Environmental Lands Oversight Committee - April 1, 2026 - Apr 01, 2026

Good afternoon. I'm Vice Chair Merritt Matheson of the Environmental Lands Oversight Committee. It is April 1st, 3 o'clock p.m., and I'm calling to order the meeting. If everyone could please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. 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. Mr. Houston, would you mind please calling the roll? Good afternoon, everybody. Michael Huston, Senior Project Manager in the Martin County Environmental Resource Division. John Keller? Here. Vicki Davis? Here. Scott Turnbull? Present. Merritt Matheson? Here. Tom Campenny? Here. Beth Kavinsky? Here. David Hafner? Here. Dan Brady? And Jim Schnedeker? And Jim is running a little late at a doctor's appointment. So he may join us when that wraps up. And Dan Brady was unsure if he was going to be able to make it. Perfect. Perfect. Thank you. Our first order of business is approval of the minutes from, I believe it was September 5th of 2025. Has anyone had a chance to, or has everyone had a chance to review those minutes? I know it's been a few months. Move approval. Second. I have a motion and a second. Motion from Mr. Campenny. Second from Ms. Kravinsky. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Motion passes unanimously. Next item is the update on the tax revenue generated for the sales tax collection. I'll turn it over to you, Mr. Houston. Thank you, everyone. So as you can see from this chart, and I'll cover this on a little more detail in terms once I get into my presentation in a little bit. But basically at this point we have $69,000 in the bank. So whatever we've brought in in tax revenues we've spent on acquisitions. So, and we're collecting, these show the most recent collections. We, our last disbursement that we received was the January disbursement, and that is $1.3 million. Is that in the bank now? So, and also the cash in hand as of the start of this month was $7 million, but as you can see with the acquisitions we have lined up. So once we close on everything, we're actually, that's how we get that bottom figure. What is cash disbursement? That's the income we get, right? Yeah. So every month and then quarterly we get, based on sales tax receipts, we get a disbursement that comes into our accounts. But we don't really have a figure for last year. They did not. And $7.33 is what we got last year? No, that's just what we have on hand. I think total, I did look up the number. The total we've collected to date is actually about $22 million. So there were a couple large acquisitions that had already been accounted for that are not shown on this chart, and that was the Barbie Ranch and the Palmar. We ought to get those numbers. There's supposed to be an annual audit too, right? There is an audit that is performed by our accounting office. Well, we should get that. And we should also get the income and the, you know, expense for last year. We'll make sure to provide that information at the next ELOC meeting for you. As well as, you know, the percentage that has come directly from the funds generated for land acquisitions versus funding for grant dollars. Right. You have that status. That's, yeah, we keep that separate. So, you know, we have received, and it's not always even grant dollars. It's, in essence, so on the Barbie Ranch conservation easement acquisition, we actually just provided money at closing to help close that deal. How much money was that for the Barbie Ranch? It was a $17 million acquisition. And we've got five in 12? Yes. So it's not really a grant. It's more, these are handled more as county provides a certain amount, and the state or the water management district, in another case, provided their amount. But do you have a breakdown of that? So we've closed, my understanding is on 3,000 acres? Yeah, I have figures in my presentation about each acquisition. Okay. You have figures where? I didn't get the laptop. I have figures in my presentation about each acquisition. So what we've acquired, what we're in the process of acquiring. What's that? Today. When is this presentation going to be? Today. Today. Yeah. We're coming up on them. We're still on just the update of revenue collected. Sorry, we were jumping a little ahead on you, Mike. We're all excited about. So just to reiterate, I think we ought to get some kind of prominent loss statement about what came in and what we spent money for. We'll make sure that our next meeting that somebody from our accounting office is here to answer those questions. Let me make it easy. Why don't you just send us the accounting? You could do the, we don't have to wait another three, four, five months because if there's no properties, we're not going to meet. So why don't you just send it to us and all the questions, if anyone had questions, then they can call you or call Stephanie or call Carol and Timmons. But that way we will have it and we're not wishing we would have it. Sure. I'd be happy to get with Stephanie and have that information provided to you. And we can also bring it to our next meeting. Yeah. And the audit. We ought to get this audit. The audit won't be done yet. It's got to be done during the county's budget cycle. Right. But we can expect that an audit report when that is done. And this is the figures that was provided by our accounting office today. So you can actually see how they've come up with those figures and you can actually look back through since January on this spreadsheet. So I can have the same provided for 2025 as well. Yeah. I just don't have it. Mr. Chair. Ms. Davis. A question on the spreadsheet. Could Stephanie also include a column that says if it was a fee simple, outright purchase, or easement, conservation easement? She would not have that information. We would. Okay. If you could do that. That would help. Sure. Any other questions just on the tax revenue generated? Yeah. Move on to new business review of the ranking process. Right. So, and I cover this in my presentation, but in essence, you know, we have properties that get submitted and we are going to be looking at some new properties to consider here at this meeting. And they get reviewed by staff to make sure they're consistent with the intent of the program and the ordinance. And if they do, then we can move forward with doing the environmental assessments and providing the information that's necessary for the committee. And once that happens, we have our ranking meeting. And at that ranking meeting, we use a series of metrics as provided in your manual to develop scores for each property, rank them, and then make recommendations in terms of which properties to move forward with for acquisition to the Board of County Commissioners. Thank you. Now, do you have the flow chart? Yes. It's in the presentation. Of that ranking process. So, I can... To be clear, anyone, any member of the public can nominate a property, correct? That is correct. And the first two hurdles will be done by county staff. Does it fall within one of the four areas of the ordinance? The first hurdle, and then second, staff would try and reach out to the property owner to see if they're willing to negotiate. That is correct. Those are the two... It can either come from staff. It can come from a member of the public. Anyone can submit a proposal, and I can provide a copy of the nomination form if you'd like to see it. This is a copy of the ranking form that was used for our previous meeting, our last meeting in September. So, we reviewed all these different properties. There were 16 different properties with all the different considerations that went into coming up with the total score that we then used to rank them by. So, and if you want to break down per site, here's what the individual ranking form looked like. So, they're weighted scores with different metrics and ranging from 5% to 15% of the total project score for each category. They're summed up, and then that's how we developed that score. Have we had... Do you have an idea of how many other properties have been nominated that haven't made it at least to this board? Because if they clear those two hurdles, we would see them, correct? Yeah, as of that last meeting in September, everything that had cleared those hurdles was brought forward, reviewed, and approved as potential acquisitions. We do have a series of others that we're considering for a new nomination cycle that I'm going to discuss with you today, and that's seven or eight new nominations. So, we have the Martin County staff hasn't had any other properties other than the ones here that we've seen since the last meeting? No, we have new properties that we're nominating that we're going to look to do in a new nominating cycle and then have ranked later on this summer. Okay. Are you getting any feedback from the general public on nominations? No, we get a lot of feedback in terms of, like, the acquisitions as they come forward. But I wouldn't say anyone... I've gotten any feedback that I can remember in terms of how the nomination cycle works. By feedback, I mean, nomination forms from people outside this committee or... Got you. On occasion, yeah. So, we've had a few individuals submit for properties. A lot of it is staff going out and looking for these properties and making contact and looking on realtor sites and seeing what's available. But on occasion, we will get a nomination form submitted by somebody from outside. Anything else on the ranking process? I want to touch on a parcel that I brought up at the mouth of the Bessie Creek Canal that I believe Mike or John may have some more information about. But I nominated it since the last meeting. I'm going to be sure that it's moving forward, at least with staff reaching out to see if there's willing sellers. You know, but we can discuss that a little down the line. But I want to just be clear that when I nominated that parcel, there were some questions on whether that would fit. And the two hurdles are it meets one of the four areas and it has willing sellers. And we're certainly looking, and we've discussed that property, and if you have a contact that we can