Environmental Lands Oversight Committee - June 18, 2026 - Jun 18, 2026

Good afternoon. We'll call this meeting to order. Mike, can you hear that? Yes. Is that better? That's better. I'll now do the roll call. Dan Brady. Here. Tom Campenny. Here. Vicki Davis. Vicki, by the way, has some issues relating to the board, so unfortunately can't make it. David Hafner. Here. Beth Kavinsky. Here. John Keller, unfortunately couldn't make it. Merritt Matheson. Here. Scott Turnbull. Here. And Jim Snedeker. Sure. So do I have a motion to approve the minutes from our April 1st meeting? So moved. Second. All those in favor? Aye. Great. It's passed. Do I have a motion to approve the agenda for today's meeting? All in favor? So moved. Okay. Second. Sorry. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay. Staff will now update us on the parcels presented during our previous meetings. Mike? Before that, on the agenda, we have the update on the tax revenue generated from the sales tax collection. Go ahead with that, please. Good afternoon, board. My name is Stephanie Murley. I am the director of the Office of Management and Budget here for Martin County. And I am just going to give you a little update on the tax revenue that we've collected from this half-cent sales tax initiative, as well as where it's been spent. So to date, we have collected about $26 million to date between FY25, which was the partial year. If you're wondering, we have projected about $20 million to $22 million collection every year. Last year was a partial year because it was approved in November and started in January. So from January to September, we collected $15 million in FY25. And year-to-date, we have collected about $11.2 million. It is about three months behind in arrears, so state collections are lagged by three months. So if you're wondering why is that not correlating to what we've done so far, that's what that is. And then go ahead and go back to the other. And collections spent, we have spent approximately $21.2 million cumulatively between fiscal year 25 and 26. Mike, if you could scroll all the way to the bottom. And there is a breakdown of where all of that money has been spent, with the majority of it being some really good parcels between Palmar, Elise Jay, Perry Beach, Poinciana Gardens, and Barbie Ranch so far. These numbers do not represent anything that's currently in the pipe to be closed coming up. But we have sufficient cash, about $5.1 million in cash to be spent currently. And we're still anticipating about $1.5 to $1.8 million monthly to be collected going forward through the end of the fiscal year. So we meet regularly with the staff internally on what they're planning to purchase after you all discuss. And we decide if the cash flow is sufficient in order to make that purchase. And then we make the purchase. So this is a publicly available site. I had emailed each of you all this link. And I'm happy to answer any questions going forward. But we make sure we track everything by property type so you know exactly where your money is going. So I'm here to answer any questions and happy to help. No questions. Just thanks for putting this together. It looks great. And it really is very user-friendly. Thanks. Yeah, the website is very helpful. Thank you. No problem. I'm available to be reached through the email that I contacted you with. So if you don't have any questions. I will say as a reminder, once we acquire these properties, we can spend up to 5% of the acquisition cost on habitat restoration and habitat management. So you'll actually see associated with some of these more expenditures once they've been acquired. Thank you, Mike. Thank you. Thank you. So Mike, jumping ahead to the status of those properties previously voted on. Sure. So I'll now go into my presentation that includes, you know, what we've done in the past and what we'll be looking to evaluate with today's ranking meeting. So if you give me a second, let me get this started. So previously, we have evaluated and approved roughly 11,000 acres for acquisition. These properties represent all four different acquisition zones, and the acreage varies from 3,500 to one acre in size. And on this map, it highlights all the properties that you have previously approved. They're all in yellow. And based on our metrics, we've acquired about 1,325 acres in fee simple. We've protected 1,699 acres through a conservation easement via the Florida Forever Program. We have about 58 acres under contract and are either awaiting BOCC approval to close or we're in the process of closing. And in addition to that, we have 799 acres that are queued up for conservation easements through our partnership with the Rural and Family Lands Protection Program. So I don't know if you can read this very well, but it's a list of the properties that have been acquired to this point. So it lists Barbie Ranch, which was the conservation easement. If you look at the spreadsheet, it includes the total cost, how much our partners spent, and how much the county spent. So overall, we spent a little over $21 million, and our partners have spent about $23 million. In total, based on this, we've acquired fee simple or conservation easements on close to 3,100 acres. But there are still, in a couple of those projects, there are still areas that we would like to acquire. So that's why we have acres acquired, acres unacquired, and total acres. Does this make sense to everybody? Yep. Yes. Okay. Yes. Okay. So in terms of recent acquisitions, we closed on the 315-acre Elise J property during the month of May. As a reminder, this is a key connector between Hungryland Wildlife and Environmental Area and Harmony Ranch. And we think if we were able to acquire an additional property, we could add it to Hungryland and just have it managed by the state as one contiguous property. Another that we've recently closed on is Point Santa Gardens. This is an area that's a mixture of publicly and privately owned lots. Any of the color polygons that you see, the blue are ones that have been acquired in the past, and the green are the ones that were recently acquired through this program. So we closed on 32 acres during the month of April. The cost was roughly $3 million. It is an important wetland system, a lot of wetlands on the site, in addition, some pine flatwoods. But also, very significantly, it's an important buffer to and potential access point to Atlantic Ridge State Park. And so the blue that you're seeing on the left is actually Atlantic Ridge State Park. And the third acquisition recently is the 3.5-acre Rogers Atlantic Ridge Parcel. It's adjacent to and can help buffer Atlantic Ridge as well, or the metal-less property, excuse me. We closed on the property in May for roughly $200,000. It's a fairly disturbed property, but it does have a small area of scrubby flatwoods, and it's important because, once again, it links to the metal-less property. So in terms of properties under active negotiation or approved projects, this is another spreadsheet. These are properties that we have approved as ELOC projects and sales tax projects, but we haven't either been able to close on or are in the process of negotiation. In the instance of the rural and family lands easements, we have to approve language with the state who will be taking the lead on those negotiations in terms of those conservation easements. So we have about 7,000 acres that have been approved by this committee that we still have not acquired. Some of it I don't have any progress to report in terms of, like, Whitworth Farms or the Cressor Parcel or the Fall Family Partnership. So that just kind of gives you an idea of where we're at in terms of what you have approved in the past. What was Jane Wilde asking for? Roughly a million dollars an acre. And what is – so that's removed from consideration due to cost for that Jane Wilde? Yeah, yeah. If the cost comes down, it's an approved project, you know, it's still there on our radar. We're just not going to work on it because of the – there's an order of magnitude difference in terms of what the property appraises at and what it's worth. It's not even the same pew, let alone – or same church, let alone the same pew on the appraisal. So – but like I said, it's still a sales tax approved project, you know. So she could come forward in six or seven years, and if we have money available, we can buy it then. So it's there, but we're not going to be working on it. Any other questions in relation? Have you earmarked the money for that? Can we use that on a different project? Yeah, we're just taking it as it comes, basically. So if we end up spending all of our money on other things, then we wouldn't be buying it. But – so I wouldn't say we're earmarking. We don't earmark until we have a signed contract. Okay. And, Mike, where you say no progress to report, what's being done to spur those along? Well, they're just – in some instances, there's a – could be a big difference in terms of, you know, what the asking price is, it could be that the property would be so expensive that we – even with the large pot of money we have, we wouldn't – we don't have enough money to acquire it on our own. So we would need partners. So there could be a lot of different factors. We just don't really have – you know, I don't have any update to say at this time. Got it. Thank you. So we are under active negotiation for J.R. Stewart Lands, which is a 642-acre property that's important to regional connectivity. The recently acquired Elyse Jay property is just to the north of that. The property is under conservation easement as a private mitigation bank. But as of this time, there's no progress in terms of working out a deal. But we are actively, you know, talking to the realtor and the landowner on this. Mike, what – if it's active as a mitigation bank, what happens if we purchase it? Well, it would – yeah, you would still then have the conservation easement and you would have the mitigation requirements. So it would mean that you would have to take care of the property and meet whatever those requirements are. They stay with the property even if there's a change in ownership. So does that – is that a disadvantage or does it matter or – It's certainly something to consider in terms of an acquisition. Now, the realtor is saying that the landowner is trying to get the conservation easement removed from the parts that weren't used for mitigation. But whether or not that will actually happen is an open question. Are you aware whether or not any active mitigation has been done on the parcel at all? There were two credits taken on the property. So I think the plan was to just remove the conservation easement from a portion of the property. Any other questions? Well, if it was acquired – if it's acquired by the county, does it still have to go forward as a mitigation bank or that would cease? I mean, the two credits that were given out are done. But we could certainly not use it for mitigation. Yeah. I mean, there's no reason the county would have – And keep the conservation easement on it. So – but it would be, you know, what we would want to do is put, like, a trail system through it and, you know, have recreational amenities that are consistent with Hungryland, which doesn't – Hungryland doesn't allow off-road vehicles in their preserved area. Thank you. So another one is the Rogers Conservation Fund parcel. So this is actually owned now by the Conservation Fund. This map, I apologize, is inaccurate. There's this – an area going down is also part of their property. So it's, like, two parcels. But total, those two areas are 20 acres. We think that this could help with the Kitchen Creek project. So our idea would be to draw water. This is an old, like, mining site here. So the idea would be to draw water out from 138th Street in a roadway system, have it flow into and through this property. So we would kind of scrape it down to create a wetland system and then eventually put it back into the ditch. So it is owned by the Conservation Fund, and we're in negotiations with them in terms of acquiring it at this time. So that brings us to the properties that we're going to review today, the 2026 nomination cycle. So we have nine new nominations up for consideration that total roughly 2,800 acres. They are, once again, throughout each of the different project zones. And so a wide swath of the areas that have been up for consideration before. So just to explain to the public what we're going to be doing is, following the presentation in each parcel, we're going to ask the public for a comment on that parcel. And then we'll provisionally, as a team, rank that parcel. And then the next parcel will be presented. After all of the parcels have been presented, then we'll go through them again and rank those provisionals as a firm vote as it relates to the particular parcel. Any comments on that, Beth? Tom? No. We're good? We're good? Okay. Great. Thank you. Go ahead. So this chart just shows all the properties that are up for consideration. It shows which program area they're in. At this point, it's so early, we know that some we know will be fee-simple acquisition. Some could be fee-simple acquisition, could be conservation easement. We don't know, so that's why it says either. It lists the acreage of each project, potential partners, which could be anything from the South Florida Water Management District, Florida Forever Program, FDACs through the Rural and Family Lands Program, or in one instance, the City of Stewart, through their allocation from the sales tax. Any questions on this? Okay. And there are some properties that we're not bringing forward at this time. So they include Walpole, which would be a great acquisition, but unfortunately it's not within one of our acquisition program boundaries. So we put that one to the side. And we will, since that one is up for a potential easement, we will try and support, you know, having it acquired by the state, that conservation easement. We just can't financially participate through the sales tax program. Mike, one question relating to the title. Do all of these have clear title? You don't really get into clear title until you get into the negotiation phase. Okay. So you don't, so we assume that we'll be getting clear title, but, you know, that takes, you know, doing title work. And we don't do that until we're further along in the process. Got it. Thank you. So Pagoda Groves, that's a site that's south of I-95 on the east side of Bridge Road, but it doesn't really fall within the Loxalusie footprint. So we didn't consider that property. Danforth Creek, there was an interest from the seller, but, and we've had conversations, but we received a willing seller too late to get the environmental assessment done and get it in front of you. So when we come back in three months, that will be a candidate for consideration. We have the Robert Rose parcel, which is on Hutchinson Island. We know based on what they, they paid for it and what they were offering to sell it for, we didn't see it as a reasonable request. So we put that aside for now. And then you have brought up, Mayor, at the 480 and golf course, but we would need a willing seller letter in order to move that forward. Okay. Thank you. So this is the review process. We have nomination forms submitted. We review it as a staff to make sure it is, to make sure there's concurrence with the ordinance. If it's not, then we remove it from consideration. If it is, we bring it forward to you guys to have it reviewed and ranked, which is where we're at right now. After that, we bring it in front of the Board of County Commissioners for review and approval as a sales tax project. All that happens, then we can actually start meeting with the landowners, doing our due diligence negotiations, try to get a contract, and then eventually bringing it back for final approval by the Board of County Commissioners. Any questions on the review process? Nope. So this is just the scoring sheet. Each member fills out the project scores on the ranking form. There is one error, and, you know, we had decided that Category 7 we're not going to review, so please just leave those scores as being a zero. So you total up across the 10 categories, and then we apply the weights and use that to come up for a weighted score per member for each property. We then take that information, and we plug it in across for each property across all the different metrics, and then we use that to come up with a total project score. And finally, we will have all that listed in here to come up with total scores for each property, and we will then use that to come up with a ranked list of the lands that you have reviewed today. The project with the higher score will have the higher rank. We will tabulate, produce a weighted score, then bring it back to you. So now I'm going to start talking about the individual properties, and the first ones we're going to discuss are within the IRL South acquisition zone. We have two nominated properties in that zone today. We have the sole properties parcel and the Hawks hammock addition. Also, if you're looking at the map, the areas in beige are lands that are already acquired as conservation lands. The areas in green are ones that we could potentially acquire. So first, the solo properties parcel, which is a 139-acre property, has, based on our environmental assessment, it seems to have good habitat quality. There is a privately owned parcel in the middle of it that has a cell tower. So the big square is going to be the area that would be preserved, and that cutout in the middle would remain in private ownership. Does everyone understand that? Would they have access to that property through this? They would have an existing easement. Got it. And is that just one road or would it be multiple roads? I believe it's one road. Okay. Where is the road, Mike? I