona fide agricultural operations use on parcels 2 and 3, would county of staff found that the applicant met criteria 4B regardless of what the property appraiser's classification is? Staff is not the one that makes the statutory determination of if there's agricultural uses present. It's the property appraiser's office as outlined under section 193.461 of Florida statutes. So then it doesn't really matter what the application materials say, right? It's just what the property appraiser's classification is? We analyze all of it in conjunction. But why would you need to analyze the application materials if the end-all of the discussion is how the property appraiser classifies the property? Because Florida statutes outlines that the property appraiser's office is the one that makes that determination. So the application materials wouldn't affect your analysis if the property appraiser's classification was not agricultural, right? Just for the record, I'm going to interject because you've asked the same question three times, and she's answered it. I'm just trying to create a record, and I haven't really got a straight answer about whether... She answered, to the best of her knowledge. I know you don't like her answer, but she answered three times. Madam Chair, I think it's your decision on this. I mean, the rules... Ask for the answer, I believe. Move on, please. Okay. So for the following... Because I still don't understand the question, to make that clear for the record. My understanding is that it's the property appraiser's classification that is the sole determination under county staff's position of whether criteria 4B is met. So the rest of the questions are going to go under that assumption. And I'll ask, did you physically visit the property in determining the agricultural use? No. Did you investigate what kind of activities occur on the property, if there is any ag activities on the property? I examined what was in the application materials. Did you do any kind of inspection outside of what's in the application materials and what the property appraiser's classification is? No. Did you discuss the classification with anybody at the property appraiser's office? Yes. And what were those discussions? We met with them to get some more information about what goes into their process for classifying lands for agricultural uses and getting more information on what those classifications are. And what did they tell you specific to Parcels 2 and 3, which were taken out of the 4C calculations? They explained what the breakdown of the land use codes were and the presence of those agricultural uses on the property. Did they let you know what evaluations they did on Parcels 2 and 3? It was more of a high-level overview. Did they, are you aware whether or not Parcels 2 and 3 filed an application for an ag classification? I believe they did. So it's your position that Parcels 2 and 3 filed an application, the property appraiser evaluated whether or not there was ag activity and denied the application? That's hearsay, right? That's a question for the property appraiser. Yeah, if you don't know, you can say you don't know. Hearsay is permissible in a quasi-judicial. Can you repeat the question, please? I'm just saying that's a question for the property appraiser. Correct. It's also an appropriate question for a cross-examination in a quasi-judicial proceeding. Hearsay testimony is permitted. I'm sorry, can you repeat the question? Yeah, the question is, do you know if the property appraiser received an application specific to Parcels 2 and 3 and did an analysis of whether or not it was proper for an ag classification? I'm not sure. Wouldn't that be information that you'd want to know when making a recommendation to the commission? Well, the tax records are what we evaluated, and I know that the statute says that a landowner has to apply for an agricultural tax classification in order to have it granted. So your position is that if you're evaluating a parcel, even if there's clear ag activity across the entirety of the parcel, if they do not apply for their ag classification with the property appraiser, then they cannot meet the requirements under 163.31644B. Asked and answered. I haven't asked that question. It's the same question you were asking before. It's just been worded a different way. I asked the question about the application. Okay. We're going around here. I'm sorry, can you repeat the question? Yes. I'm asking if it's your position that even if a property is clearly 100% of the property is used for bona fide agricultural purposes, if they choose not to apply to the property appraiser for their ag classification, is it your position that they can then not meet the requirements of 163.3164? Well, that section of criterion 4B of the ag enclaves bill requires that it's done via section 193.461 of Florida statute. So that's the section of statute that we analyzed. I'm really sorry to be – it's just a simple yes or no question that I really need to get an answer for for the record. It's already answered. Please move on. So is your understanding that the answer is no? My understanding is that she doesn't know because she's not a property appraiser. No, that's not my question, though, ma'am. My question is, regardless of whether agricultural activity is going on, is it your position that you cannot meet the requirements under 163.3164 or 193.4161 if you do not submit an application for ag classification? My position is that we analyzed the ag enclave statute according to section 193.461. I'd like to let the record show that a witness is not answering this question, but I believe the answer is no, it seems to be. I don't know if anybody else disagrees with that. I definitely disagree with that. She answered the question. She is discussing this specific application. We're not talking in hypotheticals here. She has answered all the questions with regard to this specific application, the process she followed, and what statutory procedure she followed. So I do disagree, just for the record. Well, respectfully, Ms. Elder, and I think you would agree with me, if we were in a courtroom, a judge at this point would instruct the witness to answer the question. It's a simple yes or no question, and the witness does not answer the question, but I'll move on. Did you talk to any of the farmers who operate ag activities on the subject property? No. Are you aware that there is farming operations conducted on the subject property? I'm aware that the applicants submitted affidavits as part of their application materials. Did you ask anybody how long the farming operations have occurred on the property? I examined what was stated in the application materials. Other than what you examined in the application materials, did you investigate how long farming operations have been occurring on the subject property? No. I have no further questions. Thank you. Good afternoon. Excuse me. Good afternoon, Commissioners. Tyson Waters here for the record on behalf of the applicant, Canter 96 Investment. So I appreciate staff's work on this. Not surprisingly enough, we do disagree with some of their findings, so we're going to go back through, reiterate some of their discussion points, but hopefully provide some additional clarification in support of our application. And with that, I would like to ask that everything that we've submitted, including the application as well as our PowerPoint presentation, be admitted and included as part of the record. So as staff noted, we are dealing with three parcels here. And as staff did, we're going to call them the same thing, parcel one, parcel two, and parcel three. And just very briefly, some of our application history. Staff did mention that this was approved by the 2026 legislature and approved by the governor in April of this past year and became effective on July 1st of 2026. The applicant filed its first application on July 1st, received a staff report on July 22nd with a hearing date scheduled for August 11th. When we received staff's report, we analyzed it very closely and found that we could have done a better job with our application. So before the hearing on the 11th, we did withdraw our application so that we could strengthen and provide more supporting information. On August 28th, we did file a new application, and that is this 153-page document that was part of the record and submitted in support of our request for an agricultural enclave certification. So, again, as you've heard multiple times, what we're focused on today is the agricultural enclave as it's defined in Section 163.3164. And you do have a list of criteria that we'll go through in more detail in a second. But you've got basically six criteria that we have to demonstrate that we satisfy in order to be certified as an agricultural enclave. And, again, you've got A, B, C, C is in multiparts one, A, B, C, two, and three. And I would like to draw your attention that in this subsection C, they use the word or, meaning that this or that or that. So it is the position, and we believe accurate based on the state law, that you need to demonstrate one of those criteria within subsection 6. And, again, you've got D, E, and F that are also part of this regulation. So we all agree subpart A is that a single entity owns all of the parcels. And we all agree that Cantor 96 Street Investments is the owner of all the tracts of land. And then, again, part B is this continuous bona fide agricultural use for the past five years. And we believe the record demonstrates that these all three parcels have, in fact, been used for bona fide agricultural purposes for the past five years. And what it tells you to do in the statute is to look one place within this 193.461, and that is the definition of a bona fide agricultural purpose. And that definition is simply a good faith commercial agricultural use of the land. That's the definition. It stops right there. Then they give you a few examples of what that means, what you can provide to demonstrate that you are, in fact, at a commercial agricultural use of the land. And what we've got here is parcel one. Everybody agrees 100% of it is used for agricultural uses. Right now, growing crops, row crops. Parcel two and three, they've got multiple leases on the property, multiple occupants on the property with cattle grazing, beef farming, and a plant nursery. However, we acknowledge that only a portion of that is actually classified as exempt by the property appraiser. And I think that's the important thing that we really need to focus on. And just a little bit of history about that exemption on these two parcels, parcel two and three. It previously was classified as agricultural exempt property. What happened in 2022 is this property is adjacent to the South Florida gateway. In 2022, the applicant conveyed a portion of the property to South Florida gateway for inclusion as part of the industrial park. And with that conveyance, you lost the agricultural exemption unless you reapplied. The then property owner did not apply for an agricultural exemption. The site plan was modified. Turns out they didn't need all of the agricultural land. And so they conveyed some back to the current applicant. And unfortunately for the applicant, the applicant didn't apply for that exemption on those parcels of land as well. And as a result, you lost it. But again, you only lost the classification for exemption purposes. And that, I think, is the key here for this analysis of a bona fide agricultural use. The property's role, and as you heard in the statute today, is solely for assessment purposes. That's it. They are not the end-all, be-all of whether or not a bona fide agricultural use is on a piece of property. It is simply to classify that piece of property as exempt or not. And it's not automatic. What has to happen as a property owner to be exempt is that I have to apply for it. I have to apply and request the property appraiser, analyze my property, and classify it for exemption purposes as agricultural land. If I fail to timely make that application, I don't get it. Whether I'm a commercial bona fide agricultural operation or not, I simply don't get the exemption. But the key here, again, is the property appraiser's role is to classify for assessment purposes all lands within the county as either agricultural and non-agricultural. The classification or lack thereof is not dispositive of the actual use of the property for agricultural purposes. And, again, in this statute, in that list of criteria to determine whether or not you're a commercial agricultural use, there's no mention in the statute that it's required that you have an exemption classification from the property appraiser. So we believe that's a fundamental error in the staff's analysis for our bona fide agricultural uses on all three parcels of land. And in support that, as part of the application, we've got multiple affidavits from all of the occupants of Parcels 2 and 3. We've got an affidavit of Don Rose, who's the principal at Creek Nursery, affirming that for more than the past five years, they've had a plant nursery on Parcel 2. We've got an affidavit of Brian Runken, who maintains bees on portions of Parcels 2 and 3, and he's affirmed that he's had this bona fide agricultural operation on portions of Parcels 2 and 3 for more than five years. And finally, we have an affidavit of Curtis Crocker, who has cattle grazing on all or the majority of Parcels 2 and 3. Again, an affidavit that he's affirming that he's had a commercial cattle operation on that site for more than five years. Those three affidavits confirm that all of the parcels, Parcel 1, Parcel 2, and Parcel 3, have been used for bona fide commercial agricultural purposes in compliance with this section. And finally, for the snapshot of what we have today, we've got an affidavit of Phil Holden, who is a certified property appraiser, very familiar with the area, who confirmed that these uses today, which we've got affidavits that have said the uses today have been the same uses for more than the past five years, would in fact qualify as bona fide agricultural uses. And with that, I would like to ask Mr. Holden, who has been sworn in, to come up here and briefly go over an explanation of some of his analysis of the property. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. I'm a certified real estate appraiser, state of Florida. I hold the MAI designation. I've been an appraiser, independent appraiser, since 1974. My office is in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. I often work in Martin County on ag lands in Martin County. Agricultural property is primarily the job that I work on. I'm very familiar with this particular property from the August 4th inspection that I did. I witnessed on this property an active bee operation, along with the manufacturing of beehives in a barn, a landscape nursery in operation, and a cattle ranch in operation on all parts of this property. The cattle were, when I was there, cordoned off to a certain pasture on the south side, quite normal that they would be rotated, as we all know. You rotate cows around. Same with the bee people. They move hives. Hives come and go. The beekeeper that's there ships his bees off as far as California. So beehives come and go. When we were there, there were actually, there were active people working to clean and relocate beehive operations. The property has a large pond on it that's used for irrigation that the nursery man uses, pulls his irrigation water from, and irrigates his crops, irrigates landscape material, all potted. He also has a paved area up front with his barn and his equipment. The rancher has rebuilt the corrals that were there. That's what I witnessed when I was there. There were corrals there. There were new. The property is completely fenced and gated, which tells me as a real estate appraiser and an observer of real estate that there's an active agricultural operation. When gates are closed, a pasture is laid to rest. Cows are put in one part of the property. Then the cows are moved from there. When the grass is grazed down, they move them back, gate them in a certain pasture in order to cordon them off, let that rest. And a rancher normally does that. The nursery operation that's there, there were trees that were being prepared to be loaded. There were trees that were ready to be probably sold and moved off the property. And there were beds that were being prepared for more plants. So what I saw during my inspection was an active operation of the entire property, consumed the entire property, was completely fenced and secured and gated, which are all indications that the property is used as an agricultural operation. I was provided the leases that had been ongoing for years on the property, and that equipment was on the property and used for the agricultural use. So that's my testimony today. If there's any questions, I can answer. Excuse me, Commissioner Hurd, I have a few questions. Okay. Mr. Holden, do you work for the Martin County Property Appraiser? I do not. Were you on the property in 2023? No, but I had driven by the front of it numerous times because I appraised the property down the road for a corporation. I have to be there every six months. Okay. Were you on the property in 2024? Not on the property. Not on site. Were you on the property in 2025? Not directly on site, no. Okay. So prior to August of 2026, before that, were you ever on the property? I was on the property that is farmed around this because I used it as a comparable sale. I did not trespass on this particular piece. Okay. But I'd driven by the road numerous times. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Any further questions? Thank you. So I just have one question for Mr. Holden. During your inspection and leading up to it, did you review and rely on the three affidavits from the farmers that were on the site? Well, I spoke to them, and yes, I did. Great. Thank you very much. Okay. So again, so here's a visual of where the various agricultural uses are on the site. Again, you've got the row crops on parcel one, and then you can see scattered throughout parcels two and three, the beehives, the plant nursery, and the cattle grazing, as well as some improvements such as the cattle gates. And a little bit close up about where those beehives are, as well as some of those grazing parcels on, or grazing areas on parcel three, leading north into parcel two. And here are examples of some of the beehives on the parcels, and I believe some of these are part of our application as well. Focusing now on the grazing portion of it, you can see the cows scattered about in some of these sub pictures, as well as a receipt from Mr. Crocker as part of his commercial operations on parcels two and three. So based on all of that, based on the record, based on our application, the affidavits that have been submitted, as well as Mr. Holden's testimony, we do believe that we have demonstrated that the subject parcels have been continuously used for bona fide agricultural purposes, as defined by 193.461 for more than five years prior to the application, and as such, this condition has been satisfied. So our analysis is, in fact, going to include all three of those parcels, parcel one, parcel two, and parcel three, as we step into the analysis of subpart C. So here is a summary of subpart C, and again, I've highlighted the fact that the use by the legislature for subpart C is the word or, which means that we need to satisfy at least one of the above criteria. And staff noted that we kind of skipped over some of these subparts and said they weren't applicable. We said they weren't applicable because we acknowledged that we didn't qualify for those subparts. So really, in our analysis, it's focused on, I believe, just two of the categories within subpart C. And the first one is this, subpart CB1B, and that is at least 75 percent of the property is designated by the local government's zoning map and land use map as land to be developed for industrial, commercial, or residential purposes, and at least 50 percent of such parcels have existing industrial, commercial, or residential development. So if you look at a summary of the property as a whole, on the south side, some of the parcels you've got the industrial uses of South Florida Gateway. And I'll show you a map that lays this out a little bit more clear. On the west side of the parcels, you've got the Apogee golf course and amenities. You've got existing waterfront commercial, and this focuses on the existing element of that. So again, we've got to beat that 50 percent threshold. And then you also have existing single-family home on land that's zoned for agricultural. East side, again, more residential throughout the east side of the property, many of them have homestead exemptions on them to demonstrate that even if they're ag ranch at or ag land, they are in fact residential uses, which is the key part for the next analysis. And then on the north side, again, you've got a commercial waterfront, residential development, single-family homes, and other residential developments scattered about that northern side of this subject property. And here's a little bit easier view of what I just went over in that breakdown. You see on the red, you've got existing commercial. In the blue, on the northern side and easterly side, you've got residential. And then you've got the industrial park. And we've only included that portion of South Florida Gateway that is actually developed. So you'll see this yellow line that kind of traverses a portion of the property. We acknowledge that's not existing uses, so that's not part of our analysis. Now we've flipped to the land use map. And surrounding this property, we've got industrial, commercial waterfront, mobile home, estate density, undisputed by all parties that those clearly are industrial, commercial, and residential uses. But we also have rural lifestyle, ag ranch at, and agricultural lands, which we believe do in fact have an intention to be and allow for development for residential and, in the case of rural lifestyle, commercial purposes. And so here's a breakdown of that use. We've got commercial waterfront, mobile home, agricultural, estate density, ag ranch at, industrial, and rural lifestyle surrounding and scattered about these pieces of property. And so let's focus on those three kind of areas of question, the first being rural lifestyle and whether or not that is intended to be developed for residential, commercial, or industrial purposes. We think when you actually read the policy, and certainly when you look at the developments, you see a residential and commercial intended development. We've got golf courses. We've got residential lots. And you look no further than within the area in the rural lifestyle development, where you have Apogee, the commercial golf course. You've got Discovery and the ranch, which are golf courses, commercial golf courses, as well as residential development on them. And again, just for a visual example, on the left here is a picture of the Apogee clubhouse. And on the right, you've got those residential platted lots that are part of the Discovery development. Ag Ranchette. Ag Ranchette. If you look at the comprehensive plan, again, when you read the definition, staff cited some of it, but what was omitted in there was the contemplation and intention that within this Agricultural Ranchette, you'll have rural residences. And I think that's the key, because when you look at Ag Ranchette lots developed around Martin County, they're rural residences. The primary use of those lots are, in fact, residential. So we believe there is an intention that these designated lots or designated parcels are for residential use, or at least intended that they can be used as part of a variety of other uses for residential purposes. And therefore, that land use would qualify as part of this analysis. And again, here you go. You look at some of the five-acre lots within Martin County, and I believe it's Pinalago in the south. That also is a full five-acre development track of land of simply residential lots. And then we go to agricultural 20-acre lots. It does allow for residential uses within the agricultural land use. Now we flip to the zoning. Does the zoning designate residential, industrial, or commercial purposes? Again, most of these we can blow right through. Plan unit development for industrial, waterfront commercial, M2, another residential PUD, and then mobile home and RE1.5A. Then we look more closely at a couple other zoning districts, one being the rural lifestyle. And again, within that zoning district, it expressly allows commercial golf courses as well as residential lots. So there is absolutely an intention that those can be designated and used for residential and commercial purposes. And then the other unique one is this A2 zoning district. It's an old Category C district, I believe. But as you work your way down through the zoning district aspect, you've got in there uses permitted are R1, R2, and R2B single-family residential districts. So within that zoning district, that old zoning district, there absolutely is a designation to be using those lots for residential purposes. And so we believe that we, with all the land uses and zoning districts, we qualify under this analysis. Again, as we did with the future land use, this is the zoning map breakdown where you have commercial waterfront, industrial PUD, mobile home, an industrial PUD, A2, general industrial PUD, and residential estate. Again, all allowing one of those three categories of uses. So in summary, for C1B, we do believe we satisfy this requirement. The subject parcels, when you account for all three of the parcels, were just over 27,000 lineal feet. When you look at the land use and zoning map for designated lands that are industrial, commercial, or residential, we believe we're at 100%. But even for the case of argument, you remove the agricultural future land use, we're still at over 80%. So we surpassed that 75% threshold. And then when we look to the existing uses, what we've walked through, counting parcels one, parcel two, and parcel three, from verified existing uses, we're at just over 52%, which, again, surpasses the 50% threshold. As a result, this condition is satisfied. Moving on to the next analysis that we have, subpart C2, which is now we have to have, one, we don't exceed 700 acres, which we all acknowledge we don't. And then the other two elements of this is that at least 50% of the land is designated