reach, that would be helpful for us to be able to make that contact and bring it forward. Okay. Throw a lifeline to Mike on this one. John Mayall, Environmental Resource Administrator. We had left a message with kind of a generic number for the owners of that property and did not hear back. And then you shared with me a more personal contact and left a voicemail and have not heard back from him either. Thank you. Yeah. Yeah, there was, I guess, a little bit of time. I didn't hear anything. And once I heard from you, I dug around a little deeper with some people in the area, and they found some more contact. Have we written a letter to those people? I mean, it's not as if we don't know where they are. Yeah. I think the challenges on some of these, you know, if I were interested in purchasing a single-family residence on a lot, you know, you put a letter in the mail, it goes to their mailbox, that person opens it up and sees it. A lot of these big lands are in corporations that are like, you know, it's a Delaware company that's owned by this company, by this company. And you can send letters. They just end up in recycle bins. So what Merritt did was provide, like, a cell phone number for someone who would be in a position to talk to us about that. And I've left a voicemail for them with some detail about what we're interested in and have not heard back. We can continue to reach out. I'm happy to send a letter. We tend to have more success with direct contact. Sounds good. Thank you. Any other questions on the ranking process? Hearing none, you can move ahead to staff update on the status of the approved projects. So as an update for our program, to date, this committee has looked at roughly 11,000 acres of land for potential acquisitions. Those properties are represented in all four acquisition zones, with acreage varying from 3,500 acres in the Palm Beach Heights area to one acre in size in terms of the Perry Beach addition. And this map, all these properties that are on here are ones that have previously been approved by this committee as potential acquisitions and then went on to get Board of County Commissioners approval as potential acquisitions. But as I've said before, that's just a step in the process that just enables us to move forward and start attempting to acquire those individual properties. So this is basically, as you were requesting before, our progress to date, we've collected, as of February 2026, we would have collected a little over $20 million in funds. We've used that to acquire 996 acres in fee simple. That number has actually changed since yesterday because we closed on another small property, and I'll get to that as we go through the presentation. And we acquired a conservation easement on 1,699 acres through the Florida Forever Program, which is the Barbie Ranch property. We have close to 400 acres that are under contract and awaiting Board of County Commissioner approval or in the process of closing. And we also have close to 800 acres proposed for conservation easements through a partnership with the Rural and Family Lands Protection Program. As I've discussed before, the Rural and Family Lands Program, it's a state program that was established in 2001. It uses perpetual agricultural conservation easements. There's a statutory designation for conservation easements under 704.06F.S. And the purpose of the Rural and Family Lands Program is to protect working agricultural lands while also conserving natural resources. The lands remain in private ownership and in production. They are purchased by the state and approved by the governor and cabinet. So, as I discussed before, that's why, in essence, the county brings a check to closing to make up for the additional amount needed to close the deal. And there's no public access requirement for any lands acquired as conservation easements through Rural and Family Lands Program. Another important metric that we've looked at is the Florida Wildlife Corridor, much of which moves through Martin County. We're in also another term uses the Florida Ecological Greenway Network. And properties that are within Martin County, several of them are listed as a priority, too, according to that metric. So, there you can just see, this is Martin County right here, and you can see all the areas that are covered under that program. So, now I'm going to move on to completed acquisitions. First, we have the Barbie Ranch easement, which closed on February of this year. That permanently protects 1,699 acres through a conservation easement with the Florida Forever Program. The project will also support, the acquisition will also support the IRL South Natural Lands Component, and a portion of the property is located within the Florida Wildlife Corridor. The total project cost was $17 million, which is roughly $10,000 an acre, with the Florida Forever Program and the state of Florida contributing $12 million, which is 70% of the total cost, and Martin County contributing $5 million, which was 30%. The second acquisition was the Palm Beach Heights Palmar, through the settlement agreement and through that, and actually additional acquisitions since that was completed. We have acquired 412 acres of fee simple for roughly $7.2 million, while the Water Management District has acquired 608 acres at $11.6 million. That Palm Beach Heights area is part of an 8,000-acre project area, and due to all these recent acquisitions, we're now at about 6,300 acres in public ownership, with the remaining roughly 1,700 that are in private hands as well. That is located both within the Florida Wildlife Corridor and its Florida Forever project boundary. It protects high-quality wetland habitat and the headwaters to the wild and scenic Northwest Fork of the Loxatchew River. The county is continuing to acquire individual lots as they become available, as well as bid-on tax deed auctions that are within that area. This is a map that shows the most current look at what our ownership is like in Palm Beach Heights, so areas that are highlighted in green within that red polygon area are lands that have been acquired, and where there are no polygons is our lands that are still in private ownership. So that map looks a lot different than when we first started this process, especially that southwest area. In both areas, we've acquired a lot more land and are now at around 75% to 80% of the total footprint of those areas being in public hands. Another completed acquisition is Perry Beach Addition. That's our one-acre coastal blueway property that goes from the beach. That includes beach and mangrove habitat. It extends across Hutchinson Island. It is directly adjacent to Clifton S. Perry Preserve, and we acquired that property for $1.98 million. And now I'll get into projects that have been approved so that there are approved contracts and that we're in the process of doing our due diligence and eventually closing. So the first is the Elise J property. It's a 315-acre parcel that's under contract for $3.4 million. It serves as a key connector between Hungryland to the south and Harmony Ranch, which is this property up to the north. And it could potentially be managed as a part of Hungryland Wildlife and Environmental Area. So that went under contract a couple months ago. It's received board approval. We're doing surveys. And once that is done, we'll be able to set a closing date on that parcel. It is a fee-simple acquisition. We have been in contact with the Ducks Unlimited Program, which is a nonprofit organization, on applying for a federal grant with the North American Wetland Conservation Act. So they think it meets a lot of their metrics for their program. The second, and this is the acquisition that was recently completed within the last couple days, is Point Siena Gardens. It's about 225 acres. It has a mix of public and private ownership. And we recently closed on 32 acres at a cost of roughly $3 million. The Point Siena Gardens area includes large wetland systems and pine flatwoods. It acts as an important buffer to Atlantic Ridge State Park. And if that area were to be developed, there's something like 500 lots out there. So you could have a lot of lots back in that area. So the areas in green are areas that are ones that we just acquired. The areas in blue, the little lot areas, are areas of Point Siena Gardens we have acquired in the past. And I think the blue on this map just represents areas that are within the Loxalusi footprint. So another property that we have a contract on is the Burstein-Hickson parcel. It's roughly three acres in size along the South Fork of the St. Lucie River. However, the cost of that acquisition was $648,000. And it's part of a larger network of conservation lands that are in the area. As you can see, there's a couple parcels there, which is the Oxbow Preserve. So that is under contract, and I do not have a closing date for that at this time. Is that the red outline? That's the blue. That's the blue, okay. That's the blue one. Yeah, it's kind of hard to see, but these are—so there were three nominations. There's the Cressor property right here, the Jane Wilde parcel right here, and then the Burstein parcel. So there's still some talks with Mr. Cressor, but no agreement. And the cost, we approached Ms. Wilde about this parcel, but what she was asking was way much more than what our appraised value came back as. We have to give her an easement. Was it correct on that property? No. Oh, if she were—she would have to apply for an easement. Right. And we would have to give it to her by law if she applied for it. That is correct. Because otherwise there's no way for her to use that property. That is correct. But when I had a discussion with her, her asking price was $6 million for that property. So that's kind of out of the ballpark of what we would even discuss. Can I suggest that after this closing, within a month or two, we reconnect with her and show her the most recent comp adjacent to her property? Thank you. We'll make sure to get that in the minutes and then follow up with Ms. Wilde once that has been completed. Is there an existing easement on the Bernstein Heskikson property