think it comes in from the southeast side. I might have a map further on where it's easier to see. But it's not like an asphalt road. It's just like a little access road. Got it. Thank you. The road off to the west that goes on the south side of Allapatta and the north side of C44, that does not extend as far to the east as I don't think it does. I think it stops at the end there. But the blue line is in the way. I think I remember that the access might actually be from the east side and the north. Okay. Yeah. So I would need to do a little more research on that. It is within the footprint of IRL South. And so it is a CERP natural lands property. It is adjacent to Barbie Ranch on the north side. But if we wanted to form a greenway that includes C44, Allapatta, and Barbie Ranch, obviously we would have a lot more acquisitions that we need to do. The project is completely within the Florida Wildlife Corridor. The polygon area that you see is the location of the property. So it's right up in this area. And it is listed as a priority two according to the Florida Ecological Greenway Network. So once again, it is within the footprint of IRL South and can be used for the natural lands component of CERP to capture stormwater that is severely impacting the St. Lucie Estuary. State funds are credited to the state, could be, I should say could be, credited to the state ledger in the CERP cross-share agreement. So that basically means that the state has to spend a certain amount of money that the federal government will match doing projects within the CERP. And this isn't just IRL South, within the entire CERP area. Did I explain that well, Beth? Yeah. You're fine. But right now, we don't have a partner. We don't have a partner, no. And it is within the Allapada Natural Storage Water Quality Area, as highlighted on that map. So no partner has been identified, but it does have some potential to eventually get funding since it's within IRL South. So this kind of shows better. So you can see, actually, here's the access road. It goes to the south, a little bit southwest. And you can see some of these. I guess this is where the tower lines are. So that's why they own out in that shape. And so we would be acquiring all this land around that. It appears to be in good condition. At least from aerials, you don't see any obvious heavy infestations of exotic vegetation. But some of the area has been impacted by humans. Here's another feature over here that looks like a ditch running through the property. So, and the hydrology is impacted by drainage and these surrounding canal systems. And another thing of interest is that there's no history evident of fire management on the property, which most of what we acquire won't have a history of fire management. So in terms of management considerations, the communication tower itself and having an access road that goes through the property to maintain the tower. And in addition, it would be challenging to use prescribed fire because you couldn't affect the tower if you put fire in this area. However, on the other side, it does have a lot of protected land surrounding it, especially to the south and west. And that can help reduce management challenges. Mike, does the tower preclude public access? Is the tower fenced off? Or do people have to keep a certain distance away if it was acquired? Yeah, I would imagine that they're not going to want the public to trespass onto their property. So there won't be access to the tower property. But the surrounding area, not in red, has the potential to be public use. Yes. Okay. And I go into that, but I do think that providing access will be challenging just to get out there, you know. So this is just a list of listed species on the property. There's no rare habitats, but you do tend to get some species associated with these flatwoods, marsh areas. And this is that list. And this also lists the different habitats. You have a lot of pine flatwoods, which is in green. You have blue, which is your deep depression marshes. You have the pink area, which is wet prairie. And the purple areas, which are impacted. Recreational opportunities will be challenging, given the distance from roads and a lack of connection to existing trail networks. Features, if we were to provide access, and we would focus on hiking, biking, and equestrian users. In terms of the development potential, quite a bit of the property is upland. So quite a bit of it would be available for development. But with the current land use and zoning, that would consist of 20-acre ranch heads. Any questions about that first project? You said there was no potential funding partners. What's that? There's no potential funding partners? No potential funding partners. No, there is. It's a certain. There's potential. It's potential. Yeah, there's potential, but, you know, we don't know if there will be an actual partner. We can't guarantee, but there could be potential for us to get some funding at some point in the future. So if the county buys it and closes on it, the county manages it? Theoretically, and you don't have to. I mean, we can still buy properties and let the state manage it. You know, we don't have to always take on management responsibilities. But in essence, at least for now, yeah, the county would be the managing entity. So before we go to the next property, is there any public comment on this particular property? Please. Three minutes, please. You want to identify yourself? Yeah, I'm Sharon McGinnis. Thank you. So I really have to wonder what would be the potential that anybody would want to develop that property with a cell tower on it, even as a ranch head. It just doesn't look like a desirable place that people would want to put their home. So I would give it actually a very low priority, if anything. I know it attaches to a lot of properties that we're already conserving, but I just think there's a low opportunity for somebody to start putting houses on that property. That's my own comment. Point well made. Thank you. Any other public comment? Okay. So at this point, the modus operandi has been we provisionally rank it. Is everybody comfortable with doing that, or do you want to wait until the end? No, I think we should rank them as we discuss them. Yeah, I think so, too. So let's go through discussion of this particular property then, please. Well, it is within the CERP project, so I ranked it high. Yep. Larry, any thoughts? Yes. I mean, if it's within the CERP, it's a higher ranking, and, you know, that also means funding potential in my mind. I mean, we don't have a partner lined up. But if it falls within CERP, correct me if I'm wrong, but there's a much stronger percentage of funding partners. Tom? I want to hear Beth first. She's the expert. I gave it 100 because it's within the CERP boundary, and I'm going to just go on to number two as well. I did the same for greenways because it's in a greenway as well. So I ranked it a 75 for habitat quality because of that cell tower. The surrounding area outside that cell tower looks undisturbed, but that cell tower brought it down for that. I don't know what to rank it for potential funding partners, however. I mean, do we give it a 20? Do we give it a 50? Do we give it a 70? Do you want me to go through all of them and then? Okay. Yeah, why don't we do that and then we can finalize it later. So potential funding partners, I said a 75. It definitely would not be on the CERP priority at this point in time, but it's there and it's a potential. So I didn't want to go as low as 50. But for habitat quality, I agree with Merritt. I actually gave it a 70. I think the cell tower is problematic for species and for habitat quality. Management considerations, also a 50, primarily because of the potential to have objections to fire management and the communities that are there are fire-based communities. Rare or listed species, also a 50. There are some potential for species there. I don't think that the report that we gave actually, that they actually went out and looked, so they indicated that there was some potential. But I don't think it should be rated very high. Recreational opportunities, I also gave it a 50. Just, again, because it's not the most pleasant thing to be hiking about an area with a cell tower. I ranked it. Excuse me. Sorry. How do we get to it? I mean, if we wanted to hike in there, how would we get there? I think that the area, the road along the south, I believe, is a public access road. The area between Allapatta and C44, and it looks like it extends further there. So I think that would be something that the county would have to figure out about whether or not you could get access that way, it appears. Actually, Mike, what's your read on that? Well, and there certainly would be an easement that would allow us to get to the property. There's got to be a way that the cell tower folks get there that is pretty easy for them to get. Is that their road? Would we be able to use that road? There would be an access route. The problem is providing vehicular access would be, you know, to get and build a parking lot out there. So my read on it is that you would use the existing trail system and people that are already out there. And there are equestrians that will ride through all these areas. So it could be a stop oversight for people riding their horses. So, but, you know, but other than that, it would be difficult to provide some kind of vehicular-based access that gets people to the property that they could then hike it. So from a reasonable person standard, it's on a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being the best, it would be a 5 or a 6? It would not be my responsibility to, like, provide you with scores. So I'll just give you the challenges and nuances and let you make the decision. I mean, you're not having vehicles there, but you've got the potential for bikers and horses and hikers. And bird watching. There's plenty of reasonable bikers and horseback riders and hikers out there. Right. I think it has potential, but, again, for your 5 out of 10 or 50 out of 100, I went middle of the road on the recreation. That would be my gut feel. One of my considerations for recreational opportunities is, you know, at the lowest end of the spectrum would be a conservation easement where it's probably going to be zero access to the public. And then I guess, you know, one of the highest might be the Perry Beach addition where MacArthur Boulevard is right there and there's public access right there for a vehicle. But this is certainly not a conservation easement. There's opportunity for public access. Yeah, that's why I sort of said five just arbitrarily. But, again, if you apply the reasonable person standard and meeting our fiduciary responsibility to the voters, that's where I would put it. Okay. All right. Then the last two, development potential. I ranked it fairly low. It's fairly remote. It's surrounded by natural lands and kind of difficult to get to at this point. I mean, there is definitely potential, but I still gave it a 30. And waterways and shoreline protection. I still have a little. I know. I'm really not sure. I gave it a zero because I don't think it applies. I actually gave it a not applicable. But, you know, I will say that we could have a discussion about modifying that shoreline protection one, you know, for future rankings to make it more clear. Right. Right. Because in the description, it's clear that it's supposed to be for a barrier island and those sorts of properties. Water access. Yes. Mike, do you have an extra pack of the ranking sheets by any chance? Not handy. Okay. No worries. We got awesome Sarah over there. Wow. She's on top of it. Thank you. I love mail. No, I have one. Thank you. Any other comments? Oh, David. Yeah, I think I was similar on things. I probably even went lower on recreational. Just, you know, the Barbie is not open to the public. I like that it's going to connect Allapata and Barbie, but I don't know who's going to want to go hike around a tower. Same for the development. I don't know who's going to live under that tower. So I probably also put that pretty low, too. Yeah. Other than that, I was pretty much on there. Yeah. If the Mecha property, which is the, and I'm not saying it will ever, ever become available, but if this property ever came into play, I think that would increase the recreational value of this and everything else. So one question, it's a great point, Mike. What are the probabilities of us reaching out to that property owner proactively to see if they have any interest? I know we've, the county has tried to put feelers out, but we have not had any success getting, generating any interest from that owner. But it would certainly, if that ever came into play, that would be one of our highest-ranked properties. So do you use an archaic term, diary something? It would seem to me maybe every six months it would be worth some type of correspondence to the owner of that property? Yes, especially if you have, you know, I think something like that, you're much more likely to get a response if it's somebody that knows the owner or has the connections to, you know, have a conversation with the owner. So if that, for example, is ranch land, then, of course, you know, Rick or Reed Hartman would be the go-to people. Are we pursuing that type of connectivity with the potential owners? We've certainly talked to Rick Hartman. He was the Walpole property that was brought forward. He was involved in that, and I believe he had some involvement with Turnpike Dairy as well. So could you ask Rick or Reed what kind of bird-dogging they might be able to do on this, or is that a bridge too far? I would say that – oh, I don't see John here anymore. Oh, there he is. John will be the person that has a good rapport with Rick Hartman. Or is there another broker? I just mentioned them because of their connectivity to that whole, you know, farmers. But please tell us. John, my environmental resource administrator. This is the property, Jim, we've talked about pretty extensively, and you have actually reached out to these folks. Oh, it's that same crowd in Miami. Got it. Thank you. And there are some other ones that are desirable to the county that we don't know how to make an introduction with the landowners. So if you would be interested, we'd love to bring you in and we can have a conversation. Yes, actually, I'm already at that table. I just didn't realize it was that property. So here's the question. Could you just, when you come up for air, send me a note with a description of this? Because they have quite a few parcels under their domain. So if you could give me the description of this property and I'll reach out to them again and reconnect. Does that make sense? Okay. Yeah, if you could do that, Mike, that'd be great. Absolutely. Great. Thank you. Yeah. I don't think it's a good idea for us to be naming brokers up here of who we would like to go talk to about this stuff. If the county wants to use a broker or if the broker brings us a property, it's a different thing. But I don't think we should be the ones recommending any particular name. Yeah. No, that's a good point. I was just thinking generically people in that community. But you get the idea. Thank you, Tom. Great. So if you can get back to me on that, Mike, whenever you get a chance, that'd be great. Yeah. Absolutely. Any other comments? I had a question on the cell tower. Is it a cell tower or a radio tower? I think I saw a radio tower. Yeah, it's radio. I think it's Sinclair Broadcasting. Okay, is that like a long-term lease or do they own that? They own it. They own that portion? As far as I know. Well, that's a great question. Could you, when the time permits, could you find out if they own it outright? Sure. That would be very interesting. Thank you. If it's a lease and the lease expires, it wouldn't have to be renewed, you know, depending on what the terms of the lease were. Exactly. That might increase the value of the property. Exactly. Great. Having had those towers, most people on this dais will be dead before that lease expires. I don't know. We don't know when it started. Speak for yourself. Yeah. So there was a hockey rink in your hometown where this happened, and they didn't get there in time, and they lost the property. Well, I'm just saying, they're very long-term leases. Okay. In any case, Mike, if you could, I realize you've got a lot going on, but that would be helpful just to, you know, maybe a month from now just get back to us when you come up for air. Yep. Any other comments? David? Okay, great. Go ahead, Mike. Thank you. All right. Well, so we're moving on to project number two, which is Hawks Hammock Edition. So here is an aerial map of Hawks Hammock Edition. It's a 380-acre property that's adjacent to an existing 432-acre county preserve. It is not within the boundary of IR South, but it is a part of the drainage to the St. Lucie Canal, and it has a high probability of development. In terms of the IRL South program and the Everglades Restoration Plan, we had conversations with the South Florida Water Management District about this property, and we received a correspondence from them saying that it is consistent with IRL South, and it could be feasibly used for the CERP project as a natural land. The CERP project captures stormwater runoff that is severely impacting the St. Lucie River Estuary, and state funds can be credited to the ledger and the CERP cost-share agreement. And then this map just shows where it is in relation to the IRL South footprint. In terms of the Florida Wildlife Corridor, it does not fall within the Florida Wildlife Corridor, but it does fall as a low priority within the Florida Ecological Greenway Network. There is no partner identified, but there could be potential in the future to get some funding through the IRL South CERP project. So