Board of County Commissioners on 2024-09-03 9:00 AM

September, please stand for the invocation, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. Good morning. Let us pray. Heavenly Father, we thank you for every seat that has been filled here today. For each mind and heart that fills the presence of this room, we thank you. Only you truly know what we are setting out to accomplish today. We have an idea, a vision, hints, and daily instructions. We have talents, abilities, and time to work. However, only you can see in perfect detail the end of every beginning, every project, every season, every life. Nothing is ever in vain, for even mistakes and missteps are used for good. Your righteousness transcends all our efforts and understanding, strengthens our confidence in who you have made us to be. Set us free from comparison in order to work together efficiently. Bless us many today, all those present as well as the lives of those we will encounter afterward. Ready us to make every moment count. In Jesus' name, amen. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, liberty, and justice for all. Thank you. All righty. General public, opportunity to be heard. Joshua Macon, you're up first. Joshua Macon. All right, moving on. Richard Nutt. If you will, give us your name and address for the record, and we'll give you three minutes. My name is Richard Nutt. I live at 5276 White Egret Lane, Lakeland, Florida, 33811. Good morning, commissioners. I am a concerned citizen presenting crucial information regarding our state's voter roll database and voter history from the 2022 general election. While I'm not an official spokesperson for United Sovereign Americans, I am a dedicated volunteer who is deeply troubled by the findings of this research. Our analysis is based on official data provided by state election officials and reveals that not all votes counted in the 2022 general election were lawfully accurate and valid. Recently, United Sovereign Americans, alongside various other parties, filed in federal court against Secretary of State Cord Byrd and Attorney General Ashley Moody. Here is an important aspect from this lawsuit. Petitioners further request this honorable court order the state and any subdivision thereof responsible for voter registrations submit voter registration requests and any existing registrations reasonably in question to the Department of Homeland Security to verify the citizenship or immigration status of persons seeking registration to vote or who are presently on the voter rolls whenever there exists any reliable indicators that an applicant or registered voter may not be a U.S. citizen. End quote. We propose a resolution that highlights key statistics and calls for an end to the inaccuracies and uncertainties that undermine our elections. Adopting this resolution will demonstrate your alignment with constituents' concerns and your dedication to upholding voter civil rights and the integrity of our elections in Polk County. It is imperative to address these issues now because the same election system and procedures that led to the errors in the 2022 general election will likely yield similar results in the upcoming 2024 general election. We will now read the resolution entitled, Resolution for a Legally Valid 2024 General Election. Whereas, it is a recognized civil right in the United States for every citizen to have free and fair elections. Quote, And the right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen's vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise. End quote. Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533-1964. I'll be followed by Becky Nutt. Becky Nutt. My name is Becky Nutt. I live at 5276 White Egret Lane, Lakeland, Florida, 33811. To continue. Whereas, it is the duty of our election officials to guarantee our elections are accurate and free from distortion or manipulation. Quote, Congress seeks to guard the election of members of Congress against any possible unfairness by compelling everyone concerned and holding the election to a strict and scrupulous observance of every duty devolved upon him while so engaged. The evil intent consists in disobedience to the law. End quote. In reference to Coy 127, U.S. 731, 1888. Whereas, our constitutional system of representative government only works when the following four tenets of an election are upheld. Number one. The voter rolls must be accurate. National Voter Registration Act, 1993. Number two. Votes counted must be from eligible voters. U.S. Constitution, 14th Amendment, Section 2. Number three. The number of votes counted must equal the number of voters who voted. Number four. There can be no more than one in 125,000 ballots in error by the voting system. That's Help America Vote Act 2002. Whereas, an open source audit of the Florida 2022 general election conducted by Florida state citizens has uncovered evidence of massive inaccuracies that violate both federal and state laws, including 564,926 ineligible or uncertain registration violations found within the Florida state voter roll database, 88,635 blank ballots, 145,309 more votes counted than voters who voted in the 2022 general election. No one knows who cast them. 205,744 apparent voting violations in excess of the legal standard of system accuracy for a valid federal election. Maximum allowable system errors for the 22 general election in Florida was 62. Certification as defined by law and attestation of accuracy and compliance appears to have been fraudulent and illegal. Next reader, Aaron Rye. My name is Aaron Rye. I live at 173 Dinner Lake Loop, Lake Wells, Florida, 33859. To continue, whereas these findings trample legal accuracy requirements of the voting system during a federal election, accuracy is defined as the ability of the system to capture and report the specific selections and absence of selections made by a voter without error. Whereas, the intent of the voters must be known factually before certification can be lawfully conducted. Certification of an election that varies from the law is an abridgment of the civil rights of the citizens. A fraud ab initio. United States versus Strachmorton, 98, U.S. 61, 1878. Quote, from time memorial, an election to public office has been in point of substance no more and no less than the expression by qualified electors of their choice of candidates. End quote. United States versus Classic, 313, U.S. 299, 1941. Whereas, Florida's 22 general election appears to have been invalid, depriving us of the guaranteed protection of our natural rights under a government duly and provably chosen by us, the American people, resulting in incalculable damage to our families, our way of life, and the fabric of these United States. Therefore, we call upon our representatives to provide relief to the people and the assurance of domestic tranquility by joining us in demanding a valid 2024 general election that upholds these existing laws and equitable principles of law. Number one, proof of citizenship, identity, and eligibility to register and vote, not anonymous attestation. Number two, voter rolls certified, accurate, and available for public review and challenged 30 days before the start of early voting. Voters added after that date must bring proof of citizenship, identity, and address in person to a qualified official at each polling place. Number three, hand-marked secure ballots similar to currency where imaging technology is used for tabulation. The security features must be verifiable in the ballot image. Number four, systems, machines, security measures, infrastructure, and conduct are required to be compliant with federal law for fraud prevention regarding risk assessment, certification, testing, and implementation. Next reader is Royal Brown. Good morning, commissioners. My name is Royal Brown III. I live at 3851 Gaines Drive, Winter Haven, 33884. To continue, number five, adjudication must be signed off by party candidate and trained citizen witnesses after being given full and effective observation rights. Candidates and trained citizens must be allowed immediate access to ballots, ballot images, and cast vote records, or CVRs. Number six, ballots, regardless of entry source, election operations, and systems, must maintain end-to-end chain of custody from voter-to-vote count to final canvas, including auditability and witness transfer with paper records. Number seven, an NIST-compliant, randomized, statistically valid, and end-to-end audit with a 95% confidence level of all elections pursuant to the 14th Amendment, Section 2, must be performed. These audits are to be conducted by qualified, insured, and bonded security, forensics, or financial auditors, not personnel from within the election system. Number eight, if the total of all unique variances above is more than 10% of the margin of victory, a new election must be held in the state for those candidates affected. Unless the issues can be provably corrected by a manual hand recount and a full review of records. Number nine, waiver of requirements is not allowed. Only end-to-end systems compliance from registration through certification can guarantee the intent of the people is accurately recorded. Be it resolved that the Board of County Commissioners, Polk County, Florida, stands in support with the concerns and remedies presented here. We implore the Polk County Legislature, Florida State Legislature, federal legislators, law enforcement, federal and state prosecutors, judges, and both state and county boards of elections to cooperate and fulfill these firm requests of the people. Signatories are Commissioner and Chairman Bill Braswell, Commissioner and Vice Chairman Rick Wilson, Commissioner George Lindsay III, Commissioner Martha Santiago, and Commissioner Neal Comby. Both research sources and relevant laws are cited in endnotes within this resolution. This concludes the reading of the resolution. I'll be followed by Bobby Dees with a conclusion. Thank you. Good morning. My name is Bobby Dees. I live at 813 Avenue G, Northeast, Winter Haven, Florida. To conclude, Commissioners, you have just heard a compelling resolution that outlines significant inaccuracies from registration through the certification of our 2022 general election. This resolution calls for meaningful actions to proactively protect the integrity of the 2024 general election for all voters. It also references numerous U.S. Supreme Court precedents underscoring the necessity of such measures. Laws are being overlooked. We need your leadership and decisive action. The current voting system, which safeguards our most fundamental right, the right to choose our representatives, is failing to deliver accurate, trustworthy results. Do you believe that the anomalies within our election system, a system integral to our national security infrastructure, should continue to be ignored? Consider the cost of inaction, not just in monetary terms, but also in the impact on our gross domestic product, our military, our foreign policy, our health, the self-esteem of our youth, and our national dignity. The cost is immeasurable, and I urge you to express your support by passing the resolution. Let us take a step back and view the broader picture. Many Americans, including numerous residents of Florida and Polk County, have concerns about the trustworthiness and reliability of our elections. While we all wish this were not the case, official government election data validates these concerns, and the law mandates they be resolved to secure our liberty. At the same time, government representatives, at various levels, have not been transparent or responsive to our citizen audits of official election data. Our right to choose representatives through legally valid and transparent elections is the cornerstone of our constitutional republic. This right has been fiercely defended over the past two and a half centuries by the sacrifices of many. Today, you have the opportunity to honor that legacy and show your constituents that you value American liberty by passing this resolution. The United Sovereign Americans website features informative videos explaining the anomalies and apparent legal violations found in Florida and other states. I encourage you to visit the website at UniteForFreedom.com. That's Unite, the number four, Freedom.com, to learn more about our organization. Thank you very much for your time and attention today. We greatly appreciate it. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me say congratulations on your timing. That was well done. And I do appreciate all the work that you all have put into this. This wasn't done last night. I understand that it's well presented, and I will move adoption of the resolution, Mr. Chairman. I've got a motion. Do I have a second? You've got a second? Any discussion? I certainly don't see any harm in the resolution. It seems to be timely and appropriate. Got a motion and a second? George, did you have a second? Well, I'd certainly sympathize with the motivation and the concern. You know, some jurisdictions had absentee ballots sent out unsolicited. We know what that leads to. We had a situation in Atlanta where alleged water main break caused the counting to be disrupted. And we had some states and jurisdictions that had more votes cast than there were registered voters in that jurisdiction. But there is representation in this resolution that I have no personal knowledge of. I'm not willing to put my signature into something I don't know personally. So I would suggest, in lieu of the motion, that this far exceeds our guidelines on the length and breadth of resolutions. But I think this board can go on record as calling for fair, open, and honest elections. And we give this draft to the staff to come back with this board with something that is more concise to the point that we can all agree on. But as written, I can't embrace this one as written. Anybody else? All right. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Aye. Did you vote for or against? Okay. It says 3-2. It passes. All right. Moving on. Diane Borders. Good morning. My name is Diane Borders. I live at 2224 Evey Street in Lake Wells, Florida. And I'm here about the drainage problem that we have in our community. I have a couple houses out there in our apartment. I'm sorry. But, yes, I'm here about the drainage. And all of the roads out there have a bad drainage problem. One of my neighbors, Cassandra, who lives right behind me, she's been here before about this problem. And we have a Ryan that's working on it. But I'm just here to see if we can get some help out there with the drainage. They have been out there before, and I'm just so nervous this morning. Don't be nervous. We don't bite. The guy that's going to help you is sitting in the back of the room there. You're going to talk to – have you talked to – Yeah, I've spoken to Ryan before. Okay. Yeah. All right. And you all have – they've been out there, and they've done some work on that particular road there. But whenever they came out and they dug a swell for that problem, the neighbor that lives in that house, he don't have the problem I have. There's about a foot and a half of water that sits at the bottom of my driveway. And when they dug the swell at the neighbor's house, he came back, and he brought some sand in there, and he filled it back in. And it was a little help with the water rolling the other way, but he filled it back in. And so I called back over here to see if they can, you know, come back out and do the same thing. But they haven't been back out there. But we still have this problem with this drainage. Not just my street, but all the streets out there have this problem. And it's been going on for a long time. All right. I'm going to instruct the county manager to instruct the head of roads and drainage to get out there and get this thing figured out. Mr. Chairman, can I ask one question? Yeah. And either Jay or Ryan. But is the swales, are they in the right-of-way? They're in the right-of-way. Okay. That's what we need to know. Oh, yes, it was in the right-of-way. Yeah. Yes. So they clean it out, and the guy fills it back in. Fills it right back in. Yes. That's a no-no. We'll get it fixed. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, be glad to. Thanks. Thank you very much. Cassandra Richards. Good morning. Mr. Richards, I live at 2357 Freeland Road, Lake Wells, Florida, and Highland Park, Manor, along with Ms. Diane Borders. And, Mr. Neal, you are very correct, because I had the same problem with the neighbor that used to live next door to me. They dig these swales, but when you got somebody coming back, filling it back in, and you tell them, this is county eminent domain, you don't fill it back in, because that's a violation. Some people don't care. But these are problems that we have. Mr. Rick Wilson, you are the commissioner for our area. We have a meeting coming up. We meet every second Monday at 730 at Mary Campbell Community Center in Highland Park. I am personally inviting you to attend some of our meetings, because we need representation out there. And you need to know exactly what we are doing out there, because we are cleaning up that community. And we are trying to get everything that should be done, done out there efficiently and effectively. And you are our commissioner. We need your input. Please come. Is that a.m. or p.m.? P.m. Thank you. And let me just say this, you know, it's just like what Neil said. You know, it's a county soil. They're trying to get, they're cleaning them soils out, trying to get the drainage to move. And the person's coming back in and filling that in. That is not, that's not the way things work. And you're exactly right. So, just like Bill just said, Chairman, Bill Beasley's on top of that with Jay Jarvis. And we will get on top of that. Yes, sir. Please come and see what we are doing in your neck of the woods. Okay. I'll be there. You are invited. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you. Roxanne Gruver. Good morning. Roxanne Gruver, Executive Director for the Florida On-Site Wastewater Association. I live at 5115 State Road 557 Lake Alfred, Florida. That's also the location of the Florida On-Site Wastewater Association. I'm here for informational purposes only. Recently, the BNS Ranch that is known to many was shut down because of the DEP directive with their preventing process. We are not here to speak to whether or not that was the proper call. What we want to do is speak to the issues that it has raised. And I do have a talking point, and I will be happy to leave that with you. But we just want to talk about what's going on here in the county. So we have over 100,000 on-site sewage treatment disposal systems here in the county as of 2023, utilizing the Florida Water Management Tool. That's to about 127 sewer parcels. New permits that were issued between 2018 and 2023 were over 124,000. Within 2021 and 2022, over 1,000 new permits. Currently, in the last 30 days, the Department of Health has issued over 135 new permits. During that same period of time, 2020-18 to 2023, there were over 36,000. The reason that this is important is to do proper maintenance on these systems. They should be pumped out every one to five years. Typically, we talk three to five years. So if we do just some basic math, that would mean that you would have over 20,000 systems that would need to be serviced annually, which brings your tonnage to about 30 million gallons. If you divide that by 350 days, taking out holidays and weekends, that means we need to be able to properly discharge of about 85,000 gallons per day of septage. What does that mean to this board and the folks in that room? It means that we, as an industry, have a responsibility, as you do to your constituents of Polk County, to make sure that we have the ability to properly dispose of these solids. These are just residential numbers. I'm not talking about the grease waste that comes from residential or the porta-potty waste that comes from all the construction sites that require portable toilets along with any festivals or anything like that. It is important, I think, for all of us to realize that Polk County has a responsibility to make sure that we have those sites available. We need to develop public partnerships. We need to be able to move forward with more private facilities if that's what's necessary. There is a plant in the process of being built. I believe it's going to be available by 2026, but it's not going to be able to accept 85,000 gallons per day. And there is a discussion that it's going to be taking some of the leachate. So if it's taking the leachate from the landfill, that means we're going to have even less availability for that discharge. So I just think it's an important issue. We have met with some of your folks here in Polk County. We are looking at the ordinance, but we want to bring that issue to the front again. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Jeff Mann. Back again. Jeff Mann, 4257 Old Eagle Lake Road, Bartow, Florida. Well, we was here a year ago. We said this day was going to come. Here it is. We have met with staff. We've met with hostile staff. I've never been called a liar directly to my face without getting up and having an issue. But I did the other day. And I'm sick and tired of every time I call to try to find a resolution for the residents of this county. All I get met with is hostile demeanor from staff and some others. We have to do something for the community. The community is what's going to suffer here. Whether I retire tomorrow, that's no big deal. But Miss Ellie down the street cannot pay $600 to get her tank pumped. I had a lady just squalling the other day. I can't afford it. I said, ma'am, I surely understand. She said, well, my cap's off in the back right now. It's running out on the ground. I'm just going to dig a bigger hole. I said, I fully appreciate that. But that's what's going to happen. All we ask for is for y'all to work with us so we can come up with a stopgap measure so we can continue to service the people of Polk County in a reasonable and economical way. The Arcanian rules that y'all put out have choked us down to death. I personally came with investors to build a plant four years ago. Rejected. Here we are. That plant could have been up and running because we can public, private people can do things three times faster than government. I don't have to do all the bidding. I don't have to do all the stuff that y'all are required to do. I could have had that plant up in seven months. I was rejected. Now it's back on y'all to help us. 2026 is a long ways out when it comes to this issue. So all we're asking for is somebody to work with us. Let's get a stopgap measure so we don't have to charge Ms. Ellie $600 to pump her tank out. That's absolutely ridiculous. So, you know, that's all I got to say. I've been here so many times. I've been kicking this mule for 15 years, as I was told by your staff member the other day. Well, you know the history. I said, I sure do. I know the history. I was there. Thank you. Thank you. Danielle Drummond. She's over here. What? She's over here. Daniel, will you hear to speak in support? That'll come up shortly. Oh, okay. All right. Sorry about that. Anyone else wishing to address the board? All right. Seeing nobody, we'll move on to the consent agenda. Move approval. Second. Got a motion and a second for approval. Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, like signed, motion carries. Ms. Butterfield, you're on. Good morning. Today, we have for you to approve and ratify payroll checks number 3063 through 3118 in the amount of $37,465.83. We have 2,876 direct deposits in the amount of $4,035,860.59. And those are dated August 23rd of 2024. We have wire and electronic funds transfers of $14,426,505 dated August 21st through September 2nd of 2024. And then we have invoice checks number 465-690 through 466-559, totaling $17,771,627.30 dated August 21st through September 2nd, 2024, for you to approve and ratify, please. Motion for approval. Second. Motion and a second for approval. Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, like signed, motion carries. We also request the approval of your minutes of your regular board meeting that was held on August the 20th of 2024. Motion for approval. Begit. Motion and a second for approval. Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, like signed, motion carries. Anything else? Yes, sir. I just wanted to let the board and, of course, the county management is already aware that last week we had a successful issuance of the utility refunding bonds and new issue. And the sale of the bonds went well. Thank you to all of the team, the county team with the Christia and then Charles Richards and the utilities team. Jeremy, thank you, county attorney, for your involvement. Of course, our team, Dee Dee Beaver, as well as your team that handles all the bond issuance, including our underwriters, financial, your underwriters, financial writers, disclosure, counsel, et cetera. So the bonds were refunded with a savings. The market went well for us. We saved approximately 6.8%, which amounts to a net present value savings of $3,146,004 on the refunded bonds. And then, of course, the new issuance. And that was about half of the total deal was in the approximately $90-some million range. And we had about $46 million with the par value of the refunded bonds. So successful deal. Thank you. And the team did a great job. Thank you. Anything else? That's all. Thank you. All right. Mr. Beasley. Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the board, members of the viewing audience. The manager's office will have four items for board consideration this morning. Item number H1 is to request the board approve an interlocal agreement for countywide transit services with the Lakeland Area Mass Transit District. This will be a total expense not to exceed $4,178,000 to be included in the board's FY24-25 adopted budget. Since 2015, the Lakeland Area Mass Transit District and Polk County have agreed upon annual interlocal agreements for the operation and management of all transit services previously provided by Polk County, as well as certain mutually agreed-upon select routes. This proposed annual agreement will cover transit services that begin on October 1, 2024 and conclude September 30, 2025, and will require the county to pay the district an amount not to exceed $4,178,000. These county funds will allow LAMTED to meet their local match requirements towards securing state and federal general transit grants while serving those unincorporated areas of Polk County, along with select additional routes and appropriate administrative expenses. This agreement will also fully fund the established reserve account in the amount of $150,000, and Polk County will pay LAMTED the full amount of the proposed agreement no later than October 15, 2024. General funds to cover these county transit obligations will be included in the FY24-25 proposed budget. So, Mr. Chair, members of the board, I think consistent with the board's commitment to public transit services, I would request the board approve the proposed interlocal agreement with the Lakeland Area Mass Transit District to provide funding for the select county-wide transit services. Approval. Second. Got a motion and a second for approval. Any discussion? Mr. Chairman, there were some things, and I'm not even really sure exactly what all, but the legislature passed some stuff in this past session related to public transit, the buses, and advertising, and window tent, and that sort of thing. Do we have any obligation or need to know that there's compliance with that, or is that any concern of ours? Mr. Chairman, we're given $4,178,000. One of the conditions of the interlocal agreement require compliance with LAMTED of all appropriate and applicable federal and state rules and regulations, so we assume whatever legislation that LAMTED is clearly aware of that and incorporates that into their agreement. Thank you. Do we, I think I asked this the other day, and I don't remember the answer, but do we have to have two members, board members, on the LAMTED board? Yeah, the county actually created the district because it was beyond the city limits of Lakeland, and that resolution, that ordinance that was ultimately adopted provides for two, not district specific, but history has been historically district one and five. Now it's been one and four with the increase of activity on the east side of the county. I remember you. Thanks. Previous to that, there was one member from the county commission that sat on the LAMTED board, and it was me for a long time. Okay. We got a motion and a second. Do we vote? No. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, like said. Motion carries. Mr. Chair, members of the board, item number H2 is to request the board to approve the Hatch and the Hall Ranch Mitigation Bank Credit Purchase and Deposit Agreement with the Nature Conservancy to purchase 3.47 forested mitigation credits to offset wetland impacts associated with the proposed development of the county's Marigold Avenue Widening Road Project. Today's board action will include the requisite community investment program amendment and budget transfer in the amount of $433,750. In August of 2019, the board approved a consulting services agreement, number 19-036, with AECOM Technical Services to provide professional engineering services in connection with the Marigold Avenue Widening Project to include development and evaluation of alternative roadway design and alignments, recommending a preferred alignment, and preparing preliminary roadway plans for the proposed widening in an amount not to exceed $1,335,165. In April of 2021, the board approved amendment number one to the agreement to provide continuing professional services for permitting, final design, bid support services, post-design services, and the community awareness services for the Marigold Avenue Widening Project to reflect the overall project limits from the south side of Palmetto Avenue or Palmetto Street northward to its intersection with County Road 580. These additional services were negotiated in an amount not to exceed $2,730,039, bringing the total negotiated professional services not to exceed $4,065,204. During the environmental permitting coordination process with the South Florida Water Management District, it has been determined that Polk County is required to mitigate for impacts to wetlands within the project limits. The proposed agreement with the Nature Conservancy is to purchase 3.47 state-only forested credits, which will satisfy the terms and conditions of the South Florida Water Management Permit requirements. Approval of the proposed mitigation bank credit purchase and deposit agreement will allow the Hatchinaha Road Mitigation Bank to transfer these 3.47 state-only forested credits to the proposed Marigold Avenue Road Widening Project in order to obtain the necessary South Florida Water Management District permits for construction. Upon approval of the Community Investment Program Amendment, $433,750 will be transferred from the Cypress Parkway Widening Project to the Marigold Widening Project. So, Mr. Chair, members of the Board, I think in keeping with the Board's priority commitment to capacity roadway projects, I would request the Board to approve and execute the proposed mitigation bank credit purchase deposit agreement with the Nature Conservancy to include the requisite Community Investment Program Amendment and budget transfer in an amount not to exceed $433,750, all of which are in connection with the proposed Marigold Avenue Road Widening Project. Questions? Yeah. Somebody asked me a question the other day, and it may have been related to this. First of all, I don't know what state-only forested means, but that's not what I'm concerned about right now. And even with this one, I'm not as concerned about maybe some others. But this is, you know, privately owned, not Nature Conservancy, but a lot of these things are privately owned. They are for-profit. They're an enterprise. And the question that was put before me is what happens when those credits are gone? Is there a perpetual, you know, fund that will maintain this stuff forever and ever? And if so, when the person that established it's gone, who stands in their place to perpetually maintain these things? And I don't know the answer to that question. And I don't know if anybody in this room knows the answer to that question. The Nature Conservancy is not an individual. I mean, it's a not-for-profit. So this one's probably a little different than others. But I don't know how to answer the question. Why don't we get an expert to explain it to us in our next agenda review? Because I'd... If I have 100 credits and I sell all 100 of them and I go to Tahiti, who's going to take care of it? No, I get it because this is a confusing name. Well, I can say this to your exact answer, who does that? But going through the process permitting, getting this all done, there's an unbelievable amount of guidelines that you have to go by and uphold to. So what division makes sure that, you know, you go to Tahiti. Stays in compliance. I'm sure there's a thing in place, but it'd be good to get somebody in. But it's there. Okay. Mr. Chair, Jay Jarvis is the county's really long-time expert on mitigation. And so Jay can give you a quick two-minute overview of mitigation banks and our relationship with them and their in-perpetuity responsibilities. Yeah. Good morning. Jay Jarvis, Roads and Drainage Director. Yeah. Everything that Commissioner Wilson said, I mean, the process for getting a mitigation bank established, establishes what the criteria are, what the number of credits available based upon the land. And then basically it sets up to say in perpetual forever and ever and ever, these will be maintained and kept. So those credits are always in place. So it's just a continuous, perpetual, whether it just continually sits there as nature, instance, natural lands, or whether there's any type of maintenance associated with that. But that's the way it's set up. And then you all mentioned, or you kind of mentioned the state. There's different requirements for state than there are federal requirements. So you have state mitigation credits and you have federal mitigation credits. And then, of course, it's all about the type of wetland mitigation that you have to do and whether it's forested or the non-forested type mitigation. I appreciate it, Jay, but you didn't answer the question. So we'll get that one. We'll be glad to get somebody at the agenda. Well, and the question is, if it's privately owned property that's part of the mitigation bank and they just walk away, how's that dealt with? Is there funds set aside? Well, a lot of this stuff doesn't need maintaining. No, but, I mean, they've got to be a maintainer. Right. The main thing about it is you're taking, in your construction phase, wetlands from, you know, this area. And so what you're doing, you're purchasing credits in another area for that to be wetlands for now on, to replace it. So what happens is that land can't be bought or sold for development or anything. So does it need to have to be taken care of? I reckon somebody could come in and buy a mitigation bank that all the credits were gone and you can't do anything with it, can't even run cows on it. But I reckon you could sit around and watch the bird fly, but nothing's going to happen on that. But that's just what I know and how it works. All right. Move approval. Got a second? Second. Okay. You got a motion and a second for approval. Any further discussion? See you none. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, like signed. Motion carries. Next. Mr. Chairman of the Board, item number H3 is to request the Board approve an amendment to the existing agreement between the Polk Regional Water Cooperative and Polk County in connection with Polk County's Alternative Water Supply Recovery Facilities, which we call Project number 6, as part of the overall Polk Regional Water Cooperative Heartland Protection and Sustainability Program. This amendment to the existing agreement will provide up to $416,098 in pass-through state grant funding for eligible Polk County expenses. In 2017, the Florida Legislature passed House Bill 573 entitled the Heartland Headwaters Protection and Sustainability Act, which acknowledged the critical importance of Polk County's aquifers to the economic and ecological health of the surrounding regions. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection has awarded state funds to the Polk Regional Water Cooperative pursuant to grant agreement number LPA-0212 for reimbursement of certain costs associated with the protection and restoration of the region's water sources. The state's grant agreement identified the Polk County Alternative Water Supply Receiving Facility as Project number 6 within Polk's Northeast Regional Utility Service Area as a candidate project to receive partial funding for eligible expenses. In September of 2022, Polk County and the Polk Regional Water Cooperative entered into an agreement to provide available state grant funds for Polk County's Project number 6. In March of 2023 and again in September of 2023, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and the Polk Regional Water Cooperative codified amendments number 1 and number 2 to their existing agreement to address additional funds having been appropriated to the program by the Florida Legislature Legislature. This proposed amendment to the existing agreement between Polk County and the Polk Regional Water Cooperative will incorporate all prior state legislative funding revisions and subject to these requirements stipulated in the state grant agreement with the Polk Regional Water Cooperative, Polk County will seek reimbursement for all eligible Project 6 expenses. Funding for this Alternative Water Supply Initiative is available within the Northeast Region Utility Service Area specific to the Polk Regional Water Cooperative Alternative Water Supply Receiving Facility Project, all of which is within the adopted Polk County Utilities Community Investment Program. So, Mr. Chair, members of the Board, in keeping with the Board's commitment to Alternative Water Supply Initiatives, I would request the Board approve the proposed amendment to the existing agreement between the Polk Regional Water Cooperative and Polk County in connection with Polk County's Alternative Water Supply Receiving Facility Project number 6, for which the Florida Department of Environmental Protection has awarded state funds in an amount not to exceed $416,098 of potential reimbursement expenses eligible to Polk County. Questions? Motion. Motion for approval. Got a motion and second for approval. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, like, sign, motion carries. Final item, Mr. Chair, members of the Board, item number H-4 is to request the Board approve Amendment number 1 to the existing Spectrum Enterprise Service Agreement between Polk County and Charter Communications for associated service orders in connection with a fiber-optic-based internet service solution at 28 water and or wastewater treatment facilities. This amendment will reflect a one-time installation cost not to exceed $7,000 and an estimated annual reoccurring expense not to exceed $200,000. The Polk County Utilities Division, the Polk County Information Technologies Division, and Charter Communications have completed the necessary coordination to provide a fiber-optic-based internet service solution to support 28 water and wastewater treatment infrastructure locations. These sites have been deemed critical infrastructure by the Federal Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Administration, which stipulates that each site should have resilient internet services. Upon approval of these service orders, they will provide fiber-optic internet services to these 28 locations with speeds varying between 100 megabytes and 1 gigabyte, depending on the system usage. This internet service includes guaranteed service-level agreements and uptime, as well as repairs to these mission-critical locations. Funds for this joint cybersecurity and supervisory control and data acquisition initiative are currently budgeted within the Polk County Utilities Operating Budget and will subsequently be budgeted in this same account. So, Mr. Chair, members of the Board, in keeping with the Board's commitment to cybersecurity and data technology, I would request the Board approve Amendment No. 1 to the existing Spectrum Enterprise Service Agreement between Polk County and Charter Communications in connection with a fiber-optic-based internet service solution to serve 28 water and or wastewater locations to reflect an estimated annual reoccurring expense of approximately $200,000 and a one-time installation expense not to exceed $7,000. Move approval. Got a motion and a second for approval. Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, like signed, motion carries. Anything else? That's it, Mr. Chair. George. Nothing. Rick. Yes, I have a reappointment of Brooke Aganini as a member of seat 5 of the Planning Commission for a three-year term, October 25th, 2024 through October 24th, 2027. Second. Got a motion and a second for approval. Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, like signed, motion carries. Anything else? Nope. That's it. Martha. Nothing. Neil. Yeah, one thing. Mr. Mann talked about stopgap measures and the fact that we're 12, 14, 15 months away from having an operational plant. He didn't say, you know, what kind of stopgap measures, and I don't know what to do. I agree that we have a responsibility and an obligation when you have 100 and plus thousand people living on septi tank and you've got rules that continue to come down to protect the environment, then we've got to work on it, but is there anything stopgap that anybody can think of other than directing them to the facilities in Highlands County or Hillsborough County? I mean, I don't know. Mr. Chair, maybe the Utilities Division Director can step to the TAMRA. The meeting that Mr. Mann referred to, I think there was talk about a stopgap measure that might have an accommodation to be made at our southwest and or our northwest plant. But that would require some unique challenges. So, TAMRA, do you want to just touch base on some of the concept? I know Mr. Bode, come on up, John, was a part of that discussion. What options, short-term options might be available? Good morning. This is TAMRA Richardson, Utilities Director. We did look at, we're looking at some options about putting something in a little quicker, but it could only be temporary because, as you may recall, when we looked at our plants, there's a lot of upgrades that need to happen to be able to accept sewage on a long, I mean, septage on a long-term basis because of the very intense characteristics. But we can take it on a temporary basis, and we are looking at doing that at our northwest facility. The southwest is just a little challenging to get to because you've got to go through that little neighborhood. But we are looking at something to do it, to bring it on maybe as much as six months sooner. I did see the, I'm sorry, I was on vacation last week, so I wasn't, I didn't attend the meeting, but I did see the list that our operations manager provided, and I reviewed it. I think they're not insurmountable challenges. I think there's some things that we can do. And we'll look into that and bring back a better report once we kind of hash that out to see how, what we can do and at what time frame. John, you care to add to that? Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Bees. I'll just expound and say any of the options are going to take time. They're going to take permitting. They'll take time. The one that Tamara's referring to at the wastewater treatment facilities is probably a year to even deal to get that permitted. So if you're saying a year, well, then you're only four or five, six months shy of us having our facility up and running. So is that juice worth the squeeze? And then the other two options were a truck, the county to provide property for a truck to truck transfer. There's things like spillage and things of that nature you'd have to deal with. That's a permitting issue as well, I believe. And then the third option was for tanks to be provided at the landfill that they would just come dump to. And then we would be responsible for the disposal. So the challenges that they have at other facilities like, say, Plant City, for example, where they have a capacity or Avon Park, they get turned away when they're at capacity. We would have those same challenges if we took their waste and were responsible for it at that point. So again, none of them, I think, are the best and none of them are quick. But that's where we're kind of left at. John, I don't think juice worth the squeeze was the appropriate comment. No pun intended. Yeah. How was this dealt with nine years ago? Well, so the law has changed at the state level. They were able to land apply. So they would take it to their own facilities, basically treat it with lime, get the pH up, and they could go land apply it. That has progressively gotten tighter at the state level, and they can't do that anymore. So that's why BS Ranch was the optimal solution, because I could just take it right there. It's not my problem. Is that the law statewide as far as land application? Yes, sir. I believe so. Okay. All right. George? Is there any option that's not going to add more cost to the haulers? I don't believe so. Just, you know, high level, conceptually looking at this, absolutely. I think we're going to have cost. Any of those options, we're going to have cost involved that we would have to pass on, I would assume. So, yes, sir. I believe it would go up. The other comment that raised my eyebrows was his representation, or the industry's representation, they generate 85 million gallons a day. 85,000. 85,000. Thousand? Yeah, it was thousand. Never mind. 85 million. Never mind. We're done. We're done. So our facility is proposed to be at 100,000 gallons. That was based on research that we conducted by talking to the haulers. So we didn't just pick that 100,000 number. So the 100,000 still will accommodate 8,500 and. 5,000. 85,000. 5,000. And the leachate that the landfill will generate. So we think the proposed plan is sized to accommodate the private sector septage contributions as well as the leachate quantities generated at the landfill. I think George makes an important point. It's going to cost more, whether you're going to Plant City or whether you're going to Hounds County or whether you're going to the Northwest facility after you get it up and running. It's just a fact that we all have to live with. And it is because DEP and the health department and everybody shut it down, the land spread. And it's happened several years ago. But I guess BS Ranch, like you said, was optimal only in location. I don't think there was anything else that really turned out to be optimal about it. And furthermore, I think there's plenty of people that are still concerned about what happens at that facility long term. But that's a whole other issue. But I think George is probably what needs to be told. It's going to cost more no matter which direction people go with it, whether it's out of the county or we try to do it here. So I don't see any way to reduce the cost unless you go back to land spread. And then the law won't allow us to do that. Yeah. I just got this to say. You know, this is nothing that hasn't been on the radar and been coming for years. And, you know, and what George said, it's going to increase their cost. But I also think that Polk County is not the only one that has to come up with a solution. These guys are in business. I know I've told them many a solution, not many, but some solutions they can do. Jeff Mann's got tanks sitting in it. He's got a 40,000-gallon tank sitting in it. In ground at his facility. Not just jumping on him, but he does. So, I mean, there's tanks out there that they can move this stuff to wherever it is. The cost is going to go up, no doubt about it. But, you know, this has been going on for a long time, since I've been here. There have been two plants in Polk County that took waste. Both of them have been shut down for mishandling. So, when it comes to getting, I think the Polk County needs to do this. You know how I feel about public. I'm all about making money, and they are, too. But these things right here, when it comes down to making money, they get out of hand. And you've seen what's happened on the two plants that's been in Polk County. So, we're doing everything we are doing. We're spending millions of dollars to help them out and help the people of this county out. And they need to step up and do some stuff, too, to help their selves out, combined with us helping them out, too. Yeah, I just wanted to say, because, like you, I was, when a man kept saying, work with us, I'm trying to figure out what exactly do they want. There's not anything that we can do, like, tomorrow. Because, from what I'm hearing from them and the phone calls I received, they need it tomorrow. There's not anything that we can do. It's going to take at least one year if we go a different route, which will cost us money by the time we build our plan. So, Mr. Chair, I'm just asking you this question. Should we put in writing a letter or something like that saying, these are the things, because what they're saying is that we have angry, ugly staff working with them. But the reality of the thing is that there's nothing we can do right now. And you're right, Rick, this is something they probably knew was coming, should have prepared for it. Is there anything that we should put in writing a letter or something like that to tell them, these are the things that we discussed, and these are the things that we can do, so it's publicly out there. I don't want the public to think that we're just saying, you know, we're not doing anything and it's in our fault, it's your fault. That's not the case because we have citizens that need this service. But I also want to make sure that the industry understands there's nothing that we can do immediately. It will all take time. Bill, have we put anything out publicly? I'd be glad to draft a letter and send it out onto my signature or have it for the board's signature. Or just a press release? Press release. Combination. Mr. Chairman, George is wanting to say something. That's why I called on him. Oh, I didn't. Thank you. I'm sorry. Mr. Beza, didn't we dedicate about $2 million of ARP money for this purpose? I believe it is. It's funded with a combination of local funds and federal funds. I think it's $6 million. So that's the other. $6 million. I think it's $6 million. $6 million of ARP money to address this issue, not of our making. So that's what I'm talking about. That needs to be known and that has not come out in any conversation. All right. Mr. Chairman, I'll take care of you. Now see that. What's your name? I'm through. I just, you know, Jeff said, and Commissioner Wilson has just correctly pointed out, we had two private folks in the business. They were shut down because they weren't doing the right thing. They were mishandling was the term you used, and I think that's probably the right term. But to Mr. Mann's point, if somebody responsible wanted to come in, is there a location in Polk County today that you would issue a permit for a privately owned septage treatment facility? Well, at the end of the day, the board approves that application. So it comes to you regardless. So there is not one that would gain approval simply by staff. I will tell you. There's not an entitled site anywhere. There's not, well, let me take that back. There is one down in 640, down near New Wales, a mosaic facility that has an approved class one type landfill. And I believe that a facility could go there if one and one was pursued there, didn't hear anything else about it. Mr. Mann was involved in that. But the board, since that ordinance was changed in 2014, so 10 years, the board has not voted on a single application. So to say one's been denied, that's not the case. One hasn't been denied. There's certainly a lot of rhetoric and there's certainly a lot of comments that are made. There's actually never been an application submitted. There's been three. There have been applications. They've all withdrawn. I think one is left pending. And it does not deal with the sludge and the septage and things like that. But regardless, you've never voted on one since that ordinance changed. But even that process, if I came in, I'm a white knight coming in here with a great record somewhere else. It would take months to get through the application and the hearing process because it requires a board hearing, right? Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you. Anybody else? Bill, you're on that? Yes, sir. Got it. All right. Thank you. Nothing else, Mr. Chairman? All right. I got an appointment that Rick's going to do. I'm going to do that. Reappoint Clifton Garcia as a member of the Sidewalk Advisory Committee for a three-year term, October 1st, 2024 through September 30th, 2027. Second. Okay. Got a motion and a second for the appointment. Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, like, sign. He is appointed. I don't have any other comments. We'll move into the expedited hearings. All right, Mr. Chair, before we move to the expedited hearings, I'll go over the public care and general procedures. We ask that you please turn off your cell phones and other devices that may distract from the public hearings. Please adjust the microphone and state your full name and address for the record before you begin speaking on a topic. Individuals speaking during the public comment section of a matter will be strictly limited to three minutes. The board is experiencing these matters and is able to discern what is legally relevant to an issue and what is not. Information that is relevant or repetitive only serves to frustrate and necessarily prolong the day's business. The commission expects civility at all times during all public hearings, speaking out of terms, shouting out from the audience, disrespectful sounds, or utterances, while another is speaking are unacceptable and you will be asked to leave the chambers for the remainder of the day. If any person decides to appeal at any decision made by the board with respect to any matter considered today, you will need a record of proceedings and that for such purpose you may need to ensure that a verbatim record of proceedings is made, which record includes testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based, which you must gather at your own expense. Anyone in the audience who wishes to speak or present testimony today must be sworn in. All testimony given during public hearings shall be deemed to be sworn. At this time, if you're going to address the commission or speak on any case today, please stand, raise your right hand, and answer out loud the following question. Do you swear or affirm that testimony or evidence you provide to the commission today is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Thank you. At this time, I'll go over the expedited hearing procedures. Expedited hearings are held pursuant to resolution number 2022-089. Expedited hearings are used when no opposition was present at the Planning Commission hearing. The applicant agrees to the expedited hearings and recommendation of the Development Review Committee is for approval. Expedited procedures are the following. As the staff briefly introduces the case, the hearing will be open for public comment. If anyone speaks during public comment, the applicant will be given the opportunity to respond. After public comment, the board will be considered the land use case. At any time, a full presentation from the staff can be requested from the commissioner, the applicant, or members of the public. All documents attached to the agenda item are deemed part of the record of the land use case. Unless removed from the list of experts by motion of the board, all individuals on the list of experts attached to the agenda item are deemed experts for the purpose of the land use case. At this time, I'll turn over to Mr. Peterson to present the expedited hearings. Good morning, board members. Eric Peterson for the Land Development Division. We have eight expedited cases before you today. Our first case, LDCPA-S 2024-2. 538 mailers were sent to area property owners on August 1st, 2024. Seven boards were posted along the Rifle Range Corridor on August 22nd, 2024. A legal ad was published in the Polk Sun on August 21st, 2024. This is the Juanita Main Street Commercial Overlay District. It is an effort to promote redevelopment in the Juanita area by offering a variety of non-residential uses along the corridor in residential districts. The Land Development Code text has not been written for this. That will be the next step in the process. This legislation will just enable the Land Development Code to take place. A very extensive public outreach was conducted for this project by the Central Florida Regional Development Council. Ms. Brenda Torres is here to speak if you have questions of her. And at this time, I'll stand for questions. Any questions? Seeing none, I'll open a public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak on this matter, please come forward. Seeing nobody, I'll close the public hearing and bring it back to the board. Move approval. Second. Motion and a second for approval. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, I'll like to sign. Motion carries. Our next case is an adoption hearing. LDCPAL 2023-11. 58 mailers were sent to area property owners on August 1st, 2024. No six boards were posted on the property on August 15th, 2024. The legal ad was published in the Lakeland Ledger on August 21st, 2024. The Planning Commission voted 6-0 for approval. This is your final reading, and it is for an expansion of the Employment Center X district along U.S. 27 in the Northridge Selected Area Plan. It's to enable a future commercial development. That will come before the Planning Commission in October. With that, I'll stand for questions. Questions? Seeing none, I'll open a public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak on this matter, please come forward. Seeing nobody, I'll close the public hearing. Bring it back to the board. Motion for approval. Motion is seconded for approval. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, like, sign, motion carries. Our next two amendments are adoption hearings to recognize existing park facilities. These were all recommended approval by the Planning Commission 7-0. The first one is LDCPS 2024-8. 76 mailers were sent to area property owners on August 1st, 2024. One board was posted on the property on July 5th, 2024. A legal ad was published in the Polk Sun on August 21st, 2024. No response has been received. This is to recognize the Banana Lake Park in just north of Highland City. I'll stand for questions. Questions? We've had almost, we've had 31 years? Yes, sir. We, typically the process for new parks is we take them through as a conditional use approval, and then when we get around to it, we eventually designate them recreation and open space so they're recognized on the plan. This just kind of slipped through the cracks, and we are just now getting to it. All right. We've been using it nevertheless. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. All right. A little bit of public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak on this matter, please come forward. Say nobody, I'll close the public hearing and bring it back to them. Move approval. Motion is seconded for approval. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, like, aye. Motion carries. Our next case is LDCPS 2024-9. 125 mailers were sent to area property owners on August 1st, 2024. Three boards were posted on the property on August 5th, 2024. The legal ad was published in Lakeland in the Polk Sun on August 21st, 2024. LDCPS is a recognition of open space. Currently, there are no park facilities on this, but the category is for both recreation and open space. I'll stand for questions. Questions? Seeing none, I'll open a public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak on this matter, please come forward. Seeing nobody, I'll close the public hearing and bring it back to the board. Move approval. For approval. Got a motion and a second for approval. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, like, sign, motion carries. Our next case is LDCPS 2024-11. This was advertised in the Polk Sun on August 21st, 2024. It's gone before the Planning Commission with a vote of 7-0 for approval. This is to make changes to hearing procedures directed by both you and the state of Florida. I could go over individual actions, but I will- We're good. Questions? All right. Any questions? All right. Seeing none, I'll open a public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak on this matter, please come forward. Seeing nobody, we'll close the public hearing and bring it back to the board. Motion for approval. Second. Motion and a second for approval. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, like, sign, motion carries. This next case, LDCT 2024-16. The legal ad was published in the Polk Sun on August 21st, 2024. This is the first reading on a text amendment that goes side-by-side with a small-scale comprehensive plan map amendment. You will see both the final adoption and the map amendment at the September 17th hearing. I'll stand for questions. Questions? Seeing none, I'll open a public hearing again. Anyone wishing to speak on this matter, please come forward. Seeing nobody, I'll close the public hearing and bring it back to the board. First reading. Second. Oh, yeah. Sorry. 07. LDCT 2024-15 is a text amendment that was advertised in the Polk Sun on August 24th, or 21st, 2024. Received a vote of 7-0 approval from the Planning Commission. This is an amendment to the access via easement policies in the access section of the Land Development Code. It's streamlining the review process and reducing the amount of public hearings necessary to achieve approval. I'll stand for questions. Questions? Seeing none, I'll open a public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak on this matter, please come forward. Seeing no one, I'll close the public hearing and move on to 08. Our last public hearing is LDCT 2024-12. This was advertised in the Polk Sun on August 24th, 2024. The Planning Commission recommends 7-0 for approval. This is changes to the suburban plan development section of the code. As a result of adopting the plan development changes earlier this year, we have a few cleanup amendments, and this is one of those cleanup amendments to bring it into consistency with the new plan development standards. That'll stand for questions. Questions? Seeing none, I'll open a public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak on this matter, please come forward. Seeing no one, I'll close the public hearing. And that's a first reading, right? Yep, and then we'll move on to P1. Thank you, Mr. Can we move to P3 and allow our guests to exit early? I tried to do that earlier. Good morning. Sandy Howard with the County Attorney's Office. P3 is a public hearing to consider adoption of a resolution setting the rate of collection and approving the non-advalorum assessment rule for the 2024 Local Provider Participation Fund Special Assessment. The county's six local hospitals, being Lakeland Regional Health, Winter Haven Hospital, Bartow Regional Medical Center, Lake Wales Hospital, Heart of Florida Regional Medical Center, and Encompass Health Rehabilitation Hospital of Lakeland, each provide medical care to indigent and uninsured residents and those who qualify for Medicaid. On average, Medicaid covers only 60% of the costs of these health care services. With federal authority, the state has established a directed payment program and low-income pool or LIT program to offset the hospital's uncompensated costs. In order for the county to impose and collect the special assessment from each of the six hospitals, the board must adopt an assessment resolution and non-advalorum assessment rule each year to generate sufficient revenue to fund the non-federal share of Medicaid and LIT payments. The proposed resolution before you today sets the rate of collection for the 2024 fund at 3.94% of net patient revenue for each hospital. This equates to a total assessment amount to be collected this year in the amount of $69,903,127. Assessment funds collected by the county from the hospitals will be submitted to the state's Agency for Health Care Administration through intergovernmental transfers upon the agency's request. The county attorney's office, along with the Health and Human Services Division, recommends the board approve and adopt the assessment resolution and non-advalorum assessment rule, as well as authorize the county manager to execute letters of agreement with the state for these programs before the deadline of October 1st of 2024. Any questions? Seeing none, I'll open up a public hearing, and we'll hear the pleas from LRMC. Good morning, I'm Danielle Drummond, President and CEO at Lakeland Regional Health, 1324 Lakeland Hills Boulevard, and I wanted to just speak this morning and express not only our support for this, but also just express our appreciation for the board for your work with local hospitals so that we can obtain these funds that really, really go back to the work that we do to care for the citizens in Polk County and also to the county manager and staff for their work in allowing this provider assessment to occur. Is this something we will have to do every year? It is, yes. You may recall we did it at this time last year, so the vehicle is set up, but we do have to have this annual approval to allow it to continue on an annual basis. Mr. Chair, we've been doing this for about the third year now, and we get the numbers. The assessments is really a number that we get from the state ACA agency, and then we put that into our budget, and it clearly has done wonders and continues to do wonders with our private providers in the community. It's just the board's willingness to do that as a pass-through. It artificially inflates our budget by tens of millions. We do a lot of that. We do. Thank you, Danielle, for being here. Thank you. Anyone else? Good morning. I am Tim Clark, President and CEO of AdventHealth for Polk Market. Chairman Braswell, Honorable Commission, thank you for allowing me to speak for a moment. AdventHealth, I'm here today on behalf of AdventHealth in Heart of Florida and Lake Wales to express our support for this rate resolution that you are considering today. Private hospitals and health care systems in Polk County provide critical needed health care services to local communities. This funding provides AdventHealth the ability to continue to meet the growing needs of our growing underserved community and generating critical funds to support hospitals and at no cost to residents and businesses. Thank you for your continued support of this very important program in Polk County. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? All right. I'll close the public here and bring it back to the board. Move approval. Motion and second for approval. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, like, sign. Motion carries. All right. We'll go back to P1. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll handle P1. It's a public hearing to consider adoption of an ordinance amending Polk County Ordinance 2018-073, the Polk County Government Retiree Insurance Benefits Ordinance as amended. The county's current retiree's insurance benefit ordinance, which provides the ability for those under 65 retirees who retired on or after November 20, 2018 to go into an inactive status under the county's group health care plan and return for one time. The proposed ordinance provides for the same opportunity for those under 65 retirees whom retired on or before November 20, 2018, and is recommended for approval. Questions? Seeing none, I'll open a public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak on this matter, please come forward. Seeing no one, I'll close the public hearing and bring it back to the board. Motion for approval. Second. Motion and second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, like, sign. Motion carries. Thank you, Mr. Chair. P2. P2 is a public hearing to consider adoption of an ordinance amending Polk County Ordinance 13-069 to address residential recycling collection changes. The proposed ordinance provides the ability for waste haulers to get an annual non-exclusive franchise to collect residential recyclable material, and is recommended for approval. Questions? Seeing none, Alan. Oh, sorry. I was getting ahead there. I'll open a public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak on this matter, please come forward. Seeing no one, I'll close the public hearing and bring it back to the board. Move approval. All right. Motion and second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, like, sign. Motion carries. P4. Sandy Howard of the county attorney's office. P4 is a public hearing to consider adoption of an ordinance granting an economic development ad alarm tax exemption for an expansion of an existing Polk County business, Public Supermarkets, Inc., and to approve a performance agreement with the company. The company plans to invest more than $71 million in the construction and operation of its corporate IT headquarters office located in downtown Lakeland on Kentucky Avenue and Orange Street. This location is located within a federally designated opportunity zone where new investments in the economically distressed area may be eligible for preferential tax treatment. The company plans to create 100 new full-time jobs as a result of the expansion with the new jobs paying an average annual wage of $103,176, which is 200% of the county's current average annual wage. Both the Lakeland Economic Development Council and the Central Florida Development Council have provided a letter to the county in support of the project. Based on the board's approved guidelines, the project qualifies for a 90% reduction in applicable ad valorem taxes for a 10-year period running from 2026 through 2035. The property appraiser's report estimates that if the exemption is granted, approximately $365,919 in ad valorem taxes would be lost each year of the 10-year exemption period. The county would recognize the remaining 10% of value during that time, as well as MSTU, School Board, and SWIFT MUD new tax revenues gained, estimated at just under $400,000 collectively. Thank you. I'll stand for any questions. Questions? Seeing none, I'll open a public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak on this matter, please come forward. Seeing nobody, I'll close the public hearing and bring it back to the board. Okay. Motion is seconded for approval. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed, like, sign, motion carries. Thank you. And P5 does not require a public hearing, but it's being discussed at this point in the agenda as it relates to the same project. Public Supermarkets, Inc. has also applied for the county's bonus incentive program, referred to as PCBI. Under the program guidelines established by the board in 2005 and updated in 2020, Publix qualifies for $5,000 per job created, resulting in a total PCBI grant of $500,000, based on the anticipated creation of 100 high-wage jobs. Because the project is located in the city of Lakeland, the county will contribute half of the total award, $250,000, with the city contributing the remaining $250,000 in matched funds. Payments are anticipated to commence in 2029, following the initial job creation, and will be paid out over a minimum of seven years. Again, it does not require a public hearing. Questions? George. Just these reimbursements are the result of audit paid after the fact. Yes. For PCBI, it's paid in arrears, so the company will have to invoice the county and show proof of the job creation. Thank you. Anybody else? Not required, but I'll open a public hearing, and if anyone wishes to speak on this matter, seeing no one, I will close the public hearing, bring it back to the board. Second. Motion is seconded for approval. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, like signed, motion carries. Anything else, Mr. Beasley? We will go into a work session environment, so we can talk about the second. Anybody want to take a five-minute break? Then let's keep moving. All right. Mr. Chairman, the board, the work session topic today is a continuation of the item that we've been talking about for probably the last 30 days. This is the second of two statutorily required work sessions that we are required to have, subject to the board's desire to want to consider the extraordinary circumstances relative to impact fee adjustments. And so I'm going to turn it over to Todd Bond, but what Todd's going to go through is probably what you've heard now on three occasions, and all of this is leading up to positioning the board so that we can have a public hearing on, I think it's the 17th of September, for the board to decide how they would like to vote to proceed on impact fees. So with that, Todd, and again, much of what you hear today will be similar to what you've heard for the last 30 days. So Todd, please. Good morning, Commissioners. Todd Bond, Deputy Accounting Manager. As Mr. Beasley mentioned, today is our second workshop as part of the statutory requirements for the extraordinary circumstances. Our vendor was unable to be here with us today, so I'll try and do the same job she did on Friday just to kind of walk through these with you. So the first slide basically is just to make you aware of these are kind of the three steps. As you're aware, Banesh is the vendor that we hired for the impact fee study, and we discussed the actual study on August 16th, which led to the extraordinary circumstances discussion. Their scope of work for the impact fee study included doing an update study on seven of our impact fees, as you see on the slide in front of you. The last impact fee study done for these seven impact fees was in 2019, and the only impact fee study that Banesh was not hired to do a study on was the transportation impact fee category because we had a study done on that in 2022-2023 timeframe. The other part of the scope for Banesh was to do a look at the transportation impact fee trip characteristics around warehouses and trucks versus cars and the trips. That work is going to be done in September-October, and will be brought back to you in the October-November timeframe. As we move ahead, the purpose of the update study is to take into account the most recent data for impact fees, the purpose and basically utilizing those most recent data to calculate the impact fees. The county has in our ordinance that we will update our impact fees every five years, and so this would be right at that five-year time frame. Impact fees are a one-time capital charge on new development that helps the local government cover the cost of new capacity projects, and the main goal is to maintain the level of service. The study calculates the cost of growth, and the impact fees are most needed when there's high growth and limited funding, which we have seen over the last several years. The methodology utilized is a consumption-based methodology. The methodology, which is very common in Florida, is the methodology on our current impact fees. This methodology charges new growth based on its consumption of capacity, and fees are calculated at a rate that generates just enough to cover new capacity costs, not existing deficiencies. The study reviewed several components, as you see here, including inventory of the capital facilities, the cost component reflecting current value of capital assets, and the credit of other revenues used for capital projects. This table shows you the fees. What you see in the red box is the calculated fee. That's the 100% study fee, so that's the full amount. So as you look there along the single-family row, you see that number would be $21,083 if approved at 100%. The adopted column, adopted impact fees are current fees. Those total $13,365. And then so you see in the next column, you see 58%. That would be the increase if you went from the adopted to the calculated fee. The next column you see here is the Florida Statute 163 maximum impact fee, and that's the statutory limit, the cap, on a four-year increase, no more than 50%. So that would be $19,015 at the end of the four years. You would be at the $19,015, and that would be about a 42% increase on the single-family residence category, which brings us to the Extraordinary Circumstances supplement to this impact fee study. And if you look at that, the statute caps the increase with a simple majority vote, but there is an option to go beyond that with an Extraordinary Circumstances study. So as you can see here, the cap by statute based on House Bill 337 is up to 25% increase over two years, or you could go to 50% over four years. It cannot be increased by more than 50%, and then it can't be increased more than once every four years. But the exception, then, is to do the Extraordinary Circumstances study, which has to be based on a study within the last 12 months. You would have to hold two public workshops, which today is the second of those workshops. And then the increase would have to be approved by a two-thirds vote of the governing body. In our case, it would be a four-or-one vote. So what are the Extraordinary Circumstances that Benesh was able to find within Polk County? I think a lot of them we've all seen, but Polk County was the fifth highest population increase in 2022 and 23 nationwide, the seventh highest in 2021 nationwide. If you look at out of the 67 counties, we're the ninth largest in population and estimated to add another 300,000 new residents through 2050, which puts us at about the 10th in terms of projected growth rate. We're fourth in terms of permitting, residential permitting, and 21st in student generation rates, which applies to the school impact fee. Next couple slides just show our permitting, and as you'll notice, I mean, we had the peak back in 2005-06 timeframe, and then if you look, the last three years, we've been really close to that, right around that same amount. So you have those two peaks going on in 2005 and then again in 21, 22, and 23. Next slide looks at just the unincorporated, which is very similar in trend, the peak back in that 2005-06, and then the higher rates in 21, 22, and 23. We also have a number of indexes that show the cost increases as one of the other extraordinary circumstances since 2020. You can see those high peaks, those big jumps in costs, and I won't go through each of those indexes, but there's four of them that really show the same trend. Next several slides are really just some example projects that show the need, show the projects that are out there that are impact fee-related or impact fee-possible projects. The first one is just parks. I won't go through all of them, but you see a total of those six projects of about $64 million. For fire EMS examples, you see about almost $30 million in some projects out there. Law enforcement example projects at $22.4 million. Correctional facilities, $50 million. Educational facilities, $421 million. And then the last one is the transportation projects. We included these because this extraordinary circumstances study also applies to our transportation impact fees, even though they were not part of this original study. And you can see those add up to almost $970 million in projects. So what are the next steps? That brings us to our calendar slide, which we've looked at. So we held a first workshop on August 30th. Today is the second workshop. By approving the consent agenda earlier today, you approved setting the public hearing, which would be on September 17th. And then if the board approves impact fees on that September 17th date, they could be effective 90 days later. So we would shoot for January 1st, having the impact fees be effective that date. So that's the presentation. I will pull up one other item here just as a part of discussion. Bear with me a second. Todd, were you going to walk the board through essentially the three options? Yes. And that's what this does, basically. Hopefully you can see these. Tell me. So we'll start with looking at this. So what this slide shows, it is a lot of information, but I want to walk from top to bottom with you. So one of those options could be do nothing, which that green line is our current impact fees. That's what we would have if you did nothing. Option two would be phasing. So that's the statutory cap. Phasing over four years, that's the white rose, which would basically take us, and we'll just walk through the EMS one, for example. It would take us from a current fee of $76, would increase it to $95.25 on January 2025, to $114.50 on January 26th, $133.75 on January 27th, and then that four-year phasing would end on January of 2028 at $153. So this white area is the option of really a simple majority vote. All that takes is a simple majority vote to do the statutory cap phasing. And then the orange rose, I just wanted to show you this in a couple different ways, would be the extraordinary circumstances would require a 401 vote. This first orange row keeps the transportation impact fees at our current rate, which is $2,920. But if the board were to approve the extraordinary circumstances study with a 401 vote at the 100% of the study fees for all of the other categories, the total would be $21,083, and that would be your fees. If the board decided to go ahead and bump up the transportation fee also, that's that second orange line, which bumps it up to the 100% number from the transportation impact fee study, would be $4,103. That would take the total up to $22,266. So those are really the options that we're putting out there. And, you know, I guess we could take comments from the board at this point. I'll stand for any questions. Todd, I got a question. I want to make sure I understood what you said. So the company, and it would be nice to have her here, but you're going to have to answer this. So they went out and they did this study, and they came up with these numbers, which are what they're saying is the bare minimum for today. That's the 100% number. They're not calculating a factor in. And that's just simply the state legislature going over home rule and saying you're going to do it this way as opposed to what your study comes up with. Would you agree? For the phasing, you mean? The phasing is what legislature said as a cap. But, yes, the study is calculating what those impact fees should be to cover your costs based on the consumption-based methodology. The maximum. What? The maximum. Yeah. The maximum fee for minimal cover. I can't remember the word you used, but you've got to, you know, they're not calculating repairing roads or anything. This is going forward with growth. This is the minimum required by their calculation. Maximum. Yeah, it's basically the maximum we can go to to cover the growth. So it's the consumption of each facility that's built. It's what they are going to consume of our infrastructure in moving forward. And then that, I mean, again, it's just a snapshot. We don't know what the future holds. I mean, if growth goes down, it's more than we need. If growth goes up, it's less than we need because it's, well, no, that's not true either. I'll take that one back. Well, and that's why I think our ordinance says that we will do this every five years, do this study to kind of keep up to date and stay up to date with the latest information. Okay. Some of the variables will change. Right. For sure. Yeah. In that five-year period. George. Yes, sir. For the first observation, if the state is now saying this can only be done every four years, then we need to change our ordinance, which is now five years, so we can renew it every four years in concert with state direction. And I don't think the ordinance will limit us to do it every four years. I think it needs to be done. It requires it to be done every five years. So if we want to do it more often. Yes, sir. Let me share something with the board. There's staff copies. Commissioner, I'm going to see if we can get it pulled up on this too. Okay, would you also see if you can pull up that original version? What I'd like to walk the board through is an opportunity. I can read the tea leaves. There's little sympathy to phase this in over the statutory guidelines, which would take through January 28th and instill in some categories not reach the maximum that the study calls for. So not only does it take four years to get there, some of the numbers doesn't get to 100%. All right, so what I'm suggesting is that we get to 100%. We don't take four years to do it, but we do phase it in. And some of the fees require more phasing than others. So I'd like to start on the left side and work over. The EMS fee is currently 76. The study says 153. That's a difference of $77 or 101% increase. If you phase in half of that each year, starting in January 25, then 12 months later, it would take it. No, you take all of it the first year, all of it the first year, the 153. That gets it three years early than the statute at full value of the recommendation versus the 114, which is limited in the statute. The corrections is similarly, currently 220, 100% study of 662. The difference is 442, a 200% increase. So I've taken half of that differential, adding the first half in 2025, the second half in 2026. That gets the 662 full value within a year earlier and the full value, a year earlier than statute and the full value. Transportation, similarly, there's a $1,183 difference, a 41% increase. Taking that difference and spreading it over the 25, 26, and 27, which is basically a 24-month period. It's three calendar years, but there's 24 months between the effective dates of each one. Getting to the full value, one year early, full value versus the 3460 in the statute. I want to skip over schools a minute, go to library, a nominal increase, take at the full value the first year. That's three years earlier than statute. I want to skip over parks and go to fire. Again, take the full value year one. That gets at the full value three years early at full value. The law enforcement, the differential is spread over two dates, 25 and 26, which is a 12-month period. When you're early at full value versus the significantly less value in the statute. Back up the schools. The current number is 8998. We adopted that five years ago. And we adopted it, if you look down at the note on line 29, we adopted that 75% of the previous study because there was considerable classroom vacancy at that time. And that's what produced the 8998. Which we phased into. The next number, 14338. That's the full value that the study recommends. The double asterisk number, 12187, is 85% of the full value. Using the same rationale that there is still capacity in the classroom inventory. But the school board is moving slowly in that direction to consume that excess capacity. And they are redistricting over time rather than a shock of redistricting all at once. So it recognizes there's some capacity, unused capacity throughout the system. That differential, again, would be phased in over time within 24 months. And one year earlier than the statute. We go over to the parks. Currently, $417. And the study goes to $1,864. Honestly, that's the number that just shocks me. A 347% increase. How could it have been so wrong five years ago? That's a shocking number. Differential. Commissioner, if I might, I did want to add one thing. That $1,800 for the parks, that's including all parks. Part of that difference is because our current impact fee only includes your regional and specialty parks. That's some of your difference, but not all of it. They've increased the inventory. Yes. So my footnote on line 33 is that $1,864 is within $100 of EMS, corrections, library, and law combined. I'm suggesting that we take 75% of that new number and phase that in over two installments. It gets the $1,398 one year earlier than the statute requires. And the statute would have limited to $625. So I think this is recognizing these are big bites. And if you compare column L, the total of each of these fiscal years, or not fiscal years, calendar years, January 25 being the effective date of the ordinance, that moves current total, excluding the water and sewer fees, just these impact fees, from $13,365 to $15,638, an increase of $2,000 and $2,003. The next year's bump, January 26, one year later, that bump is an additional $2,082. And then the third installment, which is a 24-month period from first effective date to the last effective date, that bump is $1,929. So I think what I've laid out here is recognizing the limitations of the statute are too imposing on local government. At the same time, there should be some phasing of some magnitude when you're looking at these numbers. And being able to shave one year off of the statutory requirements and still reach substantially 100% across the board, exclusive of schools and parks, if you agree with that analogy, 75% versus 85% and rolling back the park number, I think this is an equitable way to implement these fees. Now, we also have to recognize that the growth in taxable value, which has occurred over the last few years, has insulated existing residents of any rise in property taxes, insulated them from rise when we implemented a new pay plan, and the compression, and the $15 hour minimum wage. It insulated them from the increases in staffing in the sheriff's office, while at the same time, we lowered homestead millage by 7%, 3% each of the last two years and projected 1% in the coming year. And this growth and appreciated value across the system has provided over $100 million in unappropriated revenue, which we've spent on parks and public safety, a down payment of $21 million on an equestrian center. And it also notes that a new residential homesteaded property pays twice the ad valorem taxes that the current average homestead residential property pays today. So in recognition of all those elements, I would submit this for consideration and discussion. Mr. Chairman, well, I agree with Commissioner Lindsay on a lot of what he said. I'm not sure so much about the growth insulating, you know, our existing long-term residents because everybody's seen increases in their assessed value. I mean, that's been the tax increase is the values going up. We didn't change the millage rate. In fact, we've even reduced it. We did insulate those by rolling those back. I understand, but they're paying more. I mean, they're just. The check is bigger. It didn't just come out of, you know, the pockets of the folks that rolled in here in the last two or three years. Everybody's paying more. But the number, and I brought this up a few weeks ago, and it may take some time to figure out what we, you know, can do. And with respect to parks, that number, I'm like Commissioner Lindsay. I was shocked when I saw it. Todd gave me these numbers a few weeks ago, and I'm like, holy smoke, you know, $1,800. And I was thinking, I didn't do the math on it. I just did it in my head, and I thought it was like 400% increase. But you say it's 347 or something like that, George? Yeah. It is a whopping number. But I think that we could and should, and I asked John before the meeting started, because he used some examples in our agenda meeting on Friday of parks and what our new rules that we adopted recently for recreation and open space do. But the one that was up was the Smoky Grove. You probably didn't have time to look at that while we've been here meeting. He was paying attention. I think we would, I think we would be, we'd be doing the public a service if we would look at having new development provide active areas for their residents. Because when you look at regional parks, how many regional parks do we have? Several. I don't know off the top of my head. Four or five? I don't know. But what we're left with with those regional parks is sometimes miles and miles from where the new folks are living without sidewalks, without any means of transportation. But, yep, we've got a regional park over here for you. But here the bad news is you can't get there unless mom gets off work early. You know, you can't, you can't bike there safely. That's out of the question. You can't walk there because there's not a sidewalk. So I think we'd be better served if we had a requirement that on developments of a certain size, platted lots, not just planned development, because right now this only, some of it applies to planned developments, right? John, shake your head up and down, yes. So we would agree on that. So there's, if you just, if you're not going through the planned development process, but you're plating, you just don't have