on the county's future land use map as land to be developed for industrial, commercial, or residential purposes, and at least 50% of parcels within an urban – are surrounded by parcels within an urban service district. And this one we think is a whole lot more straightforward. When you look at all three parcels, again, through that analysis of the land use categories, we believe we're at 100%. But in this analysis, because now our threshold's 50%, so if we take away agricultural land use, if we take away agricultural ranchette land use, and we also actually take away the rural lifestyle land use, you'll see here that we're still at 58% of our surrounding boundaries, which qualifies and we exceed that 50% threshold. And then, similarly, those parcels are all within the urban service district that surround us, and once again, we're at the 58%. So in this category, in this analysis of C2, we exceed the 50% for the designated uses of the land use, and we exceed the 50% for being surrounded by the urban service district. So we think this one is even more straightforward and more clear that we clearly satisfy the requirement. And again, just as a visual for you, this is the urban service district, whether it's the primary or the freestanding urban service district, where it includes and how it encompasses about 58% of the surrounding parcels. So again, just in summary, we believe that we've satisfied condition C1B, and we've satisfied condition C2. And based on the clear language of this statute, we only need to satisfy one of those requirements within C. And then, again, I think for the rest of them, we agree with staff on this that for subpart D, we have offered to provide and enter into a binding agreement to pay for, construct, and contribute land for its proportionate share of such improvements, and so that condition is satisfied. The subject parcels do not exceed 1,280 acres, so again, we all agree that that condition is satisfied. And then finally, again, we're located in a population of 1.75 million or less, and so we satisfy that condition. And in summary, these are the six criteria that we have to satisfy in order to be classified as an agricultural enclave. Ownership interests satisfied, continuous bona fide agricultural purposes, I believe the application and the testimony today, as well as including those affidavits that were supplied, demonstrate that we meet this condition. We've just gone over the surrounding parcel criteria. We clearly satisfy two of those requirements, the public service requirement, parcel size restriction, and population size. We all have demonstrated that we've satisfied those conditions. And therefore, based on the information contained in our application, as well as the testimony you've heard today, the subject parcels qualify for certification of the parcels and parcels as an agricultural enclave as defined in Section 163.3164. And with that, we would respectfully request this board agree and certify the properties as an agricultural enclave. And with that, we are certainly here for any questions you may have. Ms. Elder. I don't have any questions for Mr. Waters, but I do have a response to some of the things that Mr. Waters has presented today. So obviously, staff disagrees with most of what was in his presentation. And there's an extensive analysis in the staff report, so I'm not going to go over everything. But there is one key distinction that I would like to point out to the board while you're evaluating this. The statute that we're talking about talks about designation on our future land use map. And designation is a very important word when you're talking about the comprehensive plan because our comprehensive plan and our future land use map is separated by various land use designations. And it's important that the statute uses that word because we do have a residential land use designation in our comprehensive plan. And I will tell you that agricultural, agricultural ranchette, rural lifestyle are not part of our residential land use designation. Agricultural and agricultural land is part of our agricultural land use designation. Rural lifestyle has its own land use designation. So to say that agricultural ranchette, ag, land, and rural lifestyle are land use designations for industrial, commercial, or residential is not accurate based on our comprehensive plan. The other thing is Apogee is a rural recreational community. It is not a residential development. In fact, there's no residential development in Apogee. It's completely a golf course. So I just wanted to point that out. But it is important to understand that the word designation used in the statute has a legal significant meaning. And that refers to our land use designations. And our residential land use designation does not include ag ranchette, ag land, or rural lifestyle. And those three are also not in our commercial or industrial land use designations, which are completely separate land use designations. So I wanted to make that distinction to the board so you understand why the word designation is important and how it's applicable in our comprehensive plan. Mr. Doolin. Thank you, Madam Chair. And to reinforce and to thank you, Ms. Elder, for making those points. But to reinforce what she just said, on the screen is Objective 4.7A, which talks about concentrating higher densities and intensities of development inside the primary urban service district. It specifically lists commercial, industrial, and residential development exceeding a density of two units per acre as appropriate for the primary urban service district. It doesn't list ag, ag ranchette, rural lifestyle, and a number of other things as appropriate for the primary urban service district. So we would say we appropriately take the statutory requirement of industrial, commercial, and residential to fit this. Now, if you'll scroll down, Ms. Nabi, to policy 4.7A, development options outside the urban service districts. This is a policy, part of those designations that Ms. Elder referred to, that specifically says that agricultural, agricultural ranchette, and rural lifestyle are appropriate for outside the urban service districts, not just the primary, the primary, the secondary, and freestanding. So, fitting with Florida statute's discussion of designating urban land uses, these land uses are not urban, and they are not residential, they are not commercial, they are not industrial, and that's why they were excluded from the staff analysis. We have extensive experience with this, this is what we do, we are not property appraisers, but this is what we do, and these land use designations do not fit. It's absurd to say that this is an agricultural enclave, while saying that agricultural is a residential designation. If that's true, then the applicant doesn't need an agricultural enclave classification, he's already residential, which runs contrary to their application materials. So, we vehemently disagree with this presentation of information by the applicant on this subject. Also, I'd like to turn back to this earlier discussion of agricultural classification, because it's very important. Ms. Nobby, would you go to 193.461? So, contrary to the twisted questions that were asked earlier, Section 1 of this says the property appraiser shall, on an annual basis, classify, for assessment purposes, all lands within the county. Nothing in this language goes into exemptions, as Mr. Waters talked about. Nothing's exempt. I'm not a property appraiser, but they've corrected me on that one. And I've used that term incorrectly. Even property with an agricultural tax classification pays taxes. They're not exempt. So, this is important. Now, would you go to the next page over, Section 1, Section B. Subject to the restrictions specified in this section, only lands that are used for bona fide agricultural purposes shall be classified. So, the whole thing hinges on whether it's classified or not classified, not the word exempt. The word exempt doesn't appear in here. It's not applicable. If you're not bona fide, you don't get exempt. I'm sorry. You don't get classified. And if you're not classified, you don't comply with this section of 163, which this whole ag enclave issue turns on. So, the word exempt isn't applicable. The word classified is applicable. The property appraiser did not classify all of this land as agricultural. So, it would be absurd for staff to go against what the property appraiser, who is the expert on this subject, has classified. Thank you. So, I just want to, not surprisingly, we disagree with staff. I do understand where they're coming from, but your designation is not limited to a single word or a single provision. I think if you read the class, the designation within each of those blocks, I think it's clear that in the rural lifestyle, it contemplates that this property can be designated for an intended use of residential and commercial. I think you just look at the developments and see that Apogee, no residential lands, but clearly a commercial operation. And then your other two projects clearly have both a commercial operation with golf courses as well as residential lots. Again, same thing with agricultural land. Right there and there, it contemplates an intended use of rural residences. But even with that, if, can you go, so, I'll be very brief. I understand. I think this is the time for the commissioners to ask questions. But if I, I just, I just need to rebut what staff just said. One is, even if you agree with staff that agricultural, agricultural ranchette, and rural lifestyle are not applicable for residential uses, I think what you're looking for in C2 is we still qualify because parcels 1, 2, and 3 are surrounded by at least 50% of clearly undisputed industrial, commercial, or residential land use and zoning districts. And the same thing with the urban service district. But going back to the statute, I think staff noted an important element, but I think, in my opinion, misread it. If you look at section subpart one, the property appraiser's role is to classify lands for assessment purposes. It's not in general just, I classify all lands in Martin County as agricultural or non-classification. Her role is to classify it for assessment purposes as these parcels, as for these uses. And then if you look at the definition, that's the generic classification. To be classified, not for assessment purpose, but in general to be classified as agricultural, you have to be this bona fide use. And the second sentence in that subpart defines what a bona fide agricultural use is. And with that, again, we believe we demonstrated that we qualify for an agricultural certification, enclave certification, and we'd ask for you to support that. Thank you. Any questions for the applicant? This is a public hearing. Would anyone from the public like to address us on this matter? Seeing none, we will close the public hearing and evaluate. Commissioner Capps. You know, as commissioners, we usually have some level of discretion in our land use decisions, like with the various types of land use decisions we've made in the past. By the way, the agricultural enclave concept and the ag enclave bill is a new one. And this is our first ag enclave certification hearing. And the normal land use decisions we make are things like comprehensive plan amendments. And that's the one where you have the most discretion as a commissioner. The legal standard is fairly debatable. As long as it's fairly debatable, you can say yes or no. And then there's the zoning change. That's another one. That one is a judicial decision with a stricter standard. It is competent, substantial evidence in the record. So if you want to say no, you need to have a good, solid, evidence-based decision for saying no. And then there's the plan unit development decision, which is a negotiation for public benefits. And that one has some discretion in it for commissioners because it's a negotiation. And it's voluntarily entered into between the county and the applicant. And then there's the site plan approval. And they can be minor or major final site plans. The minor ones never come to the board. And the major ones do. It's still a judicial decision. Competent, substantial evidence in the record is the standard. Well, this thing called the agricultural enclave is a whole new ball of wax. And this is a lot like, I think of it like the brownfield hearings. We've had two of those, I believe, since I've been elected. And the legislature basically says, they basically kind of force you into a decision as a board of county commissioners. They basically list some legal criteria. And they say if they're all checked off, you must say yes. That's what the legislature is forcing us to do in this type of a hearing, similar to the brownfield thing. So I just wanted to let people know, since this is a new thing, how this works and what the legislature has asked of us. So that being said, well, let me summarize it this way. This type of a hearing is not really a discretionary hearing in my mind. It is a legal analysis. It's kind of a strictly legal thing. Do we meet the rules or not? And it appears to me that staff has enunciated a good, sound legal basis for a denial of this agricultural enclave. I'm satisfied with their analysis. I thought