this is kind of a little bit more of a close-up aerial to see the property. There's a borrow pit lake, but otherwise the habitat tend to be in decent to good condition. There are active cattle leases on the property, so that can change some of the structure and plant life. And the hydrology is mostly intact, and we know that from experience with Hawke's Hammock next to it. So the hydrology is in pretty good shape. However, the property does lack a fire history. Mike, I'm sorry. Can you go back to that? Where exactly is Hawke's Hammock proper on this map? Is it the piece right next to it? Yeah, it's the beige. So it's adjacent, not only adjacent, but a butts-it, okay. A butts-it, yeah. In terms of management considerations, there would be smoke management problems due to I-95. I will say that the county has implemented a successful burn program next door on the Hawke's Hammock property, so it's a challenge, but it's not impossible. And we would most likely use fire as a tool on the property. And there are significant invasive plant infestations. However, being contiguous to Hawke's Hammock, it makes management easier. And this is actually of Hawke's Hammock, but it kind of shows some of the wetland areas that you could expect to find on the addition property next door. In terms of listed species, there's no rare habitats, but you have some of these species that you typically find associated with the flatwoods and marsh habitats on the property. You can see on the map that's next to it the different habitats. So a large chunk of it is actually Messick flatwoods, but there are wet flatwoods, wet prairie, and depression marsh make up a significant portion of the property. There is a small area of improved pasture on the property as well. And the purple are basically the purple areas are the Borough Pit Lakes. So we went ahead and put together a plan for if we're able to acquire this property, how will we provide public access? We have an access issue to Hawke's Hammock. We used to bring people down from Markle Street and out to the preserve, but we actually don't own this section of the road right here. So we had to reroute access to the west side of the property. Having this parcel, we could bring people directly to the addition, and then they could use a trail that incorporates both Hawke's Hammock and Hawke's Hammock addition. This area is very popular with equestrian users, and there's actually a stables, Green Ridge Stables, a public riding stable nearby to the preserve. So, but we would also, we'd have a pavilion, like a shell rock parking area, and then that trail system. In terms of the development potential, back in 2006, the property successfully went through development review process and had a site plan approved for development. They would most likely need to start over to get development on the property, but it does show that this area could be developed if the right owner came along as agricultural ranchettes. Is that five acres or 20? I believe that's five acres. I can't really see. It's on here, but you can't really read that map. So was that approved, Mike, that development proposal? That site plan was approved, but since it was so long ago, like 20 years ago, it would probably need to be resubmitted. We've got to redo it, we've got to revile it. But from a development potential perspective, that would almost be a 10, wouldn't it? I mean, in terms of... It would certainly be one of our higher ranked in terms of development potential. Okay, thank you. So waterways or shoreline is zero? Yeah, it would not, doesn't really have values for waterways. So on that topic, unless we, you know, broaden that category, a lot of these are going to be zero. I know we've discussed that. My original intent when I wrote the manual for that is that we're doing all these things on these properties west of town, and we do here in Martin County value protecting areas that are near river systems. You know, it doesn't have to be right on the river, but in that general area, in the drainage basins. So it was just an... It was, for me at least, a way to try and provide a way to give worthwhile properties some attention. And like I said, we can certainly have a conversation, and perhaps that could be a topic of conversation for our next ELOC meeting. If we want to modify that, that is in the manual but not the ordinance so we can change the actual metric. Well, you know, I mean, perhaps it would be an asterisk by and dive a little deeper into waterways and shoreline protection. I mean, zero would be solid pavement. Pervious surfaces might be a 10 out of 100. You know, wetlands on-site might kick it up to a 20 out of 100 is another way to look at it. You know, an adjacent parcels or connectivity to tributaries or, you know, proximity to the C44 canal might kick it up to a 50 out of 100. And then, you know, a parcel on the Blue Ways program that is adjacent to a larger waterway might be 100. That's, in a way, how I'm evaluating it. Because every inch of just pervious surface that has the potential to be turned into pavement should have a ranking on that waterways and shoreline protection. Because if it's pavement, you're adding more, you know, harm to the waterways. It makes sense. But part of that is waterway access. So I would think that something to get the highest score would actually have to have the potential for a canoe-kayak launch or something else. Yes. But this is in the watershed of the St. Lucie Canal, right? So that would be material, I would think. And as we go forth, the properties are going to get less and less desirable, for lack of a better word, because we're buying up all the properties that are really heads and eights. So I don't know if we change it so much as just keep that in mind. I would posit that since we have a category that we're not using, i.e., cost per acre, that we maybe replace that with something like floodplain value or aquifer replenishment value or something similar to what Merritt was saying for this. Counsel, is there any reason why we can't do that? You can, as Mike was saying, that you can change certain metrics as long as they're not in the ordinance. So if it's not in there. Right. But there is a process because it will have to get board approval. Since this is a board-approved manual, we would need to make the changes to the manual, bring it in front of the board, and then have the board adopt the new manual. So in terms of this committee, what's the consensus? How do you feel? Okay. Tom, going around the horn? I agree with Beth's suggestion. I mean, the cost per acre, we don't have the information. We had that discussion last time. But, you know, we have to factor in just what I said. Wetlands, aquifer recharge, pervious area is a big part of doing all this. And that, you know, secondarily helps our waterways. Right. I also agree with Merritt's assessment that, you know, this property, while inland, you know, does have some value in the sense it holds water, filters water, doesn't, you know, provide for water runoff. So, I mean, you know, there's value there. I think it's a great idea to change it because the way it reads now, it's a zero. So, Mike, if you could please go ahead, whatever we can do to support you in taking that forward, please advise us. Do you want to make a motion and make a vote? Beth, could you make the motion, please? Yes, I move that we replace the cost per acre category with a category relative to wetland and, I'm sorry, wetland value and aquifer. What was, recharge, thank you. I couldn't come up with a word. Yeah, it would be recharge, I would think. So, all those in favor? Second. Oh, sorry, second. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. All those opposed? But if we're going to do this, Jim, then, in some respects, we have to redo the way we're presented with the information so that it's more clear. I think that there is, in the information that we get, there is a category that talks about. Yeah, this already said it's in the watershed of the St. Lucie Canal. Right. So, I think you've done a great job so far. So, I just think we just need to get permission to do that. I mean, it is shown under criterion 10, but it's not, but it's not clear. It needs to be maybe moved into the other category. Move and expand it. Otherwise, we just... Because it does have the natural floodplain protection, functional wetlands, surface water protection, et cetera, in the report. It's just that in the description of the category, it doesn't include that. Yes. So, is that clear, Mike? Are we okay with that? 100%. John, you're okay? We're good? Council? Okay, great. Thank you. So, I guess we move ahead to the next parcel. Oh, well, you have to discuss that. Whoops, I'm sorry. And public comment on specific to that person. Yeah, public comment, please, on this one. Thank you. Anybody from the public? Okay. In terms of our team, Matthew, you okay leading on? I'll go first. Relation to the CERT project, because of the letter, I gave it a 50. It's not in the CERT project, but the district did say that it is consistent with. So, and then similar, although not in the Florida Wildlife Corridor or any specific, it is within that greenway category. So, 65, potential funding partners, 60, habitat quality, 90, management considerations. I gave it a 65, mostly because of the issue with the fire. Rare listed species, 60, recreational opportunities, 80, particularly as adjacent to hawk's hammock. Development potential, 90, and I gave it a zero on the waterways or shoreline protection for now. So, that property kind of, so, sorry, kind of reminiscing. From, you know, that's just south of I-95. And go from I-95 to Markle and from Citrus to that property. Way back in the day, I used to deliver for the feed store back in there, get the box truck stuck all the time delivering to Miss Miller. And they would have to dig it out. But that's all it was at one point. It was just woods and hogs running everywhere. And now there's development in there. So, obviously, there's a high development potential because it's happening right there, right next door. And as far as the recreational use, I actually, in high school, I was told by my soccer coach after I played my varsity year of soccer that I was going to go work for his wife at Green Ridge Stables. So, I actually did work there in high school. And I completely agree. That is a very high traffic with horseback riding is going to be a huge thing for recreation, hiking, I can see. And it's a very good place for that. So, both recreation and development, I think that's a very high, you know, I think that I was right there with Beth on everything else. I agree with that. Thank you, Tom. The only thing I would disagree with, two things, actually. And I don't know if it's as high on recreation. So, I gave it a 60. I just don't feel it will be used that much. And as far as development, if it is a five-acre now, I don't know. I mean, they may ask for a land use change. And if it's granted, that makes everything different. But with five acres, I think it just starts to become way too expensive to develop it at this point in Martin County's history. So, I gave it only a 50 at this point. But, again, if we get a different commission or we feel that we want to put apartment buildings out there, then that should get a 10. That's how I had to sort. Thank you, Tom. Anything else? Nope. Eric? I'm slightly higher probably on all my rankings. But part of that factors in what Tom said. You know, we are, you know, picking the best properties first and the lowest hanging fruit. And the entire point of this is to acquire land. And we have the funding source. Kind of going down the list, relationship to SERP, I gave a 60. Greenway, a 75, a 60. Habitat quality, I gave an 80 because of the borrow pit. Management was a 90 just because the adjacent property already there. So, you're just extending that plan. Rare endangered species, a 70. Recreational opportunities, a 95. Development potential, I see as 100. I'm agreeing with Mr. Hoffmer. And waterway protections, a 60. And just going on the arguments that I already made for waterway protections. I'm pretty consistent with those. I mean, I think it has a higher recreational opportunity because it's adjacent to Hawks Hammock and for the equestrian use and with the increased likelihood of access. So, other than that, I think pretty much mine are consistent. I have a question to Merritt. How did you end up with the relationship to the SERP so high? Mostly because of Mike's comments at the beginning. That jumped it up from the zero to. You said you had talks that it could be included in IRL South with the district. Mm-hmm. Yeah. So. But it doesn't fall within the boundary of any SERP. It doesn't fall within it, but he did mention that there was a letter from the district that said that it was consistent with and could potentially be included for acquisition. So, I know that's an iffy thing. That's, yes. That's why I ranked it at a 50. And I was a 60. So, I mean, it's generally cut and dry, and I was at a zero kind of, but historically there seems to be some flexibility, if it's an adjacent parcel or something like that, that it can fall into that criteria, and especially if conversations have already happened with the district or something, that it can meet those criteria. You know, if I'm basically between a zero and a hundred, that's where this one landed because of those conversations that Mr. Houston mentioned. Michael, are we going to tear these funding score sheets out and hand them in? Yeah. Yeah. Sorry. I shouldn't have stapled them. Okay. Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, could I comment? Anybody else? Nope. Mr. Chair, could I provide some context on the SERP designation? When we originally were kind of putting pencil to paper on how to draft this ordinance and which lands would qualify, there was a map that showed clear boundaries about what would be considered SERP natural lands and what would not. In 2022, in the Water Resources Development Act, Congress changed that in what's called a post-authorization change report to eliminate the map. And there were several reasons for that, one of which was landowners that were on that map were expressing frustration that they were continually being solicited by attorneys that represented people that were in condemnation cases. And so they just got this deluge of solicitation for a defense that they didn't really need and had no intention of selling their land. And so in deference to that input, the district, the Water Management District, eliminated those maps and replaced them with kind of a set of objectives that those natural lands could fulfill, knowing that the process for determining, selecting, acquiring, and then at some point certifying them could take 20 years. Eventually, what they'll have to do is submit to the Corps, hey, here's what we believe achieves the objectives of the SERP IRL South Natural Lands component. And the Corps will have to deliberate and either accept, provide, you know, some kind of feedback or not. That process won't happen until long after this is all over. So really the best that we can do is to work with the district staff and look at individual projects and say, what's the likelihood of this meeting those objectives and qualifying eventually? And so really as an ELOC, as a board, as staff, all we can really do is take our best shot at it. In this particular piece that we took to the district, they acknowledge that it checks a lot of those boxes, and it's something that they would certainly submit to the Corps of Engineers. And they're looking at other properties as well that we've already acquired to potentially fulfill those needs. So it's a little bit squishy, I guess, is a long way of saying that. Thank you, John. Any other comments? Mike? Okay. So now we are switching acquisition zones to the Palmar acquisition zone, which is highlighted in green. And we have two properties up for consideration here today. We have the Palmar chimney and the Big Cypress ranch. Okay. So first up, we're going to discuss Big Cypress ranch. So, Mike, Florida cap comes later? Florida cap is Hoxhamic addition, sorry. Okay. So Big Cypress ranch is an 851-acre Cypress and wetland-dominant property that has a potential link between Hungryland and Corbett. And this could be a potential fee simple or conservation easement acquisition. You'll also notice that it is nearby the Thal Family Partnership, which is a previously approved ELOC project. And it's one that we don't really have anything to report on at this time. You can also see that to the north, you have the Palmar chimney, which is also up for consideration. And the blue area that you see here is the approved Palm Beach Heights project. But when you look at the overall picture of things, there's a greenway system that goes from all the way, really, from Jonathan Dickinson State Park through this area, through Corbett and Depli, all the way out to close to Lake Okeechobee. So it's like an ocean-to-lake conservation greenway system. The project is within the boundaries of the Florida Forever program and is listed as an essential acquisition. By Florida Forever, you can see the oval area on the map is the location of the property in relation to Florida Forever. Are we scoring these together or separately? Because I don't have an evaluation sheet for Big Cypress. Separate. Yeah. You have extras, right? Yeah. Yeah, there's not one in this package. Yeah, I apologize. There's some confusion, I think, on my part in putting all these together. Jim, could I also ask that we get our score sheets to the lady over here so that she can tally them up and doesn't have to do them all? The final, though. We're going to be going through it one more time at the end. Oh, we are? Yes. That's what we did last time. I mean, okay, well, let's take a sidebar on