those same kind of requirements. And I was thinking, and George may be familiar with this, but the others probably you wouldn't be, but Interlochen Park, which is between Lake Parker and Lake Bonney, it's a neat place. It's older than I am, which I'm getting old, but it was there as long as I can remember. I don't know when it was built in the 50s, 60s, 40s. I don't know. But it was really a strip that goes from Lake Parker to Lake Bonney that goes with development on either side of the old Interlochen development. And it's just a great concept. I don't know if there's not many of those around, but that to me would be ideal. It's something there area-wise for everybody. There's actually a small park that may be maintained probably by the city of Lake, and I don't know. But my idea with changing our land development regulations to require more active space, not retention ponds, open space that may be dry sometimes or may be knee-deep at other times, but a place where kids can actually get some activity, all sorts. It would be an all-purpose type area. But let homeowners decide what kind of structures or systems would be in there. And we could even have, I mean, the county could have. I won't be here. But the county could even have a program where it provides some apparatus, some playground stuff if need be, but still maintained by the HOA. But, you know, when you start talking about $1,800 and some odd dollars every homeowner is going to pay, and I say this because. . . Well, keep in mind, this is people who don't even live here are going to pay. I'm going to go for this right now. I'm just trying to say there may be a way to back out of this and not charge somebody $1,800, even the folks that aren't living here right now, because that's not entirely true, and that's the point I'm about to make to you. I've got children. I've got grandchildren. I've got nieces and nephews and cousins. I've got lots of them. Some of them have the last name Cumbie, but most of them have some other last name. You know what I mean, cuz? No. So those are the folks. If they want to do something new, they're going to be faced with a $22,000 figure. If they go buy something existing, obviously they're going to pay something for the value of not having to, you know, reach in their pocket or get a $22,000 loan to pay for these fees. So it's not just the new people that are coming here. It's somebody, if they want to go try to build something, they're going to be faced with the same problem. But right now I'm willing to go the 100% extraordinary circumstances, but I would like to, you know, have the board really think about this and say we could do this. And I don't know what Smoky Grove was, but it's 429 units. If we did the 500 square feet, what I'd say is five acres, and maybe there's five acres of active space that's going to be set aside in there. I don't think so. I think we've got retention ponds, we've got a doggy park, and we've got something else. But we could do this, and it wouldn't, theoretically, it wouldn't necessarily be a huge cost to the developer because they're buying something. They've got to get that to even go forward. I don't know how to explain this. I'm not a great economist or teacher anyway, but it seems to me like you're buying 100 acres. You know, you've got to have five set aside. You're going to pay for that 100 acres really for 95. I mean, all this boils down to losing lots to either the cost of the house is too high, they're not going to sell as many homes, or what you're talking about is you're going to absorb more land that's not going to be available. It's going to be available for active recreation for all purpose, where people can play in their neighborhood and not have to worry about getting on a bicycle and going down a road that is not made for that, or trying to walk or get from wherever they're living to wherever we have something, whether it's regional or something less than that. But anyway. And I think, I mean, I can't disagree with what you're saying there, but I think it's a multi-year, somebody's got to start now, and if we figured it out next year, it'll take a couple of years. But we're talking about now. Martha. Yeah, I just, Georgia, I want to say thank you for doing this. It really helps out. I remember when we talked about in 2018 impact fees and how we did this for schools and that worked out. So I want to make sure that I understand this. So three of your categories are no phasing. Correct. And then phasing would be four or five, depending of whether we include transportation or not. Am I correct? Yes. Okay. So, yeah, I think we need to consider this when we start talking. I think it's a good proposal. Okay. Well, I mean, we are talking, and we've got to come to some kind of conclusion today. Well, we at least need some direction of which way the board is headed so we can draft the ordinance, hopefully have an ordinance ready, maybe two ordinances, depending on which way the board, three, if we have to. But so we can kind of get some direction from the board. What I'm hearing right now is Commissioner Cumbies seems to be, for the extraordinary circumstances, does seem Commissioner Santiago may be leaning that way too, but with the phasing of what Commissioner Lindsay has brought to this, and then Commissioner Lindsay, based on this phasing, would be supportive. We have to have four, and then whether or not do we want to use some type of phasing process, such as what Commissioner Lindsay has provided you all, or some type of mixture of it. And I think, you know, again, these numbers were given to, or a company came up with these numbers that said this is what we need today, and whatever we do, we're going to be living with it for at least four more years. Inflation is not going to stop. Everything is going to go up. Only in government do you get to phase in your costs. When my insurance bill came, USAA did not let me phase it in over a few years. The cost was the cost. Roads are only going to get more expensive. Everything, you know, parks, all that's going to get more expensive. But what really kind of sold me on why we need to go 100% now was I went to the D.R. Horton groundbreaking the other day, and it was brought up multiple times, all we've got to do is cross the county line and we can sell a house $80,000 cheaper. Well, there's a reason for that, and that's because we're not charging these guys enough for the future growth of the people coming. And I think we're shorting the people who live here now by not taking, you know, these full measures going forward. Because four years from now we're going to be going, wow, man, things went up a lot more than we anticipated. And back to one of George's comments about, you know, the phasing in from the past, I think what we ought to really be looking back and say we made a mistake by phasing it in so slowly, and the study wasn't very adequate because it came up way short. That's how I see the whole deal. But, again, I go back to this is not, this is a bill for future residents. I get what you're saying, Neil, about our kids and grandkids, but it's the cost. It's not just some number pulled out of the air. It's actually been studied and analyzed, and this is what they believe the right number is. But enough from me. I think you know where I stand. Anybody else? I think the phasing is pretty minimal and tolerable, and it recognizes some of those are phased in much earlier. The illusion of extraordinary circumstances really is smoke and mirrors. It is whatever you say it is. So that was the loophole that the statute gave. But I think, you know, we have had indexing in the past. We've taken our other fees that we've charged existing customers and phased them in over time rather than a big bite all at once. I think this recognizes that there is going to be a downturn in the economy, and some of those rollbacks of millage rates that we've recently done will not be available in the future. And also the double-digit increases in ad valorem revenues that we've enjoyed these last few years is not going to be the case going forward. So I would, again, encourage some phasing. This is just an idea to start. It cuts a year off of the statutory requirement, and it gets every number with a caveat of schools and parks at 100% much earlier than anticipated by the statute. There's a question, Mr. Chairman, on the schools. One that said we're 21st. We're ninth in size in the state right now, currently ranked ninth in population. But it said we're 21st, I guess, in generation, school generation. I can't remember the terminology it had up there, Todd. Yeah, it said student generation rates. Is that because we've got a lot of retirees or active adult? If we're the ninth largest in the county, why aren't we producing the ninth, you know, with students? Yeah, I don't know. At this point, your guess would be as good as mine. I mean, it is something that we can ask the vendor to bring back with her when she's here on the 17th. And I did want to, Commissioner Braswell. That wasn't the question I wanted to ask. What I was trying to ask. Well, then ask the question. Well, that was, I was leading up to my question. That was kind of opening the door, but the, well, because I don't know, do impact fees go to anybody other than the Polk County School Board in Polk County? Do any of the charters or any of these startups, do they have access to impact fees? No, basically, we get a request from the Polk County School Board to cut the check to them for, and it goes to. They're not sharing that with somebody that's a charter, zero, zilch, nada. No, just the public school system? I think there's a possibility that one reason we may be 21st is my grandkids go to Victory Christian, so they're not getting any impact fees. But there's a lot of kids that go to school there now, and there's others around as well. And that seems to continue to grow, and when that happens, obviously, they're not going to the public school if they're going to a private school or a charter school that's not, you know, originally a conversion. So that may explain some of those numbers, and I assume that that was taken into account by Binesh. Yes, they don't, those kids not in public school are not counted in their loads. And that number still is what it is. It's assumed that this trend will continue or will remain in this. Okay. All right. All right. So where are we at? So I'm here. Well, I'm looking at three. I'll take a. Neil, 100%. Martha, you're wanting George's way. Rick, what do you want? It doesn't matter. We got, yeah. We have three to two. To me, honestly, it doesn't really matter either way. George has got a system to work on. I know the other way, too. I feel that way also about wanting to get it in there and get it all. So it doesn't matter. So. But we got, we had to get four to agree on either the phasing in or the 100%. If no one, if you can't get to agreement on that, then we're stuck with the statutory phasing process. I believe. Procedurally, get it on the table. I'm going to make a motion. We go 100% day one with the intention of voting against it because. I don't think we need a motion or anything at this point. You want a direction. Right. I don't know any other way to give you direction then. Well, I mean, the direction you've got here is two. You said two. I got three. I got three ordinances, I think. One, the phasing in, Commissioner Lindsay. Two, 100% on January 2025. Third is the statutory phasing in. And if y'all can't come to a 4-1 on the first two, then we're stuck with the phasing in of the statutory to the 50% over 40%. I think the statutory is too onerous anyway. And I don't think any of us are embracing that. Well, we'll talk each other into something when this comes up with a two. Right. That takes option three off the table. Right. So now we're down to all at once or phasing. To get all at once, you're going to need a 4-1 vote. Yes. To phase it, you're going to need a 4-1 vote. Yes. Right. Okay. Either way, you need a 4-1 vote. Yes, sir. You going to need it? One or two, we'll get a 4-1 vote. Hopefully. Or, like I said, if you can't get the 4-1, then you're back at the statutory phasing. I think we've got some general guidance. We're not going to do that. We've got to get a 4-1 vote. We're done. We're looking at two scenarios, basically, assuming that this board is going to come to a 4-1 vote somewhere. One way or another. One way or the other. For the two. On September 17th? Yes, sir. Okay. Correct. Why leave it hanging? The earlier we make that decision. I mean, it wouldn't be the official action of the board right now. I mean, ultimately, it gets down to Martha. Are you going to stick with phasing or not? How many do we have? You didn't say which way you were going. You said you were like right in the middle. So, let's see which way you're going. Okay. I'm going to go with getting her dead right off the bat. That's 100%. 100%? Yeah. Sorry, George. We're going to go down with the 100% so we can get the 4-1. All right. There we go. Can we change that? If we want to do that? Shut up. We'll bring it back and then the official action. We can do anything. All right. On September 17th is when the official action will be taken, but we'll bring it back at that point. Okay. All right. Anything else? We done? Yes, sir. Mr. Chair, we're done. We're done. We're done.