for her to access? Not to my knowledge. There is an issue. So there's been a longstanding issue with Mr. Kresser and him having an easement through—or—I don't—it's not anything set in stone, but as a right of necessity to access his property through our conservation piece right here. So it is an issue that comes up in this area. And on a side note, my daughter caught her first tarpon right in the center of that picture while I was showing my family those properties, saying that hopefully they'll be preserved for their lifetime and longer. And she's 12. It's certainly a priority of ours. You know, we've always placed a high value on locking up properties along the South Fork of the St. Lucie River. So the next is actually owned by the Conservation Fund. It is the Rogers Parcel. This map is actually a little inaccurate. There is a polygon that also comes down to the south of that. It's a 20-acre property. It's under contract for a million dollars. Actually, $1.2 million, so that's incorrect. And the county has a concept or just an idea—it's not even a concept at this point—to construct a flowway to bring water out of the 138th Street Ditch through these properties right here, and to help to capture that water, hold it, potentially clean it, and support the restoration of Kitchen Creek. What is that road that it's on? To the north is Bridge Road, and to the south is 138th Street. Alpha Bridge. Yes. So the Conservation Fund—we had the property appraised at $2.5 million, and the Conservation Fund is selling it at less than half of that cost. So it's a pretty good deal and supports ongoing county hydrologic restoration work. We're also in the process of closing on the Rogers Atlantic Ridge piece. This is a smaller property. It's only about three acres in size, but it does abut directly against Atlantic Ridge State Park. It's under contract for $200,000. It's fairly disturbed with the small area scrubby flatwoods, but it could be a potential access point to get into the park. So next, I'm going to discuss the Rural and Family Lands Protection Program easements. There are three parcels that are up for consideration through Rural and Family Lands. One is the Leonard parcel. This is on south of Bridge Road. So just, you know, for informational purposes, that property I just talked about, the Rogers Conservation Fund, is maybe a quarter mile to the east of that, if even maybe less than that. So it's a mixture of pasture and large cypress sloughs. It is an agricultural easement, as there is active cattle ranching on the property. And it's not contiguous to any public lands, but it could be a part of a connecting link all the way down to JD if other acquisitions occur. I just want to make a quick, the land immediately to the right of it is now for sale. Yeah, that comes up in my presentation, so thank you. Then we have Turnpike Dairy. This is primarily improved pasture. It's another agricultural easement, and it is adjacent to Allapattah Flats. In addition, the Bull Hammock conservation easement is to the northeast of that property. So it has a lot of continuity to other conservation areas and protected lands in the region. Didn't we look at that? We did. Yes. So these are all ones that you approved previously. So we're in negotiation with rural and family lands on easements on these properties. So that will be the mechanism that we move forward with to protect these lands. So then we have SS Farms, which is a 53-acre property that's primarily improved pasture and is actively being ranched. Once again, it's for an agricultural easement with the Rural and Family Lands Program, and the historic Jupiter Indian Tongari bisects the property from east to west. So, Mike, for these properties, there's then an allocation from this as well as money coming from the Rural and Family Lands Program, but do you have any idea what that split is at this point in time? It wouldn't be more than 50%, but I don't. We don't. Right now, the county has been in negotiation with the Rural and Family Lands Program on MOU that would allow for the acquisition. One thing the county wanted to make sure is that, one, through their program, that the land would be protected in perpetuity and that the county would have kind of more of a say. Sebastian, do you remember any other details of that? Yeah, I can provide some color for that. I'm Sebastian Fox, Senior Assistant County Attorney. In negotiating at least a form of these easements, one of the county's requirements was that the county itself be a co-grantee on the easement. So that would give us additional rights, not so much rights of enforcement, which are going to be delegated to the state, but it would make it much more difficult for these lands ever to be removed from the easement without our consent. So that just gives us a lot more protection, and the state seems to be in agreement with this form. So would this be a blanket MOU for every property? Yeah, I think the plan is to do one MOU for each large acquisition and then do them separately so they can be brought to the board as individual items. So the program, and it's run through FDACs, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. Before they approached the landowners, they wanted to make sure that the county would be participating financially in the acquisition of the conservation easement. That was a very strong metric for them in terms of whether or not these projects would receive funding. So we've been working on getting the MOU in order, and once that's all signed and executed, then they'll approach the landowner and start negotiations. So we don't have an idea in terms of how much these easements are going to cost at this point, and we don't have a solid number in terms of what they're going to ask for the county, but it will be less than 50% of the total cost of the easement. So that much information I do have. And so once the cost gets negotiated and the Rural and Family Lands Program provides a number to the county, then it will have to go to Board of County Commissioner approval of the actual easement itself. So it's kind of a multi-step process. So in terms of properties under active negotiation, we have J.R. Sturt Lands. This is south of the leased J property that we're currently in the process of acquiring. It's under conservation easement as a private mitigation bank, but it will provide good recreational opportunities and connectivity as a part of the Hungry Land Preserve. So we're in negotiation with the landowners, and we think that there's a possibility that we can reach an agreement with them on that property. The next one is the Thal Family Partnership property. This is a 1,499-acre property with large cypress and slough systems. It's part of this big interconnected system of conservation lands extending from the Indian River Lagoon to Lake Okeechobee. And the Conservation Fund has actually been taking the lead in terms of negotiating with the landowner. And they're going to try to lock that up. Question on that. If the Conservation Fund is taking the lead, are they paying for part and we're going to pay for part? Is that the idea? I think what they would eventually do is they would hold the property and then pass it along to the county. And that would give us time. So that project is listed as an essential acquisition in the Florida Forever Program. So it would give us time to try and work with the Florida Forever Program to try and get some funding for acquisition. Oh, okay. So it gives us some options moving forward. So this is still for a conservation easement or fee simple? This would be for fee simple. So it could come up. Like, that's the thing. At this point, you know, what happened with Barbie Ranch property is we originally were trying to negotiate a fee simple acquisition. And we could not come to an agreement with the landowner. And Florida Forever got involved and eventually negotiated a conservation easement. So we could, on some of these properties, do a conservation easement instead because sometimes the landowner likes to keep the property, you know, and they're doing a good job of managing it themselves. So we leave it as an option. But for now, we're attempting a fee simple acquisition. And Whitworth Farms is a 2,262-acre property that will provide a land quarter along I-95. The property is bisected by the South Fork of the St. Lucie River. It protects an important ecological quarter, an optimal boundary for the Atlantic Ridge State Park. We've had negotiations with the landowner, but there's no agreement as imminent at this time. And a fourth property, another property that we've been involved in is the Pettway Parcel. This is another that's south of Bridge Road and east of the Power Line. It's a 21-acre property that's part of the eastern flowway of Kitchen Creek. It could help restore wetlands in Jonathan Dickinson and support the restoration of the Northwest Fork of the Locksatree River. This is another property where, at this point, the negotiations are being led by the Conservation Fund. But there's an issue in terms of acquiring clean title due to the number of errors that are listed on the title and some other issues. So they're working through that. And hopefully they can work through those issues and we can get this land acquired. They also, the Conservation Fund, and it's not highlighted on here, but they acquired this piece to the southeast of it recently. And then that then connects to Jonathan Dickinson's State Park. So we are discussing doing another nominating cycle. And we have several properties that we will bring up through this coming cycle. The first would be the chimney in Palmar. So the blue area is Palm Beach Heights. That's our active acquisition area that I mentioned where we've been working recently. This is in yellow. The highlighted yellow is the Thal parcel. So this would be to the north of that and would connect to the C44 Reservoir and SDA. It would have the same issue as Palm Beach Heights with the small parcels, one quarter to one acre in size. How many parcels does Zach own in the chimney? Over 1,000. So this is another one. And we're unsure whether or not we'll be able to evaluate