this. Okay. Last time what we did was we evaluated on a preliminary basis. Then after we went through all of them, we went through them again to put a final vote on it. What's the consensus of the team here as it relates to doing it that way? That is, do you wish these votes you're taking now to be the final, or do you want to go through them one more time after we've gone through all the properties? Maybe going around the horn. Beth, do you want to go first? I think, I mean, I'm fine with my scores. I don't see. We spoke about them. Yeah, I think once we speak about them, we can make changes as we see fit. Okay. Exactly. Okay. Dan, how do you? Exactly. We should turn them in. I'm going to agree to that. Yeah, I feel like. So we don't need to go through them again? No. This will be the final? Okay. I just want to be sure because, okay, that's good. It's a house. So in that case, after we do this, after we discuss them each time and we vote on them, we should give them, we should pass them in. Right. Okay, so with that in mind, Mike, do you want, how do you want us to do this? Should we separate them from the pack, then give them, pass them down to Beth? Pass them down to Beth. Beth will get them to Sarah. Okay. Sarah is very busy taking minutes, so I'm not sure she's going to have everything tabulated as we go along here, but she'll at least have them, so. Okay. Now, the only trouble is, Dan, you're missing a few sheets, right, or not? I was just missing the evaluation sheet on Big Cypress Ranch. Okay. And she gave me one. Okay. Okay. Do you want us to turn these in? Yes, please. So I've got to make a few changes in mind before I turn mine in for the final vote, but we'll get them down. Don't forget your name. Okay. So it's a new process. Okay. With that in mind. I swear that's how we did it last time. Everybody okay if we proceed? Yes. Okay. Go ahead. Mike. So it is within the Forta Forever program. I will say that at this point in time, Forta Forever is not receiving any funding from the state. So I don't know how you want to factor that in in terms of funding partners, but they would certainly be somebody we would look to as a funding partner. They just don't have funding right now. That could change next year. It could change in two years. There's a lot of changes at the state all the time. It is also within the Forta Wildlife Corridor, that area shaded in yellow. It is in a segment that extends between Corbett and Hungryland, and it is listed as a priority, too, by the Forta Ecological Greenway Network. Our main potential funding would come from the Florida Forever program. So this is a map showing a close-up of the property. You can see how wet it is, extensive cypress systems, and marsh areas. Less than 10% of the property appear to be impacted, and the wetlands in particular appear to be in excellent condition. Upland areas do show some evidence of grazing, and there's a dense pine canopy, which indicates a history of fire suppression. In terms of the management considerations, the cattle grazing and upland understory impacts, making dense vegetative fuels, that could be problematic in terms of a burn program. And even though invasive vegetation isn't widespread, it is present. And another consideration is there's just not a lot of development around the nominated property, which can actually make it easier to manage. It's easier to manage an area when you don't have homes backing up to your parcel. In terms of rare unlisted species, it does, a section of the property, 6%, are considered to be rare habitats by Martin County. Those include Dome Swamp, Bay Gall, and Hydric Cammock. There's a habitat map on the left that you can look at. And the property does have several rare species that could be found on the property, and this one includes red-cockaded woodpeckers, because there's a population in Corbett, and there are some now in hunger land, wildlife, and environmental areas. So it can be a stopover site for those birds. In terms of recreational opportunities, this will depend, because this could be a conservation easement acquisition, or it could be a fee-simple acquisition. So we don't know at this time. There would also, there is a potential to be challenges associated with the railroad crossing that would need to be navigated in order to get onto the property. If we did provide public access, it would focus on hiking, biking, and equestrian users. In terms of the development potential, it actually, the property has a PAMP on it now, but they never built the features that went into the PAMP. So, when that happens, they do have, like, if somebody were to buy the property, they could make a request to have the PAMP removed. And it has an agricultural land use and zoning. It's mainly wetlands, so it would be hard to develop most of the property. But there is some development potential long-term. And that's it. Any comments from the public, please? So, how would you guys rationalize the relationship to the SERP on this one? Beth, what do you think? I wouldn't rationalize with relationship to the IRL SERP, but I would rationalize with relation to the Loxahatchee SERP, which is not in our purview, I guess, at this point. So, I gave it a 50%, but I'm not really sure I can even justify that. I gave it a 60% for, I believe, a similar argument. Yeah, based on, you know, when we were going through the Loxahatchee River development of the project implementation report and the modeling, and not including Palmar in the Loxahatchee SERP, that's why I did not incorporate that here. Right, and there was some, there was a lot of discussion as the project manager for the Loxahatchee plan with really pushing to try to include Palmar because it is the primary watershed to the Loxahatchee. But, unfortunately, we went through that at a time when there was very little support for land acquisition at the water management district and with the Corps, and they didn't want us to include it. But I guess things could change, right? Possibly. Yeah. Beth, what's your assessment of Greenway Corridor or some of these other points? A hundred on Greenway Corridors. It's totally within the Florida Wildlife Corridor. Yep. I, again, potential funding partners, I gave it a hundred initially. I might reassess that a little bit because it is a Florida Forever project. Florida Forever. Yeah. Well, Florida Forever is a potential funding partner if they fund it, but if it's unfunded. But we're proceeding on the basis that they will fund it, although we don't know. Right. So will the Board of County Commissioners, by the time this comes before them, will they be in a position to know the answer to that? Florida Forever did not receive funding this fiscal year. So... For 2027? No funding? No funding. They did last year, and that helped get Barbie Ranch. Right. But, you know, it's one of, like, the state right now is prioritizing the Rural and Family Lands Protection Program, which is more of those agricultural conservation easements, which this property would most likely not be eligible for. Okay. Yeah. So it's just where the state is at right now. Right. So I guess, yeah, I have to think... It's really a toss-up, then, what you're saying. So it's more like a 50 than anything else. Right. If that. Yeah. We have also talked to Ducks Unlimited, and we could potentially look at them as a funding partner, but they're, like, $2 million funding partners. So, you know, the majority of your costs are... You're going to have to eat up the majority of your costs for... But they could provide some funding. I'm going to back it down to 75 for uncertainty. Yeah. So Ducks Unlimited will put up $2 million for each parcel? I don't have followed that. Ducks Unlimited is a grant program. We could apply for a certain amount of funding, but they don't provide... They're not, like, going to provide $10 million towards an acquisition. So their max would be $2 million? Yeah, if even. It might be less than that. And is that just sidebar, but is that for the county in total or just for individual parcels? They would look... They would probably try and package a bunch of acquisitions together because they, like, they have metrics for acreage. Yep. So they, like, they mentioned, like, 3,000 acres. If you can get over 3,000 acres acquired, then that increases your chances of getting funding. So we might have to package several acquired lands together that have wetland value into, like, one grant application. Then they give us a $2 million, and we're using $20 million or something in match. Got it. So you get one-tenth from Ducks Unlimited. It varies. If you're lucky. Got it. Yeah. Thank you. Beth, do you want to go ahead, or does somebody else... Does anybody want to jump in instead of me going to Beth on this one? Yeah. You say, yeah, please. I have a quality. Penny will get you to do it. No. All right. Beth, if you would mind, that'd be great. So Habitat Quality, I gave it a 95. It just looks like a beautiful, relatively unimpacted piece of property. Management Considerations, 65, I guess, because of railroad access and other issues. 75 on rare or listed species or habitats. It's 65 on recreational activities, again, because of potential access issues and whatnot. 50 on development potential. I'm always a little anxious about development potential because I don't know that much about that. But 50, and again, zero on the waterways protection. You did 50 on waterways? I'm sorry. I gave it a zero. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. I'm trying to be consistent on that for myself. So that's using the existing criteria, right, or the new improved criteria? That's using the existing criteria. Got it. David? Yeah. I would even go lower on development just because, you know, the other property that we had talked about before, just a little to the south, my family leased that, and that is underwater completely 75% of the year. So you might get one property in there if you build it up on an island. But, yeah, the property in that area is beautiful. You know, the butterfly, not butterflies, the fireflies you see at night, things that you don't get to see anymore in this county, you know, that we're trying to save is there. Recreational opportunities, especially if you're partnering with Ducks Unlimited, would be incredible, or anybody. Just the wildlife that's on these properties, the deer and other things that are out there, even just to hike it, not necessarily hunt it, would be incredible. So, yeah, I think it's a good property. I don't think it has a lot of development property, but otherwise I think it's a good property. That's a very helpful firsthand experience. Thank you. Tom? I'm about where Beth is, except development I have it less. I'm more with where David is. I just hate to leave the waterway number 10 with a zero because that throws everything off. And so, I mean, I didn't rate it yet, but I just don't think, I think we have to rate something there because it does have, you know, a waterway or watershed protection. What did you do, Merit? I'm at 70 just because of the amount of wetlands there. But I'm trying to look at that one as a holistic view. I mean, having gone through every one of these, yeah, I have a hard time just zeroing them all out if they're not on a major waterway. And the holistic view is, you know, where a drop of water might hit a basin, it's eventually either going to go percolate into the aquifer or go into a tributary leading into our waterways. So I'm looking at, I think, a broader view and the amount of wetlands. But, I mean, again, we can each rank them as we want. One thing that's different for recreational opportunities, I have a note. If it's fee simple, it's a 90. If it's conservation easement, it's a zero. Without knowing how that will trend, that's a tough one to answer. But most of the others are fairly consistent. Well, what's interesting, Merit, we're rating it apples and oranges as it relates to the number 10 in terms of the waterways as compared to the impervious versus impervious surfaces. So, Beth, you put a zero on number 10. Yet, if we rate it based upon it being a pervious surface and existing wetlands, it's much higher. So I'm just afraid those numbers are going to distort the results. Well, I went with a 15 on number 10 just because it has some value for protecting the watershed. And, you know, it's a cypress swamp area. And I rated it higher on the rare enlisted species because of the red cockaded woodpecker, which is a very endangered species. And if that habitat can support that, you know, that's, I think, a big win. And otherwise, most of my other rankings are pretty consistent with what David and Beth had said. Thank you. Dan? I'm good. Okay. Yeah, and Beth, it does, you know, holding water in that location and having natural wetland systems. The needs of the Loxachie are much, much different than the St. Lucie River. The Loxachie needs water. It just needs the timing of that water to be, to follow a more natural period instead of being lost, to be available going into dry seasons to provide dry season, fresh water flows. I'm not sure if that property matters that much, but, you know. In my opinion, any little bit helps Loxachie. I guess my concern on, again, on number 10 is just specifically it says priority on protecting shorelines and coastal waterways. And the goal is to acquire parcels on barrier islands, peninsulas, and seashores to preserve their significant natural recreational aesthetic attributes. So I just have a hard time. I understand it totally about the wetland values. I just have a hard time fitting it into that hole. Well, I think we'll address that once this change is made. And the only caveat I would note is that when it's presented to the Board of County Commissioners on topic, on area number 10, that you consider you guys get your script down as it relates to some folks rated it on one basis and some on another basis. That inconsistency is probably what you mean. Yeah, I think that's the case. Yeah, that's why we're making that change. But as it relates to this, there may be some confusion. And honestly, inconsistency across different ranking meetings is a little problematic, too, you know, because you've ranked 11 other properties before, or 16 other, 18 other properties before using a different metric. Well, I've been, I mean, I think that's the part of having a diverse board up here. We're giving our opinions. If we're all trying to make our answers exactly the same, that's contradictory to the point. You know, we're not all going to have, I mean, that's why we're all individually ranking these, and it's going forward from there. Our answers are not always going to be the exact. I've been trying to be consistent for every property that's come before me and value the opinions of other board members. But we can all have, you know, our slightly individual opinions on how we're going to rank them. Yeah, and those, you know, when it comes to scoring, what we've provided you is a guide. So it's not like a, it's not going to be perfect. It's just a guide to help you understand different important things to consider when it comes to these lands. So, Mike, maybe an alternative would be instead of changing that heading, we have a column number 11. Well, we'll change because of the cost per acre. We're going to get rid of that. And then in the future. So it would be the pervious versus impervious, the ability to recharge the aquifer? Yes, but I'll leave off, like, saying what exactly that's going to be for now until I have a chance to sit down with it and really think about it. Okay, sounds good. Thank you. Any other comments? Are we good to go? Okay. Okay, public comments on that? I think we've covered that one already. So, Mike. All right. Project four, the Palmar chimney. So here's our map once again. You can see the Thal family property, the Palm Beach Heights. You can see C44 to the north. You can see Corbett and Hungryland. And then kind of right in the middle of that, we have the Palmar chimney, which could eventually create a link between, you know, Hungryland and the C44 project areas. It's just like Palm Beach Heights, though, with those little lots that are about an acre in size. And it's about 1,238 acres total. It is within the Florida Wildlife Quarter, as you can see on this map, and it's listed as a priority two. In terms of funding partners, there's a potential for IRL natural, a CERP natural lands project, and it is adjacent to the Palmar Florida Forever project. And we could potentially, if this became available, do a boundary modification to the Palmar Florida Forever program to get this area added to that program. In terms of the habitat quality, you can see, based on this map, that there is a significant portion that has been impacted and turned into improved pasture. There's hydrologic impacts from some ditches that run through the property and canals. There are some, especially pine flatwoods communities, that seem to be in at least decent to good condition. In terms of management, the small parcel size would make management difficult, would be challenging. You know, we're all familiar with Palmar. The challenge of controlling off-road vehicles is massive. And there are extensive levels of invasive plants. So restoring the natural communities could be challenging. Here's your listed species once again. This is another one that would have the potential to have red cockatied woodpeckers, although there's no rare habitats found within the area. For recreational opportunities, it could be a potential link between Palmar Hungryland and the C-44 project area. However, I will say that in order to do that, we would have to figure out a way to get people across the C-44, which would be something. So... You can put that old bridge back across. There we go. I know. Fair enough, that's what I meant. Make them swim. It is adjacent to the