it was very thoughtful and very keen. And so I'm going to move staff recommendation of denial of the request for certification of an agricultural enclave in this case. Mr. Schilling, do you have a comment? Actually, that was my light. Thank you. I just want to – Pete Walden, Deputy Growth Management Director, I just want to add on to what Clyde said. While the agricultural enclave of SB 686 is new, the provision about bona fide ag has always been in there, and there is actually state statute that's been in place for years. And it's always required that five years of bona fide agricultural use be intact. And I believe it's the position of the applicant that anybody can make that assessment, and that would leave staff or anybody that has an applicant before them absolutely no discretion or professional opinion as to what actually creates bona fide ag. So if you go to the statute, it clearly says it has to be five years of bona fide ag, and that the first sentence of bona fide ag states that the property appraiser is the only one that makes that assessment. Thanks for your time. Mr. Vargas. I think the litigating attorney – my sister's an attorney, too. Ms. Nobby, I think, presented a very valid point that she kept referring back to the application and obviously the law and the statute. So she ticked all those boxes. But why or why would you ask her if she drove out there? If she drove out there, this girl would never be in the office looking at every parcel of land. It is the onus of the applicant to make a sound argument, which I see – and I don't agree with staff all the time. You can check my record. But I see in this particular case that they have made their point and they are correct in their decision. Ms. Nobby, this is the best staff report I have ever read. She's very good. This is – it was thorough, it was thoughtful, it was factual, and now it's a proof of the applicant's compliance with the state legislation. And I think that you did an expert job of proving that they had not complied with the requirements of the legislation. Take a bow. Thank you. I have a very good team to help me, and I'm happy to be a part of this team. Is there a second? I'm next to second. There's a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? That motion passes unanimously, with Commissioner Hetherington absent. Thank you. Thank you. Shall we trudge on, Commissioners? Yes, yes, yes, absolutely. Department 2, contracts that meet the threshold for board approval of $1 million or more. That's you. Department 1? Department 1. We'll go back to Department 1. Okay. Let me say before Ms. Murley comes forward that we have a lot of superstars in Martin County on our staff. And we don't generally consider that the financial and budget wonks get to be those superstars. Ms. Murley is making a big change in that department. I've attended a number of panels on Amendment 3. The last one was the League of Women Voters panel on Amendment 3. And afterwards, all I heard was how amazing Stephanie Murley was. And I said, you know what? She, about every facet of the budget of our finances, she's just as much of an expert. Don't think that she's just an expert on Amendment 3. She is an expert on all things financial in Martin County. So once we have another superstar, congratulations. Thank you. Thank you. I'm happy to always participate. I had heard from folks that were there, their takeaway was that you did a remarkably good job. She did. I was there. Thank you. I appreciate that. If you have any questions about our budget, you can come see me at my office. I'm always happy to help out with that. So good afternoon, Commissioner. Stephanie Murley, Director of OMB here, presenting just two items on behalf of the Martin County Sheriff's Office E-911 for permission to accept. And they're kind of complimentary. Our first item is permission to accept the State of Florida Department of Management Services grant agreement for the 9-1-1 call handling solution upgrade. Our E-911 division is requesting a grant award of $1,555,853 that will fund the project to upgrade the Martin County's 9-1-1 call handling solution from the existing premise-based infrastructure to a cloud-native solution. The proposed projects will replace aging on-site infrastructure with resilient and secure cloud-based solutions for better operations for the 9-1-1 division. There is no required local grant match, but the total project cost is $2,088,876. So the remaining $533,000 has already been budgeted and approved within the E-911 operating budget. And the second item is permission to accept the State of Florida Department of Management Services grant agreement for the ESI net circuit upgrade. This is complimentary to the other portion. This is real technical in nature, so I don't know a lot about that. There's a grant award of $187,375 that will fund additional ESI net circuits, which is a crucial component of the call handling solution upgrade. The total cost is $261,175. And while there is no local grant match required, the remainder of $73,800 towards the project cost is also budgeted within the E-911 operating budget. And that's all I have for you today. Questions? Commissioner Katz. In both of these cases or items, they say no required local grant match, but they go on to describe that the grant does not cover the entire cost. Right. So it almost seems to me conceptually like we are kind of doing a match, or I mean, to the extent that we have to pay something. Is that just a play on words or a nomenclature thing? So the grant itself does not require a, say, tit-for-tat match. So when I think our E-911 division applies for these, they're typically a year in advance, and they're based on estimates. So the estimate that was likely provided for the initial upgrade was probably around $1.5 million. And it turns out that we're getting awarded $1.5, but the cost is a total of $2. So they have budgeted that within their operating budget. So even though it's not required per the grant contract, the total project cost is still $2 million. Move approval. Second. Anything else, Commissioner? Yes. Commissioner Campy. Any way that we can make the E-911 call operator's job easier, because it's a tremendously difficult job, whatever we can do to make their jobs a little bit easier, I'm happy to participate. There's a motion and a second. All those in favor, aye, opposed. That motion passes unanimously, with Commissioner Hetherington absent. We'll take up Department 2, which is contracts that meet the threshold for board approval of $1 million or greater. Ms. Brotherton. Good morning, Commissioners. Afternoon, actually. Christy Brotherton, your Chief Procurement Officer. I'm joined here today with our HR and Risk Director, Heather. Good morning. This is not one of my typical agreements. We are putting this under a departmental to bring it before you. So I will present the item and turn it over to Heather, and we have some representatives from Gehring Group here also to answer any questions you may have. So this item are the Medical and Dental Administrative Services ASO Agreements with Cigna Health and Life Insurance Company. The Gehring Group, which is Brown and Brown Public Sector, serves as the county's employee benefits consultant. And on behalf of the county, the Gehring Group issued a request for proposals for medical administrative services, pharmacy, dental ASO, and employment, sorry, employee assistance program services with an effective date of January 1, 2027. Proposals were evaluated based on cost, network access, discount guarantees, funds and credits, pharmacy services, and operational terms. Following the evaluation, best and final offers were obtained, and Cigna Health and Life Insurance Company is recommended for both the medical ASO and dental ASO services, which will be provided under two separate agreements. Staff is recommending that the board approve the selection of Cigna Health and Life Insurance Company as the county's medical benefits administrator, effective January 1, 2027, and approve the negotiated medical ASO agreement. And last, move that the board approve the selection of Cigna Health and Life Insurance Company as the county's dental benefits administrator, effective January 1, 2027, and approve the negotiated dental ASO agreement. And last, move that the board authorize the county administrator or designee to execute all documents related to this request. And I will turn it over to Heather for additional information. Good afternoon, Commissioners. Heather Dayen, Director of HR Risk. With us today, we have Dustin Keene. He is our benefits consultant from the Gehring Group. He is here to give us a brief understanding of the process that we went through and what brings this agenda item before you today. All right. Good afternoon. Dustin Keene, Senior Benefit Consultant VP with Gehring Group, Brown & Brown. So, we started this process back in March. It was a six-month process. In that initial release of RFP, we released it to the entire market, over 50 carriers. You actually had the four big carriers come and respond and some additional pharmacy benefit managers. So, Aetna, Florida Blue, UnitedHealthcare, and Signal came to the table. As your procurement staff mentioned, Florida Blue and Cigna were selected as finalists, and they were invited back to a best and final offer. So, during that process, we were able to negotiate very favorable terms. We not only looked at the financial side of things, but we also looked at disruption analysis, how your members might be impacted. So, through that analysis, Cigna had the better proposal on both the financial side as well as the member side and as far as your benefits go for your members. So, with that, we are recommending that you move forward with Cigna as the best option for January 1st, 2027. Commissioner Campy. Thank you, Madam Chair. Sir, I appreciate your efforts and the efforts of our staff. I had an opportunity to speak to staff during the process. I have heard some concerns, I guess maybe you can allay them, some concerns that when you switch companies, we've been with Florida Blue Cross, Blue Shield, or Florida Blue for quite some time. I remember when we've altered that plan several years ago that there was some concerns. But the folks that I've been hearing from are saying that it will require, I like the expression you use, disruption analysis. Can you share with us some of your research on maybe you can help calm people's concerns about this change and what disruption it will mean to our employees? Absolutely. So, when we look at disruption, there's two main categories that we look at. One is network utilization and access. So, what we mean by that is we take all of the providers, facilities that your members have utilized in the past year, and we look at, by carrier, are they in or are they out of network for Cigna, United, et cetera. So, in that analysis, we showed that there's a 98% network match with Cigna. With Florida Blue, it was 93%. So, actually, Cigna has a bigger network in your area, not only in Martin County, St. Lucie, Palm Beach, Indian River, but also nationwide as well. So, that's number one. The second part is pharmaceuticals. So, we look at all of the prescriptions that your members use, then, you know, do the same kind of practice. Are they covered by the carrier or are they not covered by the carrier? And, through that process, we found that less than 1% of members would be disrupted, meaning their prescriptions would be excluded. However, there is an alternative medication available in those regards. So, those are the two main areas that we looked at. Thank you. When you talk about the difference with doctors, does that also, does your determination also include specialists? Yes. You know, people that are going through cancer treatments or any kind of medical prescription treatments, they'll be okay with that transition? Because those are the ones that are most vulnerable, the folks that are going through. You know, a lot of us don't have, thankfully, don't have a lot of medical issues. So, I'm not talking about just a, you know, a GP. I'm talking about someone who is in the midst of some kind of a treatment at a higher level. Would your analysis review that as well? Yes. And, something to mention, too, if somebody is currently ongoing and currently in a treatment and during this transition, there's called a transition of care process that we'll handle, where that employee will, whether their physician is in or out of network, they will still be covered in network. So, there should be, there will be no disruption if you're currently undergoing care. Thank you. One final question. You mentioned dental and eye care and traditional medical. What's the, and this is more of an opportunity for our staff to promote this. What about mental health? Is there any, can you discuss what the mental health options would be? Yeah, we did go out to bid for your employee assistance program, which offers free visits for your membership per certain amount of visits per issue per year. So, that is of assistance to your employees, and that is going to remain with Cigna Evernorth. Which it was. Correct. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Commissioner Camps. Ms. Dayen. What is your job title, and what's the name of your department? Oh, Heather Dayen, Director of HR Risk Management. Risk Management. And so, I've had the impression that this is a big job to switch insurance companies for how many employees? Approximately 1,200. 1,200. And so, tell us a little bit about what your department has had to deal with. So, there's been a lot of work that has gone into this process. Like Justin mentioned, we've been doing this since March. And so, we had the first evaluation period where we received the four, like he mentioned, the four bids. We went through that process. We narrowed it down to the top three, which was Florida Blue, Cigna, and Aetna, I believe. And we went through the best and final offer with those carriers. So, it's been an ongoing process, and we have more work to do. If you decide to move forward with these contracts today, we have to ensure that we're ready for open enrollment so we can be ready for a 1-1 effective date. Good. We just want to let you know we appreciate your hard work. Well, I thank you. And move approval. Commissioner Vargas. I have a question. And how are you compensated? You come to this county or municipality or whatever, these groups, not just your group. Yeah. So, we get paid standard commissions via the carriers. So, the carriers pay us industry standard commissions directly. Like what? Give an example. I don't have the exact numbers in front of me, but I'm happy to follow up with those numbers. Yeah. Okay. So, in other words, let me understand. So, you get paid a commission for what? I'm trying to understand. So, as far as our services go? I don't know what that means. Yeah. So, Gehring Group, Brown & Brown, our agreement with the county is full-service consulting brokerage services. So, in on that fee, we do cover a cost of an on-site employee, a full-time on-site employee. That employee helps with any member questions, open enrollment questions, et cetera. Also, in our contract, we offer Bentec, which is our benefit enrollment platform. So, that allows your members to sign up for insurance. It allows for file feeds to the carriers so your staff doesn't have to go in to every single port or every time there's a new hire, termination, and adjust the change. In addition to that, similar to this process, we handle the RFP process from developing the RFP, releasing it, evaluating it, presenting it, et cetera. We have graphics artists who develop marketing pieces, open enrollment. We have account managers that help your employees enroll and educate your membership on your benefits, including the change to Cigna. We also have an employee advocacy resource. So, similar to our on-site, we have resources in-house. If your members have a bill, a claim that got denied, a prescription that got denied, our office can help that member with those services. So, really, soup to nuts, we help the county procure, we help them implement, and then we help manage your benefits day to day. I understand all of that, because I'm familiar with your type of companies, but what do you get paid, like 30% of whatever is spent? I'm not understanding. It's a good question. Yeah, so, and I can get you the exact numbers. I don't have them in front of me, but we get a per-employee-per-month fee, and then we get a percentage of the premium on your lines of insurances, so stop-loss, dental, vision, et cetera. What was last year? I mean, you know what you did last year. I don't have that in front of me at this time. You should have it in front of you. I apologize. I don't get paid commission specifically. I am salaried. We all are, so I don't have that in front of me. I understand what your company is. Absolutely. And this is a cost to the county. So, when will you get back with me about this? Happy to get back tomorrow. Okay, fine. You know how to reach me. Absolutely. Okay? Thank you. You're welcome. Yeah, I've been a customer of Florida Blue for many years and have been completely satisfied with their service. And so, I'm leery about switching providers because I know that the Gehring Group, and I trust you, you've done an analysis, but it's theoretical. Until we sign a contract, we don't really, you know, you say that 98% of the doctors will serve us under Cigna, you know, but that's theoretical. And I know that some years ago, we had another very, very important contract with garbage hauling. And we had three qualified bidders. And we commissioners had a public hearing to determine who was going to be our waste hauler. And we chose the, our feeling was that, and I think it was a unanimous vote, we chose waste management, even though waste management was the most expensive, because we had 20, 30 years experience with waste management, therefore had an awful lot of faith in their professionalism. And, boy, am I glad that we chose them because the other two providers, other municipalities near us, chose those other cheaper providers, and the service was awful, in some cases non-existent. Yes. So, what's different about this contract that we are not making that decision, that the staff has done all the evaluation and is making a final recommendation? So, from a procurement perspective, any type of insurance is exempt from competitive procurement in the purchasing manual. So, we allow for Gearing Group, as our consultant, to go through the RFP process on our behalf. There's nothing stating that we couldn't do that ourselves if we wanted to. However, they are subject matter experts in the field, so it would just be, I would think, the desire of the board, how they would want to move forward with that. What's the length of this contract? Three years. Can we shorten that amount of time? I don't know that you want to. Or do we just not change? So, my understanding is that, and this is just, and perhaps I'm wrong, but one of the big stumbling blocks with the Florida Blue was it was $2.5 million more expensive than Cigna? That's correct. And what's the total contract? So, what's $2.5 million is what percentage of the contract? So, the $2.5 million would be overall with, as far as the pharmacy rebates, in addition to the ASO cost, all of that in total would be approximately $2.5 million more with, theoretically, with Florida Blue. So, Madam Chair, our total health insurance fund, which also includes the clinic, is about $30 million. I think it's probably closer to $35 million at this point. So, just this past year, we've had eight large claims that make up 10% of our total spend on that account. So, those eight claims were about $3 million, and that's where our stop loss has come in. One of the things with Cigna that I understand is there's not a cap on the stop loss, whereas Florida Blue had a million-dollar cap. So, any claim over $400,000, we get reimbursed that difference. With Cigna, there is no cap. So, that was another consideration in addition to the ASO, the pharmacy, excuse me, the medical and pharmacy benefits that Heather was just explaining as well. So, this is a three-year contract. It has two three-year renewals, if I recall. So, we have our standard termination language as well. I know Caroline has put in some language that going to Commissioner Campy's questions with specialists, if they're not in the network, that Cigna is to provide us with updates on trying to get them within our network. And then, there is also other avenues through the administrative process where Heather and her team can work to try and get those doctors with – they're not through our network, but that they can have the claims go through on a pass-through basis through the administrative part of the HR team. Yeah, Commissioner Capps. Wow. I don't know what to do. I'm trying to decide whether to pull my motion. So, where were you guys at? I mean, like, it seems like you had come to peace with the idea of going with Cigna. Tell us a little more about your perspective. So, it will be at the will of the board at this point, but the discounts and the difference in the proposal that we received from Cigna was so great that we felt that it was worthy of bringing forward for consideration by the board. Such a tough call. Well, I still remember the waste management thing. And, you know, the Board of County Commissioners at that time went with the more expensive option of sticking with waste management. And time reveals, oftentimes, the wisdom of decisions. And it appears that was a good decision because our residents have high expectations. And waste management seems to deliver on that. So, I'd like to hear a little more from – what are you thinking, Commissioner Camping? Commissioner Vargas? Go ahead. Commissioner Vargas. Okay. So, did I hear the contract is, what, the threshold is $30 million? That's – did I hear that correct? So, the contract doesn't have a specific dollar amount. It's just the ASO fee, which I don't have the number in front of me, but that's the cost of the contract. So – To them, it was the ASO just alone for the medical is at $1.1 million for the contract per year. So, that's for the administrative services. What, $1.1 million is what we pay Goering Group? Yes. No. No. No. What is it? No, that's paid to Cigna. It's a little confusing here because he didn't have the answers either, which I'm kind of surprised. That's paid to Cigna. So, the ASO fee is for – essentially for the county as a self-insured group to rent the network from Cigna. So, we enjoy basically this – those negotiated rates that they negotiate on our behalf for services. Yeah. I understand all that. You know, it is – I understand medicine. My father was a surgeon. Doctors don't want to accept a lot of insurances today. No matter, you know, what you say. If you have a specialist, you can go to another specialist. I don't know. I don't know. I'm sort of – don't know here or there. But the other thing – the other question I have, I mean, in the contract, if we say, okay, Goering Group, no, we're not going to work with you anymore, is there some clause in the contract that we can do that? Are we speaking to you or are we speaking to Ms. Elvis? So, this contract is not for Goering Group. Goering Group is going to stay our administrator. This is just for the health insurance portion. So, Goering Group's contract is not before us today and has no impact on the decision. They'll stay with us because that's not the contract before. This is just Florida Blue or Cigna for our health insurance. Okay. Just for clarification. Yes. So, with Cigna, let's say – you say it's three-year renewable, two, three years, correct? Correct. Did I hear that correctly? Okay. So, if it's not working out, how – what do we do? I'll defer to Caroline. But we have a clause in the contract for cancellation. Can you hear me? Okay. They're just – this isn't on. Okay. So, it's a three-year term with two one-year automatic renewals or until the earliest of the following dates. The date, which is at least 60 days from the date that either the employer or Cigna provides written notice to the other of termination of the agreement, the effective date of any applicable law or governmental action which prohibits performance of the activities required by this agreement, the date upon which employer fails to fund the bank account as required by this agreement provided that Cigna notifies employer of its election to terminate, the date upon which employer fails to pay Cigna any charges identified in the agreement when due provided that Cigna notifies the employer of its election to terminate or any other date mutually agreed upon by the employer and Cigna. And then, notwithstanding any of those provisions, prior to Cigna terminating the agreement due to the county's breach, failure to fund any bank account or pay any undisputed charges when due, Cigna shall first provide written notice describing the deficiency in reasonable detail, and the county shall have the ability to cure such deficiency within 30 calendar days after receipt of the notice. With each automatic renewal, all prices, terms, and conditions shall remain the same. So that's the cure provision in case the county breaches. And then, in the event that the employer terminates the agreement, the employer being the county, except as otherwise noted above, the county shall have no obligation to pay any penalty, liquidated damages, or early termination fee, and shall remain responsible only for undisputed fees for services actually performed and accepted through the effective date of termination, pre-approved pass-through amounts incurred on the county's behalf prior to termination. Then, the Cigna shall provide reasonable transition assistance for no less than 90 days following termination at no additional charge to the county to facilitate an orderly transfer of services and data to the county through and until the county obtains a successor to administer health, life, and pharmaceutical insurance and benefits. Okay, so there are a lot of dates there. So is it 60 days? There are a lot of dates and a lot of agencies then. The county has 60 days that they say it's just not working out? Yes. Is that what I'm understanding? Yes. Okay, then 90 days transition Cigna to another unnamed company. So you'll have three months. Commissioner Campi. Thank you. I guess the first question would be, does this decision have to be made right now? Yes. That's a good question. I'm asking staff. That's