this property. But we wanted to bring it in front of you because we thought that it has a lot of value. This is the Walpole property. It might be a little hard to see, but you can see there are these hatchmark shaded areas. I got this map from the state. All these hatchmark shaded areas are currently in conservation, either in public ownership or private ownership. And the area in orange right here is a Florida Forever nominated property. So it would create this big connected system through western Martin County of protected lands. And that's a pretty important wildlife corridor. So it is in and adjacent to the Florida Wildlife Corridor. It would connect Lakeside Ranch up to this is Bluefield Ranch up here. The issue is that the project is not within what is currently known as IRL South, and it's more in the Lake Okeechobee watershed. So we wanted to get some opinion. I can come back to it once I get through the rest of these in terms of how the committee feels about acquisition like this. And I actually provided, as one of my slides, the ordinance language for you to review. What is the yellow? The yellow is a Florida Forever project boundary. So it's privately held right now, but it's under consideration through the Florida Forever program as a potential acquisition. Is it within a specific Florida Forever boundary then? It's next to a Florida Forever project. It's adjacent to it. We will hold comment until the end of the presentation. Yes, let's wait until we get through this, and then I think we'll review this. You can do it. You can make that comment for me too. Yeah, no, at the end of the presentation we'll allow for public comment. Why don't you get through every property, and we can circle back to this one. So this is another acquisition. This just was listed recently within the last month on a realtor site. It's solar properties parcel. It's got kind of a weird configuration because right in the middle of it you have like a cell tower, and that cell tower property would remain in private ownership. But surrounding that you have 139 acres for sale. There's extensive wetland systems on the property. It is within the footprint of IRL South, which is shaded in beige there, and so it could possibly be a CERP natural lands property. It's adjacent to Barbie Ranch, the conservation easement, and could potentially create a link to Allapattah Ranch and the C44. So the yellow hatched areas on here, that is Allapattah Ranch, and the purple is the C44 Reservoir. The green parcels are the C44 STA. Mike, I'm sorry. Is that property, that's not the one that's right on 714, right? 714 is north of there? Yeah, 714 is going to be all the way up here. Gotcha. So this is, like I said, it's just, it's directly a Butts. There is a ditch or canal that runs on the south side of the property between it and Barbie Ranch, but it's in this kind of priority conservation area. Okay, so it's adjacent to cell one and, yeah, okay, I got it. Yeah, and it's for sale for, on a realtor site, it's listed at like $1.9 million. So, Mike, how do you access that parcel? Currently, they're accessing it by driving down and then across. They have an easement, I think, that's different. I think that comes down the east side. Another property that is listed that we have a willing seller letter for is the Hawks Hammock Edition. So, this is the county Hawks Hammock property, which is 432 acres. This is Palm City Farms over here. So, it connects to that property on the eastern side. And the drainage from these two properties go into the S1 Canal and into the St. Lucie River. So, it's outside of what's currently known as the IRL South footprint, but it does drain into the St. Lucie Canal. So, there's a thought that it could be an IRL South SIRP Natural Lands property. And if it's not acquired, there's a high potential that it would be developed. And it's pretty much all in natural condition as of right now. Another property that's being listed for sale is the Detilio Parcel. This is south of Bridge Road, and it's directly adjacent to the county's Kitchen Creek Preserve and Central Flowway Project area. This is a project that the county built to help capture stormwater. And instead of having it go down through the ditch system into Jonathan Dickinson State Park, it gets routed through a series of lakes and wetlands where it can be stored and cleaned. And until eventually working its way back down into Kitchen Creek. The site is heavily impacted, but it does have the potential, if it was acquired, to be treated like Kitchen Creek was and to expand that Central Flowway Project. I think there's more need for storage. There's more need to protect that watershed. And it would get a pretty intensive use and just clean up that property and improve our own Kitchen Creek property. That's south of Bridge Road, right? That's south of Bridge Road. Power Line Road is right here, so it's west of Power Line Road. Is the Conservation Fund involved in this one? I mentioned it to Charles Donaldson from the Conservation Fund. They, you know, we haven't had full discussions with them about it other than I just let him know that the property was for sale. How do you decide who does it, who takes the lead? I think in this property the county would take the lead. The what? In this instance, the county will take the lead. Howdy. So, yeah. So, one of the main advantages is the conservation easement can hold something, you know, and fill in that gap of waiting for Florida Forever Grant. Right. Is that correct? But the Dottilio property probably would not qualify for a Florida Forever Grant. Or they got involved in terms of the Pettway property just because how complicated that acquisition was. The county has had the Pettway property on our radar for several years, but there's so many issues with title that, in some instances, they're more flexible and easy to work through those issues than the county would be. So, we use them where we see, you know, value, where they can play a role that the county potentially couldn't. So, here's your MTM Ranch property, 139 acres south of Bridge Road. It's in the Kitchen Creek Watershed. It's directly adjacent to the Leonard Parcel, which is in blue, which is a candidate for conservation easement. It's a large cypress sluice system, has a large cypress sluice system. I will say it's listed on a realtor site, but it has a very high price. I think it was $35 million is what it was listed for. 139 acres. For 139 acres. You know, you never know what will happen, so that's why we still just bring it forward and, you know, get it through our process. And then, you know, it could also become a potential conservation easement. But, in general, things around Bridge Road and that area right now are very, very expensive. So, and then we have this Justin Wilson addition property. So, to the north of it, you have Lance Corporal Justin Wilson Park, which includes a very large sluice system that kind of dominates over half the property. It's drainage leads directly into the St. Lucie Estuary and includes important and rare bay gall swamp habitat. So, as I mentioned, a couple of these properties don't neatly fall within the boundary of what we would consider to be IRL South. So, we wanted to put it in front of the committee. So, if you want, I can either read this or you can read it on your own. And we would like your opinion on whether or not, you know, things like the Walpole property and the Hawks Hammock edition could qualify as an IRL South project. Those are the only two, correct, of the ones you went over that don't fall in the four areas? Yeah. The Justin Wilson addition is a little iffy because typically the Blue Ways looks at properties directly adjacent to a river system and there's a little bit of a gap. But it does have a drainage system that goes directly into the St. Lucie Estuary. Do we have a price of that 20 acres? I do not. You do not. Yeah. So, the two pieces are Justin Wilson and Walpole. Those are the only two? Justin Wilson, Hawks Hammock edition, and Walpole. Okay. So, my opinion, I think the Justin Wilson expansion fits fairly easy into the Blue Ways concept because it does drain directly and it is fairly close. I'd have to look at the map on the others again regarding, you know, because they're not really SERP adjacent or whatever the other two are, the Palmar or Loxalusi. Does anyone ever want to take a minute to read the ordinance description or do you want to read it? In reading the ordinance, the question that I had is how are these areas further defined? So, I mean, there's no definition for Blue Ways areas as one example. Now, there may be a definition for the natural lands component of the Indian River Lagoon South project of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. If I was to look at that plan, would it give me a legal description of that geographic area? Probably not a legal description. There are maps associated with it, but they're not so specific as to have legal descriptions. Yeah. Would they have specific parcel numbers and surveys on them or they're general? They're really much more general. As the, at least as the district and the core have gone forward in acquiring these properties, they have had more detailed information. But it's really not until they start getting into the acquisition process. It's the goal of capturing certain water basins to curtail the flow going in, which does fall in the intent of the ordinance. I guess my further question would be, is this an issue for the county's legal department to review and advise on as it relates to whether or not the oversight committee has the jurisdiction to consider those parcels or not? I mean, I hate to see us spend the time and effort reviewing parcels that will get rejected by the county commission because it separately determines that they don't fall within the definition of the ordinance. I think you make a great point, Scott. I mean, this board is to, you know, determine if it falls with the intent of the ordinance, but we shouldn't delve too deep on the legal definitions. I mean, that should be up to the county attorney. Actually, you shouldn't bring anything