historic Jupiter-Indiantown Road, which is a 100-year-old road that used to connect Jupiter and Indiantown. And features would focus on hiking, biking, and equestrian users. I will say that there's a potential... I won't get too much into it, but it could be a potential easement, even, which would... A potential what, Mike? Easement. In terms of the development potential, there are a significant amount of uplands on the property. The limitation is the small parcel size, and that area is currently zoned for one house, or it would have to have... It's laying use as one house per 20 acres as an agricultural area. So it would be challenging for anyone to put together 20 acres and be able to build something, but not impossible. Is that zone similar to Palmar itself? Yes. It's the same thing. So in Palmar itself, they can never build anything there. Is this... Is it similar that here they can build something, or is it similar that they can't build anything? There's no zoning, there's no... Well, the zoning, it has the same zoning, but if you look at that map, you see the uplands versus wetlands on there. If I were to go anywhere else in Palmar, the amount that would be brown would be the wetlands, and the amount that would be blue would be the uplands. Does that make sense? Mm-hmm. There's a lot, lot more uplands in that area than in the other parts of Palmar. So theoretically, it would be very, very difficult for anyone, even if they had 20 acres, to build roads and whatever infrastructure would be necessary to build a house in the other parts of Palmar. There, I'm not saying it would be easier, easy, but there is more of a potential. And that's it for that property. Public comment on this particular property? Anybody? Okay. Perhaps going around the horn. Beth, you okay, Lee? Yeah. In relation to CERP, I gave it a 50. Probably was once in the footprint, then taken out, then put in the footprint again. So just that's historical. Greenway Corridor, 100. Potential funding partners, 100. Habitat quality, 50. Management considerations, extensive. I gave it a 45. Listed species, only because of that red-cockaded woodpecker thing, but I might lower it. I gave it a 50. Are there any old-growth pines on the property? It's pretty disturbed. Yeah. So I think I'm going to knock that down to a 30. Recreational opportunities of 50. Development potential. I gave it a 45. I could be convinced to lower it. And again, consistency zero on the number 10. The only thing I would disagree with is I think the development potential is way, way low. Since it's only an acre, there are no roads. There are no plans for ever having roads there. There's just no way to get in to a lot to build anything. So I gave it a 20. And I gave recreational opportunities a 40. Because people will go a long way, even if they do it illegally, to go into Palmar. Which they do. Yeah. Good point. David? Yeah, I think I was pretty much right on the same numbers. Dan, do you want to go ahead? The only thing I did on management considerations, I gave it a 15 and a zero on waterways. But because of what Merritt was saying, the potential to the CERP is higher because of where it's located. So I gave it a 60. I'm pretty consistent with most of those rankings. I'm fairly consistent. You know, I am a little higher on development potential. That's because I equate the Palmar chimney to what's happening in general Palmar. I don't know if it's happening to the same extent. But I gave it a 50 because Palmar is being developed. Whether it's legally developed or not, it's being degraded is what I mean. It's off-road vehicles and camps, so to say. I agree with you, Barry. I mean, but I don't agree with your score. That's up to us, us being the people of Barton County, to prevent that from happening. It's illegal. Yes. If we don't want to do anything about the illegality of it, then that's on us. But if you're talking about development potential in the legal sense, it would be very difficult. And the easier way to stop that, though, is to acquire more parcels into a larger contiguous parcel that is easier to manage. You know, and that's why, I mean, I'm certainly not. 50 was on that high end, but that's the reason for that 50. I'm interested, once again, with number 10. I have a 40 on that one. Why a 40 on that? I mean, I would rank it higher if I were using your score. Well, it's directly correlated to the amount of wetlands there than the one prior. I mean, the last parcel was, as Mike said, basically reversed, the amount of blue to the amount of brown. Very helpful. Jim, don't you ever say you're disclosed? You'd be disclosed. Any other comments? Nope. Okay. Mr. Chair, could I request, like, a short bathroom break? Sure. And I asked Mr. Male to say this, but there is another meeting here at 7, so we will need to leave at least before that. So it'll be a short bathroom break. Okay, so how about five minutes and we'll be back. Great. Thank you. I think we're on parcel number four or five or nine. Yeah. Please go ahead. Okay, so we are now moving on to our third zone, our Loxalusi acquisition zone. We actually have three properties up for consideration. The First Methodist parcel, the Detilio parcel, and MTN Ranch. So first up, we're going to talk about the First Methodist parcel. So the First Methodist parcel, it's a little hard to see because I wanted to kind of show all the different areas, but it's that blue polygon right here, and it's just to the north. The orange parcel right there is the Rogers Atlantic Ridge parcel that we recently closed on, but it is directly adjacent to the Metalist property, which is 900 acres, and the property could be used as an access point to get into the Metalist property. But, Mike, it looks like there's a property between it and the road. What am I missing? Is that part of the church? There is a church, and the church is the one that contacted us about selling the undeveloped portion of their property. Would the church give us access to that property from that road? That would be a conversation we would have with the church as a part of our negotiation. Got it. Thank you. So this is the Florida Wildlife Corridor. The polygon area highlights the area of the Florida Wildlife Corridor, and it is within that connecting Atlantic Ridge and Jonathan Dickinson State Park, and it's within a Priority II of the Florida Ecological Greenway Network. We have not identified any funding partners with this project. In terms of the habitat quality, there is some nice scrub on the property with open, sandy areas and good vegetative structure. The wetland areas and the pine forest, which is on the western side of the property, tends to be much more woody and dense. And more disturbed. And you'll notice that there's a little cleared area here on the south side of the property as well. For management considerations, the small size of the property and surrounding land uses mean that it would be very, very difficult to utilize prescribed fire as a management tool. And also sometimes with properties that are this size, it can be more challenging to control invasive plants because you have a lot of edge effects. You have a lot of seeds coming in from surrounding properties. So it is some of the last privately owned scrub habitat in Loxalusi footprint. So there is a high potential for rare endemic species that are typical of that scrub habitat. And you can see the list or the species that could occur within this area. And in terms of recreational opportunities, it could be a potential trailhead for the 900-acre metalist property that currently has no public access. So the metalist property is landlocked. So what we will look at doing is a small... Keep going back. So this property right now, there's no access point. There's no way we can get the public on it. It is managed by the South Florida Water Management District, but there's really no public access out here at this point in time. So we would just look at doing a small parking lot and trail system. Where would you put the parking lot, Mike? On the east side of the preserve. We might even talk to the church about whether or not we can take a portion of their parking lot and acquire that and then use that to provide parking. Not even an easement. Maybe you can make a parking deal, per se. Yes. But we would need to have that access road through their property, right? We would need... Yeah. Well, to have it as a conservation piece, you don't need that. Okay. To have it as a conservation piece that you could use to connect to the metalist property, then yes. We need to work out some kind of arrangements. Yeah, I would think that would be really key. It would be certainly a strong reason for us to push, like, in the negotiating process. Yes. Is all of the scrub on the east side? The east side is all... So there's a... This map right here, all that red is scrub area. Okay. So I wouldn't want to put a parking lot in that area? No. I would not... They do have, like, this... There's, like, this cleared lawn area right here. And then the parking... Let's see. So here you can kind of see it better. So we could, like, you know, look at picking this up. We could ask, you know, if we could acquire a small portion of their parking lot, you know, or we could just ask if the public would be, you know, provide us an easement so that the public could just use their existing parking lot and then hike into the preserve. In terms of the development potential, that scrub area could be developed. You know, if they... The Methodist Church is looking for money, they could sell it to a developer, and then you could get a site plan that could have, you know... I'm not sure how many, but it does have a CRA land use and zoning designation. So it's 3.9 acres, if I've got it right. So how many houses could you put in there? Depends. You would definitely be able to get several homes in there. Okay. Got it six acres. Got it. Thank you, Mike. But part of it's wetland. Yeah. So you'd have to preserve the wetland and the buffer around the wetland. So really, roughly close to half of it would be developable. But unfortunately, that is a scrub area that would be developable. Yeah. Anything else? That's it. Any comments from the public, please? Everybody okay if I go to Beth? I might not be okay. I don't want anybody out of the room to get out of the joint. Dan? Scott, are you okay with that? I'm fine. Whatever. You're the chair. Just leading the charge here. I refer to you folks, and I want to be sure nobody's – go ahead, Beth, please. Just a quick question, Mike. Do you know how long Metalist has been in public ownership? No. Okay. I think having access to that would be a great thing. Relationship to CERP, I gave it a zero. Although that part, that Metalist Atlantic Ridge was part of the original CERP project for IRL South, and having access to that is important, but I can't see to rank it for that. Greenway Corridor, 60, because I think the material said 66% of it is in the proposed Greenway Wildlife Corridor. Zero on funding partners. Habitat quality, I gave it a 70 because of the scrub habitat. And overall, relatively decent shape, although it needs management. Management considerations, 45. The scrub probably is definitely fire-dependent, and that might be difficult. 85% on critical habitats, again, because of the scrub. Recreational opportunities, 60% on development potential, 90%, and zero on waterways or shoreline protection. David? How about you? I was really within five or so of everything Beth said. Again, the only thing I'm going to disagree with is development potential. If there were real development potential, that church would have sold it to a developer. It came to us because there is almost zero possibility, unless the church itself wanted to expand or do some other type of church-related facility. So I only gave that a 10. So I rated everything a bit higher than you folks, probably by about 10 points. The only thing I go back to is the relationship to the CERP. I gave it a 30. I did, too. Okay. Any else? Scott Merritt? I'm pretty high on the recreational opportunities of a 90 just because of the medalist. And I'm at 95 for development potential. It's a church, and I want to believe that perhaps they want to be surrounded by conservation land. I mean, they're going to get market value for it if they're selling it. But everything else, I mean, I'm fairly close. Habitat, I'm at 100 because of the amount of scrub that's there remaining. What about, again, I'm going to ask you. Waterway and shoreline protection, 40, similar to the last one. I mean, there is a baseline in my mind of, you know, I'm trying to keep consistence with the way I've been ranking it overall. So, you know, just a larger track of pervious, even if it's scrub, is still helping protect our waterways. So, I mean, the 40 is kind of my baseline. And then if we're adding more wetlands and stuff like that to it, it can go up from there. Which this would because there are a fair amount of wetlands. So, you have quite a bit of pervious surfaces and that equitable for a recharge. Okay. Anybody else or are we good? Okay. No, I'm good. Sheets in, please. Michael. All right. Project six is the Detilio property. And this one's a little bit different. It's 12.2 acres, but it's a heavily impacted property. And the reason why we're interested in this project is we think that it can help us to expand the footprint of our Kitchen Creek Central Flowway project. Which you see all these polygons down here in this lake area is our Kitchen Creek project. And we think that it could create a potential trail connection from Atlantic Ridge to Jonathan Dickinson State Park. So, it is part of the Florida Wildlife Quarter connecting Atlantic Ridge and Jonathan Dickinson State Park. It is in a priority to Florida Ecological Greenway Network area. It is within the Florida Forever program. And it's listed as an essential acquisition within that program. And I will say, because I didn't do a slide. Go ahead. If they're not funding Florida Forever, I mean, I guess this is really something for our legislative person. Are they going to just throw that program out? You know, can we say, well, maybe next year? Or, I mean, what's their rationale? Now, yeah, that's exactly the posture we've taken. The Florida Forever program, you know, exists statutorily. It's obviously on life support. But I would expect, and I think we would be wise to expect, that that program is not going away. And it will become popular again someday. For the moment, Mike said, rural and family lands is the political winner. And we've got opportunities to partner with them. We have met with leadership at Florida Forever specifically about the issue of, you know, we have properties that we'd like to acquire with our current funding. And does it disqualify us if we go ahead and close on those properties without that partnership in place? And they have on multiple occasions implored us not to conclude that, that we can come back in the future when they do have funding, apply to Florida Forever. We can get those funds refunded back into the program to go do more acquisitions. And so the urgency to have that partnership solidified on a particular project at closing is not there. We think we'll be well poised to pursue those in the future. And I think it's maybe even more germane for us to lean into that program when it's not funded because there's not as many people knocking on the door. So we can get some, those relationships will, we can get projects in the pipeline, and they'll be there waiting when the funding does come around. Thank you. Very helpful. Thank you. So I will say, too, in terms of the Locksatchie River CERP project, that there are very specific components of the Locksatchie River CERP. And this project is not one of them. But this project will provide a benefit to the CERP project. We have the Kitchen Creek project that we've already done. And essentially there's a ditch that runs on the north and the east side of the property. We've captured that water and we push it into a lake and wetland system before the water finally comes out into a ditch. As somebody that's been personally involved in that project, I'll tell you that the system still gets overwhelmed with water during high rainfall events, and it tends to be very flashy. It does help to hold water a little longer into the dry season, but it dries up very quickly once the rains stop. So having additional storage features in this area would provide a benefit to the Locksatchie River project. That's very helpful. Thank you. Beth, do you have anything to add to that? No. I think you said exactly what benefit it could have to the Locksatchie project. So we could look to the Florida Forever program, or there's a separate state funding program, the Locksatchie River Preservation Initiative. We have received funding for land acquisition from that program in the past. It's not a guarantee, but basically it's a committee that ranks properties and makes recommendations to the state, but then it has to go through the legislative process to get approved by the legislature and budgeted by the legislature. But we would certainly seek funding from them to recoup some of the investment that we put into the property, acquiring the property. In terms of the habitat quality, there is really nothing in the way of native plant communities, and the property is currently being used to stockpile fill and road building materials. And you can kind of see that on the aerial, that there's just lots of, you know, dirt piles, there's concrete piles, there's equipment all over the place. It's a bit of a mess. So habitat quality would be close to 10 or less? Yeah, it'd be pretty low. So the county would use the property to expand the existing Kitchen Creek project, but it would take a substantial investment. But end goal would be to add to the flowway that captures