a good question. So if we do nothing today, then we would just remain with Florida Blue? No, that's not what I'm asking. I'm saying if we just held the decision so that you could bring the decision-maker commissioners up to a higher level of comfort, when does the original contract expire? At the end of the year? It does. It expires at the end of this calendar year. So we are up against a deadline at this point for open enrollment. It's October now, isn't it? It's October now, isn't it? To be timely. Thank you. Thank you. Second question was, can you share with us, I know the answer, but can you share with us the committee or the decision-making group that you put together, beyond Gehring Group, Brown and Brown? So along with our consultant, we worked with administration. Who was on your team? Mr. Donaldson, Mr. Graham, Ms. Murley. Anyone representing the larger of our employee groups, Teamsters, firefighters? The sheriff's not part of this, correct? No. Okay. So the firefighter union, Teamsters, non-bargaining. Was there any other groups representing the employees that are, like, sort of the, you know, the people that are the customers? No, sir. Okay. The example with waste management that I think is twofold. One, that was a service provided to the residents, even though we did get a tremendous amount of negative pushback on how dare we use the highest paid. Back then, we were talking about, and it was an easier decision because, in my opinion, at least, the other two service providers that were in the mix were struggling in the county north of us. And one was an international company that was new to Florida, was struggling, Christy Rutherton remembers, was struggling up in Orlando in Orange County. And they had, I contacted them and asked, how many complaints are you getting? And they were absolutely overwhelmed with complaints. So although waste management was our person and was more expensive, I used an expression at the time, we weren't buying trucks. We were buying a service. And, of course, the service in Port St. Lucie, they ended up having to sue them. So that being said, this is more challenging because it's hard to understand for the layperson to understand the nuances and the differences between Cigna and Florida Blue. None of us, except for this gentleman and I guess his colleague, are specifically subject experts. So Commissioner Hurd's right. We're sort of just rolling the dice on a hypothetical. And most of us think of health insurance and the insurance of our family members as any employee at any company would. Pretty serious stuff. I personally rely on my comfort level of our staff that has taken a long time and with the experts. Goering Group has been part, and I'm glad, Ms. Elder, you said what you did. You're not on the block today because, you know, Goering Group, I remember when it was Mr. Goering used to come around. What's his first name, Gary? Kurt. Kurt. Yeah, Kurt. He used to come and do it himself. So I like the fact that we have the Goering Group, Brown and Brown, to assist us because this is a tough decision. In my opinion, if our staff has gone through the research from March and done all the research, we're up here just trying to, one, we're clients, and, two, we're trying to be decision makers, I would feel comfortable enough that if staff is bringing this forward to us today, that you've found a legitimate apples-for-apples substitution. And I think our taxpayers would be happy to see that we're saving, how much did you say, 1.2? Approximately $2.5 million. $2.5 million. So if you guys feel comfortable, because you're going to be insured by the same plan, correct? Yes. So if you feel comfortable that we're going to have a comparable level of service and save the taxpayers $2.5 million, I would second Commissioner Kapp's motion. Any further discussion? There's a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? That motion reluctantly passes 4-0 with Commissioner Hetherington. I hope that this doesn't end up biting us. If you get bit, then you go to the doctor and you'll be all right. He won't accept anything but cash at that point. We'll take up Department 3, which is a request for approval of the interlocal agreement between the Florida Inland Navigation District and Martin County for the removal of approximately 98,442 cubic yards of crossroads dredge material from the St. Lucie Inlet impoundment basin. Good afternoon. Good morning, Ms. Garland. Afternoon. If you say morning, then maybe you feel like it's morning. Yeah, we haven't taken lunch yet. It's still morning, right? It's only 9.45. Yeah, sure. We'll go with that. Somewhere. Jessica Garland, the Coastal Program Manager for Public Works. I'm here today to request approval from you for the interlocal agreement between the Florida Inland Navigation District and Martin County for the removal of approximately 98,000 cubic yards of crossroads dredge material from the St. Lucie Inlet impoundment basin. This interlocal agreement was drafted by the Florida Inland Navigation District, and it is for 98,000 cubic yards and in an amount not to exceed $2,071,820. It will be in effect from October 1st through September 31st, 2027, and this is for the removal of the material that FIND and the Army Corps dredged earlier this year and placed in the impoundment basin. We are now currently getting ready to do a project in January to move that material both north and south of the St. Lucie Inlet, and that is the removal of this 98,000 cubic yards and placing it on the beach. So FIND is going to assist us in the payment of that removal and placement of that material. Questions for Ms. Garland? Commissioner Capps. Mr. Kennedy, are you going to be speaking too or not? I don't think so. They are here. I have Janet Zimmerman, the Director for Florida Inland Navigation District, and Michael Kennedy, FIND Commissioner, if you had questions for them. Oh, okay. No, I'm good. I just wanted to say thank you very much. You know, as I understand, the Florida Inland Navigation District, they have one appointee from how many counties? 16 or something? 12 counties. And they get together and they rank projects in those 12 counties, and there's discretion involved. You know, they could give it here, or they could give it there, or they could give it somewhere else. And so we appreciate you using your discretion and our benefit. Thank you very much, and move approval. Commissioner Vargas? Yeah, I understand that the sand is going to be put on Jupiter Island Beach. Is that correct? No, it's going to be placed on the St. Lucie Inlet State Park, just immediately south of the South Jetty. Okay. So it's on Jupiter Island, but right there at the state park. Understand where that is. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Campy. Our last big dredging project, you came forward with our staff and explained how the process went, and I was perfectly comfortable with that answer. But the public was revved up a bit. Can we make sure that we learn, even if it's just a public relations kind of vibe or informational information, so that the folks that were obviously upset by the last process, even though I agree that it was handled the way that it was supposed to, if I know you'd be an expert, if you could help us with that so that it's not like, oh, look, they're doing it again. Yes, we will make sure there is a very public campaign about this project. Understanding how it went. And then also to echo Commissioner Capps, Ms. Zimmerman and Mr. Kennedy have been here since first thing this morning. I appreciate that you would wait around and become our last agenda item of the day. Just disappointed you don't have one of those big checks with you today. Yeah, no, last time. Like last time. Good for you. I appreciate that. He said he'd have one next week for the Sheriff's Department, so I second Commissioner Capps' motion. Ms. Garland, this isn't related to this. When is reconstruction of the South Jetty supposed to occur? The Army Corps is supposed to put that out to bid in April, and it will be done late next year. Our construction will start, and it will probably take two turtle seasons to do the work because of turtle season and not being allowed on the beach. Sure. Who's doing the work? The Corps? The Army Corps. It's 100% funded by the Army Corps, and thanks to Congressman Mast for getting us most of the money in the Army Corps budget. That's exciting. There's a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? That motion passes unanimously. Thank you very much. Nice to see you. Now we will take up our last item, which is a MARTI report. Mr. Gordon and Mr. Beecher. Interesting week for Mr. Beecher, I would imagine. I'm Jim Gordon, Public Works Director, and with me I have Ash Beecher, our Transit Administrator. So this is an update on where we stand with the on-road transit and support services contract. But before I got into the contract, I just wanted to go over just what MARTI is and give you just a quick overview. It will be just a couple of slides. So our transit division has five fixed routes. Along with those fixed routes, there's an ADA paratransit service that's required because we take FTA funding, and that's three-quarters of a mile on either side of any fixed route we have to provide a complimentary ADA paratransit service. We also provide veteran transportation to the VA Medical Center down in West Palm Beach. From a ridership standpoint, in fiscal year 26, we had over 155,000 trips. That's a 110% increase in ridership since 2021 and a 27% increase in ridership this year alone. This slide just goes over the ridership changes over time. As I said, it was a 110% increase. So in 21, we had 73,000 riders, and in 26, we had 155,000 riders. So on to where we stand today. So our existing contract was bid in 2025, and the start date of that contract was July 1, 2025. It was a three-year term with two one-year renewals, and we were just at the beginning of year two of that contract. On September 3, 2026, we received a notice of 180-day termination from the existing vendor. That's required in the contract that they provide that length of time because we need time to transition to a new vendor. The vendor ceased services on October 8, 2026 without prior notification. So to continue to provide service to our citizens and riders, United Way stepped up huge, and they provided their Ride United program. So for $21 a trip, they were able to provide rides to Martin County residents for critical needs only. That means going to work, going to school, or going to the grocery store for food for the family, things like that. They've ramped up all of their staffing to be able to take all of the calls that they were getting. They were getting quite a number of calls, and they continue to. And most people love the program, and it's working for them as best can be. The negative things that we have heard is ADA accessibility, so the riders who would normally use a paratransit bus don't have that option. And then folks who wanted to do things other than the critical needs, like go to the library or go to the park or go to the beach, things like that, they weren't able to do that. And then we lost our interconnection between St. Lucie County and Palm Beach County because our transit service provides that connection, but right now we don't have it. So folks who are trying to get up the Treasure Coast or down to Palm Beach can't do so right now. So we solicited proposals from transit vendors to try to cover the gap and to establish a new contract. And so we reached out to a number of firms, and a number of firms reached out to us. I'll start with two that I don't have slides for. They are both more of a motor coach type service. So they would take a motor coach bus, 50-, 60-passenger bus, the kind that has storage underneath the bottom, like a Greyhound bus, essentially. And then they both offered to provide some fixed route service but couldn't provide paratransit service, and they're also not ADA compatible. So we moved to other vendors that were able to provide the service that we need under our contract. So the first one that did that was MTM. They're the prior vendor, so they had this contract prior to Martin County Transit. So their initial proposal to us, and all of these are initial proposals that we still have to negotiate. So I'm just sharing the numbers with you so you understand kind of what we're looking at. So their proposal was exactly what Martin County Transit's contract was, which is $86.14 per revenue hour for the first 90 days. And then they want direct costs associated with the startup because they have to come down, train their staff, get, you know, office in place and things like that, vehicle maintenance and fuel, just for the first 90 days. The reason they want to do that is because there's some concern that the buses have some maintenance issues that need to be addressed, and there could be costs associated with those. So when we look at those direct costs and extrapolate the cost out to how much, what's the bottom line, what is the county going to pay for the service, it's $105.53 per revenue hour. What MTM has proposed is that we negotiate a fully burdened rate after that first 90 days so we don't have any direct costs anymore, and it'll be something that