to us until they vet it. Exactly. Let legal vet it before you bring it to us because. We have been in talks with the legal program, and we're, you know, one thought that we've had is just if we get something from the water management district that would say that they could consider it as a natural land CERP component. Not that, you know, not that they'll actually get credit for it, but that they could consider it for the CERP natural lands component, that then it could move forward. So, but we do value the opinion of this board, and, you know, Beth, you're on here, you know, and know as much about the IRL South as anyone. So, we wanted to bring it forward in front of the committee just to get your impression of these. And I think Merritt was correct in saying that at least this ordinance and also the St. Lucie IRL plan is associated with capturing water within specific basins, basically C-23, C-24, C-25, not in Martin County, and the C-44 basins. So, and you're right, the district, if you could get that letter or a response from the district regarding that, that would be helpful. And as I, you know, certainly the Hawks Hammock addition definitely has a drainage pattern that leads into the S-1 canal and into the St. Lucie waterway. And it is, you know, it's an all-natural state, so it's not improved pasture. So, it does, at least in my mind, does have value to IRL South. Yeah, could you detail again where that property actually is? Like, what is the roadway that it's south of there? That's I-95. I-95. This is Hawks Hammock Preserve. It's a 432-acre county preserve. There's a 300-acre county preserve, Map Creek Preserve, that's over in this area. It's to the north of the Audubon parcel. So, I can... Right, right, okay. So, it's fairly far west. Okay. Let me see if there's a, probably a map that would best highlight it would be. So, it's actually right here. Okay, okay. So, and then this S-1 canal flows straight down in that direction. So, we'll basically take this back, and in terms of the wall, pull property, and Hawks Hammock Edition, we'll ask the district directly about those. So... The intent appears, at first glance, to seem to fall in line with the ordinance. And I've tried, and I don't know if even the Florida Blue Ways program is clear as to what falls in to each property. It was generally along the waterfront. Yeah. Along a water body. Yeah. So, there might, whether it's IRL South or the Florida Blue Ways program, be, there's not specific parcel numbers and surveys that we can go by. Who nominated Justin Wilson? We received, well, first of all, there is a phone number, like a realtor listed for that property. And then there was a member of the public who contacted the county and asked us about that property. Because I would, of those three properties, that would be the last one on my list to send any money towards. Yeah. And the reason why I brought Walpole forward, you know, it's not like it's just some... Oh, not Walpole. I'm talking about Justin Wilson. Yeah, yeah. I understand the other two. Yeah. I don't know if they qualify. That's why I asked you to get the legal opinion or from South Florida. But I'm really hesitant about the one adjacent to a park. Okay. Well, Walpole, as you said, which is up now, flows into Lake Ochobe, basically, correct? Yes. So that would be the hardest to fall under the intent of the ordinance, whether it's legal or not. And I normally wouldn't even bring a parcel like this forward. But, I mean, when you look at the potential connectivity and the link it could provide, a link that goes all the way up to central Florida, like you have conservation that continue north of that property, you can see that it has a lot of value. And, you know, we did meet with the landowner. He said they've found panther tracks on their property. I haven't seen panthers themselves, but that would certainly be an area where panthers could move. So if we didn't have four zones, this would be kind of a no-brainer for us to bring forward. But, you know, we'll just have to see if we can find something that would allow us to have a review. Mike, can I make a couple comments about the property, too? Sure. It does back up to a mitigation bank, and a part of the property, and I don't know if it's the gold parcel that you have laid out, but a part of the property does, it's already under conservation. It was the first piece of property in the county that went under a conservation plan. And what they're asking for is for the rest of the property to go under easement. And there are creeks on the property, Lettuce Creek and Van Swearen. Beth, you may know. Yeah, that sounds familiar. Yeah. Swearegan or something, yes. Swearegan Creek, yes. Is the parcel below it that's like a triangle-ish, is that privately held? This is Lakeside Ranch. It's Water Management District. Yeah, but just right above that, between the red and the green, is that dark area. So that's the area you're referring to that's under conservation easement? It's in St. Lucie County. Yes. St. Lucie County is the mitigation bank just across the boundary. No, but Mr. Turnbull is talking about below the red square. Correct. Yes. Yeah, so this is Lakeside Ranch down here. Yeah. But between Lakeside Ranch and the bottom part of the boundary, that area right there, is that privately held? That's correct. Okay. So, yeah, I'm a little unclear on this map as well, Matt Sikes. So the dark green crosshatches are conservation easements, existing conservation easements? Yeah. Yeah. The, I was having trouble finding maps that showed these conservation easements. Okay. And what, what is the light green? Is that like the corridor? Light green is the Florida Ecological Greenways Network. Okay. Okay. But it's not, those are privately owned or those are private? Right. Lighter green is privately owned. Okay. Darker green is in conservation, but sometimes privately owned. Okay. It has limitations, but I like the map because it showed that connectivity. I try to like change it, so, but they don't allow you to change like the color patterns, so. Well, the, I mean, the ordinance is clear and firm, and I agree with Mr. Campani and others. We, we need to know that it's vetted legally before really delving into ranking it. You know, we're more voting on, on ranking it and the intent of the ordinance on behalf of the public, not a legal opinion. Understood. Okay. Did we have any public comment? Oh, a couple, a few more slides, so we have our celebration event on April 17th, Friday at 9 a.m. It's going to be at Timer Powers Park, and so it's open to the public, and anyone is welcome to attend. We're going to celebrate not just Barbie Ranch, but all the successes we've had in the program to this, to date. I want to put a plug to the Martin County Forever website, which is, provides information and updates on our program, and that is all. Mike, is it possible to get a copy of this presentation? Sure. Yes. Would you mind just emailing it? Yes. At least to myself, but probably to all the board members like it, and they can share those slides on the public. So, Mr. Hartman did leave. Is there any other comments by committee members or the public at this point? I don't know when we make a comment, but I would hope we'd move along quicker on acquiring these properties. We ought to be approving more. We ought to spend this money sooner. Well, we're pretty much like every, almost all the money that's been collected so far has been tagged to a project for acquisition. So, we're spending it as quick as it's coming in. So, to that matter, has the county discussed bonding the future funds? That would be a board of county commissioners. Yes. Do you know of any discussion that that's come up by? There has been no discussion because staff hasn't brought it up. If staff brings it up, then perhaps they would have a discussion. I know we have, as the ELOC, have encouraged staff to do that or discuss it with them. I mean, if, I think what Mr. Keller is getting at is if the restricting and limiting factor is the funds, in the ordinance, the county can bond up to 80% and unleash all the future funds so they can be leveraged now. If I may, Chair, John Mayall, Environmental Resource Administrator, to date, funding has not been a limiting factor. And we have had conversations with board members to the effect that should a need come up, that would precipitate that conversation and which financing tool would be most appropriate. It may not be bonding. We have other options if we need something more short-term for a smaller amount. But so far, there's been no lack of aggression in pursuing these. And funding has, to put it plainly, we've been lucky. The funding has kept up just barely with us coming to closing on these agreements. It's possible that any day we could have something fall into place that would demand more than we have in receipts. And at that time, we'd go to the board. The closings on these are often 120 to 180 days. There's time for us to implement whatever financing tool is most appropriate to carry the day and get to closing. So I think that's, we know that those are options that we can take to the board should the need precipitate it. We didn't want to ask for $100 million to just sit on the shelf and pay interest on it if we didn't need the money. But we aren't slowing down at all in our efforts to acquire. Is the accounting department or whomever tracking or projecting revenue going forward based on historical collections? So we, yes, and we have pushed that office. When we get an agreement, a contract ready to go, we'll say, you know, how much money do we have? When do you anticipate that we could facilitate this transaction? And we set closings based on that. We've done that. We've only really had to do that a couple of times. And in both times, it worked out really perfectly with the closing structure anyway. Like I said, we've been getting lucky so far. So it seems the way you said the board has appetite for bonding on a case-by-case basis if funding becomes a limiting factor. But right now, it's negotiations and it's worked out. I don't know if I would characterize it exactly that