water from the adjacent drainage system. And this is just the highlight. This is what we had to deal with when we did the Kitchen Creek project. So the picture on the left is what that property looked like when it was acquired, and the picture on the right is what the property looked like once we had completed our project. The aerials, it's the same. So this is, this aerial on the left was taken before we did our project. The aerial on the right is what we did and improved on the project. So, um, so I'm not sugarcoating the management challenges at all. The thing I will say is that this provides a unique opportunity where we don't have one to help to store, capture water, and benefit Kitchen Creek and the Locks Hatchie River. Can we do that within the 5%? No. Yeah. No, but that would be future, like we could continue applying to LRPI. We would budget it in our CIP project and just know we might have a $2 million project to turn it into what we want to turn it into. Got it. Thank you. There are no rare habitats or listed species due to the current land use. If we turned it into a flowway, that would change. But the existing condition is that it's just all impacted non-listed species habitat. In terms of recreational opportunities, it could be a bridge to get us from the Atlantic Ridge State Park to Jonathan Dickinson State Park. And that's kind of one of the main points of the Locks Hatchie program is to eventually make that connection. So the Kitchen Creek property, which is right here, is very wet, but there is like an access road that goes down here to the property. So we could actually bring in trail users from off Bridge Road who could then go through the property and then get closer to Jonathan Dickinson State Park without having to walk down a roadway. Development potential, there's already heavy use. You know, there's a house. There's storage facilities. You know, but somebody could theoretically take that property and modify it into a development that would have several more houses. And that's all. Any public comment on this property, please? Around the horn. Beth, please. It has potential. Relationship to SERP because of the potential connection to Kitchen Creek and Locks Hatchie, I gave it a 50. And a hundred on Greenway Corridor and a hundred on potential funding partners. Ten on habitat quality because even really degraded habitat sometimes supports wildlife. Management considerations of 20. Zero on air-rested species. Ten on recreational opportunities, at least as the project exists. Or as the property exists. I gave it an 80 on development potential because it's in use now. And, again, a zero on watershed, waterway. David? I think really the only place I significantly differed was the development potentials because I don't see how it's not already at a hundred. It's completely developed, I think, in my opinion. Yeah. Again, I'm with David. I gave it a 60 for development. But at the same time, it's there. You know, if they put more houses on it, it would probably be better for it. They'd have to clean it up because it might be a toxic site for all we know. So, yeah. Thank you. Dan or Scott? I pretty much agree with all that. As to the waterways or shoreline protection because of the connectivity to the Kitchen Creek project, I gave it a 20. Dan? I'm in agreement with most of it. Okay. Please. I'm in pretty close agreement except the waterways and shoreline. I am optimistic that the county would do eventually what it wants to do. So, I'm at a 75 there. I'm kind of ranking it with that, the ultimate end goal in mind. Other than that, yeah, I'm at 75 for development potential. I actually kind of almost want to rank it higher after hearing what Mr. Hoffner said, but I was on that same point. I mean, it is somewhat developed, basically. It's heavily impacted. So, it's a major restoration project. And, you know, this is where we need the county to continue the efforts of, you know, we've got the funding source to acquire the land. You know, the end goal is a great one. Thank you. Anybody else? Just one other thought is that I feel like I might have, when the scores come in for this one, it might be low. But in my opinion, it seems like it's like a really important one at the same time that maybe there's an asterisk that it might have a low score, but maybe it should be higher. I don't know if that makes sense. Well, I put a pretty high recreation number because of the access. So, that was very important for me. Okay. Great. Mike. All right. So, our third proposal within the Loxalusi footprint is the MTN Ranch, which is a 139-acre property south of Bridge Road in the Kitchen Creek watershed. So, Kitchen Creek is known for, like, a flowway concept. And the idea is that at one point in time, Waterden flow in one path, it came from three different or multiple different paths. And so, there was an eastern flowway, a central flowway, and a western flowway. And Kitchen Creek was in the western flowway, or the MTN Ranch property was in the western flowway to Kitchen Creek. The property is directly adjacent to the Leonard parcel, which is the yellow hatched area on the map. That is an approved sales tax project. And in addition to that, we believe that we're going to be successful with the MTN Ranch, or the, sorry, the Leonard parcel as an easement with the Rural and Family Lands Program. So, we think that it will, both of those, you know, for successful in this one, both of those would be connected areas that are protected. It has a large cypress slew on the property, and it could be a conservation easement or a fee-simple acquisition, but the asking price for the owner for a fee-simple acquisition would be out of the ballpark of something we would consider. So, this would most likely move forward as a conservation easement and not a fee-simple acquisition. It's within the Florida Wildlife Corridor and the Priority 2 of the Florida Ecological Greenway Network. It is outside, but adjacent to the Atlantic Ridge Florida Forever Program. So, that's another one where we could do a boundary amendment, if necessary, to get it added to Florida Forever. So, no partner has been identified, but we do believe it will qualify for an easement with the Rural and Family Lands Protection Program. So, we would encourage an application by the landowner to that program. Another thing about Rural and Family Lands Program that works well for us is the funding partners is a huge metric for them. We've had conversations with their leadership, and in essence, they look at properties where they have a full 50% matching partner first, and they do all those easements. Then, they look at ones that are less than 50%, and then they do all those easements, and then they look at ones that don't have any matching fund partner. So, we feel pretty strongly that if we were ready to put money towards this acquisition, and we worked with the Rural and Family Lands Program, that we would be able to get it under an easement. In terms of the habitat quality, a substantial portion of the property is improved pasture. You can kind of see that pretty mowed areas up here and down here, or they have impacts in some way. But there are large cypress sloughs and marsh systems, and they do appear to be in good conditions with intact hydrology, but maybe some invasives in pine forest areas like up here. For management considerations, if it's a conservation easement acquired, then there's no county management required. If fee simple acquisition, restoring the pasture areas would be particularly challenging. Here's your documented listed species. It doesn't have any rare habitats, but there are several species associated with that area and found within pine flatwoods and marsh areas. Mike, just going back to that management considerations, what's the probability of those two scenarios, the fee simple compared to the conservation easement? Unless the owner, my personal opinion is that the owner doesn't want to sell the property, so my guess is this would be a conservation easement acquisition, but we keep an open mind. So if that were to take place, then the management consideration would be a moot point, or would it be? Well, it means that we wouldn't be responsible for the management. Exactly. So in that way, it can kind of potentially boost the score. It would be almost 100 because they'd have full responsibility, right? Yeah, but you can look at – you can then counter that by saying, well, how difficult is it going to be to manage this property, you know, for them? But they – even though you have the – they've given up the rights to sell – to develop it, they still are managing it, correct? Yeah, and there is – these easements do put, like, things in there about maintaining invasive – exotic vegetation and doing other habitat restoration things. So from a probability perspective, probably 80% fee simple and 80% would be – got it. 80% conservation easement. Yes. 20% fee simple. Excuse me, conservation easement. Yes. Yeah. Thank you. So what happens if they don't keep it up? They decide, okay, we got our money, we'll just let it go. I mean, what's the – They do have enforcement rights associated with that. So they do annual monitoring of the property. The county would be involved in that, but we wouldn't be the ones with the enforcement rights. So they would have site visits, we would be invited. But at the end of the day, it would be up to the rural and family lands program. Which is fine, because then it's – it becomes much easier for the county. And the way we're working with them now is – and the way we're working with them now is – so we're actually listed on the title. So that was something that was important to the county, because that's how we can ensure that it remains protected in perpetuity. Do those clauses have teeth as it relates to the maintenance? They do, but I'd have to do research in terms of, like, what the actual enforcement mechanisms are. Got it. And the management priorities, you know, for my ranking are different under Florida Forever versus rural and family lands program. Yeah, so you could delve into it a little more. It's almost like they – you know, rural and family lands, you know, says preserve agriculture and then protect conservation values. And Florida Forever is – Florida Forever is really just about protecting conservation values. Conservation value of the land. Yeah. And so I kind of consider that in my management considerations when you were touching on, Jim. For example, I gave it an 85. And we don't have to handle the management of the land, but if our ultimate goal for the entire initiative is, you know, preserve land to protect water quality, Florida Forever Conservation easement might have a higher priority in doing that than rural and family lands program. Thank you. But they're still both high numbers. Yep. Okay, so recreational opportunities. Once again, there would be no public access if we're acquiring a conservation easement. If the county takes ownership, features could include parking, trail systems, pavilions, so on and so forth. But the property is for sale now. Property is for sale now, yes. What are they asking for? Like $30 million. That's why it's still for sale. It's been for sale a while. That sign will have birthdays. Yeah. But like I said, that to me, you know, and I can't guarantee it, but that's what we would pursue with an approved project is a conservation easement. And then if the price were reasonable, we will look at fee simple acquisition. I wonder how the conservation easement will affect the value of the land. Oh, it certainly drops it. It will drop it fast. A major difference. So you're basically telling anyone who buys it that they're buying a property that they can use the exact same way that it's being used. So it's at 60% to 70% of market maybe? Probably less. Less. Less. Less. Got it. And development potential without the easement is high. Right. Yeah, good point. Yeah, very high. That area, you know. It's almost all gold. Sky high right now. So 100% really. Yeah. Okay. Zoning is A1, small farming district, and it has an agricultural land use, would allow for one house per 20 acres. So that doesn't mean that if somebody put in a development application, they wouldn't change that. That's what you do. Drop it. And that's the end of that parcel. Thank you, Mike. Any public comment, please? Beth? Well, this is a hard one. I guess most of my rankings are considering it would be a conservation easement for rural family lands. So zero relationship to SERP. It is in the Greenway Corridor. I think it said 80% of the property is in the Greenway Corridor. They get a 50 on the funding partners for rural and family lands and Florida forever. Habitat quality, I gave it a 40. 80, 85 on management considerations, 30 on rare listed species, zero on recreational activities, 90 on development, zero on waterways protection. Mr. Campan, close enough in the ballpark. David? I just want to weigh in with my personal experience with the property. The landowner did take me around a couple years ago, so I haven't seen this property firsthand. He does a great job maintaining his property. It's beautiful. As far as an agricultural property, I would even say it's pristine. It is really a beautiful place. I know as far as habitat quality for something that's native, it's obviously disturbed. But for an agricultural habitat, I would definitely rank it high if you were to look at it that way. And me being an agricultural representative on this board, obviously I am going to go higher on that. But, yeah, I would be really excited if he does go the way of rural and family lands and decides to keep it and use that easement. I would be excited for the property owner to do that, which then obviously would put the recreational value at zero. But I think this is a great property if we can get him to do that. Just a sidebar, you know, considering your connections with a lot of these families, do you ever get involved? Do you ever bring, David, do you ever get involved in any of these discussions? I have not been. I also haven't reached out to say that I have these connections either, so I probably could do better also to help with that. So my only comment is, to the extent that you do, if you have a situation like this where you can help create that bridge, I'd personally very much encourage that because you're a member of the community. Definitely. Are you going around? Good. Any thoughts? I'm good. No, I'm handing. Okay. I'm good. No. Merritt? I'm very close. Funding partners was 100, though, for me on this one. And then, again, either zero or 90 for recreational opportunities, depending on which way it goes, it's sounding like it'd be a zero. You know, those are almost opposite correlation. You know, if it's rural and family lands, it might be 100 for funding partners, but obviously a zero for recreational opportunities with almost every project like this. Well, that's a really good point. And so when it's presented to the Board of County Commissioners, you're going to see that disparity, Mike and John. So if you could just point that out, please, to them, that'd be great. Anybody else? Any other comments? We good? Great. Do your sheets, please, and hand them in. So. Pass these in? Yes, I'll pass these in. And just to let the Chair know and everyone, I have a hard out at 445 to make another engagement. A candidate forum. Okay. You should be able to get through it. Okay. Michael. Okay. Well, we have two properties remaining for consideration. They're in our blueway zone. And in this case, they're projects that were actually outside of the blueway zone, but connected. So you can see the blue lines represent a blueway property. And then the polygon for these other properties are right next to that. So, and the two we have up for consideration are Avonlea up near Jensen Beach and Justin Wilson down off of Map Road. So we'll start with Justin Wilson addition. This is a 20-acre property linked between a county conservation area and a park-slash-conservation area here at Justin Wilson. So you can see the little area here and the little area up here. It has drainage that feeds into Bessie Creek and the St. Lucie Estuary. And it includes important and rare Baygall swamp habitat. So this is not within the boundary of any state-recognized program, whether that be Florida Forever, Florida Wildlife Corridor. It is not within any of those boundaries. We also have not identified a funding partner. And it could be difficult to find grant funding for this particular area. In terms of habitat quality, most of the property has not been cleared and contains native habitat. However, it does tend to have a very dense pine canopy and understory. And there are extensive levels of exotic vegetation throughout the property. Those are two pictures showing. Here's Old World Climbing Fern on the property. And here is Brazilian Pepper. For management considerations due to the surrounding development, it would be difficult to utilize prescribed fire. And it would probably be necessary to go in and do mechanical clearing and harvesting to reduce the height of that dense vegetation. And the high levels of invasive exotic plants will require significant resources to treat and control. For listed species, it does have an extensive area of basin swamp, which is considered by Martin County to be endangered. And you also have some rare species consistent with flatwoods and marsh areas. If we were to acquire the property, we have the adjacent Justin Wilson Park. So this is just like a little concept of what we would build out there, like a trail loop with some boardwalks and picnic areas. A trailhead that would actually, and we would provide parking, would be over at Justin Wilson Park. And we'd use the existing parking lot just with a way for people to then access the trail. In terms of the development potential, it's very