is, that we can use our grant funds for reimbursement. So direct costs, if we have any of those, those are local dollars, and anything that's in our fully burdened rate, we can use our grants to apply to them. The second vendor that came through was ProCal. So they offer services in Palm Beach and South Florida. Their revenue, their cost that they proposed was $111.70 per revenue hour. They also had some direct costs, which would be vehicle maintenance, office space, and fuel. They proposed this for the entire term, which would be one year, October 26 to October 27. And those direct costs would carry over for the entire year, but they would not be eligible for grant funding. The third company is MV Transportation. So MV had our contract prior to MTM, so we have experience with them as well. They also provide the service in St. Lucie County right now, so they are the service provider for the art system up in St. Lucie County. They have proposed a cost-plus contract, which they would show us what their costs were each month, and then there's a markup to that cost. We extrapolated that rate out to be $120.53 per revenue hour, and it's important to note that the cost-plus contract, a fair amount of that would not be eligible for grant funding. And the last one, just for comparison's sake, is the existing vendor, the vendor that's currently in, that's not providing the service. So that's Martin County Transit. Their most recent request to us is $129.46 per revenue hour, and then they want a retroactive lump sum payment of nearly $800,000 for insurance, vehicle maintenance, and fuel. And the $129.46 per revenue hour represents a 49% increase year-over-year. So that being said, we evaluated those four companies, and our recommendation is that the board authorize the county administrator to negotiate and execute a contract approved by the county attorney's office with MTM Transit, Inc. for on-road transit and support services. So with that, we'll take questions from the board. Commissioner Campy. Thank you. Two questions. One, how do we know, obviously the rationale for the stoppage from Martin County Transit, LLC, was based on the fact that there were a lot more costs than they had initially anticipated, or we had also initially anticipated in that contract. How do we know that the MTM number seems much lower than they were looking for? How do we know that we're not putting ourselves in a situation where MTM, and I don't know the specific people there, that they don't come to us in the spring or summer of next year and say, wait a second, we actually didn't bid this properly, and we're going to exercise our ability to exit? That's my first question. My second question is, is there any reassurance, or did our negotiations with these companies, did any of them take into consideration hiring the folks, the drivers, and our employees that have been displaced from their positions? Can we put into any negotiations that the first people that are hired are the people that originally had the jobs? I'll take the second question first. So, yes, absolutely, MTM, MV, both have expressed interest in hiring the existing drivers and maintenance folks. Not a ceremonial number? No, they would like to hire them all, and in fact, both of them have asked for the roster and contact information for those staff. We don't want to provide that information until we narrow it down to one. That's right. Because they are valuable commodities, they're excellent employees, they don't work directly for the county, but they provide a wonderful service to the county, and we want to make sure that they continue to do so. So once we narrow it down to one vendor, we're going to provide them that information so they can reach out to those bus drivers individually. So if we gave you positive direction today, can you make sure that that negotiation, instead of them saying, well, we would like to, of course, hire them all, can we put language in there? Or maybe it's a Ms. Elder question, that they have to hire them. Yes. Because otherwise I'm not interested. Yes, we will. And then the first part of your question was, how do we know that they will have to hold their current, you know, what they bid? So the way our contract will be structured is that what they bid is what they bid for the first year's term. So that's true for all of the county contracts. The first reopener for the contract is at the end of a year. And in this case, it's only going to be a year contract. So the intent is just to get us through this year, and then we're going to put out a bid in about three or four months for next year's service, which will be a full five-year contract, just like the one that we're talking about replacing. So the information, the other nice thing about the MTM proposal is that it has that 90-day look, look ahead where we're able to look at it and say what makes sense here and be able to adjust at that point. And the level of service will be maintained, correct, the routing and the stops and the rest of it? Yes, the level of service will be maintained through all of these vendors. So they'll provide the service on the existing routes that we have. Thank you. Still no service in Palm City, though, just to let you know. Commissioner Vargas. Okay. So I understand about the extrapolated rate, what you've calculated for startup vehicle maintenance, direct costs. So this is the final number for the first year. Is that what I'm understanding? Or just 90 days? So we need to create a contract and do final negotiations with them, but the first 90 days is the 105-53. That's that number. And then at the end of 90 days, we're going to revisit that number and look at what the actual costs are. So we're going to look at the vehicle maintenance cost. We're going to look at fuel cost right now, locking up a fuel cost, because driving buses uses a lot of diesel fuel. Right now, diesel fuel is as expensive as it has ever been. So it is to our benefit to look at that fuel cost in 90 days. Hopefully there's some adjustment down from what that cost is. If we tie up this contract right now with today's rate, we're going to be paying a premium as those diesel fuel costs go down. So it does benefit the county to reopen this in 90 days. So you will reopen, revisit, because we definitely don't want the county to be carrying, you know, the huge burden. I mean, this is a business. You get a $9.99 calculator or your phone, and you figure out what it's going to cost you to run a business here. And I still can't get over what I expected it on the previous contract. I don't even know why you would speak with them again. I don't know whose idea it was to do that. I heard one of the commissioners want to do it. But anyway, having said that, is there going to be a ceiling? Because if this is open-ended, this could go anywhere. Do you know what I mean? After 90 days? I mean, you're just writing a blank check to them. That's ridiculous. There absolutely is a ceiling. So the ceiling is what our budget is. So, you know, you guys have a – the board has provided us with funding for the program. And these numbers that I'm showing you right now fit within that budget. So if we were to go beyond that budget, we'd have to come back to the board and get permission to put additional funds toward the program. So, yes, our budget is our ceiling. And if we have to go beyond that, then we'll be back to the board and have that dialogue with you. Well, again, as I say, you know, it is a privilege to get a contract with Martin County. And businesses have to decide if they really want to do this service, not come back and say, oh, give me more money, which happened in the previous contract, almost $800,000, plus another $2 million going forward. No, I felt as if I had been kidnapped and somebody had to ransom me. That is not appropriate. That was totally wrong. And I was shocked. I was at a conference and I got the phone call. So I'm trying to think of what I'm doing there and then I get this phone call. So we have a budget. You have to stick within your budget. You can't just come back and say we need more money. It's not like that. It's not like that. It's going to get tighter. Do you understand, Ash, what I'm saying? Okay, you've got to sharpen the pencil, do what you have to. All right, we have to provide the service. And I know that I've had the discussion with you, Mr. Gorton, about the big buses. Miami-Dade County made them like jitneys, which was more efficient. And, of course, it would be, you know, ADA, you know, buses, paratransit, that type of thing, you know, different buses. So I know that we cannot retire the buses entirely. Do you know when that date off the top of your head is the first buses, how many? Yeah, so the buses, what she's referencing is that when you buy a bus with federal funds, that you have to keep that bus for its effective life. So that effective life is either 12 years or 500,000 miles. So we're going to reach the mileage before we reach the 12 years. So we have some buses that are in the 450,000-mile range, so they're getting close to reaching the end of that effective life. As they do, we're going to replace some of the large 30-foot Gillig buses with a kind of a moderate-sized bus that was – and then we can use that for Route 2, Route 3, Route 4. Route 1, which is our US 1 route, we need the full-size buses because we actually have full buses from time to time. So we have a lot of users who are using that Route 1, but the less busy routes, which the downtown Stewart route is a great example, we would implement with a smaller bus. As we replace the buses, we'll cycle through and get some more of those mid-size buses that would be more appropriate for driving those city of Stewart roads anyway. It's a little tight down there for a 30-foot bus to maneuver. Exactly. And then on your first ridership, you and I have had a lot of discussions about this. When are we going to start charging again? When you get something for free, somebody else is working very hard for it. I mean, we have to charge something. Our costs are going up tremendously. And how do you calculate it's 154,000 trips? If nobody's paying, I mean, it's not like you charge something in there. So first, I'll start with the trips. We're required to count the number of riders that get onto the bus. So right now, each bus driver has to document folks as they come onto the bus, and they do so. Other agencies use an automated counter. So as you get onto the bus, it automatically counts. And at the end of the day, it says this many people came on and this many people came off. But we do it manually, and our wonderful drivers are the ones who do that part for us. What was the first part of that question? And the other part is paying for a fare. So paying for a fare. So the FTA, the way that the fare works is if we collect, we have collected historically about, what is it, a little under $100,000? $150,000. Okay, $150,000 per year. And the way the federal grant works is that $150,000 comes off the top of our grant. So Martin County, we're budget neutral. If you charge a fare or if you don't charge a fare, it has absolutely no bearing on our transit system. So the reason that we eliminated the fare is a couple, there's a couple of reasons, but the most pronounced one is the amount of overhead it took to count that money, to properly secure that money, to deposit that money. That involved getting a sheriff's deputy to come collect the money and take it to the clerk's office. Then the clerk's office had to handle the money, count it again, and then deposit the money. It just created an unnecessary burden of overhead when it was a budget neutral issue. So that was the overbearing reason why we suggested that we remove it. What about a card that's already preloaded? Everybody does this today. Do you know what I'm saying? Like some card instead of cash? Yeah, so we had an app that allowed people to pay with the app, so that was easier to handle. But once again, that requires someone to deposit that money somewhere, and that money comes off the top of our grant. So every dollar we take in is a dollar we give back to the FTA. Ms. Elder. So we still have a contract with Martin County Transit. So as a matter of housekeeping, I'm going to ask the board to add to Jim's recommended action to allow staff to notify Martin County Transit that they're in breach of the contract, and we are going to immediately terminate the contract in accordance with the provisions of our existing contract that allow us to do that to protect the public health and safety. So we need to terminate that contract before we enter into a new one. So I want to add that to the recommended action. But there also was a requirement that they give us a 180-day termination notice, which they did not. So what are the ramifications for them? So they are in breach, and if the board wants to pursue that, we can bring it back to the board to see if you want to pursue legal options. But they would pay our damages under the contract to get a new vendor and move forward with transit. So it depends on, you know, how much we expend and what's involved. But we do need to terminate this contract because just because they suspended service doesn't mean the contract is terminated. Okay. Commissioner Capps. So this is kind