way, that the board has appetite. We believe we have license to make that request should we need it. Okay. And the ELOC has encouraged that request in prior meetings if it is necessary. That's our understanding. Yes, we have. Okay. So to be clear. Well, Mr. Chair, maybe you need to. Do we need? I believe we did a motion to. No, no, I don't think you need a motion. I think you may need to speak to the county commission at a commission meeting. If that, yes, if, Mr. Mayall, if, will you alert myself or Chair Snedeker? If staff feels that funding is the limiting factor, I'm certain representatives from the ELOC would be happy to address the county commission to encourage them to fund on a case-by-case basis. If negotiations are the limiting factor, we're in a good spot. But I think Mr. Keller was saying, and all of us, might as well spend the money now to keep where we are. It's not going to be cheaper. Exactly. Don't have to twist our arm. Yes. So, Mr. Keller? Another comment. We haven't met since September. Weren't we going to meet quarterly? I think it was on an as-needed basis. And as of January, which was when we originally were intending to have this meeting, we really hadn't started, we didn't really have anything to report. You know, a lot of the time after these projects got board approval was spent on completing appraisals. That took two months to do on its own. And so it wasn't really until December that we even really started reaching out to these landowners to try and make these, to try and buy these lands. So, but we're now in a position, I think, where within the next three months we could bring a, you know, we could have another ranking meeting with a smaller number of properties, you know, looking to be like four or five at this time. And if anything else were to come forward, we could add it to that, but, so we could look at maybe July doing another ranking meeting. How do you feel on setting a date now, or do you want to see how the, I mean, for three of them, we want to be certain on legal department's opinion. But how does the rest of the board feel on setting a date now, or waiting to hear from staff a little bit? I think we should wait, and we should figure that if we don't hear from staff within 90 days, then you, Mr. Chair, or the real Mr. Chair- Can reach out. Can reach out. But I think it would be foolish to try to do it if there was nothing any more concrete than there is at this moment, okay? I mean, I would just offer up, you know, the idea of setting a meeting, you know, in the next 60 to 90 days now, because if we wait to set the meeting, with schedules getting filled up, we may not actually meet again until July or August, September. I would agree with that. We could certainly set a meeting and then give staff a goal. And then change the date. That's what it is. Yeah. And if we're going to set a date for this, then let's set it within, let's set it that we meet at the same time every 90 days or every 120 days, and we have a meeting. We don't say, Jim, can you make it? Bill, what about you? I mean, we're never going to work that way. So just like the LPA sets a date, just like other meetings are set, we should do the same thing with ELOC, Mr. Chair. And that's the meeting date. June 3rd would be 60 days from now. Would you be ready on June 3rd to present anything more than what you did just now? We would have moved closer to closing. We potentially could have gotten these MOUs in place and be closer to these conservation easements on the Rural and Family Lands project. Or July 1st would be a Wednesday. That's never going to be a good week, but I don't care if it's a July 1st or an August 1st, but it has to be the same day, the same time, whatever we decide, three months, two months, four months. Otherwise, we'll never come to an agreement on when we should meet. Well, if we want to schedule one in July, then we could just set three-month calendar dates from there and move in a three-month, every three-month schedule from here going forward. So Wednesdays have been the prior times of our past meetings. July 8th is the second Wednesday. That would give people some time after the 4th. You'll have to give me a second. The one thing I do need to do is make sure that this room is available on any dates that are selected. Does everyone like 3 o'clock as a time for the meeting? Does that work for everyone? That's fine. Mr. Keller? No, I want to go on to one more topic, but stay on this date question. 3 o'clock is good for me, Mike, but July. Do we have the room on July 8th? There's a bid opening from 2.30 to 3, so perhaps at 3.30. 3.30. Would that work? And others can attend if they are out of town. They're just non-voting members, but they can sign in and make comments, correct? Mm-hmm. We'll still have that capability. And I could certainly, we could still bring forward if there are, if we don't, if we aren't able to rank the three that are in question right now, we could, we still could have three or four properties that we could rank and get approved for potential acquisitions. So there's no reason why we can't have a smaller ranking meeting. Yeah. I will beg out on July. I won't be able to make it in July, actually, or through September. So unless you meet before July 1st. But that's all right. I won't be there either, but that's beside the point. We've got to meet. Let's give staff a goal. That's what it sounds like. We need a quorum. Yeah. Yeah. A couple that aren't here. Why don't we give staff a goal to shoot for July 8th? Okay. I'll reserve the room for 3.30. If you know two weeks ahead of time that we're going to have some properties that need to be ranked a significant number, and there's concern about a quorum, if you can reach out to everyone as soon as you know that that meeting has significant value. Well, it sounded like we want to try and do it on, as long as we get a quorum, we want to do it on July 8th anyway, right? Yes. So I'll have to provide you with the environmental assessments anyway. Yes. So I would reach out, provide an agenda, provide the environmental assessments, and at that time, if it looks like we're not going to get a quorum, then that would probably be the one thing that would precipitate us canceling the meeting. And if I think we're going to be missing several members but we have a quorum, we could hold off for a little longer in terms of doing the next ranking meeting. And can I move on to another topic? We're currently in a county meeting, right? But the referendum raised money for expenditures not in the county. And I'm the one that raised the money to push this referendum to success, and I made responsibilities to the people that contributed to it and people that voted to it, that we would adhere to the idea that this money would be used for land and water, environmental issues. And doesn't our responsibility extend beyond the county to wherever this money is going to be spent? I think as an oversight board, we should certainly be watching that. That the municipalities legally aren't bound by the exact language of the referendum. We raised the money and told it to people they voted for that thought that this money was going to be used for land and water. Yes. That would not, your role in the Environmental Lands Oversight Committee is to review projects that have been nominated for potential acquisition by the county. And we had nothing to do with municipalities. Correct. The law is quite clear on that, and I don't think we should be, from this dais, telling other people how to spend municipalities, how to spend the money. Well, I disagree with that. Well, okay. I mean, we raised the money for this purpose. No, no, no, no, no, no. You raised the money for a specific purpose to get it on the ballot. It was gotten on the ballot. On the ballot. When on the ballot was money that would be spent for environmental land and water. And we are here, and we are here discussing whatever money comes to the county, it will be done according to that referendum and the enabling language. However, when it comes to any one municipality, we have no control over it. Whether we should or not doesn't really matter. Legally, we have no control over it, and so we should not be bringing it up as anything having to do with this committee. It's just not the spirit of the referendum. I agree with you. It's wrong. But that doesn't mean they're doing anything illegal, nor should this committee get embroiled in any dispute with any other municipality. We have a job to do. We're doing that job, and we should stay focused on that job. If you wish to speak at a commission meeting, a City of Stewart commission meeting, please go right ahead and do so. If you wish to write a letter, I'll be glad to publish it in Friends and Neighbors. But as far as this committee taking a stand on anything else that has nothing to do with this committee and what we're charged with doing, it's not what we should be doing, and it will only hurt the committee. Then we committed fraud to the people. No. The ordinance is pretty clear under Section 6.2. It basically says municipalities may only spend their share of the surtax revenue to finance, plan, and construct infrastructure and to acquire land for public recreation, conservation, or protection of natural resources. Who wrote the ordinance and who passed the ordinance? Well, the voters passed the ordinance. The voters and the county. And the county. Right. We are overseeing county funds. Right. Now, the question that's being discussed right now is whether this county board should interject as a board in municipalities' actions. There's also the question of whether or not. Wasn't this committee created in the referendum? Let's discuss it. It wasn't created by the county. It was created by the referendum. It's in the idea of a citizens' committee is in the referendum. The referendum and the accompanying ordinance required the formation of an Environmental Lands Oversight Committee and shall provide citizen oversight and conduct and coordinate any necessary studies to determine appropriate lands to acquire from funding provided by the surtax. And then it goes on to list the