high. Considering the site has an approved site plan that would allow for the construction of 12 homes. That's been approved. Approved. How long has that been out there? For a while. Well, the owner developed the other properties, like it was all owned by the same, all this right here was all owned by the same people that owned this, and this was going to be another phase. Okay. Boy, you're talking about dense development. Yeah. Yeah. But I think the way it was set up, the site plan, current site plan only allows for 12 homes. Now, they could come back with the PUD agreement and make some changes. But as of right now, somebody could build 12 houses, has the approval to build 12 houses on that property. Yeah. That's it. Any public comment on this particular property? I'd like to defer to you. Okay. First three categories, I gave it a zero. Um, habitat quality, 65, um, because of density of exotics and density of vegetation, understory. Um, management considerations, 45. Rare or listed special habitats, I gave it a 70 because of the Bay Gull Swamp. Um, recreational opportunities, 80. Development potential, 90. And this one I varied from, um, because of its proximity at least to the St. Lucie, um, I gave it a 55 on the waterways, um, shoreline protection. Close enough. Amy? Yeah. Yeah. Good. Scott? Yeah, pretty consistent. I'm at an 80 for the habitat because of the swamp, 90 for the waterways and shoreline protection because of that same swamp. And I would just say, you know, as a child, I hung out a lot around Kendarvis Park in that area, um, you know, trudging through this property and some of those swamps. And, you know, it's not desirable habitat for us. I guess it might be for a 12-year-old kid. Um, but it's, that's why you turned out the way you did. Exactly. But it, it has potential and it's one of the few remaining. Um, and again, development potential was 100, so. Yeah, I think with the recreational, um, aspect, too, and providing recreation, you know, a lot of what we're reviewing is west of town in these areas that it'd be hard for the average person to go out and see and use. So, I will say there is recreational value in in-town native habitats, regardless of the quality, where just people from the local neighborhood can go for a walk. Yes, I have a 95 on that. Yeah, I actually rated a 100 exactly thinking along the lines that you are, Mike, because of the surrounding neighborhood and the access to that natural, natural area. Mm-hmm. Okay. Anybody else? Just one more. Just be, I'm speaking on the recreation also. That park is used quite a bit for youth sports. My, my children do sports there, so I could definitely see people walking over, uh, to use that for recreation, uh, to get away from their kids. Yes, I would. Yeah, that's, that's why I really rated it up there. Great, thank you. Okay, so our last, uh, for the day is Avonlea. Uh, this is an 18-acre property that drains into the Haney Creek Watershed and really is some of the last undeveloped land in the area. Um, you see all the areas highlighted in blue are the areas under consideration, but due to other developments in the area, a lot of these surrounding properties are under a PAMP and is protected. So you'll have, you could theoretically have something that looks like this whole block right here being, uh, protected. Um, it is not within the boundary of any state-recognized program. So the City of Stewart is interested in partnering with the county on the acquisition. They submitted the nomination form using their sales tax fund allocation. Wonderful news, by the way, just to sidebar, we're very pleased that they did a, they changed their position on the, buying the school building. Exactly. Uh, in large part to merits. Well, before we go further, how much is the acquisition? Uh, not sure at this point, but I think I remember, John, you might have a remember. I think it was like $8 to $10 million, something in that ballpark. So it's, uh, it's expensive. Um, the per acre cost is really high for a couple of the properties that was in that ballpark. And then I think there's about four or five, um, separate properties. One of them we did not bring forward because it just, we didn't feel like it fit the description of the ordinance. Um, but all of them together, I thought it was close to $20 million. And how much does Stewart get with their sales tax? Lee, if you want to come up and... They get about 10% of what the county gets. So in the ballpark of $20 million. Over the 10-year period. Over the 10-year period. Correct. Lee Baggett, city attorney for the city of Stewart. I have some numbers that I got preliminary before coming here from finance. And I guess they had budgeted revenue of $2.7 million from 2025 and $2.8 million from 2026. And I think it's going to incrementally go up each year from what he described to me. So maybe $25 million, give or take a few? Over the period of time, yeah. Yes. Okay, sorry. Thank you. So, and, but the city is, that's how much a city would have. So if we do a deal with a city, they could pick up the whole thing in theory, correct or not? What am I missing? Yes, they could bond for now and then pay with the bond and pick it up. We have limited funds too. So anytime we're partnering with a sales tax partner who's getting a percentage of the sales tax, that takes away from what we possibly could use it for in the unincorporated areas. But a discounted cash flow analysis on that 25 would probably be, what, about 18, 19? So if you're going to bond, it's going to be the current discounted cash flow on that eventual payout. So probably 18 or 19 million, just a sidebar. Yeah, and as staff, our job isn't to really evaluate that. Yeah. That would be something. No, I understand. For you guys and then really, honestly, the Board of County Commissioners to consider, you know, once we start bringing these projects forward to them. But from Council's perspective, for the city, this is definitely on the radar screen and every, we have every reason to believe that they would be a partner in this. Yes, we had a resolution, a unanimous vote of the commission to go forward with acquiring the land and also they instructed staff to do some sort of collaboration with the county. And prior to that, myself and other city staff had communications with county staff about the potential. So we already have a resolution authorizing the city manager to do such. That would be excellent. I think it's, I think there have been past acquisitions, especially in Haney Creek, that involved county. 52 acres were done in conjunction with the city at Haney Creek. Yeah, so there is a history of, like, even if they have their own sales tax allocations, the county participating at some level. Yeah. No, but that's very helpful. The Haney Creek Preserve, I think it's worth mentioning, is across the street from two of these parcels. So these are adjacent to the Haney Creek Preserve, which we already have in interlocal agreement with the county on the preservation and the maintenance of the property. Got it. This is all the Haney Creek stuff right here. So, yeah, it's definitely directly contiguous to it. Very helpful. Thank you, counsel. One more question. Are all the parcels under the same ownership? No, I've spoken to all the parcel owners. There's three different parcel owners. Some have multiple. And I think one owner has one of the parcels. I think one of the parcels I didn't get in time might be on the next meeting. You had indicated to me. So there was one more parcel. It's a couple of acres undeveloped as well. And I think that's one of the acres that's across Green River Parkway from Haney Creek. I would like to mention while I'm up here that they each have development orders, CPUDs, commercial PUDs, so they have entitlements to development already. If some of you are, you know, they haven't been developed. It's been several years. But I would also like to point out that they are eligible under the Live Local Act, which is a newer law that was adopted, that they can come in administratively and build apartments up to the maximum density allowed. And so that's a potential. So when you're ranking potential development, there's probably a high potential development of all these parcels. Very helpful. Any other comments, counsel, on that? Can I ask the question? Is it an all or nothing with the parcels, or they can be acquired? No, because they're individual owners. There's three different owners. They have to be acquired separately. And I've spoken to all of them individually, and they are all interested in selling. Okay. So when we're ranking them, we're ranking all three of them, to be sure I understand correctly, Mike? Yeah, we're just ranking all the ones that you've nominated. So I think there were like five total. So I did not break it apart by owners. Got it. I just took them all together. Okay. And except the one parcel, I didn't make it in time, which is on the north end of Baker Road in Greed River. Well, I did. I looked on the map, that one, right? I did. I was able to incorporate that one. Oh, you did? Okay. So that's the one, if you're looking at it, is that the one you mentioned? No, so that looks like a flag parcel. That is, Nick Schroeth's company owns that. That is next to this master Avonlea PUD. So it's not technically in the Avonlea site plan, master site plan. It's immediately adjacent. But I think he's got a development order for a storage facility. And on the north end of it, if you can go back, on the north end of it, my understanding is there is a wetland conservation area. Just to be sure, I understand. So we're talking, how many parcels are there in total if we were, ten parcels? Seven parcels. Seven parcels. Of those seven parcels, how many are we reviewing right now? We're reviewing five. I think five. There's one I didn't make. Six. Okay. Six. So of the seven, we're reviewing six. If we approve all six, is that any impediment to going forward possibly with the seventh? I just, is there any? No, we would, so I've already got one parcel property lined up for our next DLOC meeting that did make it in time. So we would have, we would just bring it forward and rank it like when we meet in three months. So from the city's perspective, you don't have to pull the trigger at any point in time. Is there anything in that which the parties agree to which would indicate that we have to close the deal within a certain period of time? Other than I think one of them is listed for sale currently, so someone else could swipe it out from under us. So that's always a possibility, but they didn't, I've had a couple of them follow up with me because my initial contact was maybe a month or so ago. No. And I didn't see a sense of urgency from any of them or saying, hey, we've already gotten an offer, anything like that. Nothing like that has been communicated to me. So as a point of order, you could make a motion to add that seven parcel here and get it considered and reviewed. You wouldn't have the environmental assessment, but, I mean, you have environmental assessments for all the properties in the area. So you theoretically have a pretty good idea of what you're going to find there. In your professional opinion, would we be talking in a claimant's terms pretty much apples to apples? I'm not familiar with that parcel, so I couldn't say how consistent it is. Martin County Council, what would be your suggestion, please? I can't foresee that any of these parcels would be any different than the other six. You can motion. We can bring the seventh parcel next time, and you can factor that into your voting today. But I guess just to make the record clean, perhaps it would be better just to vote on that one separately. Yeah. Okay. I agree. I mean, the report that we have doesn't break out the parcels. So it's just, you know, when you look at the report, it's generic to the six. Yeah. So I don't see why that would, you know, if we added a seventh parcel, we wouldn't know the difference between parcel one and parcel seven. Very good point. And so unless parcel seven was severely degraded, which is my understanding, it probably is not. Is it imminent that it's going to be developed? No. So if I can point to you, I can show you. The one that's not marked here, it would be north here. That is, I drove by it this morning, and it's very thick with woods. No developments. The only issue, there's been some clearing on this lot. Yes. But if you drive along the road, you can't tell because the woods on the road itself are very thick. But there was a gate with a sign that I could see through, and it was cleared. Yeah. But that could be an area that's, you know, the city or can do it alone or in combination with the county, we could do a park. So, Councilor, you've seen the property. I drove by it today. And based upon that assessment, are we talking apples to apples? Yes. Is it a severely degraded property? No. I would say one of the properties highlighted on there before has been cleared partially. Yeah. But the seventh one that's not has not been. If you bring your attention to the PowerPoint presentation, that area on the top right is that cleared area. The area that we're talking about? So, and it's fully cleared. And it's a big area. It's not, you know, it's not like a few hundred square feet. It's probably an acre or two. Mr. Chair, may I suggest if we haven't done this any other time, he'll bring it forth in two months or wherever we meet again so that it's got to report, even though it's not going to probably be different than the other reports. But how do you do your due diligence by this type of thing? I don't think you do. Exactly. Yeah, I think it's best to bring it back. Do it right. Okay. Okay. So, we'll go ahead on the sixth. Yeah. We'll hold on the seventh for now. And then, Mike, as soon as you've got the seventh lined up, we'll go with it. Does that make sense? Everybody on board with that? Now, was Parcel 7 owned by Nick? No. That was owned by a single owner. Okay. A doctor here in town. Okay. So, the only question would be, Council, if you could reach out to that party and just say, look, we very much are very interested, but we need to go through the due process. Okay. Yep. So, in terms of next steps, so, Michael. Finished the presentation. Okay. So. So, we've got comments. Any other comments from the public? Okay. So, maybe going around the horn. Oh, he hasn't finished his presentation. Yeah, I got more to go. Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah. We haven't got the recreational opportunities yet. Well, I got the habitat quality. The area's pretty impacted. So, this is one of the better areas here. And this is, like, if I look at the map, that's that scrub area. That's this parcel up here. But the areas tend to be pretty overgrown with exotics, especially along the margins. You have that, you know, so you have dense canopies and palmetto. So, and you have that significant area that's been cleared, which is, you see in this management considerations. Here's an area, Brazilian pepper, thick area, like, right on the boundary of the parcel. I saw Mount Luke out there. So, you know, given the isolated and small size of these parcels, there will be management challenges. The invasive plant management will be costly and will require mechanical fuel reduction to cut down the understory, and then let alone these cleared areas, which would require full restoration. This is a habitat map, so 40% of the property, and it's mainly this parcel right up here, is rare scrub habitat, has a much more extensive list of listed species than the other properties we've been looking at. Um, and, and as I said, it's not, you know, it's overgrown, but it's decent quality scrub habitat as well. Oh, and then there's scrubby flatwoods, which is also rare over in this side of the parcels. For recreational opportunities, we could use that cleared area, put parking, a picnic pavilion, and create a trail network through at least the portion of the property that we own, um, focused on hiking and wildlife watching. Uh, there's not a ton of areas to build a trail system, but once again, you know, you have communities right around here. These are the people that are going to use these areas. Development potential, I mean, he covered that pretty well. Uh, currently the site plan has a mix of residential, including townhomes and, and commercial development. And that's it. Thank you, Mike. Any other public comment? Uh, just a question before I rank or a couple of questions, um, on the management with a city as a partner. Is the county still on the hook for management or is there going to be some kind of an agreement with respect to who manages what? Typically, the parcels that are up in the city of Stewart that, uh, we've partnered on, they end up taking over management responsibilities. We would be able to, once again, use 5% of the acquisition costs to go towards that restoration. And that's something to factor in, you know, with the cost to the city is to do management activities on the property if it were required. That'll be their problem, not ours. Got it. Okay. And the second question with respect to the blueways, this is in the blueway footprint? It is adjacent to the blueway footprint. Adjacent to blueway footprint. Is there connectivity, specific connectivity with the river that you're aware of? Or... Well, the drain, I mean, there's quite a bit, and you can kind of see the wetlands on here. Yep, yep, I see that. So, uh, so there is connectivity to Haney Creek. Haney Creek, okay. Actually, it runs right underneath the river track. The creek does. Okay. And under the road. Yep, all right. I, I, I wasn't aware, so I didn't know. All right, um, so 0-0 on Greenway and SERP, 100 on potential funding partners, 50 on habitat quality. Um, I don't, I, I'm going to come back to management considerations because I ranked it pretty low, but I think I want to hire it. Um, 40 on rare habitat, 80 on recreational opportunities, 100 on development potential, and I'm going to go with a 50 on, um, waterways or, um, shoreline protection. And I think I, I had a 30 for management, but because the city would handle it, probably, I'm going to buck that back up to 80. David, do you want to go with it? Yeah, same. I, I was on, I was lower on management, also in, like, same numbers, actually, 30 and 80. And Penny. I have nothing to say. I think this is a mistake to be doing, taking the money from this committee or from the county and doing this when they have their own stream of funding. Same exact stream. Got it. Assuming that there's enough. But in both cases, there has to be a match, right? So, I mean, so they have to find a match and the county has to find a match. I think also it shows a vote of confidence that, yeah. So, good point, Tom. Great. So, are you ranking them all zeros? No, I'm not doing that. He's abstaining. I'm not abstaining. He can't abstain. It is in the, you know, the committee has to make a recommendation in terms of what properties we should move forward with acquisition. I mean, if you, you'd be welcome to make, to not make that recommendation if you, if you felt that due to that issue, it's not something the county should be involved in. Got it. Yeah, I would not encourage that, but that's, okay. Yeah. Go ahead. The only difference I had that Beth had was I had 70 on the orderways in shoreline protection because that's a pretty big creek that runs in through there. And you could, it's actually, you could come up in a boat in that thing up underneath the railroad bridge. Great point. Thank you. Right next to the marina. Scott, how about you? I'm somewhat persuaded by Tom. But I'm not sure. So, if you, if I make a motion, will you second it? Let's have a vote. Make a motion. I move that this property not be considered. I'll second the motion. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? I oppose. David? I didn't vote, but I'm going to be an aye. You can't, you can't be. Okay. So, we got three opposed and two in favor. Is that correct? No, he has to vote. You can't abstain. I said aye. Sorry. I said I didn't vote, but I meant to say aye. Okay. So, we got a tie. Somebody have a coin we can flip? That doesn't, that doesn't work that well. Oh. So, Mr. Attorney, do you want to tell him how it works when there's a tie on a motion? He might be stumped. I'm a little stumped as well. The motion fails. No, no. Call Merritt. It can't pay. This is not the Bronx. Mr. Baggett, as the city's attorney and as the parliamentarian, when there's a tie on a motion? The motion fails. The motion fails. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Let's vote again now. So, the only question I would have is we don't want to do anything that will impede the city's acquisition of this property. Excuse me. Why is it our responsibility to determine whether the city acquires a piece of property or not? That's not our responsibility. And for you to say that, you're putting your thumb on the scale. Hold on for a second. So, then the point, the only question I have is we had a situation where the city wanted to buy a school building with the money. Yours truly and Merritt pushed back on that very firmly. That's great, but it has nothing to do with this committee. Okay. Hold on for a second. Take it easy, Camp Penny. So, the only question I would have is I don't want to in any way jeopardize the possibility of these acquisitions. So, is it possible just to simply remove this one from the agenda altogether so it doesn't even come up on the radar screen for the city? Would that make any difference? Council, what are your thoughts? If we just completely ignore the fact that we say we didn't even consider it. We've already gotten authorization from the city commission to go forward without the county if that's the case. But, you know, they also voted for us to take the initiative to seek collaboration with the county. So, I'm not aware – I mean, I gave you two budgeted revenues for two years. It looks like we're going to have about 20-some-odd million over the long haul. I don't know what these are priced at. I mean, they have development orders inside the city, so they're going to be elevated than some of this, you know, out west land per acre. So, it's going to be – but it's also more valuable, I think, to the residents because it's where we all live. You know, we drive by. It would be a shame to see a bunch of apartments get built where they are. But I don't know if the city has enough funds to buy them all. We haven't even appraised the properties yet. Okay. So, there's a vote. That motion failed. If you want to bring something else back, you can. But you do it – you can't do it, but you have to get it in the form of the motion. Is there any advantage to the county approving this project, any advantage to you as far as funding or anything? Because you can pretty much do it on your own. Potentially, but I don't know how much the parcels are going to go for. We have seven parcels that have development rights, and they know the government wants to buy them. So would taxpayers. But Avonlea was developed by Frank Walker. Exactly. Exactly for development. Exactly. It was approved for development by the city. Now, all of a sudden, the city has changed their mind about the development that they already approved. It's not like, you know, this came from nowhere. For 20-some-odd years, it was approved for development. Each of these parcels was approved for development. And I'm not saying it should be developed – that's the city's problem. I'm saying to take money from the county, to take that off when the city was the one that approved the development. People bought these properties – Exactly. For the right to develop them. That's why Nick bought it. That's why Nick bought it. Now, maybe he can't sell it for the price he wants anymore. That's immaterial. Right. But is it this committee's responsibility to save the city from itself? I don't think so. So you could always change your vote. One point I would like to make on this. If the city didn't have any money and we were just bringing this property up for consideration, would you – I would still have the same concerns. Because it's in the city. Because they're getting a piece of the sales tax already to do all of this stuff if they decide they want to do it. They can do what they want. So do you change your vote? I will change my vote. Then the motion passes. Okay. So my only concern was that we don't want to send a message to the city that we're not interested. We just did. So I guess the point, counsel, is if I understand it correctly, we go back to the city and really say, look, this is your call as to what you do. Exactly. And we keep it simple. So forget about what Camp Penny said. No. We have a motion. Okay. So in any case, I'm my only – so should I make a motion? No. It's already been made. Hold on for a second, Camp Penny. I just don't want to have a situation where the message gets back to the city that we are not – that we want to make it clear that it's really their call and not our call. You are talking from the dais about something that's already been passed. Okay. But in any case – so let me ask the Camp Penny. You can't do that. You're the chair. Yeah, you can't make a motion. Okay. So could someone else ask the council the question? I just don't – you can see where I'm coming from. I just don't want to send a signal to the city that they shouldn't do this. I don't – I don't – I don't think – That's not our job. I don't think you have to soften it, soften the language, because it's their call. Okay. It's their call. Exactly. So as long as they understand that, I'm good. It's not that we're fighting them on it. We just think it's their business and not our business. Yeah. The city has the funds and resources to acquire the property if they want to. We would rather use the resources that the county has to acquire property outside the city. Perfect. Is everybody on the same page with that message? Yes. Council, you got that? What he did? The only question I have, this is an advisory board, correct? Yes. I mean, you're not making the final decision, so is – will this not – if they vote to not – it's a vote not to recommend to the county. No, it's a vote that we're not going to – if we don't recommend it, it can't go forward. With the county money. But now we're talking about the city – With the half-cent sales tax. With the city money. So I guess the way that, Scott – what you just said was perfect, if I may say that, council. Thank you. You're welcome. So, council, the council, did you get the script on that? I understand, and as I have already said, the city commission has already authorized us to move forward with acquiring property. Okay, then we're good. Then we're good. We're good. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you, Lee. Michael? We're conferring to try to understand what this all means. But I'd also like – Sarah, did you get – you got the motion clearly stated? Okay. So, yeah, sorry about that. We were just trying to understand what this means. So – well, then that's the end of my presentation. So – We don't need this sheet. We don't need that sheet. We don't need this sheet. I will, once again, plug the Martin County Forever website, martincountyforever.com. It's – you know, we house all of our information about the program. There's a story map on there that shows the different lands that we consider and approve. We provide news stories about our program, so on and so forth. So, if we're looking at another meeting, what are the – what is – what's in the pipeline, Mike? Well, we have one property – I'm kind of put on the spot. Actually, I showed it in the presentation. That came in too late for consideration, so let me get back to it. And that was a great recommendation to do that spreadsheet, by the way. We're supposed to meet roughly every quarter, but we don't have to as long as we have – so – So, property's not considered. The one was the Danforth Creek property, which is 18 acres, which is nearby the Justin Wilson addition. We just received word that there would be interest recently, so – That they will – I'm sorry, what, Mike? That there was an interest in selling. Okay. So, if we look at our calendars, and within a time frame, what are your thoughts on – get our next meeting? Well, why don't we, for now, let's – the next thing that we're supposed to do is get all those scoring sheets in, then we'll tabulate the results, and then we'll present the ranking results. Then you make your motion in terms of what to recommend with forwarding to the County Commission. Then we have questions from committee members. Okay. So, do we have them tabulated, though? I don't think they're tabulated. Not fully. At this time. So, why don't we just – since they're being tabulated now, why don't we just talk about our next – unless you prefer we – Okay. Stan. No, that's fine. I would also prefer that we don't have so many to do at one meeting. And if we could – I mean, this is a lot of work, but you know what? If they're in the pipeline, we don't want to just because we don't have the time. No, what we should do is meet more often if we have to. Yeah. And we don't need to meet for three and four and five hours. Right. Well, in fairness, the last time we came together, I was concerned about having 16 proposals. It took almost – it took – But I was told by the committee to do them all in one day. Yes. So, I've gotten – That was way too long. I've gotten the opposite feedback from the committee. Let's go around the horn. What would people prefer in terms of this topic? I prefer shorter meetings and in the mornings because I'm more alert. Got it. Scott? I mean, I'm flexible. I think, you know, a two- to three-hour meeting is more than enough, and I would agree to meet more frequently to consider the parcels. Okay. David? I don't know if I'm indifferent. I'm by either way. Okay. Beth? I'm also indifferent. Okay. I think afternoon meetings are best for me, though. So, it sounds like the more frequently, the better. Shorter meetings and more frequently. Yeah. And this – so, we had started building this list six months ago, right? Yeah. So, every three months might be fine. And that would be in keeping with a procedurals manual that you guys drafted. Right. So, that would mean the next meeting would be in September? Yeah. So, looking at the weekend of September 13th through the 19th or the 20th through the 26th. So, does everybody have their calendar? September 1, I'm sorry. Those that have, you know, day jobs are – Are you a day job? Well, Scott's got a day job, and David's got a day job. Beth? Nope. Campanity, you've got a day job. I got lots of jobs. So, I get it. So, Scott – On the 17th, there's an LPA meeting again. If we meet at the same time, would that be convenient enough, 2 o'clock, if we could keep it until 4? Yeah, I could do that. One day. That would be the 17th of – September. September. David, does that work for you? I don't know. Beth, how about you? The month of September is out for me, so don't plan around me. Okay. We need Beth. She starts off all her rankings. No, we don't. Fountain of knowledge. Early October. Beth is our gutting light. Beth, how about early October? I would say don't. I'm going to be out of the country until mid-October, so you should schedule. Well, as long as we do it in that quarter, but then we don't have the frequency we were just talking about. Correct. So – 17th is fine by me. 17th would be good because we could do it at the same time if it's free. So, Campan, your job is to get boned up on all the stuff that Beth knows. Well, that will be – that will quite take about 35 years, and I won't be here. As at 2 o'clock. Mike, so the 17th at 2 p.m., does that work for everybody? That works for me. Mike, does that work for you for this room? Yep. I'm reserving the room right now. Okay. So, 2 p.m. on Thursday the 17th. Campan, is that okay with you? I said yes. I just want to be sure. I came up with it. I want you to change your mind. Okay. 2 p.m. on the 17th. That's a commission change. Got it. Great. Can you bring some coffee? If you wish. That'd be great. All right. It is on. Well, it's thinking. Thank you, everybody. Now, how are we doing? Sir, how much time do you think you'll need? Can you use the machine to come to the meeting? I had asked her to, like, at least come in and just sit in for, like, a minute of the meeting so that she could be recognized in the roll call. It's up to you, Mr. Attorney. When did she come by? Then no. I had told her to, like, come, like, just sit in the meeting even for five minutes and submit her scores. So I don't. I would say no. She wasn't here for the presentations or the discussion. I wouldn't include those. Okay. What's your, okay, Camp Penny, what are you suggesting? I suggest nothing. She totals them up, and Vicki can't be counted because she was absent. Well, let us, I'd like to get a little organized before we present that. So do you mind taking 10 minutes so I can look through that list and get them sorted? Absolutely. Okay. So we'll meet back here at 515. Great. Thank you. Yeah, we'll be done. Just give me a minute. Okay. He said give us a minute. Give him a minute. So just, Mike, waiting for him to just walk through it for a minute in terms of we're going to be voting on the final rankings in terms of the priority. Yeah, let me let, make sure that's on. There we go. You're going to send us a copy of this? Mm-hmm. Let's give him enough time. Okay. So here is your ranked list. As you can see. Hold on. Did we push? Yeah. Yeah, you did. So Avonlea was removed from consideration, and then from the remaining properties, the rankings come in at Big Cypress Ranch at the highest score at 429.5, Hawks Hammock Edition 402.75, Solo Properties 385.5, Palmar Chimney 363.75, MTM Ranch 347, First Methodist 314.75, Justin Wilson Edition 304.75, and finally, the Detilio Parcel at 292.25. Does anyone have any questions about the rankings? I'm surprised Justin Wilson came in so low. What's the rankings? It, yeah, potential funding partners. If you'll notice, most of the ones that had higher potential funding partner scores, also the Greenway corridors and the SERP, although it looks like we have a score of 102 in there. So low. So, but I don't think that'll material change these scores. So I think those are, you know, the SERP project, the Greenway corridor, and the funding partners, you know, are fairly linked. And so they do a pretty, you know, they drive the scores pretty strongly, so. It's funny because Justin Wilson comes in so high on the waterways, shoreline. Sure. That's because of the large mangrove swamp. Yeah, yeah. And it drains right into the river. Whatever. Let's, let's. I would say. This is it. So we go with a score, any? I move. We accept the scores. I second. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. And I think we need a second, you need to make a recommendation in terms of what properties should be moved forward as sales tax projects. Oh, then I, I move, these should be, move forward in the order that they were ranked for sales tax profit. Is that what you needed? Second. Second. Second, please. Okay. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. All those opposed? Yeah, I think it's good. Okay. Anything else, Michael? Well, let's look at our agenda here. And we've made our dates. Does anyone have any questions? The only thing is about the material. If, before folks leave for the summer, Mike, we just need to capture their summer addresses so that, for example, Keller gets a packet of information. So if we could just make a note to do that, please. Other than that, any comments? Okay. No comment. No comment. Great. This meeting is adjourned. Thank you.