of like an emergency one-year contract that we're allowed to enter into a circumstance like this. Normally it's a five-year contract? Normally it's a three-year contract with two one-year renewals, so five years essentially. There is a way to, there's a non-competitive procurement to handle this exact situation. So it's in our purchasing manual that allows us to approach it this way. And I are, yeah, go ahead, Kristen. Is this on? Can you hear me? Okay. So we are treating this particular contract. We determined that we were going to do it as a one-year term just because it's not a flip-a-switch. You're going to have this new service provided. It's not something that we could very easily start and stop. So under the emergency procurement rules, we're treating it as a non-competitive procurement, even though we were very fortunate to get our past vendors and some other vendors that we were not familiar with reach out to us. So we are looking to enter into an agreement for a one-year term. In that one-year term, obviously we'll be providing those services, but we will also be working on a new formal solicitation because that's one of the requirements. Especially under federal rules that there has to be an end date to the emergency procurement, and we have to demonstrate how and when we are going to go back out to formal solicitation. So that's something we're going to work on. I think you said the next three or four months we'll have something out on the streets to get another formal contract in place for a five-year term. Great. And so I think it's really neat that a vendor has stepped up that we have a little history with. And, you know, it's one thing to kind of be forced into a fast decision with a brand-new vendor that you don't know anything about. So that's comforting and good to know. And I'm really glad to hear that the drivers that we have had would be used in the new company. So I'm satisfied, and I would move approval. Mr. Vargas. Okay, back to my question. We talked about damages, breach of contract, definitely. United Way, it cost them something, cost us something also for this Band-Aid. And then I'm guessing, and I'm not a mechanic, but the company that we gave this contract to, that we allowed to have our contract last year, did not do the necessary maintenance. So that needs to be addressed also. These are all valid points and costs. And if anybody were to say to the contrary, I think that's irresponsible and reckless. If I may, Ash Beecher, for the record, the statement regarding maintenance from the prior contractor has not been founded. We recently went through a triennial review. All requested documents were provided and looked at where maintenance of the vehicles are concerned from the prior vendors, and the buses were maintained. During the tenure of this particular contractor that abandoned the contract, is that what you're saying? I'm sorry, I'm not speaking of the current vacated contractor. I'm speaking of the prior. I understand what you're saying. Okay, but let's talk about this one that breached the contract. I'm guessing, and I made my statement, that they did not do the necessary maintenance on this. And so now we have to come and perform this maintenance, and that costs something to us. So that is the other point that's very valid, to put there. Damages, United Way costs, and, of course, maintenance for these vehicles, whatever it may be. I don't know. It's a broken mirror. I have no idea if it's something with the transmitter. I don't know. Oil. Whatever. Just my limited experience with the car. So, Commissioner Campy. Mr. Beecher, to be clear, the company, Martin County Transit LLC, that just suddenly canceled their contract, stopped operating the buses? You're not saying that they were not maintaining the buses prior to the day that they stopped the service, are you? I don't believe I have sufficient data to comment on that accurately at the moment. We're looking at that for the last 12 months, but I don't know if I'm able to comment on that with the data that I've collected thus far. So I'd be very careful about accusing a company of not maintaining public transport, and I think it sends a weird message to the folks, the bus drivers that drove those buses, and the riders that rode on them that now all of a sudden we're saying, I've never heard that. I've ridden those buses. I know those folks. I think that's a pretty serious concern, and I don't want to participate in any conversation that would accuse them of not handling their maintenance requirements professionally. So we get monthly updates on their preventative maintenance. They're required to provide us with reports. We know that they have been performing the preventative maintenance on the buses. There are four buses that have major mechanical repairs. They're in the shop currently. So those buses we're going to have to deal with. But just to make sure that there is no concern going forward, what we're going to do is bring in a third party to look at all the buses and make sure they're in great shape. And I have every confidence that they are, other than the four that we know that are in the shop. And the four that were sent back here that were now off the road, were they on the road prior? No, they were taken out of service. Two of them were for AC issues. They just needed a new motor for the AC, but it was a longstanding issue where the AC wasn't blowing properly, and it was unpleasant for the drivers and the riders. So two of those are that. One was an alternator, and I don't remember what that was. The other was a fuel line issue. They were not in service. They weren't in service. Two weeks ago. Yeah, no, they were taken out of service to get repaired. They're currently at the shops that they're at getting repaired, and we're going to have to deal with those and get them back into service. So, yeah, maintenance of transit buses are a critical part of this contract, and it's something that we pay close attention to, making sure that it is being done. Thank you very much. I have one request to speak form. Iran Joey Acevedo has been waiting patiently for hours to address us. Please join us, and anyone else who would like to address us on this matter. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. It started with good morning. Now it's afternoon. Madam Chair, commissioners, county administrators, and everybody involved. My name is Joey Acevedo, and I'm the president and business agent of ATU Local 1577, and I'm here on behalf of some of the members at Marty Transit, and we do want to thank you for taking swift actions as soon as you found out this happened. You know, this was an inconvenience not only to the public but to the employees. You know, behind every employee there's – or behind every layoff there's an employee. You know, this affects mentally the health of the members because we do have some members who now have critical illness that have to think about how they're going to pay for their insurance. So, you know, Ms. Vargas, I really thank you for – when you say that these companies should be held responsible, there should be something in the clause where I say that for the interruption of the service, the members should be, you know, compensated for that. But I might be speaking out of turn, but I do thank you on behalf of the members. Thank you for taking swift action. You know, the employees at Marty, they take great satisfaction on providing access to opportunity efficiently and safely to the public. You know, doing dialysis is a very critical need. And my dad was also on dialysis, so I know the importance of having this transportation. And I'm not speaking because I'm just the president, but I'm also a bus operator in Palm Beach County for over 20 years, and I know how important the service is to our community. So thank you for all the hard work that you're doing. Thank you. Thank you for your hard work. Chairwoman Hurd. Yes, please. Thank you. Hi, I'm Tina Lainhart with MV Transportation. I just wanted to mention that when we gave our proposal, we wanted to help out the county and wanted you to be aware that we are the largest American-owned transportation company. We're all over Florida. We have lots of resources to bring to you. We've got internal planning teams that could have this year to remake your whole system for you. We have all those resources. We're in West Palm Beach, so we could have drivers here really quick to supplement until we do train other drivers. But in response to costs as well, we could have proposed a lower cost through the first 90 days of the contract or anything like that and say we'll negotiate in 60. We actually added a couple. We added a C mechanic to the bid as well as added two more drivers because we did run cuts and we saw what you needed. So I just want to let you know there was a lot of preparation on MV's part. We would also negotiate 90 days and that in regards to grants, we have a grant department in our company that can actually help you get grants for you. So I just want to say it's not always all about the money. We went in with a fair amount of $120 an hour. We didn't want to come back and say, oh, no, we said $111, but it's going to be $125. But either way, I want you to know that we're your neighbors. We're here. So in 90 days, if it does come back and it's a lot more than they promised or anything like that, please don't hesitate to call us. We're here to be your partner if you need us. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Vargas. Okay, so I want to say there's nothing weird about my questioning about maintenance whatsoever, and I will not apologize. A company that abandons a contract is not one to be trusted. I don't, and I would not expect my constituents and certainly not expect my fellow commissioners to do the same. Having said that, you say there are four buses that were in service. It was during the tenure of this particular contract. Is that correct? Yes. Okay, well, then were they responsible for that? Yes, so they were the ones that dropped them off at the facility, and we'll pick them back up. The challenge we have is that they had the insurance for those buses, so we need a new vendor in place to insure the buses before we move them around. Well, that's absolutely so. So it's not just so easy, well, let's go ahead and take this. We have to pursue damages. In addition to the things that I mentioned to you, we do have maintenance, and again, I will make the statement, unless I'm proven otherwise, I'm asking Mr. Beecher and, of course, Mr. Gorton to come back and report to us about this, because you can't know everything about every bus. Again, you're not mechanics, but your mechanic's going to say, yeah, this should have been taken care of during the period of time that the contract was in force, in addition to breach of contract, too. Now, we had this gentleman asking about, well, what about the drivers? How are they going to be compensated? They were just thrown from their positions. I mean, it was at 530 in the morning. That is no way to be treating people that have worked fairly and honestly and serve this county. So there's a lot more that we have to then speak with this previous senior or senior, what was the name of the senior or whatever, the company? Martin County Transit. Martin County Transit, but she goes under a different name or something, maybe in another county. So what is the motion then today? Did you make the motion? I'm on his approval. Okay. Well, you have to make a motion to eliminate the first contract. Oh, okay. And then, of course, you can eliminate this also. Yeah, so I added on to Jim's to notify them they're in breach and terminate the contract, and then you made a motion afterwards, I think, for staff's recommendation. So I think it included it, but if not, maybe we can clarify. Yes, staff's recommendation, including your add-on. Yep. Right. Okay, will that also include the conversation with this company that they have to pay damages plus all the other expenses? So that would probably require a lawsuit, so that would be a different. We can assess damages and come back to the board and see what they want to do. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. Okay. We all understand the motion? It's staff recommendation plus terminating the present contract. Yep. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? That motion passes unanimously with Commissioner Hetherington absent. I have a second. Thank you. Thank you. Did I have a second? Thank you. I'm sorry, what did you say? Did we not have a second? Nope. Okay, so we need a second. Let's do that again. Okay, I make a second motion for a second. You're seconding? Yes. Okay. Commissioner Capps. Okay, there's a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? That motion passes unanimously with Commissioner Hetherington absent. We have reached the end of our meeting. Would anyone from the public like to address us? I don't see anybody raising their hands. Commissioner comments. Commissioner Vargas. I made all the comments I need to make for today. A lot of food for thought. Thank you, everybody. Commissioner Capps. I'm good, thank you. Commissioner Campy. All set. Commissioner Graham. All set, thank you. Ms. Elder. All set. Thank you. Layla. We are adjourned.