different members. So if the committee was established just by the referendum? The referendum specified the formation and then the county commissioners, as required by the ordinance, established the Environmental Lands Oversight Committee for the role of making recommendations to the board in terms of what lands to acquire. This is a county board. Municipalities are not under our jurisdiction. They're not under the county's jurisdiction. The municipalities are getting funding through the method that this was passed by the state law, through the half-cent infrastructure surtax. By default, they are getting funding based on their population. Lights don't count here. Sebastian, do you want to weigh in? Sebastian, go ahead. So I can weigh in, and I think this is a sort of two-prong question. The first goes to the role of this particular committee, which Mike did read for you all. This committee was established by county resolution, and it states very clearly what the purpose and duty and responsibility of this particular committee is. The other prong of this is the language in the referendum that addresses municipality uses, which was also just read to you. And just to restate that municipalities may only spend their share of the surtax revenue to finance, plan, and construct infrastructure and to acquire land for public recreation, conservation, or protection of natural resources in accordance with Section 212055. Section 212055 spends about three-quarters of a page discussing the definition of infrastructure. It's a pretty broad concept. My recommendation, not that I was asked for it, but my recommendation is in line with what Tom has been saying, and based on the two prongs I just described. The role of this committee, and then the broad language of the language in the ordinance itself. And I'm happy to answer any questions. Yes. Mr. Keller. One more thing. One of the brilliance of this money is that it's able to draw down additional funds from Florida Forever and state funds and so forth. When people start spending money on pet projects unrelated to land and water, we're inconsistent with the mission of the referendum. And it hurts us in relationship with the state for future drawdowns of money from the state. I hate to see us screw up something that's really brilliant. Oh, John, does that, come on up. Well. Is that, is that true? It also hurt, hampers the future with messing up public perception of our actions or the actions of the funds that are going to the municipalities. It hampers the future of the referendum getting renewed nine years from now. And that may very well be. John, you want to answer my question? I might be answering a different question. But, but it seems to me that what's before this group is, is, is it, is really a clear question of, is it appropriate for the group as Martin, as the environmental lands oversight committee to take a position on it? Whether it's an appropriate use of the dollars, that's probably more up to the taxpayers of the city of Stewart, the voters in the city of Stewart, individual members. Of course, every member of this committee is welcome to weigh in as a citizen or individual on the appropriateness of these tax dollars being used in any municipality. But as far as, like, I'm, I'm, I'm following the lead of my council that, that we don't think that the environmental lands oversight committee has authority to weigh in on this topic. I'd like, I'd like to welcome, uh, our chair, uh, Mr. Snedeker, who just made it. And we've gone through most of the presentation, Jim. I was actually able to listen to it. Okay. But we have, in our final member comments, are discussing city of Stewart's potential use of their allocation of the funds from the state that they received from this referendum. So may I take a step back? Can you hear me? Is this, is this on? Yes. So, uh, roughly two years ago, we reached out to all the municipalities, talked with their managers, uh, as it relates to this issue. Uh, we were assured by all of them that they would use, uh, the money to the best extent possible for every, for an environmental purpose. Uh, that was the, the agreement, the understanding, uh, reached with each of those individuals. Uh, yesterday, I may be jumping ahead, so John, please jump in as appropriate. Uh, I talked with, uh, Mayor Collins, uh, we discussed this at length. Uh, I indicated that if, in fact, they proceeded with a plan that they had, uh, in mind, that it would create major problems in roughly seven years when this comes up for renewal, if, in fact, that happens. Uh, but bottom line is that it would be highly problematic, uh, I believe that he understood that he agreed that he would table it. Uh, it wasn't clear if it was tabled, uh, permanently, but clearly, uh, at least for now. Uh, so I think that at this point, uh, my counsel would be that we, uh, stay the course. We simply, we, we watch what's going on. And if, in fact, it comes back up again, we, at that time, individually, rather than as a committee, uh, we then express our opinion to the, uh, city of Stewart. I, uh, went before them, uh, at their last meeting, uh, I made it clear that no uncertain terms, uh, my perspective on this, I did not speak on behalf of this committee, but merely on my, my own behalf and Martin County forever LLC. So I think at this point, uh, we sit tight, see what happens, uh, and we monitor the situation, but John, do you want to add to that or what are your thoughts? I think the only thing I would, would add is, um, at the beginning of your statement, um, when you reference going to the city councils, um, to ask about their intention to use it for conservation, use the word we, I think I would just define that that was the campaign, um, for our county. Great clarification that was Martin County forever LLC, uh, and I spoke on their behalf and the statement that I gave them said at the stop at the top, uh, on behalf of Martin County forever LLC, not definitely not on behalf of ELOC. And for the record, two prior city commission meetings ago, I spoke in opposition of the city's intent to use it to purchase existing buildings as well. Um, and I do encourage every member of this board to speak up and, you know, our overall goal, while we're only tasked through resolution and the referendum overseeing the funds that go to the county public perception blends those legal lines. And one of my goals is to see this renewed, you know, and that work starts seven years from now, you know, for funding to happen nine years from now and actions of misuse of this money against the intent of what the voters passed will hamper it being renewed and hamper conservation efforts in Martin County. I would also suggest as individuals, you speak to your cat, your state legislators and have them change the law. Simple as that. There is a law. Sebastian read it. He gave a legal opinion. So, if you wish to change it, and I would, that is where it starts. It starts in Tallahassee. It doesn't start here. It starts in Tallahassee. Change the law where if a referendum is passed, and if we're talking about money being allocated, and all sales tax, it's allocated by population, then they must, then the municipalities must spend it also on what the ordinance actually said or what the referendum actually said. That is very good points. Martin County forever worked tirelessly to put in guardrails to how this money could be spent specifically for environmental restoration or environmental purposes to protect water quality. Those guardrails only extend to Martin County's use. They do not extend all the way down because of state law to the municipality use, although what they might do is a question of whether or not it's legal or not anyway. The guardrails in the ordinance are crystal clear for how the county can use the funds. Well, then I second Mr. Campani's motion, in effect, to change the law. And it would be a feather in our cap if we point out that the legislators need to change the law so that elected officials can't spend money on their pet projects that are not consistent with the reason we passed this referendum or this type of environmental referendum. Agreed. Well made. Agreed. Very well made. Do we have any other business? Mr. Hoffman. Thank you. Yes. So I have a couple of 4-H members here in the audience. These are members of my teen leadership club. And this year we partnered with the Smithsonian Institute to take on a civic engagement project. This is a very youth-led project. It was very hard for me to stay back and let them run and do their thing, but they did. And they, from the ground up, selecting their own topics, doing everything themselves, I was just there to support. And this group of individuals, these two, along with four others, decided they want to do a project on the importance of preserving our native lands. And so they have just about finalized this video. It needs one small edit. But we're going to go ahead and, if you don't mind, I'd like to play this video for you guys and show you the importance of this. And I know Merritt mentioned his daughter earlier, but we're representing a lot of future Martin County members here that are also watching. Yes, go ahead, please. Martin County has long been known for its open spaces, farms, and ranch lands. But as development continues to grow, more of this land is at risk of disappearing. This raises an important question. How can we preserve the land that supports our environment, wildlife, and local history? Agriculture has been an important part of Martin County's landscape for generations. Today, the county still contains nearly 180,000 acres of farmland across about 588 farms. Some of this land is not being protected through conservation programs. For example, Bull Hammock Ranch, a cattle ranch of more than 5,800 acres, was recently approved for a conservation easement, ensuring the land will remain open while continuing to operate as a working ranch. To learn more about agriculture's role in land preservation, we spoke with Mr. Wes Carlton at Bull Hammock Ranch. Would you mind introducing yourself? My name's Wes Carlton, owner of Bull Hammock Ranch. Could you tell us a little bit about conservation efforts that happened on Bull Hammock Ranch? Bull Hammock has several different conservation efforts. The first one was a water project on the east side of the ranch. It encompasses about 2,000 acres of water storage on natural wetlands, natural footprint. And then we did about a 70-acre water reservoir here that captures off-site water. And then Bull Hammock Ranch just recently also did a perpetual accomplishment of what you see today, what it looked like forever. Why did you choose, because I know your ranch partners with some people to conserve, why did you choose to partner with the people you did? The main reason we did what we did is their state agencies, too, that we did with. The federal government has some programs, WRP programs, Wetland Preserve. Some of the restrictions on that are, and it's in the process of changing, is at any point in time they could tell you to take the cattle off of it. So that scared me to death. So we opted not to even consider that. Could you explain the importance of this land being preserved? It breaks my heart to see what's happened on the state lands. It's just an exotic wasteland of pepper trees and Kogan grass. My motto has always been, I want to look better when I leave than when I took charge. So thank you. Nice having you. After speaking with Mr. Wes Carlton, we saw how conservation easements can protect working land from development while making it possible for a ranch to remain productive. To better understand how land is preserved in Martin County, we spoke with Michael Houston, a senior project manager in the Martin County Environmental Research Division. Thank you for meeting with me. Would you like to introduce yourself? Sure, absolutely. And thank you for coming down to interview me today. My name is Michael Houston. I am a senior project manager in the Martin County Environmental Resource Division. And my job through this process is I help to shepherd properties from being nominated and submitted for potential acquisition through our process to get them approved for sales tax funding. So what factors do the e-law consider when deciding what lands to prioritize, just what lands that are available? So when we originally set up the sales tax initiative, we wrote a manual and established procedures for how lands would go from being nominated to being approved for acquisition. And in that it included having environmental assessments done from a group called the Florida Natural Areas Inventory, who works with the state land conservation programs to acquire their conservation lands. So they would do environmental assessments that we have a citizen advisory board that then reviews and evaluates those properties and makes recommendations in terms of whether or not we should acquire the lands or not. And kind of ranks and prioritizes by how environmentally sensitive and how much value it had. They had 16 properties that they evaluated, 10,000 acres. Based on that, we now have a list that got approved by the county commissioners. And now we're going out to acquire those properties. So it's a whole process to get us to the point where we can even make offers and try and acquire these lands. So in your opinion, which land is better to preserve, agricultural or native lands? I wouldn't really speak to that. They all have values in different ways. You know, conservation lands are important because they protect native wild habitat and keep native habitats native. But these agricultural areas are also important because they help to protect wildlife quarters. You're still having conservation values on these properties as well. So that's a tough thing to come out and say what one preference would be or another. Thank you for meeting with me. Speaking with Michael Huston gave us a much clearer understanding of how land preservation works in Martin County and the process required to protect these lands for the future. Preserving land is not only important for agriculture, but also for protecting natural ecosystems and wildlife habitats. To learn more about why conserving natural lands matters, we spoke with Merritt Matheson. Can you introduce yourself? Yes, I'm Merritt Matheson. I'm one of the members of the Environmental Land Oter Safety. Could you explain a little bit about what the Indian River Keeper is? So the Indian River Keeper is part of a worldwide organization of Water Keepers Alliance. We're a nonprofit group of volunteers which work to protect water quality. What are the benefits of preserving land? Preserving land is critical for the health not only of that land, but of waterways all around us. What are the biggest threats that impact the Indian River Keeper? So some of the biggest threats here are non-natural discharges from Lake Okeechobee. So any discharges from Lake Okeechobee wouldn't naturally come into this estuary. Some of the other problems are really seagrass degradation. Your seagrass helps hold down the sediment on the bottom of the lagoon, and it also helps filter out too much nutrients by its half-fat drubanile fish and food. If you lose your immune system in a water body, it takes hits from storm events, from discharges from Lake Okeechobee. And those hits are harder on the lagoon end of itself, and it's kind of a cascading effect down. So really focusing on water quality, letting seagrass rebound, helps ensure clean water throughout the lagoon. How has the Indian River Lagoon changed from when you started with the Indian River Keepers? The lagoon has changed. We've lost significant amounts of seagrass. They have problems with water quality, and we have problems with muck layers throughout the Indian River Lagoon, which kind of form an anaerobic layer where nothing can really grow. Seagrass can't get established. It's almost like an ooze. So the Indian River Lagoon has changed significantly over my lifetime. What are the things people can do to protect the Indian River Lagoon and other waterways? Helping protect our waterways can easily start with small changes. Encourage us to not use fertilizers on their logs during the wet season, starting June 1st and lasting till about the end of November. Obeying no wake zones. Pause to much turbidity in the area and harm seagrass not to run your prop through a grass bed. Get out of the boat. Walk it carefully off a grass bed. After talking with Merritt Matheson, we came away with a better understanding of how much natural lands do for Martin County. He showed us that protecting these spaces means protecting the wildlife, ecosystems, and natural balance of the community. Through this project, we learned that land preservation in Martin County depends on many different people working together. Farmers, ranchers, environmental staff, and conservation groups each play a different role in protecting the land, wildlife, and natural spaces that shape our community. Agriculture is not only part of Martin County's history, but also part of its future. Preserving working lands helps protect open spaces while allowing the land to continue serving an important purpose. As members of our community, we can use our voices by learning about local issues, asking questions, and sharing what we discover with others. As America marks 250 years of independence, this project is a reminder that communities have always been shaped by people who stay informed, get involved, and work to protect what matters most. Excellent work. Great job. Very nice. Can you introduce your kids? Yes. Yeah, if we could have Ian and Kayla, you mind coming forward for a second? Ian is our editor, and Kayla is our awesome interviewer. Our videographer was Jack, who wasn't able to be here today, and then we had three other members of the team who helped give in ideas, but these are the main people here. Excellent. Good job. Great job, everyone. And be sure to send that around to us. We can all like it on our YouTube feeds. Yes. Is it finally? We'll send it to the Smithsonian, and then we'll make sure it gets around to everybody as well. It's not quite done yet. Okay. Really close. Thank you, guys. Thank you, guys. Great work. Very good. Great job. Any comments you'd like to say? I don't have too much to say, but I just want to thank you guys for listening to this and, like, listening to our message because I know you guys can really change what's going on, and I know that you guys can really help out and protect the area that we've grown up in and helped us. So thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Meeting adjourned. Motion to adjourn. John May. This is just another really positive thing. It's a tangent conservation effort to Martin County Forever. Mike's looking at me like, what are you about to say? Can you just be quiet? I get that look all the time. I know what's behind it. There was no luck. No, there was. So this is not Martin County Forever, but it's in the spirit of what you're doing, and I think it's partly inspired by it. There's a local resident who was inspired to engage in what I call her own Martin County Forever, and out of her own pocketbook spent $10 million acquiring land to give to the county for conservation. It was land that wouldn't have fit in the ordinance. It didn't fit in any other programs, but it had incredible value for preserving natural areas, stopping development in congested areas, things like that. And we worked with this wonderful person over the last year to identify where her investment could be at its highest and best use. And this morning, she put under contract the last piece that we were pursuing. And so there's going to be a lot of fanfare, I'd say, over the next year as we accept those deeds to the county and open them up for the public. And there'll probably be a couple of ribbon cuttings. But just super, super encouraging effort, and I look forward to introducing her to you. I think we'll have an opportunity to bring her to one of these meetings, and she can tell you about the inspiration, her family story that brought her to this point. And it's a super powerful story and a really encouraging thing that hopefully inspires some other people to follow her lead. Thank you.